It all began with a coffeepot

"In 1991, researchers at Cambridge University shared a single coffeepot among several floors. The researchers were frustrated by the fact that they would often climb several flights of stairs, only to find the coffeepot empty. They set up a video camera that broadcast a still image to their desktops about three times per minute — enough to determine the level of coffee in the glass pot. Several years later, that coffeepot had become one of the first Internet web cam sensations, with millions of hits worldwide. That coffeepot was a proof of concept for today’s networked objects and the Internet of Things." (HammerSmithgroup research report, 2010)

The idea of everything being connected to the internet is not new, but it’s increasingly becoming a reality. In 1999, the MIT Media Lab coined the term 'Internet of Things' (IoT), which is essentially the concept of physical objects connecting to the internet and becoming tangible social actors. In 2008, the number of things connected to the internet was greater than the number of people who were actually connected. There are 9 billion connected devices at present, and by 2020 that number is going to explode to 24 billion devices, according to new statistics released by GSMA, the global mobile industry trade group.   

These stats are pretty impressive, but I think I should show you just a few quick examples of what the internet of things is doing to our objects...

- ThingM designed WineM, an intelligent wine rack that lets you identify which one bottles match the terms of your selection criteria.

- Botanicalls enables plant-human communications, with a sensor to measure moisture in the soil with embedded ethernet connection which sends tweets such as “Water me please,” “You didn't water me enough,” or “Thank you for watering me!”

- BodyTrace is a networked bathroom scale that wirelessly uploads users’ weight to the BodyTrace website, generating weight and BMI charts and recommendations from the data.

- GlowCap, a networked screw-on cap for a standard prescription bottle that wirelessly links to the Internet through an embedded sensor and transmitter. GlowCap address the problem of patients who forget to take their prescriptions.  

I guess once we see where the concept of the Internet of Things came from and where this technology is headed, we need to look at the implications of it all... What are the stakes for possible users if our objects can upload, download, disseminate and stream meaningful things to the internet? How should we think of our objects when they start producing information online more actively than we do? A coffeepot was connected to the Internet (before it was even called the Internet) and provided information about its status (long before there was Twitter)... where to now then?   

Leave me your thoughts and comments below. Just want to say thanks for reading + commenting throughout this semester guys, it's been fun... Enjoy your holidays :)   

Other Sources

http://theconversation.edu.au/the-internet-of-things-this-is-where-were-going-3965

http://gigaom.com/cloud/internet-of-things-will-have-24-billion-devices-by-2020/

Information appliance VS Computing Device... aka Apple VS Google... aka iOS VS Android...

Before I continue into this week's blog topic, I must confess: I am an apple person. I personally own an iPhone, iPad, Macbook Pro, Cinema Display Screen, wireless mousepad and wireless keyboard. It is a pretty seamless setup for me, and i love it. But in this blog, I promise to make this a fair fight between Apple iOS & Google Android...

On 9th January 2007 Steve Jobs introduced the first iPhone. On November 5, 2007 the unveiling of the Android distribution was announced. Apple currently delivers a unified mobile OS for the iPad, iPhone, and iPod Touch for their users, whereas Google has two Android tracks: one for tablets and one for smartphones. But, Ice Cream Sandwich is the name of the next generation Android operating system, and is Google’s most ambitious effort in the mobile world to date. It's been a neck and neck fight since the beginning, but the competition between Apple, Google, and Microsoft is about to heat up even more.

Looking at the facts and company's philosophys though, you can see the vital defining differences between Apple & Google...
Apple's Philosophy
- closed devices
- walled garden of apps
- complete control over platform, content and user

Google's Philosophy
- open and free platform
- open garden of apps
- no control over platform, content and user

Preferences of users is one of the most dominating aspects of this war in mobile computing, because the users are the ones to really determine the outcomes. But the questions are: do you feel comfortable leaving the software and content decisions for the company to sort through, so they can perfect, polish and present it to you? Or do you want to be rained with bugged content and software, with no real idea where/what the good stuff is? Are you prepared to make decisions you know nothing about?

