Made to Break: Technology and Obsolescence in America (part II)

     Slade uses the middle chapters of his book to delve into the history of this “planned obsolescence”. Using multiple and specific examples, he explores the strategic moves companies made to further market their product for an income. Society has become exceptional at adapting. Change is a key factor in planned obsolescence. Slade explains how in the 50s and 60s society basically discarded the fact that things were actually “made to break”. There were so many products available at the time that creativity and originality began to prevail over essential. Companies were growing and people had money to spend.  Companies should be building long lasting product, but they simply just aren’t.
     There is a lot of interesting information about how businesses went about developing products. Slade goes into much detail about the effects the radio has had on our society and two of its main innovators: Armstrong and Sarnoff. The competition between the two was intense (89). Sarnoff wanted to start a takeover. He believed emergence of television would cause radio to become obsolete. On the other hand, Armstrong saw potential in FM radio and sought out to help it gain popularity, making it new, exciting and trendy, increasingly creating a challenge for Sarnoff. Americans are greatly attracted to possessing whatever is shiny and new, which helped keep the radio popular. Eventually the addition of the transistor made the radio smaller and portable, keeping the radio business thriving.
     Some examples of obsolescence are not always centered on greed, but rather help benefit for economy. A section of this reading that I found quite interesting was Slade’s example of the creation of nylon causing silk to become obsolete very interesting (115). Silk was not only very expensive to produce, but a majority of it was being imported from Japan. Companies needed to find a solution and a way for them, as well as their consumers, to benefit. Nylon, a cheap and durable material, was the answer. They found that not only does nylon costs much less to product, but American could benefit as opposed to Japan. These change in material lead to silk becoming almost obsolete. There was no need for it anymore since companies had found a way to please consumers. What the consumers did not realize though, was that by using cheaper materials, the quality of the product quickly lessens as it most likely will not last as long, therefore causing people to have to replace them. But with prices so low, the appeal of the product raises, making it very easy for society to become blind to this idea of planned obsolescence. It is also hard to take the future and how many times items will have to be replaced into account. But then again, does it even bother society that the product will last very long? According to Slade, we will be purchasing an updated version of the item in the near future anyways.
     Like Postman, Slade explores the disadvantages of technology. Each author differs in what they find technologies downfalls are. While Postman discussed the many mental repercussions technology is having on society, such as our dependence to it, Slade looks at what we are physically doing. Although it seems that companies are manipulating and controlling consumers, it is clear that society is abusing the privilege technology has given us by being wasteful and materialistic. At the rate we are going it seems inevitable that society will continue this cycle of buy, use, and waste and I find it quite frightening to imagine where all this trash will end up and what Americans are leaving behind.

Made to Break: Technology and Obsolescence in America (part I)

