In apophenia: fair use restraints dampen my love affair with audible.com danah complains about her discovery that the rules of consumption established by audible.com for their digital content are breaking down treasured social behaviors that she has enjoyed in the past with real, paper books (I believe that if publishers could do what Audible.com can, they would, but they can not so there you have it, that's why libraries are still allowed to exist). This concept of sharing though... it has come up in several conversations so far and I have a hunch there is something very important here. Sharing... we like to share... its a social process that establishes our position in the social network, develops a set of IOUs in social relationships, defines us in a way. Sharing is a really important thing, it performs some extremely important functions in society that seems to think it has grown out of sharing, seems to never have noticed this one aspect of human relationships, never have accounted for it... although all of us share our knowledge, experience, food, posessions, emotions, ourselves from time to time with different people. Maybe ebcause its such a constant integral part of human relationships, that we do not notice this particular behavior as anything special. Yet it is special if only because it is ubiquitous and is a building block of social structure in nearly every respect. Yet in the computer world, sharing is seen as a bad thing. It's often classified as stealing.
One of the fundamental probelms RIAA and the like are facing with their "piracy" issues is that they are going against one of the more intrinsic parts of human nature - the social act of sharing that works as a set of social signals within a structural hierharchy of relationships. In plain speak - people buy books and music not just because they want to listen or read it, but because they want to share that knowledge, the giddiness of sharing the cool find and having someone else find it cool too. We are social animals, but the computer world is built by people who either
1. want to make sure they can get every penny for everything (sharing is aweful, the publishers association actually considers libraries the worst offenders in terms of profit loss... just think about it, libraries let people read books WITHOUT buying them! the HORROR!)
2. built by people who are either antisocial to begin with or largely choose to ignore that people use technology not for the technology but for the social interactions that technology has the potential to create/augment/change/motivate...
I consciously choose to not use the ipod for its intense anti-sharing qualities. I will never subscribe to audible or anything else that tries to force me not to share. I've bought more CD's because someone else burned me a copy of something and I liked it and bought more and bought it for others, than I have just because I found out about it through advertisement. I've bought books because I borrowed one and loved and wanted to give it to someone else, but the social rules of borrowing meant that it would't be proper to lend a lent book. There are social structures and norms that already exist in cultures that use sharing as a form of propagation both of knowledge and of consumption. Companies that produce forms of entertainment like books, music, etc... don't seem to realize that... they have put so much effort into trying to stop people from the fundamental social act of sharing and they wonder why it doesn't work...
22 September, 2004
14 September, 2004
The New York Times > Health > F.D.A. Links Drugs to Being Suicidal
The New York Times > Health > F.D.A. Links Drugs to Being Suicidal
This is an interesting article that brings up issues of drug use in treating personality and emotional disorders. A sort of "help us help ourselves" turning into "protect us from the side effects of helping us help ourselves". Anti-depressant medications may help some and damage others, its a risk people take when deciding to take a medication - there is no happy pill without side-effects... there just isn't. The issue here though, is more emotional, dealing with children and emotionally unstable children simply because they happen to be teenagers. Its hard enough without the drugs, its really hard if there is an emotional problem, seems like its a different hard with drugs and emotional problem. So now, the parents of children that comitted suicide will push for what? abolishing the drug? So that the rest of the children that are helped by them can't get any lest they try to kill themselves? Tough choice, but its the vocal few that mostly get their way not the "comparatively" happy many.
This is an interesting article that brings up issues of drug use in treating personality and emotional disorders. A sort of "help us help ourselves" turning into "protect us from the side effects of helping us help ourselves". Anti-depressant medications may help some and damage others, its a risk people take when deciding to take a medication - there is no happy pill without side-effects... there just isn't. The issue here though, is more emotional, dealing with children and emotionally unstable children simply because they happen to be teenagers. Its hard enough without the drugs, its really hard if there is an emotional problem, seems like its a different hard with drugs and emotional problem. So now, the parents of children that comitted suicide will push for what? abolishing the drug? So that the rest of the children that are helped by them can't get any lest they try to kill themselves? Tough choice, but its the vocal few that mostly get their way not the "comparatively" happy many.
11 September, 2004
Sick of Work: Cracking Under the Pressure? It's Just the Opposite, for Some
The New York Times > Health > Sick of Work: Cracking Under the Pressure? It's Just the Opposite, for Some
Well... diary writing may be bad, and working hard and being stressed out may not be after all... what a day of scientific findings. This one, though seems far more entertaining as well as blanaced and based in something more or less reliable... hmm flourish under stress eh? interesting :)
Well... diary writing may be bad, and working hard and being stressed out may not be after all... what a day of scientific findings. This one, though seems far more entertaining as well as blanaced and based in something more or less reliable... hmm flourish under stress eh? interesting :)
10 September, 2004
The New York Times > Technology > Circuits > A Digital Generation's Analog Chic
The New York Times > Technology > Circuits > A Digital Generation's Analog Chic
This is a really interesting article about form factor and modern design and, how modern technology design sometimes overlooks some nuances of social rhetoric and everyday mundane aesthetic. The modern design pushes towards the "future" which is hard to see through the dredges of the current, but the current may not be so bad.
