Smart phones - smart users?

My friend hands me his sleek iPhone. “Ask it something.”

“What should I ask?”

“I don’t know, anything.”

I decide to start with an easy one. 'Who is the President of the United States?' Icons flash and a computerised voice asks me to wait a moment. In a second the display shows a bio of Barack Obama, including the date he was elected and what number President he is. Impressive, but then again an intelligent fifth grader knows who the current President is. I ask a more difficult question: 'What is the distance from the Earth to the Sun?' and am correctly answered straight away. Apparently Siri, Apple’s latest voice-recognition ‘personal assistant’ app, can answer a lot of things. It also seems to cope with questions that contain syntax that isn’t quite so straightforward for a computer. For example, instead of asking ‘Will it rain tomorrow?’ you can ask ‘Will I need an umbrella tomorrow?’ and Siri is sufficiently knowledgeable to understand that ‘umbrella’ in this instance is synonymous with ‘rain’. Siri struggles with some commands, particularly names and references to popular culture (e.g. it can tell you the radius of the Earth but struggles to name the best-selling album of all time) but the app is a testament to both human ingenuity and a nice reminder of how powerful our own brains are.

Siri is one of a number of clever applications designed for the increasingly ubiquitous smart phone. These devices have now outgrown the simple label of ‘mobile phone’, indeed in most cases they have become powerful pocket computers. The term ‘phone’ has effectively become a place-holder word for any device which can make and receive calls and text messages as well as play games and music, browse the internet, hold calendar information and a variety of other apps which ostensibly make life easier. The ability to access the internet, particularly maps, in a variety of settings and situations is a handy feature. In fact it’s hard to remember that as little as six or seven years ago such technology seemed Bond-like. Ah yes, that dark period before iPhones, BlackBerrys and Galaxies, in which cutting edge ‘phone’ technology included Snake II and the ability to compose your own monophonic ringtone. But it’s interesting to wonder: do smart phones really help us?

Consider the culture in which smart phones arose, and indeed, thrive. It’s a society of instant answers, quick gratification and constant connection. Email can easily be synced to a mobile device so that you are effectively contactable 24/7. It’s common practice now for employees to equip staff with company smart phones which can become virtual tethers to the office. Such technology is indeed impressive, but its actual benefit to society is questionable, especially considering some studies suggests that many employees find it harder to separate their work and personal lives thanks to technology making it easier to bring the office home. Smart phone technology isn't limited to office life either, and Facebook and Twitter have evolved their services to become even more mobile friendly, including the incredibly cool and/or incredibly annoying Facebook 'Check-In' feature which ensures everybody knows where you are and who you're with, even if it's "at home with the hubby lol!" Somebody has even shot an entire feature film using a (slightly modified) Nokia N8.

There is also a particularly interesting phenomenon that has surfaced which is worth examining, in which any unknown fact or tidbit that arises in conversation is unceremoniously given the Google (and now Siri) treatment:

“Did you see what happened in New Zealand…wait, who’s their Prime Minister again?”

“Hang on, I’ll check………………(awkward non-conversation point - feel free to check your own messages while the other person does their thing)………………….John Key.”

“Right, so yes, that rugby match I watched last night was in New Zealand, and the All Blacks had made two tries, and…”

Surely this is a good thing. Who wouldn’t want us to arm ourselves with correct information quickly?* It’s worth wondering, however, to what extent this phenomenon is indicative of Generation Y’s (and perhaps indeed humankind’s) penchant for always being right as opposed to our penchant for actually ‘learning’. Many conversations now will be interrupted at least once with such an occurrence, but the necessity of such is often questionable. It merely breeds the culture in which everybody always needs to be right. Smart phones are indeed handy for situations in which the correct information is vital (medical emergencies, heated pub arguments) but often we are left with an increasing number of situations in which smart phones replace human interaction as a means of conveying information. 

A particularly pertinent example happened to me at a restaurant recently: one of the menu items appeared foreign to us and, as most diners do, we endeavoured to find out exactly what it was. However, instead of asking the waiter as would have been the norm in years gone by, a dining companion promptly whipped out his iPhone to find an answer ‘instantly.’ Naturally the waiter returned at that moment, and due to his sense of humour he allowed us to wait for the iPhone to bring back the answer in 45 seconds which he could have provided in ten. Had the waiter not appeared at that moment the iPhone would indeed have won the ‘race’, but I wonder if the answer was so vital that it wasn’t worth waiting a few extra moments. The beauty of asking a waiter is that they might have a personal recommendation, or provide quirky or interesting information which only ten minutes worth of internet searching might provide. It also robs the meal of its customer-waiter interaction, which is an integral part of the dining-out experience. Of course, depending on your waiter, this might be a good thing.

