The Kindle... Now in a Woolworths near you.

Into the cloud... and back onto a server farm.

Most of us these days who are tech savvy are using some sort of cloud based service or storage. I use Dropbox to keep everything synced and under control, Google docs, and cloud backup services for home. The recurring themes when talking about cloud storage and the digital shift always tend to be about convenience and privacy / security.

Let's look at convenience first, the ability to be able to access your information anywhere you have an internet connection is very attractive to people. Moving all, or some of your data to the cloud is pretty easy, and once it's set up, your life seems somewhat more organised.

Privacy always comes up, with people being cautious about having there information out on the internet that hackers can access. Although sites claim to be secure, they are still vulnerable. Like with most things on the internet, if you're using it, you should be able to access the risk.

This week in the tutorial we spent a good long time discussing ebooks, and the lengths book stores are going to to stay open. If you look at the recent closure of Angus & Robertson and Borders stores, you can see that the traditional economy is being affected by this new information economy. Although people will argue it's not the same experience as reading a real book, the numbers don't lie, and people are more concerned about instant access, and price when it comes to reading. When i first bought my Kindle from Amazon a few years ago, the postage was almost as much as the Kindle itself. Now, with a price drop, Woolworths is selling the Kindle in it's supermarkets. This just shows how much the ebook platform is being adopted, despite it's disadvantages.

Convergence, or why my Gameboy Color looks like it belongs in Edwardian England

Having read quite a few articles from Jenkins in the past, the reading this week kept in line with the rest. He was easy to follow and pretty much has the same ideas about convergence, that it's changing the world, but it's not necessarily a bad thing.

Convergence is about putting together new and old types of media so they function coherently and benefit the user. Gone are the days when you had one device for on task, and another to do something else. This brings me back to the idea of my Gameboy Color, having recently gone into a retro gaming phase, i pulled out my GBC and booted it up. It took me a couple of minuteds to realise i needed to actually put a game in, and to find the game, i had to dig through the box to find the right one. These days, modern gaming platforms rely on the cloud, digital downloads and (although not sure how long for) discs.

So sitting there playing Pokemon Yellow, i thought just how strange it was using this device without being able to do much on it other than play the games. So i pulled out my iPad and checked Facebook, replied to a couple of mentions on Twitter, increased my max bid on eBay, and i was at peace. I hadn't realised how used to convergent media i had become, and now we expect everything to be instant, on the same device, and up to the same place as where it was before.

So where does this leave people who aren't upgrading as quickly as i am?  I know that too much of my money goes towards early adoption of tech, but some people aren't in a position too.

The increase in the digital divide is one way to look at it, we all have that friend who still has a phone that, in our mind, does 'nothing'. Let's face it, it's not an iPhone, of course it does nothing.

But convergence also has a positive effect, you don't need to by a lot of devices to be up to date with the internet, for light use all you need is a smart phone. By having one device that has the capacity to do everything, it brings everyone onto a similar level of access.

References

Jenkins, H. (2006). 'Worship at the altar of convergence: A new paradigm for understanding media change'. In H. Jenkins, Convergence culture: Where old and new media collide (pp 1-24). New York: New York University Press. [URL:http://www.nyupress.org/webchapters/0814742815intro.pdf]

Let me have it!.... Nah

So this week's readings by Lessig, Boldrin and Snapper tried to give three different perspectives on copyright, IP and patenting. Although you can try as much as you like, these are difficult concepts to pin down.

One of the things brought up in the tutorial was that of when can you exactly claim an idea as your own, and when you can enforce copyright on it. A few examples were given, each one more absurd than the last. For example, Ted said that he was the first at UOW to use the Prezi presentation tool, and now more and more people are using it. Would he be right to enforce copyright on that idea?

So for this post let's just put aside the claims to copyright, and the numerous wars going on between companies for patents (Google and Apple, anyone?) And let's instead look at who and why it's such a big deal.

I think, it all comes down to money in the end, and protecting one's commercial interests. And this, more often than not comes from big companies and record labels who aren't fighting for the protection of creative material, but for the money they may lose if someone copies it. You don't see a garage band launching a class action law suit against a rival band, you may instead see some sledging or innapropriate posts on their Facebook page. Not that i'm saying it couldn't happen.

In terms of copyright infringement on music, it's the record companies who are taking charge and suing others, because, in effect, they're protecting their income. The IP no longer belongs to the artist, but to the company. Maybe the labels are being a little dramatic in saying that their sales are dropping considerably because of music piracy, but to be honest, i think they just need to update their business model.

