This week, when I was learning about the potential for the “Internet of things” to revolutionize my life, I thought, hey, this sounds pretty cool! Ted took us through the diagram in the lecture (pictured above) which outlines how the Internet could have the ability to predict every minor adjustment in your day, which could potentially eliminate any excuse to be late for work, forget your jacket if it’s a colder than usual day, or run out of petrol.
The diagram suggests that the communication created by the RFID tags, provide data that allows one to exercise a mundane routine without the presence of anything unexpected ruining your morning. What a wonderful technological development!
What’s more, these technologies have an abundance of health related benefits. Numerous devices that monitor blood pressure, heart rate, levels of hormones and blood components and the like, are connected directly to the Internet and stored, monitored and analysed. With Glance confirming that by 2014, “there will be about 400 million wearable wireless sensors” (2011) the number of diseases and conditions that will be predicted early and therefore prevented will be a massive medical breakthrough.
However, as I researched further into this topic, many of the articles I read had an undertone of scepticism…. “The Catch” as Glance coins it…
“But how could this be?” I hear you all ask! How could the technologies that are going to reduce hardship of our not-so-labour intensive lives, possibly be a bad thing?!
Take myself for example, I have a smart phone, and I use it a lot. BUT, I am with Optus… and therefore the service I get in the Wollongong area is ridiculously bad and SO frustrating. I have a piece of technology that has the potential to do all of these amazing things, but I can’t even send a simple text message or make a phone call! And so it is hard for me to imagine a “technology driven utopian world in which billions of devices are all communicating seamlessly and controlling everything around us to improve our lives” (Glance, 2011). So is there going to be too much reliance on technology in the future?
Another concern of mine is the question of ownership. Who will end up owning and controlling the huge amount of data compiled from the Internet of things? There will be huge privacy, security and safety issues arising from these developments.
So I leave you with this, how do you find the balance between the Internet of things being used for the benefit of individuals, society and businesses in terms of increasing efficiency, safety and health, and the dangers of safeguards and controls?
Glance, D 2011, “The Internet of Things – this is where we’re going,” The Conversation, accessed 30.20.2011, http://theconversation.edu.au/the-internet-of-things-this-is-where-were-going-3965
Apple and Google are both major players in the mobile Internet sphere. Both have their strengths, as well as weaknesses, and as the escalating tension carries over from 2010 - when they were battling it out to take the title of the mobile superpower - 2011 proves to be just as interesting. Apple has invaded Android territory with the introduction of the iOS… yet Android is about to release an abundance of tablets onto the market to go into direct competition to the iPad. Evaluation of the race between these two corporate competitors is INTENSE as it is an exciting, dynamic period in the smartphone/tablet market.
Raphael suggests that,
“Comparing Apple and Android is kind of like comparing apples and oranges: They’re two drastically different versions of the same family of product, and they’re both competing for a spot in your shopping cart. Also, the apples are only allowed to be eaten in the way the grocer specifies, while the oranges are free to be sliced, diced, or mixed up and way you want.” 2010
Apple is fantastic at making attractive products that are super easy to use! BUT they suck in terms of software flexibility, productivity and hardware choices. The software limitations within Apple products are a vital downfall for all consumers with a broad attraction to all things technological. Don’t get me wrong; the iPhone and iPad software is wonderful, as long as you want to stay within the clear, distinct boundaries Apple has set. However, if you want to venture further (and can’t find an app to support you to do so) then you’re out of luck. In terms of productivity limitations, Apple products allow one to consume information until the cows come home, but in terms of creating content, the fiddly little key pad on the iPad make writing a 3000 word essay a frustrating task. Some even say there is a limited selection of hardware choices available. If you’re a person who likes a big screen, then an IPad is for you, but if you like your devices ultra small and portable, then the situation is a little different. Albeit, it is hard to satisfy everyone, but if you want a phone with a high resolution camera with all the multimedia functions at your fingertips, but don’t want to be able to vigorously examine the stock market and see yourself 30kg heavier (courtesy of fat booth app) – or pay for these extra useless functions - then apple doesn’t leave you with many options. With both the iPhone and iPad there are really only two choices to make when buying the product: storage and connectivity (Hiner, 2010).