This reminds me of an interesting story in one of our mover-interviews this summer. There was a couple that switched to cell phones and dropped a landline in the process of moving (people often seemed to renegotiate their use of technology as they decided on its applications in the new location). While the husband worked, the wife stayed at home with a newborn baby. Her phone had good reception in the house, and, having moved so recently, she spent quite a bit of time calling friends and family back home. She was a bit tied to the house with the child needing constant attention and the only people she had managed to meet were her neighbors and some old friends that lived in the area. She was a bit lonely and wanted to talk... yet she discovered that the design of the cellphone really did not support it being used as a house phone for the following reasons:
1. Its small. Size and weight are important considerations when we select an item that we will get to carry around with us nearly everywhere. However, at home, it seems silly to always have the phone in your pocket or carry around a bag for it (doesn't it?). So the phone develops a "place" in the house, usually next to the keys, the wallet, the handbag - a cognitive trick to reduce its changes of being lost - due to its size. Then again, because its so small and mobile, it can be carried anywhere in the apartment during conversation... and then left where the conversation ended. Of course, this is not the first time we are encountering handsets we can carry around the house. Wireless housephones have been around for ages. Unfortunately a cell phone lacks one important thing - a little button on the base station of the housephone that would make the handset make a loud annoying noise, allowing it to be found. The cell phone doesn't even have to wring if you forgot to switch off the vibrate or "etiquette" mode (on some models).
** on a sidenote, this problem has been dealt with in asian countries in a brilliant way - their handsets are even smaller, small enough to be worn around the neck like pendants. (works at least for women, men can use a belt-clip, no matter how ugly that looks its at least functional and many men don't seem to mind, far fewer women use that feature according to some market research stats).
2. Vibration - cell phone are often put on vibrate - their ring tones are for the most part annoying and you don't want it to ring loudly in a quite public space (or when the child is sleeping). Its a good feature... very good, unless you happen to have a pale of water standing underneath the cabinet where it resides together with keys and wallet... and someone calls... and it happens to vibrate (move in this case) off into the water because it was on a flat surface... It can also simply vibrate off the shelf and fall on the floor, vibrating itself under the cabinet... Successfully loosing itself for the owner. When was the last time you had to deal with technology that walked of its own accord?
There are many others, but I think this relates in some interesting way to the NYT article. Some of the "older" "outdated" technology had enjoyed years of design iterations. Maybe its not such a bad idea to go back and learn form these (as some of them were very successful)
This is a really interesting article about form factor and modern design and, how modern technology design sometimes overlooks some nuances of social rhetoric and everyday mundane aesthetic. The modern design pushes towards the "future" which is hard to see through the dredges of the current, but the current may not be so bad.
This reminds me of an interesting story in one of our mover-interviews this summer. There was a couple that switched to cell phones and dropped a landline in the process of moving (people often seemed to renegotiate their use of technology as they decided on its applications in the new location). While the husband worked, the wife stayed at home with a newborn baby. Her phone had good reception in the house, and, having moved so recently, she spent quite a bit of time calling friends and family back home. She was a bit tied to the house with the child needing constant attention and the only people she had managed to meet were her neighbors and some old friends that lived in the area. She was a bit lonely and wanted to talk... yet she discovered that the design of the cellphone really did not support it being used as a house phone for the following reasons:
1. Its small. Size and weight are important considerations when we select an item that we will get to carry around with us nearly everywhere. However, at home, it seems silly to always have the phone in your pocket or carry around a bag for it (doesn't it?). So the phone develops a "place" in the house, usually next to the keys, the wallet, the handbag - a cognitive trick to reduce its changes of being lost - due to its size. Then again, because its so small and mobile, it can be carried anywhere in the apartment during conversation... and then left where the conversation ended. Of course, this is not the first time we are encountering handsets we can carry around the house. Wireless housephones have been around for ages. Unfortunately a cell phone lacks one important thing - a little button on the base station of the housephone that would make the handset make a loud annoying noise, allowing it to be found. The cell phone doesn't even have to wring if you forgot to switch off the vibrate or "etiquette" mode (on some models).
** on a sidenote, this problem has been dealt with in asian countries in a brilliant way - their handsets are even smaller, small enough to be worn around the neck like pendants. (works at least for women, men can use a belt-clip, no matter how ugly that looks its at least functional and many men don't seem to mind, far fewer women use that feature according to some market research stats).