     With each book comes a new perspective on technology. It is clear that we are consuming society who always wants the most recent thing available that is also better than the one before it. We are obsessed with the new and improved and many of us believe that we are characterized through what we own. We want to keep our status in society and make it known. When new technologies emerge and are released to the public, our first instinct is to immediately seek it out and see what the buzz is.
     I have mentioned many times before that society is attracted to whatever is easier, and I consider this to be another case. The introduction of this book discusses how everything is slowly beginning to become disposable. Disposability makes things easier. We began by throwing out razors and now it has led to throwing out computers. It was inevitable that we would adapt to society’s new inventions, but now we must take into consideration what this is costing us.
     I was astonished at the numbers that Slade threw out at us in the introduction. We see these changes in technology taking place, but we never think about the aftermath or where the old stuff goes. Slade discusses the conversion from analog to digital and how it would add more waste to the landfills. Many of these old technologies are not worth fixing or recycling and as a result, they are just thrown out. So what does this show about the American culture? We are leaving behind a bunch of junk. Are we to blame though?
     Giles Slade introduces the idea that companies purposely “manipulate the failure rate” of products (5). Society began to see the first deliberate acts for obsolescence when the automobile industry was at its boom. Car companies were searching for ways to make cars more efficient. Technological advances, such as the transformation from hand cranked cars to electric starters, were constantly giving newer cars greater edge than the previous ones. While inventions such as these had great potential to increase companies’ earnings and the demand for cars, companies were still looking for ways to expand and sell more.
     The second chapter of the book, Slade introduces the competition between Ford and General Motors (33). Each company’s primary goal was to gain market control, though they attempted this in different ways. Henry Ford was an honest man who wanted to make a made a model that was cheap and reliable. He wanted to build a car and stick with it. He believed that one should not change something if there is nothing wrong with it. Alfred Sloan (GM), on the other hand, was conniving but practical. General Motors was continuously trying to get on the same level as Ford. Sloan understood how society held material goods in such high esteem and took advantage of these attitudes that they held. GM played to people’s (particularly, women’s) weakness and began to make cars look more appealing. But soon, novelty eventually wears off. Which is why they gained profit by changing the appearance of their cars every so often, forcing people to buy new ones.
     Slade also elucidates the idea of “psychological obsolescence”, using the Academy Awards and Billboard as examples (54). I found this part to be very intriguing as I have never made this connection with popular culture before. Companies have the ability to tell us what is “in” and what is “out” for their benefit. Society is almost being tricked into playing this mind game of the newer, better, and more hip than yesterday.
     This section of the reading ended with the discussion of “planned obsolescence” (79). Although at this point in the book the term has not yet been used, its definition has definitely been seen in our economy. Planned obsolescence encourages repeat consumption by limiting a product’s life span. General Electric was one of the first companies to manipulate this idea. By adulterating the span of the light bulb, GE was able to increase its demand and prevent over production. Now that they have control over how long the product will work or last, they have the ability to dominate a majority of the light bulb market.
     For a society who is so infatuated with the new, we do not consider the repercussions of wasting. I find myself asking who is really at fault here. Although I think that society’s strive to be trend setters is its downfall, it is a combination which also includes a businesses’ greed. Companies will always have a need to gain profit. Many companies are run by a need to outsell their rivals. Does that make it fair to play on society’s distorted outlook of commercial goods?
     Furthermore, I wanted to add that I found the timing of this reading to be very ironic. My laptop broke a few weeks ago (after only purchasing it two years ago) and I was forced to go out and buy a new one. This really made me wonder if technology is moving at such a rapid rate, that it is hard to stay informed and keep up with what is out there. In addition, to being very thought provoking, this reading made me slightly frustrated by technology, as I found myself being trapped in its one form of deception.

Overreaction or Setting an Example? (Current Event Presentation)

     Since the internet has emerged, “privacy” has been redefined. Online privacy is very debatable. While some people share immense amounts of information about themselves on the internet, others are frightened to even put their full name on a profile. With new technologies and programs surfacing on the internet, it was only a matter of time before this issue became a dilemma. An example of this was recently seen regarding Google’s Street View. Street View is a technology that provides panoramic still images of buildings, streets, houses, etc. Street View is a useful and fascinating tool that is available in many countries, including the United States, Mexico, Canada, Australia, Japan and South Africa (to name a few). Google is planning to add Germany to that list.
     While Google is currently in the process of bringing Street View to Germany, several hundred thousand Germans are asking that their properties be removed from the site in fear that the technology will display too much information about people. Google has claimed that much of people’s fears are based off of misinformation (that the pictures are in real time), but with Germany being Google’s largest market in Europe, they determined that something had to be done about this uproar.
     Although Google states that the pictures they use do not breach any privacy laws and they abide by the cultural norms of the country the pictures are taken in, in efforts to ease Germany’s privacy concerns and abide by their privacy norms, Google, for the first time, allowed users the chance to request that their residence not be on the site before the site was even published. Rather than showing someone’s home, the users of Street View will now see a blurred image that serves no purpose to them.
     Of course, cultural norms differ around the world and traditionally, Germany holds their privacy in higher admiration than we do. It also does not help that Google worsened the concerns when they announced that they accidently collected information about citizens over Wi-Fi connections, causing the Germans to further worry and create a greater commotion.
     However, are the Germans overreacting or should we all be concerned and take precautions over what goes public on the internet? While I do understand that Germany has stronger privacy protections than us, I believe that their actions are slightly uncalled for. If it was something to be alarmed over, then I think we would be seeing more people (not just in Germany) requesting to have their house removed from Street View. But then, it could also be a possibility that this is not occurring because many of us are not informed that this is an option.
     While Street View can more likely help us than hurt us, I suppose I can see how there can be some potential problems that may arise with it. Street View shows people’s homes. An individual’s home can usually show someone’s financial status or what kind of neighborhood they live in. This could easily create targets for robberies and theft. Google also occasionally overlooks a license plate or a person’s face, leaving it unblurred an available to everyone who comes across that street.
     So, what is the significance of the Germans actions? It is bound to have an effect on the use of Street View. Will it cause so many people to “jump on the bandwagon” and take their home off of the internet, and therefore defeat the idea of Google’s practical technology? The internet has always been a place of vast information. If individuals are given the right to take away this information that should be public, then is it fair to say that now there is a lack of information available to us? I think that the internet will always be the favored source to find our facts and data, and the German’s reaction is just a bump along the way.