As for the Android…
The Android’s open handset alliance is one of its greatest assets. These partners include some of the biggest and best vendors in the world, making products in all different shapes and sizes to please just about every consumer and their particular demand. Some argue that this creates a problem in terms of consistency. The quality across all Android devices varies, the usability functions shift confusing consumers. What’s more, software updates are inconsistently spread across the Android ecosystem creating technical problems in terms of compatibility. Google needs to show stronger leadership in this regard and make suggestions for partners to follow to allow for a more consistent Android ecosystem (Hiner, 2011). Yet one can’t deny that Android is gaining market share in America at a faster pace than the iPhone… this is not saying Apple is doomed as Raphael suggests that “there’s certainly enough consumer demand to serve multiple mobile platforms, regardless of which is ahead of the other in positioning” (2010).
At the end of the day, both the Android and iOS are going to be extremely successful in 2011 and continue to dominate market share, despite other competitors predicted to enter the smartphone and tablet market in 2012 (Hiner, 2011).
Unfortunately the days of Microsoft, HP, BlackBerry and Nokia are over. Their poor marketing and slow product development will see them fade away into mere memories of the past. Both Microsoft and HP have some solid products on the smartphone market (such as Windows Phone 7 and Palm webOS), yet poor timing have left them in a bid to catch up to the superpower Android and Apple status. Blackberry and Nokia have a lot of loyal cliental to work with, yet covering there losses from 2011 will be difficult. They are far behind when it comes to product innovation and are expected to continue to decline by 2012.
Social networking sites like Facebook and Twitter have become immensely powerful tools for connecting people with a common interest and surpassing the traditional hurdles of geographical location, time and other barriers. The Internet has created a “world village” sense of proximity by linking its inhabitants through cyber-space and creating a “’knowledge-based society’ [that’s becoming] the world’s culture and primary tool of communications” (Radwan, 2011, p 1). Social networks have provided a platform for niche communities to develop, allowing online sharing and communication around a particular topic or cause of passion.As a result, social media platforms promote an engaged politics as they allow for efficient organization and coordination of political events such as protests, rallies or even fundraising activities. So are Facebook and Twitter merely places where revolutionaries go? Or are they much more?
Scholars concur that online social networks have made regime change easier to organize and execute. Some even suggest there is an underlying assumption that new media is creating a landscape where it is more difficult to sustain an authoritarian regime and hence, could usher in a new wave of democratization around the world (Papic and Noonan, 2011). In a recent interview, President Barak Obama compared social networking to universal liberties such as freedom of speech (Radwan, 2011). Yet, Morozov argues “that these digital tools are simply, well, tools, and social change continues to involve many painstaking, longer-term efforts to engage with political institutions and reform movements” (2011).
One noteworthy example where social media played a central role in coordinating political activities is the recent Arab Spring. Radwan goes as far to say, “the Egyptian revolution has validated the powerful role of social media in the political arena” (2011, p 2).Before and during the revolution, citizens utilized social media such as Facebook, Twitter and YouTube to engage in political conversations, broadcast information criticizing authorities and to pressure their governments.Through utilizing digital technologies “democracy advocates created a freedom meme that took on a life of its own and spread ideas about liberty and revolution to a surprisingly large number of people” (Duffy, et.al, 2011, p 3). The conversations about liberty, democracy and revolt online were often immediately followed by the outburst of mass protests in the streets (Duffy, et.al 2011). Furthermore, social media platforms assisted the spread of democratic ideas across international borders, which assisted Western news stories about the events happening abroad (Duffy, et.al, 2011).
The ability for niche communities to develop and exercise political activities supports the notion that features of Web2.0 encourages political engagement among the populace. There is contrasting opinions regarding the extent to how much impact the internet did actually play in insitigating the Arab Spring.