2. Vibration - cell phone are often put on vibrate - their ring tones are for the most part annoying and you don't want it to ring loudly in a quite public space (or when the child is sleeping). Its a good feature... very good, unless you happen to have a pale of water standing underneath the cabinet where it resides together with keys and wallet... and someone calls... and it happens to vibrate (move in this case) off into the water because it was on a flat surface... It can also simply vibrate off the shelf and fall on the floor, vibrating itself under the cabinet... Successfully loosing itself for the owner. When was the last time you had to deal with technology that walked of its own accord?
There are many others, but I think this relates in some interesting way to the NYT article. Some of the "older" "outdated" technology had enjoyed years of design iterations. Maybe its not such a bad idea to go back and learn form these (as some of them were very successful)
Dear New Scientist, you make me sick
Article: Dear diary, you make me sick| New Scientist
The above article reports some results from a study at Staffordshire University that purpoterdly disputes the common understanding that writing can be theraputic and that diaries are a form of therapy. In this study, researchers studied 94 diarists and compared their health with that of 41 non-diarists. That is, they went to a bunch of college kids, and asked them fill out a survey. <<-- 1! survey.
The very first paragraph of the article reports the results in a language that leaves no doubts as to their authenticity - "Keeping a diary is bad for your health, say UK psychologists. They found that regular diarists were more likely than non-diarists to suffer from headaches, sleeplessness, digestive problems and social awkwardness."
Nearly 8 paragraphs later they add the "problems" of the study - that despite the language in the first two thirds of the article there is actually no basis for asserting a causal direction. Did diary writing cause these problems or did the problems cause people to write diaries? That's relegated to future work, of course, but who cares? And how many individuals read to the end of the article anyway? The is sensationalism at its best in a magazine that is supposed to be at least half way reputable. It really bites me that researchers will do studies that are purely correlational (proper longitudinal studies, of course, take too much time, dont' they?) and then make causual claims that appear in publication. I bet that this type of report would not make it through peer review, but the New Scientist is happy to publish it!
The above article reports some results from a study at Staffordshire University that purpoterdly disputes the common understanding that writing can be theraputic and that diaries are a form of therapy. In this study, researchers studied 94 diarists and compared their health with that of 41 non-diarists. That is, they went to a bunch of college kids, and asked them fill out a survey. <<-- 1! survey.
The very first paragraph of the article reports the results in a language that leaves no doubts as to their authenticity - "Keeping a diary is bad for your health, say UK psychologists. They found that regular diarists were more likely than non-diarists to suffer from headaches, sleeplessness, digestive problems and social awkwardness."
Nearly 8 paragraphs later they add the "problems" of the study - that despite the language in the first two thirds of the article there is actually no basis for asserting a causal direction. Did diary writing cause these problems or did the problems cause people to write diaries? That's relegated to future work, of course, but who cares? And how many individuals read to the end of the article anyway? The is sensationalism at its best in a magazine that is supposed to be at least half way reputable. It really bites me that researchers will do studies that are purely correlational (proper longitudinal studies, of course, take too much time, dont' they?) and then make causual claims that appear in publication. I bet that this type of report would not make it through peer review, but the New Scientist is happy to publish it!
08 September, 2004
Citing Threats, Entrepreneur Wants to Quit Caller ID Venture
The New York Times > Technology > Citing Threats, Entrepreneur Wants to Quit Caller ID Venture
This is fascinating. When callerID just became available for residential customers, phone companies were forced to ask their customers whether they wanted to opt out. A very large proportion of customers did (I wonder, actually if there are any figures for that). Even now, if you are getting your landline phone, you are offered the option to "block caller ID" but for a fee of course. With the advent of cell phones, caller ID was not an issue for some reason. Cellphone companies didn't even offer the opt-out version. In fact, when they got accused of overcharging customers because they were charging for incoming calls (in the US, this was/is not an issue in Europe), cell phone companies actually cited caller ID as a feature that would allow their customers to decide whether they wanted to take (and, by definition, pay for) a particular phone call or not. At the time, they claimed that if someone was blocking caller ID why would you want to talk to them anyway (framing the "blockers" as them shady people).
What's curious is that initially, caller ID played hell with some of the assumptions telephone users have gotten used to make about their phone calls - a measure of obscurity was taken away - i.e. you couldn't repeatedly call and hang up on your ex anymore because now they would KNOW it was you without having to actually TALK and CONFRONT you... ouch...(then *69 appeared as a feature, or was it before caller ID? In any case, it was extremely unnerving but offered enough loopholes to make it manageable).
Because cellular phones made callerID simply an aspect of the technology, these expectations of obscurity never came up. In fact, some people now get annoyed about calling landline phones because they actually have to introduce themselves in order to be recognized and have to spell out their phone # instead of simply saying - you now have it on your phone, don't you? This loss of introductions is a very little thing, but my grandmother still gets a little freaked when I pick up the phone and say "Hi grandma!" before she has a chance to say hello... On the other hand, I find myself a little disconcerted when I actually have to introduce myself over the phone to someone - its such an odd, almost uncommon thing for me.