Many Germans Opt Out of Google's Street View

Meet Milo

     I recently rediscovered a video that I saw a while back. I forgot about it until hearing the many discussions in class about the advances of technology and the crazy things companies are creating. Kinect for Xbox 360, code name “Project Natal”, is a new system in video game entertainment that uses body, facial and voice recognition. The main selling point of this system is that no controllers are needed. The user’s hands are the controllers. Natal points out that there are no constraints as there are when using hand-held remotes, and therefore we are allowed to be more intuitive and less conscious that we are playing a game.
     Project Natal is currently in the process of finalizing a game in which users can “meet Milo”. Milo is a young boy, a character that Natal has created. Milo can interact with the user. He can distinguish specific facial expressions and inflections in the user’s voice. Supposedly, Milo can understand you. He is “fascinated about your life”. He remembers who you are and your past experiences together. According to Natal, users are “sculpting a human being”. Every Milo is different. Milo is created through the decisions we make while using the game.
     While this new game seems very captivating and entertaining, it also found it to be a bit disturbing. It is obvious that they are selling us a new experience. Users are able to establish a connection with this “boy”. Natal explains to us that we are now being noticed. Books and televisions cannot acknowledge out existence, but Milo can. As shown in the TED video, at one point in the game Milo is very upset after an argument with his parents and moving into a new house. It is our duty to comfort Milo. Users can then earn points for reassuring him that everything will be okay. I cannot decide if this is a constructive or poor aspect of the game. While it can teach younger people to be compassionate and that you can “win” for showing your concern and kindness for others, are they then going to want a reward when helping out someone in real life? It seems that this game can instill good morals into children and help them learn some communication skills, but I do believe that this game may have some consequences once it becomes available to everyone.
     It is quite obvious that this game is very intriguing, yet bizarre. What does this teach the generation who will be using this product? Has society forgotten (or will forget) how to make real friends using face to face communication? Children may lose the ability to talk in person with all of these new technologies allowing us to communicate over these various mediums. They may also feel no need to make new friends when Milo is secure and will always be there at their house waiting for them when they get home from school. But what consequences will this game have on children when the console suddenly breaks and they are left without their friend?
     Clearly, this product is still in its early stages as Xbox has not yet released it and there has not been much publicized buzz about it. I am looking forward to see how society will react to this product, and whether it will be accepted into the homes of young children or even adults.