The other phenomenon that smart phones have brought about is the ‘busy hands’ syndrome, in which even the smallest amount of incidental downtime (waiting for a train or a friend) is filled with tinkering around on the device. There are Facebook notifications and emails to check, text messages to write (my personal favourite is writing “I’m here” to the friend you’re meeting which is received by them exactly five seconds after you spot each other), games to play and apps to buy. Apparently we’ve concluded that just because our hands and eyes are busy with an iPhone nobody notices the fact that we’re sitting alone.  I pride myself on my pretentiousness and as such have challenged myself to not using my phone unnecessarily in incidental downtime. This means that sometimes I have to sit at a restaurant table by myself for several minutes, which is indeed a harrowing experience without the safety of the phone. I'm not exactly sure what I'm trying to achieve though, because it must be remembered that before smart phones people busied themselves with books, crosswords and newspapers which suggests that even if everybody left their phone at home we wouldn’t find ourselves in some sort of human social utopia in which everybody hugs and talks to each other on the train instead of updating their status.

I’m not a Luddite (I bet every Luddite says that), but sometimes I do pine for the days before smart phones were everywhere. Of course technology marches on and I can soon see myself wishing for the days of 2011 when the smartest thing your phone could do was talk back to you. In the future when humankind is collectively enslaved under a giant hovering iPhone that has crushed human ingenuity and creativity, please don’t say I didn’t warn you.

*Dictators and encyclopaedia shareholders are two groups that spring to mind. 

Do Not Adjust Your Set

New technology inevitably leaves casualties. The DVD usurped the video tape, just as the CD laid waste to the LP record and the wheel surpassed dragging things. One of the 20th century’s greatest technologies, television, is threatened by the internet – the other great technological innovation of the 20th century. Will people put up with ever-lengthening commercial breaks and strict programming times when they know that they can get what they want usually ad-free and able to be watched at their convenience? The advent of the DVR has already changed behaviour in regards to allowing people to watch shows when they want to. The internet can take this idea a step further, allowing the download of whole seasons of television shows, usually illegally. It is possible that in the future we will see the current programming model overhauled and commercial television as we know it might plausibly cease to exist.

But does commercial television have to be at odds with the internet? TV networks have already wised up to a lot of the digital age trends. News and current affairs programs in particular work well with input from social media sites like Twitter and Facebook, and it is common for TV shows to advertise their Facebook or Twitter accounts and encourage users to give instantaneous feedback on the show they are watching. This direct feedback can then be used to further determine target audiences and content, thereby creating better programming—which benefits the viewer— and more directed advertising, which benefits the network. For example, if a particular news program gets an influx of ‘follows’ or ‘likes’ from predominantly single urban women, then they can tailor their advertising accordingly and reap the benefits. Such information has been available to TV networks in the past, but never at such a rapid rate and arguably with less information than a Facebook or Twitter profile can provide.

As of this writing, commercial television is still going strong. It is a worldwide industry that has a firm grip on billions of dollars of advertising revenue and still has enough cultural currency to infiltrate pop culture.  But behaviour is changing. With a lot of television shows now available online – both legally and illegally – waiting a whole week to catch an episode of your favourite show can become taxing. The problem is exacerbated if you live outside the region where the program is produced; American television can take at least six months to reach Australian shores, if not longer. By the time you are watching the ‘latest episode’ of your favourite American drama in Australia the next season is already being shown in the States. It’s unsurprising then that people turn to downloading shows in order to get their fix rather than depend on the often unreliable network programming.

I’m basing a lot of my observations of TV watching behaviour on myself and my friends, which is a small sample size to say the least. But I think the assumption can be made that as members of Generation Y we are much more susceptible to downloading our favourite shows illegally rather than watch them on commercial television. The legality and implications of such behaviour is a tricky issue, and this post doesn’t intend to delve into the morality of pirated internet content. It can’t be ignored, however, that such behaviour exists, and especially that for many people of Generation Y it is generally seen as acceptable.