So here comes Star38, advertising a service that would not only let you block caller IDs, but to successfully pretend to be someone else entirely. A license to lie that apparently bothered a number of people (exciting a number of others). What I am curious about, however, is the sentence in the article that says people were concerned about their privacy... whose privacy? the giving or the receiving end? The very curious thing is that existence of Star38 would actually make the whole thing of caller ID safer, by make it very clear to cellphone users that they simply can not believe their callerID (thus ruining some phisher-business, no wonder they sent death-threats). It doesn't just give a license to lie, it actually teaches everyone a good measure of caution. The caller may not be who you think they are... We might have to re-learn to introduce ourselves and to stop relying on the ID feature... a step back or forward?
This is fascinating. When callerID just became available for residential customers, phone companies were forced to ask their customers whether they wanted to opt out. A very large proportion of customers did (I wonder, actually if there are any figures for that). Even now, if you are getting your landline phone, you are offered the option to "block caller ID" but for a fee of course. With the advent of cell phones, caller ID was not an issue for some reason. Cellphone companies didn't even offer the opt-out version. In fact, when they got accused of overcharging customers because they were charging for incoming calls (in the US, this was/is not an issue in Europe), cell phone companies actually cited caller ID as a feature that would allow their customers to decide whether they wanted to take (and, by definition, pay for) a particular phone call or not. At the time, they claimed that if someone was blocking caller ID why would you want to talk to them anyway (framing the "blockers" as them shady people).
What's curious is that initially, caller ID played hell with some of the assumptions telephone users have gotten used to make about their phone calls - a measure of obscurity was taken away - i.e. you couldn't repeatedly call and hang up on your ex anymore because now they would KNOW it was you without having to actually TALK and CONFRONT you... ouch...(then *69 appeared as a feature, or was it before caller ID? In any case, it was extremely unnerving but offered enough loopholes to make it manageable).
Because cellular phones made callerID simply an aspect of the technology, these expectations of obscurity never came up. In fact, some people now get annoyed about calling landline phones because they actually have to introduce themselves in order to be recognized and have to spell out their phone # instead of simply saying - you now have it on your phone, don't you? This loss of introductions is a very little thing, but my grandmother still gets a little freaked when I pick up the phone and say "Hi grandma!" before she has a chance to say hello... On the other hand, I find myself a little disconcerted when I actually have to introduce myself over the phone to someone - its such an odd, almost uncommon thing for me.
So here comes Star38, advertising a service that would not only let you block caller IDs, but to successfully pretend to be someone else entirely. A license to lie that apparently bothered a number of people (exciting a number of others). What I am curious about, however, is the sentence in the article that says people were concerned about their privacy... whose privacy? the giving or the receiving end? The very curious thing is that existence of Star38 would actually make the whole thing of caller ID safer, by make it very clear to cellphone users that they simply can not believe their callerID (thus ruining some phisher-business, no wonder they sent death-threats). It doesn't just give a license to lie, it actually teaches everyone a good measure of caution. The caller may not be who you think they are... We might have to re-learn to introduce ourselves and to stop relying on the ID feature... a step back or forward?
An Online Pioneer Resists the Lure of Cashing In
The New York Times > Technology > An Online Pioneer Resists the Lure of Cashing In - NYT printed a nice story about Craig's List due to the big event of EBay buying a stake in the company. In my interviews with movers Craig's list came up several times, with respondents routinely singing praises to it. It truly think these praises were where they were due.
There is one thing that Craig's list succeeded at doing where most failed. It created a social space where people feel like they are interacting with people like them (and these are quite different people). Another interesting thing that we observed was the secondary effect of Craig's list listings. I think in general, this could be extrapolated to a secondary effect of online presence for physical locations, but it happened in the context of craig's list only.
In effect, users found apartment listsings on the site and went to take a look. The apartments they found were absolutely atrocious, but there was one next door that turned out to be perfect. This suggests a curious thing - at a certain point of adoption/penetration of a particular technology, not everyone needs to have an online presence to enjoy effects of it. In fact, these rental properties essentially piggy-backed the efforts of the property that put itself on Craig's list, because the latter increased non-local traffic. By the same token, I wonder if this is happening to individuals - that is, if someone is not using a particular technology but people around them are, then the non-users will experience secondary effects of access and use. I wonder what these might be.
There is one thing that Craig's list succeeded at doing where most failed. It created a social space where people feel like they are interacting with people like them (and these are quite different people). Another interesting thing that we observed was the secondary effect of Craig's list listings. I think in general, this could be extrapolated to a secondary effect of online presence for physical locations, but it happened in the context of craig's list only.
In effect, users found apartment listsings on the site and went to take a look. The apartments they found were absolutely atrocious, but there was one next door that turned out to be perfect. This suggests a curious thing - at a certain point of adoption/penetration of a particular technology, not everyone needs to have an online presence to enjoy effects of it. In fact, these rental properties essentially piggy-backed the efforts of the property that put itself on Craig's list, because the latter increased non-local traffic. By the same token, I wonder if this is happening to individuals - that is, if someone is not using a particular technology but people around them are, then the non-users will experience secondary effects of access and use. I wonder what these might be.