("Milo" was also recently featured in a TED Blog.)
TED Blog - Meet Milo

The World and Wikipedia: How we are editing reality (Part II)

The World and Wikipedia: How we are editing reality (Part I)

                Ever since I began my academic journey, teachers have warning me and my fellow students of the “dangers” of using Wikipedia.  Fortunately, that has never stopped me from visiting the sites multiple times for its plethora of information. Designed to help others, Wikipedia allows for individuals to engage in not just consumption, but creation as well.  In The World and Wikipedia: How We Are Editing Reality, Andrew Dalby discusses this collaborative experiment and the effects it is having on our society.  Dalby, an avid Wiki editor, admits to finding mistakes (and even making some), but still argues the advantages of Wikipedia and supports the use of Wikipedia.

                While the evolution of computers continued, so did the evolution of encyclopedias.  Many problems arose from the beginning.  It was hard to find individual details in these collections of information.  It was hard to have all the information needed in one book.  Adding multiple volumes and sorting information in alphabetical order helped solve this dilemma, but with society continuously progressing, printed encyclopedia books began to get too big and to expensive to produce.  There needed to be a way to make this information easily accessible in an organized fashion, and thanks to the internet, a resolution was formed.

                The emergence of Web 2.0 allowed its users to not only search, read and retrieve information, but to publish their own knowledge to the web.  This internet advancement gave users the opportunity to disseminate information to an extensive audience (whether they want to find it or not).  Along with Web 2.0 came wikis, Wikipedia being the most common and well-known.  Wikis are an expandable collection of information in which each web page can be modified by a user.

                Like anything else that involves a collaborative effort, Wikipedia has stirred up some great controversy.  Although Wikipedia was created to be a place of factual information, with everyone in society as its editor, it is fairly simple to voice biased opinions and even false information.  Wikipedia can be easily controlled by individuals who choose to voice their opinions about issues, such as politics, turning Wikipedia into a place of debate, as opposed to a reliable internet resource (14).

                Wikipedia has been subject to much criticism for having misleading, wrong information and “embarrassing extracts” of poor article quality and structure on the website.  When everyone is an editor, everyone has equal power.  Educational background, work experience, recognized achievement has no precedence over who controls the information posted on the website, therefore allowing individuals to put false information on the website, creating “vandalism” to Wikipedia (10).  This not only creates problems for its viewers, but it makes it very challenging for the websites administrators as it becomes very easy to lose control over the information. 

                So why do we still use Wikipedia after knowing all of this?  Many times, as stated in the book, these falsehoods are corrected within minutes it is posted due to the overwhelming popularity and dedication that individuals have to the website.  Wikipedia gives people the opportunity to showcase and share what they know and are interested in.  There are no credentials necessary in order to create a wiki, allowing individuals with no recognized achievement to give out information.  While other wiki sites are controlled by “established” individuals, Wikipedia can be controlled by whoever wants to control it.  These other sites question society’s intelligence level and go through a process to select its editors to avoid falsehoods and keep their information “neutral”.  Although the credibility of the source is always in question, since when does having a degree exclude one from having his or her personal opinions on a matter?  It is close to impossible to not certain attitudes and judgments towards specific subjects, deeming this selection process as a waste of time. 

                Wikipedia’s quickly-gained attention created quite some stir with its “competition”, Britannica.  The two differ in that Wikipedia is free while one must subscribe and pay to use Britannica.  Also, Britannia believes that an individual needs to do something useful and memorable to gain a wiki page on their website; while to have a page on Wikipedia, someone just needs to have someone else think he or she did something worth writing about.  It is obvious that Wikipedia is much more commonly used than Britannica, but why?

                I am almost certain every individual who has used the internet has stumbled upon Wikipedia at one point or another.  Why is it almost always one of the first suggestions in a web-based search?  Wikipedia’s links to other websites could be to blame, or Google could secretly be working with Wikipedia.  The more we continue to use Wikipedia, the more prevalent it will become.  There is without a doubt a positive and enlightening side to Wikipedia.  Wikipedia will not only facilitate research, but always encourage interactive participation, as society is always enduring its “quest for communal knowledge” (51).

Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology (part II)

Postman’s opinionated views continue throughout the whole book.  Like the first half, he gives readers insight into his views and explains why he thinks certain things are yet other reasons technopoly is becoming predominant.  Postman does a really good job to point out how he feels about medical advances, symbols, and statistics, in particular.  He criticizes Americans for being so reliant on machines, especially when it comes to machines used in the medicinal world.  I understand that it can be seen as lazy or even brainless, but when it comes down to it, I do not see a problem with this as long as this technology is serving to help people and change people’s lives.  Postman also believes that we are forgetting the significance of symbols, tradition and myth, and that they must fight to stay recognized and keep their meaning.  I believe that technology has only furthered our curiosity and with information and instruments so easily available, we are able and more willing to look up and find more things out about these symbols and tradition which hold such value in our culture.

Another one bothersome of Postman’s is that society is infatuated with statistics and numbers.  He explains how everything can be turned and broken down into data.  Now, even intelligence can be determined by a set of numbers.  Postman views statistics as useless, for the most part.  He claims that the important stuff has become too mixed in with the inadequate.  In many ways, I can see where Postman is going with this argument.  An issue that is arising with technology is information overload.  With new technology comes new information, and too much of it, for that matter.  There is so much information to go through to find what we are really looking for.  Although I found Postman to come across as rather insistent and adamant, he raises some good points.  Postman believes that people hold computers in very high esteem and they need to take a step back.  Technology has been put on a pedestal, and for a very good reason.  It has been able to figure things out in minutes that would take humans days. 

It’s hard to realize the risks when there are so many great opportunities that coincide with using the internet, but Postman’s work has opened my eyes to the evil side of technology and helped me raise some questions of my own.  Society, especially this generation, relies so much on the internet, so what would happen if it crashes?  We have becomes extremely accustomed to and comfortable with using technology as a part of our daily lives, it is hard to imagine life without it.

Are we being overexposed?  Though it is our choice, technology can be blamed for the lack of privacy nowadays.  Whether we put it up there ourselves or not, there is a significant amount of readily available personal information on the internet.  This creates a somewhat daunting and potentially dangerous view of technology.

Also, could new technologies be making us less patient?  With easy access and in minimal time, we are able to gain so much new knowledge.  I think this generation’s attention spans are beginning to decrease.  Patience was needed for dial-up when using AOL.  Now, I find myself getting frustrated when I webpage takes longer than 10 seconds to load.  This generation has become all too familiar with the term “multi-tasking”.  As new forms of media emerge, we quickly adjust to using them along with what we already have.

What effect are social networks, emailing, texting and instant messaging having on face to face communication?  It now seems close to impossible to get in touch with someone without having access to these technologies, but it was clearly done before these inventions.  Facial expressions are being replaced by emoticons.  Feelings are portrayed through the amount of exclamation points one uses.  Building relationships is given a whole new definition.

Postman sees technology as dominating our behaviors and trusts that our captivation with technology making it too easy to become lost.  But Postman has given readers solutions to prevent of from succumbing to technology.  He believes that we must remain aware of these changes but also not taking them too seriously.  He requests that educators continue to instill learning of all areas, and that we should not take things for granted.  While I agree with Postman, in some sense, while still recognizing society’s achievements. We are given these tools and we need to utilize them.  Although I do not think that society has become subservient to technology, as Postman does, I do believe technology does have its downfalls.  But evidently, as times change, we must adapt.

P.S.

I recently discovered myself caught in the trap of an algorithm.  Recently, I was browsing through a selection of boots to buy.  I did not think anything of this, nor did I realize that this would have an effect on my screen’s sidebars for the rest of the day.  On almost every single website I visited after that, black boots, similar to the ones I was interested in purchasing, discretely appeared.  Although I have heard of using algorithms for sites such as Pandora, I have never thought of using them as a way to facilitate advertising and marketing.  This concept is very fascinating, but brilliant.  I like when choices are made for me.  I like that my computer can recognize my likes and dislikes.  I do not believe it hinders my creativity, but enhances it. Algorithms give the opportunity to explore things one may have never been able to discover before.