However, there is still a sizeable market of the older generations who might not do the same and therefore keeps the current model of network television—with its pre-determined programming times and set commercial breaks—viable. The most watched shows in Australia are those which present family situations and domestic life (think Masterchef, The Block, Home and Away, etc.) and therefore are relatable to a large percentage of the population, and not just 20-something students with laptops and University bandwidth at their disposal.

Furthermore, the current model of legal internet programming offered by the networks can be confusing, and at times just as limited as conventional programming. A myriad of ‘online television’ options provided by commercial networks exist, but these range from ‘catch-up’ services of already aired content (usually available only for a certain time), or ‘live streaming’ content which means that viewers still adhere to conventional programming schedules. If you want the liberty of being able to legally watch whole episodes of previous seasons whenever you want, expect to pay for it. And this money generally goes right back into the pockets of the networks. The Hulu service in the United States, which streams shows from ABC, NBC and FOX, pays 50 to 70 percent of revenue generated (primarily from advertising) back to the networks. Don’t expect this sort of arrangement to change any time in the near future. Naturally, television networks want to create a profit, that’s why they have to safeguard their productions and ensure to the best of their ability that they don’t lose money due to piracy.

The relative success of services such as Hulu demonstrates that a market does exist for people who want to watch TV online and pay for it. But how long will that market last? For while there still exists generations who have not been exposed to illegally downloading television shows the reality is that in the future all generations will have lived in a time when such an option has always been available. The technology exists for people to create pirated television shows – and unlike television networks, pirates do not charge for their services because they don’t stand to lose money from doing so. It is reasonable to assume that some pirates believe that they are doing a public good – a modern day Robin Hood, if you will, by taking content from the rich and providing it to the poor.

As mentioned previously, I don’t want to get into the rights and wrongs of online piracy. What I am interested in, however, is the direction that television will take in the future. A pertinent comparison to make would be the music industry, which has been threatened by the rise of the internet and peer to peer sites, and has accordingly had to change its mode of operation, with large stores like iTunes perhaps providing the musical equivalent of a service like Hulu.

So what happens when our society is made up solely of those people who know how (or know somebody who knows a guy who knows how) to obtain content for free? Will illegally downloading television content in its entirety become so common that TV networks are forced to concede defeat? Or will there always be a section of society who shuns online piracy and instead relies on the services that the commercial networks provide? Perhaps we could see an end to conventional television programming as networks no longer have the finances to fund new productions. We might forever be stuck watching re-runs of Two and a Half-Men, while wistfully remembering the good old days where we had access to new television shows, even if they did arrive six months late.

Google+

It's that time of year when a multi-billion dollar information technology company makes its annual foray into the mysterious world of social networking. Last year we watched Apple's musically-oriented Ping never quite get off the ground, and at various times over the years we've had MySpace try to reinvent itself and Microsoft promise that they've got a social networking revolution in the pipeline. Google has tried once before to enter the social networking arena with their ill-fated Buzz platform, but this time has vowed not to make the same mistakes and is attempting to really shake things up with Google+.

‘Thank God,’ I hear you say, ‘that somebody has finally realised that what the world needs is a huge integrated online network which allows me to share things with my friends.’ Although their idea isn’t exactly revolutionary, Google needs to break into the social networking scene because, as Facebook has demonstrated, there is a huge market for advertising when people voluntarily give up information such as where they live, where they like to travel and what they like to eat, watch, read and listen to. Advertising revenue is the oil which greases the Google cogs, and if they could tap in to even half of Facebook’s vast membership then it's mission accomplished and caviar baths for all.

First things first: the name. I can't decide if I love it or hate it. I think the main problem I have with 'Google+' is its dullness coupled with its ambiguity. Facebook is a great name because it escapes ambiguity by being essentially what it promotes itself to be: an extension of a physical college facebook (never mind the fact that most of the world outside North America probably had no idea what a 'facebook' was pre-2005; FB’s popularity in the US was so well established that it didn't matter anymore).  MySpace is another example of a solid name which pretty quickly tells you what you have in store. Twitter also escapes name criticism because although the name is ambiguous it is interesting enough to contemplate. 

Conversely, 'Google+' looks like the name of 1970s Soviet software that was specifically programmed to sort and rank south-Ukranian wheat stocks. The name doesn't really offer you anything exciting. ‘Google’ may well have been an intriguing word that garnered interest in 1998 but the company has been so successful that it is blasé now.  The 'Plus' tells you precisely nothing about what the product is or does, except for a vague notion that it may enhance your life (or your wheat inventory). The thing it has going for it is the fact that it clearly tells you that it’s a Google initiative, and Google is a good, strong brand. And, granted, it is marginally better than ‘Buzz’, which perhaps started the 2010 trend of giving social networking start-ups moronic monosyllabic monikers.