03 August, 2004
All about moving
After spending a summer doing interviews with people who have recently moved, my head feels like a melon filled with puzzles that I will never solve and patterns that I will never be able to uncover. I am humbled by Genevieve and scores of other qualitative researchers who are able to process information and see patterns in small sets of different interviews... who are able to see profound things in personal stories. Ine a way, I almost feel handicapped by my very much quantitative background.
I am done interviewing... this is probably an important moment, but I can only think of a headache that I got from my last interview - it was wonderful as an experience, but every interview requires so much concentration and so much attention that it really takes a toll on me, especially if I am already tired and hungry when I arrive. Then I feel like I suddenly start missing pieces and I panic...
Tomorrow I get to give a talk that integrates everything together. How, I haven't figured out yet... I can't see patterns, I don't have a coherent whole neatly laid out, sown together from the 11 interviews I've done in a month and a week. I feel like I am too close, like I haven't had time to step back yet... I need to talk about this with people, bounce ideas off, play with thoughts. Unfortunately, I doubt that will happen as I have to go back to the icy castle of CMU, where few people would care... I had a great time here in Oregon though, I need to remember what that felt like.
I am done interviewing... this is probably an important moment, but I can only think of a headache that I got from my last interview - it was wonderful as an experience, but every interview requires so much concentration and so much attention that it really takes a toll on me, especially if I am already tired and hungry when I arrive. Then I feel like I suddenly start missing pieces and I panic...
Tomorrow I get to give a talk that integrates everything together. How, I haven't figured out yet... I can't see patterns, I don't have a coherent whole neatly laid out, sown together from the 11 interviews I've done in a month and a week. I feel like I am too close, like I haven't had time to step back yet... I need to talk about this with people, bounce ideas off, play with thoughts. Unfortunately, I doubt that will happen as I have to go back to the icy castle of CMU, where few people would care... I had a great time here in Oregon though, I need to remember what that felt like.
01 August, 2004
BBC NEWS | South Asia | Condoms oil wheels of industry
BBC NEWS | South Asia | Condoms oil wheels of industry
What a way to use condoms - as a tool for weavers! Who woulda thunk! although, technology use in developing countries shows incredible amounts of inventive applications, reminding us that what we THINK things are created for is not necessarily all they will ever be used for...
What a way to use condoms - as a tool for weavers! Who woulda thunk! although, technology use in developing countries shows incredible amounts of inventive applications, reminding us that what we THINK things are created for is not necessarily all they will ever be used for...
18 July, 2004
AOL, Yahoo and MSN Link to Offer Instant Messaging to Businesses
According to a Washington Post report, America Online Inc., Microsoft Corp. and Yahoo plan to link instant messaging services for use in the workplace. Use of instant messaging has doubled in the past year, with more than 2 billion messages sent and received over the America Online network daily, according to a report by company officials. The new services that will be offered are electronic recording and saving of instant messages, secure communications guarantee and ability to store and receive instant messages. (Source: Washington Post) "
Wow... with all the fights in the recent years against inter-operability, this step is really cool. What I am curious about, is how companies will manage the IM policy... before locking people into one IM providor (usually MSN) allowed them to be able to curb personal use. IM hasn't been something welcome in many businesses as a tool, and I am curious what is the marketing model for the new service. hmmm..
Wow... with all the fights in the recent years against inter-operability, this step is really cool. What I am curious about, is how companies will manage the IM policy... before locking people into one IM providor (usually MSN) allowed them to be able to curb personal use. IM hasn't been something welcome in many businesses as a tool, and I am curious what is the marketing model for the new service. hmmm..
Boeing Switches to VoIP
Boeing announced plans to drop wireline phones in favor of Voice Over Internet Protocol (VoIP) technology. With 157,000 employees and worldwide operations, Boeing is the largest company to adopt the technology. The move is expected to give other companies the confidence to make the switch to VoIP. The swap is expected to take 5-7 years. (Source: Chicago Tribune )
This is fascinating! With all the fights over how to make more money for the government and FCC, how to tax it, how to regulate it, Boeing is making a big statement. This must be at least somewhat of a threatening move to wireline providers. Business customers are such a large portion of their income. I wonder how much effect this will have.
This is fascinating! With all the fights over how to make more money for the government and FCC, how to tax it, how to regulate it, Boeing is making a big statement. This must be at least somewhat of a threatening move to wireline providers. Business customers are such a large portion of their income. I wonder how much effect this will have.