According to Galen Gruman's comparison article from infoworld, "There's no question which is the better mobile OS: iOS 5 beats both Android systems in almost every category. iOS 5 has significantly widened the lead in several areas, including applications, Web and Internet, and user interface."

In the overall scheme of things, it is completely up to the users preferences when it comes to mobile computing, but I think i'm just gonna leave it to the experts... *cough thanks Apple!* Let me know what side you are on in your comments. Thanks for reading!


Online sources
http://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspeculations/2011/10/17/google-goes-after-apple-with-ice-cream-sandwich/
http://www.infoworld.com/d/mobile-technology/mobile-deathmatch-apple-ios-5-vs-google-android-os-169752?page=0,5
http://au.askmen.com/entertainment/guy_gear_200/234_iphone-vs-google-services.html

Keep your coins, the people want change.

There is no doubt that revolutions have happened before in the history, however, now revolutions are faster and have greater means of spreading of information than ever before, with help from social networks. These innovative tools of social media have in many ways, reinvented social activism. With Facebook and Twitter, it has become exponentially easier for powerless individuals to collaborate, coordinate, and voice their concerns. But we must remember that social networks are the TOOLS for social activism, not the driving force behind them. Without the people, social networking would be nothing. Without someone actively collaborating with users and calling for people to act online, there would be no revolution.

Dan Schulz, writer of 'A DigiActive Introduction to Facebook Activism' (2008) said that “The social basis of activism explains why Facebook, an increasingly popular social networking site, is a natural companion for tech-savvy organizers.  Because of the site’s massive user base and its free tools, Facebook is almost too attractive to pass up.” This can also be applied to Twitter, YouTube, blogs and websites used as a tool for global activism. But we also must recognise that Facebook was not designed to intentionally promote or organise activism.

In regards to this concept, I have come across a website named Change.org which was made for the purpose of online activism. It's slogan is pretty self explanatory: "Change.org is the web's leading platform for social change, empowering anyone, anywhere to start petitions that make a difference." It enables people to form communities around social issues (like global warming, human rights, sustainable food etc), start their own online petition and even promote it to other like-mided users. The website is supported by many of the largest nonprofit organisations in the world – including Amnesty International, Oxfam, and Greenpeace. Even the website's facebook page has thousands of followers - so the site obviously has massive support. I really feel that this is a perfect example of effective online activism, which clearly towers over the idea of a Facebook event page or a Twitter Feed...

 

I think that we really should be discussing the impact of these types of activism websites alongside (or before) the Facebook and Twitter revolution concept. Because really, Twitter is a way of following (or being followed by) people you may never have met. Facebook is a tool for keeping up with & managing your acquaintances. But websites like Change.org are where the real online-activism takes place. Where do you think the roles for social networks lie in regards to activism, in comparison to websites like Change.org? Do social networks have the power to not only spread the word, but to change things? Leave me your thoughts :)

Online Sources

http://www.change.org

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/10/04/101004fa_fact_gladwell#ixzz1b0ezEMt7

http://ksocialmedia.com/?p=316

http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/changeorg_social_network.php

Will future wars be fought in cyberspace?

This week's voluntary reading 'A free irresponsible press: Wikileaks and the battle over the soul of the networked fourth estate', by Yochai Benkler - really got me thinking about the freedom of the internet and information. The Internet is essentially intended for networked individuals and associations to communicate and share information. But as well as this, users have began using our global communication networks as a window of opportunity to hack the network systems of private users, mainly for political causes. This fusion of hacking and activism is widely known as Hacktivism.

There have been various sources (like this one here) reporting that the rebellious website Wikileaks, has been in some distress over the past months, with a hacktivism cyber attack allegedly revealing the names of some top secret sources. According to the WikiLeaks Twitter feed, it lasted for several hours, and during that time, WikiLeaks apparently encouraged supporters to make donations to the whistle-blowing organization. This is an example of hacktivism at its best, where the hackers have forced entry, hugely disrupted the WikiLeaks online presence and provided their own benefit in terms of donations (also to make the non-for-profit organisation reel with fury i'm sure). It really makes you wonder, if hacktivists can easily gain entry to the back end of an top-secret organisation like Wikileaks, how susceptible are everyday users like you and me to cyber attacks? There are only so many preventions that can be undertaken by common computer users themselves, by making sure they have highly secure passwords on email accounts, never give out their banking details and not sharing passwords with anyone. But is this really enough?