Let's skip past the rigours of getting an invite* (which is becoming easier by the day) and take a look around. Looks eerily familiar, doesn’t it? The page layout is, rather unimaginatively, essentially a Facebook clone:

Click for larger image

Can you blame them? Why not try and emulate a service that has a quarter of a billion regular users? Using a Facebook style layout means that people are already familiar with the system and can dive right into using Plus. For example, the ‘Like’ button has become the ‘+1’ button, so whenever you see something that appeals to you, you can hit the +1 and declare your approval publicly. 

But why design a social network clone of Facebook if you want people to move from FB onto your service? It gives people no incentive to make the switch, because all you get is Facebook with Google’s logo plastered all over it. The argument that you have to stick with something that people are familiar to doesn’t necessarily hold up either, as when FB started getting big it looked markedly different from MySpace profiles, which was its biggest competitor at the time. Budgetary issues surely wouldn’t have been a big concern for Google; perhaps they could have paid their programmers to come up with something a bit more revolutionary. However, Plus can’t be faulted in terms of usability, every action is fairly intuitive and there are quite a few keyboard shortcuts which can be mastered to save time.

 

One of the first things I noticed about Plus when filling out your profile information was that Google lets you update the privacy settings for each piece of information that you edit. This makes it really easy to quickly set up a level of profile privacy that you’re happy with, without having to venture to a ‘Privacy’ tab and try and work out which setting will affect which piece of info. This is not to say that Google’s privacy ‘settings’ are actually any better or more secure than Facebook (which are quite comprehensive, once you find them) but they are much more user friendly.

  

Circles

Plus’s big selling point is its ‘Circles’ feature, in which you can separate your friends into groups which reflect real life networks. No longer do you have to fear your boss or your mother getting hold of that photo of you riding a tricycle through the zoo in the nude after a night on the turps, because with Circles you can be choosy about who you share certain things with. Furthermore, it provides you with an opportunity to ‘Follow’ certain people without them needing to add you to a Circle, which makes Plus a hybrid between Twitter and Facebook. Circles brings us closer to needing only one networking account that you can use for both business and social contacts. 

The concept is not quite as revolutionary as Google would like to have you believe, for similar features exist on Twitter and Facebook (‘Lists’) and the smaller social networking experiment Diaspora, whose ‘Aspects’ feature seems to work in the same way as Circles does.  Although Plus isn’t the first social network to provide a contact sorting feature, Circles appears to be the best attempt at it so far. I tried to organise my Twitter followers into lists the other day and died of boredom after adding four contacts. On Twitter it takes at least three clicks just to add someone to a list. Plus lets you add somebody to a Circle in one.

Hangouts

One feature I haven’t had much time to test is the Hangout feature, which lets you connect via webcam with a group of up to 10 people. I’m unsure if this will be a big drawing card to the service. One of the advantages of social networking meant that you could interact with your friends without having to get out of your pyjamas or shave or wear pants. As soon as you bring a webcam into the mix, normal social rules apply. While I’m sure some people will make the most of Hangouts (travelling family members, business meetings) I can’t imagine it becoming used as regularly as simple online chat. Now watch as I’m proven wrong and a social networking revolution occurs in which everybody starts interacting via vidphone as promised in every sci-fi book and film created from 1948 to 1994.

  

Sparks

The other feature worth noting on Plus is the ‘Sparks’ feed, which lets you subscribe to a news feed (provided by Google search) of things you’re interested in. For example, I made a Sparks page on the Space Shuttle, and so whenever I visit that page I get up to date news, pictures and videos about the final Space Shuttle flight. It’s kind of handy, but anything more obscure than ‘Space Shuttle’ or ‘White House’ tends to return a pretty eclectic collection of ‘news’. I tried Sparks with the Melbourne Football Club and got a variety of out of date news and a bunch of articles that mention the MFC in passing. No doubt Sparks is something that will improve once the field trials are completed but if Google really wanted to impress people it should have made this feature a bit more intuitive.

So, aside from worldwide social domination and filling their coffers to the brim, what are Google trying to achieve with Plus? Here’s what they claim:

‘The Google+ Project makes sharing on the web more like sharing in the real world.’