Wake up, check messages, "0" ah damn.

Many of us check our phones as soon as we wake up, don't try and deny it, you do. Although some of us check it for pleasure, others are checking it for work. This, as Gregg describes it as a 'presence bleed', blurring the lines between work and leisure.

We look at the concept of 'always on', wherever we go, there's usually a way to connect to the internet to check email, browse Facebook or Twitter or read the news. So what's so bad about it? Many people argue that this somewhat erosion of the typical "9 to 5" work day, (forgiven if Dolly Parton pops into your head) is affecting the work / life balance.

People are quick to blame technology for this change in social behaviour, but this isn't always true. We are the ones using the technology, sure, the devices make it possible to always be connected, but we always have the option to switch off.

It's understandable in some jobs that there would be a need to be always contactable, my family, for example deals with overseas clients who are in different time zones. Without Skype and other technologies the business wouldn't function as efficiently.

Another point Gregg raises is the negative effect on home life, but, as i said earlier, we always have the option to switch off. It's not as simple as blaming technology for our work habits, if we want them to change, it's got to be an individual decision.

Gregg, M. 'Function Creep: Communication technologies and anticipatory labour in the information workplace'. [URL: http://homecookedtheory.com/wp-content/uploads/functioncreepnms.doc] 

It's all about control...

So this week, I was pretty surprised when I opened up the Barlow reading, an open letter to the governments of the world. I thought here we go, something light hearted and comical. But as I read on I took in the complexity and seriousness of what they were saying.

In the tutorial the main concept about the world of cyberspace that I found came up most was that of control. The declaration refers to governments creating 'guard posts' to 'hold the contagion', this made me think of how governments and corporations are trying to control and regulate cyberspace, and also why they're so interested in it. Sure, in places like China and Russia where they restrict access to certain websites and search results, this control and regulatibility seems easy and effective, but in our seemingly knowledge-based society, how can governments even begin to think about controlling how we use the Internet?

But when we think about why they want to control something, it seems pretty understandable. The Internet can be used as a tool for slandering governments, organising protests or riots (as we've seen in London this week). Why wouldn't the governments want to try and monitor and control what people were saying about them. If someone was saying something bad about you, wouldn't you want to stop it from entering the world of cyberspace?

As Kelly has mentioned there is a new economy forming around the information-based sector. In the end, the people who control the Internet are the ones who will gain the most money out of it, some of you may disagree. But if you have control over the platform and the people on it, you're in a better position to make a higher profit.

References

Barlow, J.P. (1996) A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace [URL: https://projects.eff.org/~barlow/Declaration-Final.html]


Kelly, K. (1999) 'This new economy'. In New Rules for the new Economy. [URL: http://www.kk.org/newrules/newrules-intro.html]

Finding Pleasure in Other's Pain

This week, a lot of ethical questions arose when we were discussing the online world of multiplayer games.  The Stalder reading about Information Ecology raised the notion that "Flows without elements of structure would be noise and nodes without flows would be dead". I found this concept very interesting, the networks we use can still remain, but to what extent? Us users are the ones creating and sending the messages, content and interactions between us.

World of Warcraft was used as an example, where a guild attacked a peaceful funeral for a real person. The discussion made me think about my own experiences with online worlds and how we gain satisfaction, and also sometimes pleasure from the pain and misfortune of others.

Call of Duty: Black Ops, is my drug of choice, and it's not until i look at my own gameplay habits that I can really get a grasp on this concept. The multiplayer game mode allows you to compete against others all around the world, level up for weapons and skills, pretty standard for a online multiplayer. But if you look at the content of the game, blood sprays everywhere, cries of pain, medals for stabbing someone (literally) in the back, it seems pretty barbaric. Someone made the comment in the tutorial of "You wouldn't do that in real life."

No, you wouldn't, but this isn't real life, it's just a game. Games are intended to be fun, and people who take the moral implications too seriously, need to find another game to play. Perhaps Diner Dash.

Stalder, F. (2005) 'Information Ecology'. In Open Cultures and the Nature of Networks pp. 62-66 [URL: http://felix.openflows.com/pdf/Notebook_eng.pdf] 

Intro...

Hey,

My name's Nate and i'm studying a Bachelor of Communications and Media, majoring in Digital Communications and Journalism, second year and loving it!. Wollongong native, and most of the time proud of it.

Unashamedly addicted to Black Ops and spend way too much money in Dick Smith.

Follow me! @natedigc