 

According to the Herald Sun, cyber co-operation was added to Australia-US defence treaty last month, in order to increase military cooperation. They noted that the "US and Australian officials have decided to include cooperation on cybersecurity as part of their defence treaty, marking the first time the Obama administration has formally carved out that kind of partnership with a country outside NATO". This is clearly a bold move, with an increase in cyber threats from the Pacific region. But the article goes on to outline that "Cybersecurity experts have argued that the internet cannot become a safer place until nations implement international agreements that better define and regulate cybercrime, and set out new standards and rules for industry as it increasingly moves its business into the largely ungoverned online world."

So until these worldwide 'utopian' changes are made, the internet is still a possibly dangerous place, but is it destined to be a battlefield? Will future wars be fought in cyberspace? Leave your thoughts with me.

Just keep tweeting, Just keep tweeting...

Social networks. The commanding spectrum of our current internet community. Over the past 4 years or so, there has been tough competition between social network corporations, attempting to secure the coveted first place in internet domination...
By examining this image below (thanks to Online Schools for this State of the Internet infographic), you can tell from a glance that for the past 3 years, Facebook has been the dominating SNS, boasting over 600 million followers for 2011. But I am actually more interested in the previous dark horse of social networks (until 2010), Twitter. This year, coming in second in the race for internet domination, Twitter claims 200 million followers. What made it come out of the shadows so quickly?

If I had to make an educated guess, it would be the users contribution which has given Twitter the extra push from fifth to second place. They really have defined it in regards to the array of content available, but even more-so when you consider the hashtag # and @ phenomenon. These were actually invented by the Twitter user base, which as Steven Johnson notes in this week's reading, has become a central part of the Twitter experience. It makes it easy for any user to follow a live feed about events/debates and of course directly reply to other users. This can essentially be known as "end-user innovation," whereas consumers actively modify a product in order to adapt it to their needs.

My question is, when we combine the follower structure network, link-sharing & real-time searching, have we concocted an almost-perfect social network? (In 140 characters or less ofcourse). By furthering Twitter's data scope larger than the "I had toast for breakfast" tweets, it has become more relevant to users everywhere (even i'm getting sucked in). TODAY, we can form relationships, get information on friends, family, celebrities, current news and events, advertise, share images & links...But there are plenty of reports & discussions noting that TOMORROW will be so much more. You could apply for jobs via twitter, possibly be arrested for what you post, use twitter for text-to-speak applications and even become a citizen journalist via tweets.

 I can't help but contemplate where does the future for Twitter and Social Networks lies for tomorrow, and will it follow up on these promises? I guess we can only keep tweeting and see what happens! Leave your thoughts with me below :)


Online sourced links
http://www.onlineschools.org/state-of-the-internet/soti.html
http://www.news.com.au/technology/youre-hired-editor-picks-best-twitter-cv/story-e6frfrnr-1226138038420
http://www.news.com.au/technology/pair-faces-30-years-in-jail-for-allegedly-posting-false-kidnapping-reports-on-twitter/story-e6frfro0-1226130663850#ixzz1XvCYKJ93
http://www.forbes.com/sites/christinecrandell/2011/09/11/an-angel-brings-voice-to-twitter-2/
http://gigaom.com/2011/09/15/freedom-of-the-press-applies-to-everyone-yes-even-bloggers/

Pottermore, the ultimate form of transmedia storytelling.

This week's lecture and tutorial discussion really got me thinking about the implications of downloadable content on media producers. Downloadable content ranging from music and videos - to e-books and games are becoming so readily available online, that I was under the impression that producers had accepted it. But they’re in fact still attempting to adjust to it. Distributors of free media content are vastly available online, through peer-to-peer downloads and ripping of music/videos. Chris Anderson (2004) outlines in his article 'The Long Tail' from Wired 12.10, that "this is the world of scarcity. Now, with online distribution and retail, we are entering a world of abundance. And the differences are profound".