Qualcomm Tests Wireless Call Aboard American Airlines Flight
Qualcomm announced the first wireless call aboard American Airlines was a success. Qualcomm tested their code division multiple access (CDMA) technology from 25,000 feet. Overall calls were generally good, although there was a delay of about one second in voice communications and some calls were dropped. The company hopes to eventually see the use of wireless phones legal aboard jetliners. Currently the Federal Communications Commission bans the use of wireless devices aboard commercial airlines. Qualcomm now plans to spend two years testing and studying whether signals interfered with the jet's system. (Source: Associated Press)"
Just a few weeks ago NYT ran an article on a cell-phone related incident when a woman was taken off the plane for not wanting to get off the phone. Now qualcomm is working on making this kind of incident history. Go Qualcomm...
Just a few weeks ago NYT ran an article on a cell-phone related incident when a woman was taken off the plane for not wanting to get off the phone. Now qualcomm is working on making this kind of incident history. Go Qualcomm...
Customers Drop Wirelines In Favor of Wireless
Many people have decided to toss their wireline phones and opt to use only wireless. According to a Wall Street Journal report, 5 million people dropped their wireline service in 2003. While many companies are making efforts to offer traditional services to those who have dropped wirelines, some services are still not available. DirectTV and Dish Network, the leading provider use wirelines to bill customers for services such as on-demand movies and DirectTV's premium sports package. Some credit card services such as Citigroup and American Express require a wireline to verify address information. The report also says that many home alarm companies must be tied to a wireline in order to call the customer when the alarm is set off, others generally charge an extra fee to offer back-up communications options. Although many companies still require the use of wireline, they are making efforts to offer services to customers that have chosen to toss the line and go wireless. (Source: Wall Street Journal)
This is an interesting point. With ubiquity of the phone, we have created an infrastructure that depends on its existence inside a residence, as a method of verification of existence of place. The presence of a wireless phone merely verifies existence of person which is at odds with the old infrastructure. It takes time to re-adjust. Curiously, one of my interview subjects had mentioned that she was thinking of getting a wireline because she felt totally helpless and unable to call her husband once when a satellite went down. Wireless has a bit to go to reach the reliability of wireline it seems...
This is an interesting point. With ubiquity of the phone, we have created an infrastructure that depends on its existence inside a residence, as a method of verification of existence of place. The presence of a wireless phone merely verifies existence of person which is at odds with the old infrastructure. It takes time to re-adjust. Curiously, one of my interview subjects had mentioned that she was thinking of getting a wireline because she felt totally helpless and unable to call her husband once when a satellite went down. Wireless has a bit to go to reach the reliability of wireline it seems...
08 July, 2004
Journalism = reporting facts?
The New York Times > Technology > Circuits > State of the Art: Microsoft on the Trail of Google - instead of wasting 2-pages worth of everyone's time, why didn'g David Pogue just write - I hate Microsoft, they are talantlessly trying to get at Google, I am feeling slighted, they suck. That pretty much sums up the article... And it doesn't even have a good sense of humor about things...
Work inwading the spaces between
The New York Times > Technology > Circuits > Destination Wi-Fi, by Rail, Bus or Boat is an article that hails advances in Wifi offerings on commuter transportation like buses, boats and trains. At the moment, commuters can work on their laptops through the commute (some trains offer power plugs at the seats) but not surf the web. With the rollout of wifi, commuters will be able to be connected throughout the commute.
In thinking about spaces and my current research, I've been exploring the idea of the space-between spaces, the transit, the vaccuum of getting from one place to another, where we actually spend most of our lives. Having spent a considerable time in LA, I am intimiately familiar with the frustration of "traffic time" and the feeling of wasted minutes that could be spend on doing something more pleasurable. While WiFi in the car would not help, WiFi in a public transport (if such a luxury is available in this country) would make up for that feeling of "lost time". or would it? There is something about being in the space of the car or a train, that space that is free to be occupied by reading a book unrelated to work, checking up the newspaper, doing the cross-word puzzle, listening to musc, thinking. The time that everyone agrees is spent well (getting from place to place) and, until now, could not have been coopted by demands of a gruelling work-pace. The "me" time... Maybe, being able to get those few emails off during a commute and finishing that presentation would be a nice change, making the work-day a little shorter. I doubt that would be the outcome though. Instead, there will be more of tunnelling into the echo-chamber of your own interests and opinions inside the vast space of the Internet. Living up to the expectations of connectedness, where the commute time is still not "work" time but "connected" time, which creates expectations of immediate response regardless of presence, location, breaking down of public transport... the idea of "stranded" just doesn't put us nearly as far beyond the reaches of our daily grind. Is that a good thing? can we be more efficient in styling our lives in such a way that we can get more done and enjoy more life? or is it a bad thing? feeding an addiction, strengthening the leash of connectedness, disconnecting us from paying attention to our immediate surroundings. The jury is still out... though I wonder...