Duffy, A,Freelon, D, Howard, P, Hussain, M, Mari, W & Mazid, M 2011, “Opening Closed Regimes: What Was the Role of Social Media During the Arab Spring?” Project of Information Technology & Political Islam, working paper, pp 1-30
Morozov, E, 2011 ' Facebook and Twitter are just places revolutionaries go,' The Guardian, 7 March. [URL: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/mar/07/facebook-twitter-revolutionaries-cyber-utopians]
Crabtree suggests that the Internet provides new platforms which exhibit extensive potential to promote an engaged politics connecting “ordinary people with ordinary people.” There is contrasting research regarding the ability for the Internet to increase political awareness, particularly among Gen Y. I personally feel that the opportunities made available through social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter, demonstrate great potential to instigate political engagement.
Firstly, social media has the ability to engage groups previously detached from political affairs. This contention is exemplified through the success of political campaigns with the strategic inclusion of online social media. The recent Youth Electoral Study found that many of those aged between 15 to 25 years of age, ‘claimed to be bored by politics and disassociated from democratic participation’ (cited by Ward, 2008). Scholars also maintain that social networking sites are used by youth as a source of political newsgathering, and it is apparent these sites have drastically modernized young adults’ methods of learning about and engaging in political activities (Baumgartner and Morris, 2010). For example, Ward contests that the Labors 2007 election victory was largely due to the significant number of under 35 year olds swapping to the ALP when it promoted Kevin Rudd to the leadership (2007). Eltham terms the operation as “The Young Voters Theory” (2007), as Labor undoubtedly made a determined pitch to the younger generation, through “creating a Kevin.07 website and utilizing Web2.0 social networking tools such as YouTube, MySpace and Facebook in its campaign” (Ward, 2007, p 11). Interestingly enough, Labor exercised the Web2.0 campaign as a means to generate mainstream media publicity and build Rudd’s brand as being a generation leader with fresh ideas who is in tune with Australia’s youth. However, the campaign failed to exploit the potential of Web2.0 technology, ignoring the benefits of interactivity and engaging youth in dialogue to involve them in the creation of campaign content (Ward, 2007). The prevalence of social media use by young adults is enormously high, therefore the exploitation of this medium has great potential to educate and engage a generation previously disconnected from mainstream politics.
Secondly, with youth growing up in an environment where social media is commonplace, political knowledge has the potential to be learnt incidentally and could result in an increase in future political engagement among the masses. Scholars suggest that entertainment-based media that incorporates a small amount of news (political or otherwise) contributes to democratic discourse by providing information to people who might otherwise not be inclined to follow current affairs (Baum & Jamison, 2006). Evidently, use of social media eliminates the effort and time expenditure it takes to follow traditional news and to stay informed, because political learning occurs as an “incidental by-product” of seeking entertainment (Baum, 2003, p7). Conversely, there are scholars who disagree with this incidental by-product learning model. Social networking sites like Facebook and Twitter are largely used to connect individuals with like-minded people (Boyd, 2008). Since the Internet adheres to the uses and gratifications school of thought, political information will only be ‘incidentally’ exposed to the online social networks of those who share an interest in politics. Similarly, because the dominant networked publics are structured around personal networks, new media may only promote political engagement among already engaged groups, because “just as politically engaged people know one another, alienated and uninterested people mainly know people like themselves” (Boyd, 2008, p 115). Consequently, communities that share little-to-no interest in politics have limited potential for exposure to political information minimizing the potential for incidental learning and therefore minimizing political engagement (Baumgartner and Morris, 2010).
Additionally, citizen journalism promotes political engagement as news is no longer just a product of consumption, but is now fostering participation in conversation where opinions on political issues can be published and distributed. For example, The controversy surrounding the delays of releasing the 2008 election results in Zimbabwe saw citizen journalism contribute to the circulation of public opinion. While Zimbawbe citizens were anxiously awaiting the 2008 election results, they were consciously aware of the corrupt alteration of results taking place, but were almost powerless to do anything about it. Citizen journalism provided an outlet for a commentary on the situation as it was occurring. Blogs sprouted expressing dissatisfaction, some trivialized the situation, jokes were being circulated and information was distributed to inform citizens of the corrupt happenings (Moyo, 2009). This event displays a rise in citizen engagement in the production and dissemination of information, and that the emerging “horizontal network of communication” (Moyo, 2009, p 555) contributed greatly to the public debate around the contested election. Therefore, citizen journalism presents an abundance of opportunities for individuals to exercise participation in the national political discourse.