Just in case you have been living under a rock for the last decade, Joanne Kathleen Rowling is one of the world's most renowned authors today, famed for re-introducing the practice of reading to children, with the intensely rich world of Harry Potter. Having completed both the book and film series, she has recently taken her magical world to another level with the assistance of transmedia convergence... by introducing Pottermore (watch the introduction video below)

Pottermore is essentially a website-based reading experience, where users will be given a rich supply of new information on the world of Harry Potter… It will be extremely interactive AND safe for the users, being highly appealing to both the inquisitive young digital generation, and also those who were already love with the series.  JKR also revealed that her Pottermore project will include an online store, which will sell digital formats of the Harry Potter series (including e-books, digital audio books, and other Harry Potter content). Taking a leaf from Apple’s closed app store model, Rowling will have complete control over the content sold on the site and will take a cut of each sale.  Also to receive a percentage of each sale will be the print publishers of the books; Sony, who provided some of the technology behind the site; and OverDrive, the company providing the e-book and audio book trading platform.

The website is currently in the Beta stages of testing, which I personally have been lucky enough to be allowed to enter… It is definitely a sight for Potter fans, dying for more information into the magical world. Still a few bugs and changes that need to be addressed, but is it quite astonishing how much content is already there. After exploring it thoroughly, it became clear to me why she needed to venture into this segment of transmedia storytelling… In JKR's words – “ghost plots”, or all of the background stories on characters, places and creatures that she had dreamed up, which didn’t fit into the written series. These ghost plots are still vital to the story and need to be told to the audience. The website fully launches in October later this year, including the online store for digital books (which will be compatible for a range of devices).

Here on Henry Jenkin's official blog, he discusses Pottermore in regards to Transmedia Storytelling, noting that "This may be the most highly visible transmedia project to date -- after all, Harry Potter is as big a media franchise as we are likely to see anytime soon." I feel that no matter how successful her venture (She is already a squillionaire), it is bound to have a massive effect on social media, transmedia entertainment, Web 2.0, and fan culture when it is officially released... Especially whilst catering to such a richly diverse group of individuals, so avid to consume the new content. 

Let me know your thoughts on this new online reading experience... would you use it? Do you think it appeals to a niche, or do you believe it is part of a mass market? And how effective do you think this move from analogue to digital storytelling?

 Links
http://www.henryjenkins.org/2011/06/three_reasons_why_pottermore_m.html
http://sociable.co/2011/06/23/j-k-rowlings-pottermore-brings-app-store-economics-to-niche-markets/

Media Convergence in Creative Industries

This week, with the help of Henry Jenkins (2004) and Mark Deuze (2007) readings, we looked at the concept of media convergence, specifically in creative industries. The very stem of media convergence for our current interconnected-society is dependent on Web 2.0, a term used to describe the interactive and collaborative capabilities of the Internet.

According to Jenkins (2004), media convergence essentially outlines the process of altering the relationship between existing technologies, industries, markets, genres and audiences. Convergence is a vital aspect of Web 2.0. Our mobile phones do not only send and receive calls and texts, we can now take photographs, send email, play games, surf the web, navigate maps and video call - all from the palm of our hand. Clearly, this concept has largely affected the way we consume content and use our 'everyday' technologies. 

Another defining attribute of Web 2.0 is the idea of the "prosumer" or "produser", which describes how the internet can be a medium for both producing and consuming media content. Gone are the days of specialism in print, broadcast or online industries... With the abundance of blogs, online magazines and youtube video channels. Today's accredited media content producers must be multi-platform and multi-skilled wonders, because failing these expectations would otherwise lose the competitive hold for producers in the industry. As Deuze (2007) notes, "the blurring of real or perceived boundaries between makers and users in an increasingly participatory media culture challenges consensual notions of what it means to work in the cultural industries."

   
With the lowering of both production and distribution costs of content (Jenkins, 2004) and the proliferation & success of produser/prosumer content online... I can't help but wonder what will happen to our forgotten analogue media platforms? And also, the professionalism of the media industry? Will our future interconnected generations do things differently to us, or follow in our footsteps? Will they opt to wipe out analogue forms of media? If this image below is any indication of past changes, it sure looks to be a possibility for the future...

 

Click the image to see larger version :)