In the final reading from Made to Break, we see how examples of obsolescence can be seen not only regarding physical objects, but also intelligence and skills. The first chapter of this section reminded me of part of a clip that we watched in the beginning of the semester. The clip gave many facts about technology and the impact it is making on our culture, one of them being that after just two years of schooling, your education will be outdated. I found this similar to what Slade was referring to when he discussed how knowledge and skills can now be outdated. New versions of video games, word processor and other applications are being constantly updated, which requires users to be continuously learning how to use these new products. Slade’s discussion of video games proves to be a great example of just how fast these technologies move. At one point, there were so many video games available, consumers were overwhelmed and chose to simply not buy any (221). We are advancing at such a rapid rate, that it is becoming very hard to keep up. As individuals gain more information, products become outdated as new ones are created, and then society is forced to learn to adapt and gain more knowledge on how to utilize these new tools. It is a vicious circle.
Arriving to the second chapter and finding the word “weaponizing” was quite surprising to me. Referring to obsolescence as a weapon is a bold statement and I was unsure as to where Slade was going with this idea, but after reading this scheme that Slade uses as an example, I gained a better understanding and was surprised to see that American society, in some ways, seems to be unchanging. Slade describes how during the Cold War, the U.S. used obsolescence as a tactic to help gain control over the Russians. The U.S. knew that the Russians would try to gain power by taking the technologies that the U.S. had, and so by creating a technology that they knew would purposely fail and hurt the Russians, the U.S. managed to put a short halt to the Russian’s progress. This is clearly a very different type of obsolescence. Although it is not used to make a profit, it is easily seen that obsolescence is used to gain advantage. As mentioned early, we are a culture of instant gratification. This is obviously not the most moral way to gaining an advantage on one’s opponent, but as history shows, American culture is predominantly about doing whatever we can do to get what we want and as fast as possible.
Slade ended his book with the discussion of cell phones becoming our biggest downfall. I definitely found this section to be the most relatable. Personally, I am content with a cell phone if it is able to make and retrieve calls as well as send and receive text messages, but many of my friends feel the need to have the latest and greatest phone that can do much more than their previous device. Now, many cell phone contracts have a “free upgrade” every two years or so. This concept of an “upgrade” makes people feel obligated to get a new cell phone when they don’t even really need one. It seems as if until a change is made and people are informed that their actions are leading to severe consequences, new strategies of planned obsolescence will continue as a theme in American society.
This book definitely had an impact on me and left me thinking what I can do to help save our environment. America’s consumer attitude and approach is harming our not only our country, but countries around the world. We do not realize that technologies are made from things that are extremely harmful to environment, and therefore do not think twice when throwing away our “junk”. Slade is not preaching that we all become environmentalists. Instead, he is giving us a warning. He is helping us recognize what our future holds if we continue to throw away. As technology increases at an exponential rate, so does this problem. There is no more taking care of the problem later as the problem is occurring now, and therefore Slade strongly advises that we consider the repercussions of our actions. Technological breakthroughs are increasing this idea of obsolescence. As culture that is so eager and willing to throw things away, our growing and improving technologies are only making it easier to throw things away. I think we have to consider if a new cell phone is worth harming our planet.
Sunday, November 7, 2010
Sunday, October 31, 2010
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.
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.
Sunday, October 24, 2010
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.
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.
Saturday, October 23, 2010
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
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
Friday, October 22, 2010
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
Sunday, October 17, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)