In thinking about spaces and my current research, I've been exploring the idea of the space-between spaces, the transit, the vaccuum of getting from one place to another, where we actually spend most of our lives. Having spent a considerable time in LA, I am intimiately familiar with the frustration of "traffic time" and the feeling of wasted minutes that could be spend on doing something more pleasurable. While WiFi in the car would not help, WiFi in a public transport (if such a luxury is available in this country) would make up for that feeling of "lost time". or would it? There is something about being in the space of the car or a train, that space that is free to be occupied by reading a book unrelated to work, checking up the newspaper, doing the cross-word puzzle, listening to musc, thinking. The time that everyone agrees is spent well (getting from place to place) and, until now, could not have been coopted by demands of a gruelling work-pace. The "me" time... Maybe, being able to get those few emails off during a commute and finishing that presentation would be a nice change, making the work-day a little shorter. I doubt that would be the outcome though. Instead, there will be more of tunnelling into the echo-chamber of your own interests and opinions inside the vast space of the Internet. Living up to the expectations of connectedness, where the commute time is still not "work" time but "connected" time, which creates expectations of immediate response regardless of presence, location, breaking down of public transport... the idea of "stranded" just doesn't put us nearly as far beyond the reaches of our daily grind. Is that a good thing? can we be more efficient in styling our lives in such a way that we can get more done and enjoy more life? or is it a bad thing? feeding an addiction, strengthening the leash of connectedness, disconnecting us from paying attention to our immediate surroundings. The jury is still out... though I wonder...
07 July, 2004
WiFi - there does exist a business model?
"Starbucks announced it had T-Mobile Wi-Fi installed in more than 3,100 U.S. cafes. Starbucks recognizes that the Wi-Fi service has helped the company retain customers longer and at off-peak hours. Wi-Fi users visit Starbucks locations an average of eight times a month, are online for approximately an hour, and arrive after the morning rush. There are currently more than 4,700 HotSpot locations throughout the U.S. (Source: IT Web) "
Considering that T-Mobile WiFi service is a paid service (and its not cheap), the fact that Starbucks is seeing benefits from offering it, suggests that there exists some kind of a business model in offering WiFi. I haven't seen any numbers from locations that offer free WiFi though, I wonder if the effect is the same.
Living in Oregon, its nice to be able to find a zillion locations with free WiFi. I am sure there are some numbers available on the business impact of this service since all the coffeeshops that offer it are not chains, and focus on building a community of a sort. On the other hand, one has to KNOW that there is free wifi at a particular coffeeshop, while with Starbucks, you know they have T-Mobile (or are at least more likely to have it). Just how much of that use is accounted by travellers, I wonder?
Considering that T-Mobile WiFi service is a paid service (and its not cheap), the fact that Starbucks is seeing benefits from offering it, suggests that there exists some kind of a business model in offering WiFi. I haven't seen any numbers from locations that offer free WiFi though, I wonder if the effect is the same.
Living in Oregon, its nice to be able to find a zillion locations with free WiFi. I am sure there are some numbers available on the business impact of this service since all the coffeeshops that offer it are not chains, and focus on building a community of a sort. On the other hand, one has to KNOW that there is free wifi at a particular coffeeshop, while with Starbucks, you know they have T-Mobile (or are at least more likely to have it). Just how much of that use is accounted by travellers, I wonder?
OregonLive - LP headquarter relocation story
Oregonian LP-headquarters relocation story was an interesting piece to add to the interview Scott Mainwaring and I had just finished a few weeks prior with the "Hunter" family the day before they moved to Nashville as part of LP relocation. Unlike the executives though, I do not think this family will be taking part in charity balls of the same scale. They comprise some of the corporate charter plane support staff that LP moved along with everyone else to their new Headquarter location. I am curious just how different was the moving experience for the executives and for this middle class family.
06 July, 2004
The New York Times > Technology > You've Got Mail (and Court Says Others Can Read It)
The New York Times > Technology > You've Got Mail (and Court Says Others Can Read It)
This article in the New York Times only underlines the idea that persistence of digital content is something that most of us have not yet come to grips with. Yet most of our digital content is stored somewhere, most of us do not know where it is. the initial fascination with the Internet and its ability to provide individuals with anonymity has turned out to be a rosy dream, while at the same time, the Internet has killed any pretense at anonymity and privacy. As digital communications expand in size and frequency, while laws refuse to properly address privacy issues that emerge at the same time, erosion of personal liberties and privacy will continue without most individuals realizing what is happening.
This article in the New York Times only underlines the idea that persistence of digital content is something that most of us have not yet come to grips with. Yet most of our digital content is stored somewhere, most of us do not know where it is. the initial fascination with the Internet and its ability to provide individuals with anonymity has turned out to be a rosy dream, while at the same time, the Internet has killed any pretense at anonymity and privacy. As digital communications expand in size and frequency, while laws refuse to properly address privacy issues that emerge at the same time, erosion of personal liberties and privacy will continue without most individuals realizing what is happening.
