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