Overwhelming evidence confirms that new media platforms including Facebook and Twitter possess great potential to promote an engaged politics. The high prevalence of social media use by young Australian’s provides an outlet for political promotion to reach segments whom have previously been detached from mainstream politics. This notion has been confirmed through campaigns like Rudd’s ‘Kevin0.7’ crusade, which engaged youth on a broader level and resulted in an election success. Additionally, the ‘incidental by-product’ learning model to the use of social media will continue to inform and encourage political participation among those who grow up with social media as commonplace.
Baum, M 2003, “Soft news goes to war: Public opinion and American foreign policy,” Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Baum, M & Jamison, A 2003, “The Opera Effect: How soft news helps inattentive citizens vote consistently,” The Journal of Politics, Vol 68, pp 946-959
Baumgertner, J & Morris J 2010, “MyFaceTube politics: Social networking web sites and political engagement of young adults,” Social Science Computer Review, Vol 28, pp 24-44
Boyd, D 2008, “Can social networking sites enable political action,” Rebooting democracy, New York: Personal Democracy
Crabtree, J. 'Civic hacking: A New Agenda for E-democracy.' [URL: http://www.opendemocracy.net/media-edemocracy/article_1025.jsp]
Moyo, D 2009, “Citizen Journalism and the Parallel Market of Information in Zimbabwe’s 2008 Election,” Journalism Studies, Vol 10, Issue 4, pp 551-567, accessed 22.9.2011, Taylor Francis Online
Radwan, A 2011, 'Egypt's Facebook Revolution', American Diplomacy, pp. 1-3, Political Science Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 22 September 2011.
Ward, I 2007 “Kevin07: Labor’s pitch to generation YouTube [Paper in: The Australian Election 07. Williams, Paul (ed)],” Social Alternatives, Volume 27, Issue Number 2, pp 11-15, accessed 20.9.2011, Informit database,
The idea that traditional forms of media are being slowly made obsolete due to the progression in digital technologies has been comprehensively examined throughout numerous tutorials this semester. However, I personally feel there will still be a place for the television, newspapers and other traditional platforms forms alike, in the new multifaceted media landscape. I contend that the digital revolution has not replaced traditional mediums but rather they exist simultaneously, complementing one other, creating an informed media environment.Alas, audience numbers of traditional mediums may not be as large as they were before the digital revolution - there is no doubt that the digital revolution has impacted our conventional media consumption in a large way - but will the Internet and the digital platforms the Internet creates, consume our entire mediated communication system?
Citizen journalism – a very cool/scary phenomenon.
Why is it cool? I see it as empowering the little people. No longer do you have to be large, powerful corporation to put your thoughts out there, into the public sphere! Weblogs, Twitter, social networking sites and forums are fantastic resources for people to read and discover there own unbiased opinion on all sorts of issues, from the most controversial to the most trivial. If you search for it, you will find an abundance of information, debating each and every aspect of whatever it is you want to uncover.
Though I still feel credibility is a massive downfall. If every Tom, Dick and Harry can publish online, how are we to know that what he or she is publishing is correct? We don’t. This is why I feel digital platforms COMPLEMENT conventional platforms. For example, I found out about the Japan Tsunami through Facebook. I was intrigued, so I searched Google and found an abundance of informative, credible sources – mostly sites that were from a major media corporation (The Australian site for example) as it is widely acknowledged that big, powerful corporations have a the highest journalistic standards and integrity – although this is debatable - thus, social media did not fulfil my entire information seeking desires.
Yet, could there possibly be too much freedom? What if extreme activists start publishing their views, will they get a following? Will this result in riots? Revolt? Perhaps there does need to be some sort of censorship over the content available on the web in order to maintain ideological viewpoints. If ISP filtering is implemented, that will really throw a spanner in the works – so to speak… But that is a whole other blog topic!