RFID use & life between the seams
IBM Opens Test Center in France International Business Machine Corp - reads the tagline, explaining that IBM has opened a test center for radio frequency identification (RFID) in Nice, France. The center was opened in an effort to make sure chips, readers, and software work together. Approximately 1,000 part-time and full-time employees are currently working on RFID for IBM. RFID allows product information to be read automatically and wirelessly. Organizations that are already using or plan to use RFID include Wal-Mart, airlines, pharmaceutical companies, and the U.S. Department of Defense. IBM expects that by 2009, fifty percent of all products will be tagged. (Source: CIOL News)
Curious... despite my initial negative reaction towards RFID, as far as I understand the technology, what it WILL do is make it harder for people to steal and easier for companies to keep track of their products and merchandise. On one hand, this makes perfect business sense. Companies invest into a technology that will reduce problems with inventory tracking. On the other hand, it makes me wonder how this will affect the low income working world, which is often still built on a strange system or barter, theft, things falling between the cracks. Many of the low-income workforce are people who have fallen between the cracks, who live on the things that are uncounted, forgotten, seamlessly removed from the "real" world. As the stock of easily accessible small item-foraging reduces due to better systems for accountability, how will these populations adjust? The uncounted, forgotten, between the seams of the social system people. Those that are payed far less than what one can live on, but survive none-the-less through creating a system of favors, barter and a world that is oddly reminiscent of Gaiman's London Below...
As someone who has spent several years living partially submerged into a place where barter was a way of life and a system that worked better than the job you had, which paid next to nothing and was more of a labor of love, I wonder how would existence of a better accounting system would have affected that world? I would be wrong to say that this is the first step in that direction. As technology permeated the business world, the employee-based barter system has had to adjust, with an understanding of the "damn computers" and creation of new system of barter that made use of the new loop-holes. When ski-resorts started using scanners, matching bar-codes with people's names, printing tickets on sticky paper, making it impossible to remove from your ski jacket once attached, the dirtbags developed systems for skiing on the same ticket during different parts of the day trading off, ways of taking off sticky tickets and still make them usable, etc.
When bars started using computers that controlled what drinks were served and how much... wait-staff and bartenders developed ideas of the "spill fund" and "wrong drink order".
Much of the new technology is used to control the "little" people of the working world, where these people survive on knicking the system here and there, dropping underneath the money-economy to the level of barter economy that allows them to survive the harsh realities of an ever-more expensive life-style. The race is on with the RFID... we shall see?
Curious... despite my initial negative reaction towards RFID, as far as I understand the technology, what it WILL do is make it harder for people to steal and easier for companies to keep track of their products and merchandise. On one hand, this makes perfect business sense. Companies invest into a technology that will reduce problems with inventory tracking. On the other hand, it makes me wonder how this will affect the low income working world, which is often still built on a strange system or barter, theft, things falling between the cracks. Many of the low-income workforce are people who have fallen between the cracks, who live on the things that are uncounted, forgotten, seamlessly removed from the "real" world. As the stock of easily accessible small item-foraging reduces due to better systems for accountability, how will these populations adjust? The uncounted, forgotten, between the seams of the social system people. Those that are payed far less than what one can live on, but survive none-the-less through creating a system of favors, barter and a world that is oddly reminiscent of Gaiman's London Below...
As someone who has spent several years living partially submerged into a place where barter was a way of life and a system that worked better than the job you had, which paid next to nothing and was more of a labor of love, I wonder how would existence of a better accounting system would have affected that world? I would be wrong to say that this is the first step in that direction. As technology permeated the business world, the employee-based barter system has had to adjust, with an understanding of the "damn computers" and creation of new system of barter that made use of the new loop-holes. When ski-resorts started using scanners, matching bar-codes with people's names, printing tickets on sticky paper, making it impossible to remove from your ski jacket once attached, the dirtbags developed systems for skiing on the same ticket during different parts of the day trading off, ways of taking off sticky tickets and still make them usable, etc.
When bars started using computers that controlled what drinks were served and how much... wait-staff and bartenders developed ideas of the "spill fund" and "wrong drink order".
Much of the new technology is used to control the "little" people of the working world, where these people survive on knicking the system here and there, dropping underneath the money-economy to the level of barter economy that allows them to survive the harsh realities of an ever-more expensive life-style. The race is on with the RFID... we shall see?
29 June, 2004
The New York Times > Week in Review > Cellular Sociology: I Want to Be Alone. Please Call Me.
The New York Times > Week in Review > Cellular Sociology: I Want to Be Alone. Please Call Me. This article touches on several themes - the public vs. private spaces colliding in using cell phones in public spaces, the social desire to be included and the reaction of hurt exclusion when someone around you is on the phone, the ridiculous instances of behavior, like the one described in the article (hard to believe that one actually). The article doesn't really come out and say it, but it descirbes the growing pains of the developing social norms around new social technologies that have invaded spaces previously relegated to boredom, relative quiet and meeting strangers. It is curious whether similar events have happened or still happen in Europe or in Asia, where cellphone adoption has happened earlier and more fully.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)