There is no doubt that the media sphere is changing. Audiences are fragmented, actively searching for information, interacting online, providing feedback and creating their own content – all of which should most definitely be recognised as a major adjustment in terms of media consumption.But to say that this will completely replace traditional forms of media, I feel, is a extreme statement. The Internet may attract higher numbers, especially as our generation ages, but there will always (at least for a long time to come) be a television blaring in the background of your morning breakfast routine or showcasing the football game through a projector at the pub on a Friday night, don’t you think?
The long tail concept has so many positive and negative ramifications. Is the birth of the Internet, and the long tail concept good or bad? The death of journalism as we know it is a scary thought for many of those university students majoring in a journalism, some say the increase of weblogs and citizen journalism threatens the credibility of this profession…
"...mass professionalization is an oxymoron; a professional class implies a minority of members"
(Shirky, 2000)
However, this can be perceived as an exciting notion for those of us majoring in digital communications. As up and coming professionals, we must find a way to harness the shift in the corporate sphere by manipulating our knowledge, degree, and resume to take advantage of the digital revolution and position ourselves in alignment of the approaching opportunities.
The new retail frameworks made available through novel exercises such as electronic distribution, is fantastic for the convenient purchasing of music or e-books as these can be transformed into an entire digital experience. There is little to no delay between time of purchase and obtainment of product, even if you’re shopping at 2am – when traditional methods of shopping would be out of the question. Retailers must understand, employ and celebrate this new form of e-commerce or risk redundancy.
For other tangible items such as clothes and home wears, the Internet provides a much more competitive environment. There is an increase in price transparency… comparing products, brands and retailers is done with ease. Countless forums and blogs are available providing discussions on the best brands and products to buy to satisfy ones needs. For those of us that have a ‘here and now’ attitude, this may not be the best option as shipping time may take away from the excitement of the shopping experience.
Smaller, niche markets can find products appealing to there individual style with ease! This has led to the ‘boom of the indie’ as I like to say. Indie music, art, clothing and films have somewhat shifted the cultural hegemony which mass media once used to have complete dominance over. And from a marketing perspective, the Internet provides opportunities to target advertising efforts effectively and efficiently as new pull methods can be utilised. I feel Anderson's assertion…
"In the tyranny of physical space, an audience too thinly spread is the same as no audience at all" (Anderson, 2004)
Jenkins and Deuze outline how in the past we saw a model where a small number of (powerful) media companies were homogenizing culture through there dominance over the means of production and distribution of media content. There was a very clear line between the publics’ role as “consumers” and the medias role as the “producer.” The idea of the public being seen as producers of… or even participants within, the surrounding culture was absurd. Yet, as demonstrated by the image below, technology has developed and media resources expanded over the past several decades and we have seen how everyone – from commercial, amateur, governmental to activists – now have the opportunity to produce and distribute content which serves there own agenda, thus putting forward there own individual mark in the cultural frame (Jenkins, 2004, Deuze, 2007).
Along with this, we see a dramatically fragmented audience. We now have the opportunity to expose ourselves to the content we choose to be exposed to. This implicates the classic media model immensely. Do the traditional mass media forms still exert the power it once had? Does it still play a large role in shaping and framing our western worldviews? There is no doubt the Internet and its blended consumer/producer model lessens the enormous power mass media platforms once possessed.
Furthermore, the proposed ISP filtering could implicate this notion more so. If Australia was to implement Internet filtering, the country will become the first Western democracy to block access to online material through legislative mandate, positioning Australia at a similar standpoint to authoritarian regimes, reminiscent of China and Iran. The lack of transparency about what and why material will be blocked, combined with the filtering’s inevitable transfer of power to those who design and implement its technology, should be concerning factors for many Australian citizens. Although there is content on the Internet that is harmful and undesirable for many citizens, the legitimacy of this censorship is somewhat debatable. Are the authorities attempting to win back the power they had prior to the introduction of the Internet?
Deuze, M 2007, “Convergence culture in the creative industries,” International Journal of Cultural Studies, Volume 10, Issue 2, pp 243-263
Jenkins, H 2004, “The Cultural Logic of Media Convergence,” International Journal of Cultural Studies, Volume 7, Issue 1, pp 33-43