Google have taken an interesting focus with Plus. Whereas Facebook has historically been based on connecting with people, Google have identified sharing information as being the most critical feature of social networking. Plus is geared towards the dissemination of information: the status box asks you to ‘Share what’s new’, as opposed to FB’s ‘What’s on your mind?’ The focus on sharing equates to Google trying to design a product which incorporates the features of other sites like Twitter and Digg with social sites like Facebook and MySpace. Google’s ultimate aim is for Plus to become your networking hub, whether it is professional or social. As in the real world, you’re probably not going to ‘share’ photos of your weekend away with your boss, just like you wouldn’t share last month’s data entry reports with your loved ones. The Circles feature means that this is now possible, and in this regard Google certainly have made it easier to share information between different parties as it would occur in the ‘real world.’ 

Whether or not people will find the service useful enough to abandon Facebook and Twitter is another matter, and the only way I can see Plus being truly successful is if they become the only social networking site that people use. Facebook and Twitter are different enough that people will quite happily use both, but I find it hard to imagine someone using Facebook, Twitter and Plus regularly. One of them would have to give, and history suggests it will be the new kid on the block.

The problem with Plus is that it is evolutionary rather than revolutionary. There is nothing different or useful enough on Plus to entice people away from their established presence on Facebook and Twitter. Google’s attempt to create a networking hybrid seems to have come up with an acceptable half-breed that lets you do some nifty – but ultimately pointless – things.

Of course, if we’re honest, that's essentially the whole concept behind social networking anyway.

*Thanks to Kim, who sent me my Plus invite.

the Goody Bag™ Vol. II

Welcome to the Goody Bag, where collective thoughts of online absurdity come to meet each other, have a drink, go home together and then never speak again.

Buy a piece of the moon!

I’ve seen some internet scams in my time, but this is one of the more ingenious ones I’ve come across. Ever feel that terrestrial land prices are too high? Why not consider the Moon? After all, it’s practically inevitable that we’re going to run out of room down here on Earth, so why not be prepared and start developing your Sea of Tranquility-side property now? You’ve probably only got about thirty years until the inevitable gentrification begins and you’ll have to start looking further afield towards Mars or Asteroid 3455 to escape the space-yuppies.

Lunar real-estate agents like Dennis Hope have made a living out of selling randomly allocated lunar acreage. Before you part with your hard earned, please keep in mind the Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies which is a really long way of saying you can’t place dibs on the moon or any other planet. Sadly, I get the feeling that the people who sell extraterrestrial lunar estate are probably the same people who ignore internationally recognised treaties. You’re effectively paying $20 for a piece of paper, which probably costs about 0.01c to manufacture, and about a buck to mail. Ahh, the internet: where capitalism and human stupidity are finally brought together to make sweet, passionate love (and large profits).

Google+

There is a lot of hype surrounding the launch of Google’s social networking website. Reports of the site crashing because of popularity seem impressive, but really, surely the creators knew that they were going to go over capacity? I find it hard to believe that Google could run out of server space. It was marketing genius, however, by making the product look so popular that it can’t handle the overhyped demand. People were so keen to get onto the service that inevitably somebody noted that there was a market for it and started selling invites on eBay. For the record, I managed to score an invite, and will be doing a more comprehensive write up in the coming weeks.

Tabbed browsing

Every now and then something is invented which revolutionises behaviour. Fire, the wheel, telephones, aeroplanes, even the internet itself are all examples. But sometimes it's the little inventions that can have profound impacts, like tabbed internet browsing. I'm not really sure where it came from. I'm not quite sure when I started using it. But I'm pretty sure that now I couldn't live without it. Can you imagine having to open a new window every time you see something that catches your eye, or trying to remember all the links that you wanted to click on? As far as I can tell, there is no limit in Chrome as to how many tabs you can have open. You are only limited by the size of the internet itself, and your CPU. With Google Chrome and a powerful enough processor I theoretically would be able to have every single internet page open in a single browser window. I have no idea what sort of useful function this would serve. But its nice to know its possible.

The Father, Son and the Holy Tweet

I was very excited when I heard that the Pope had launched his Twitter account. I was expecting digital salvation to finally become a reality and was somewhat disappointed when I found that the ‘Pope’s account’ was merely a ‘news portal’ for the Vatican, with someone pretending to  be the Holy Father giving an obligatory tweet every month or so. The rest of the posts are just Vatican PR spam.

In a similar vein, following the US Secret Service on Twitter is not as fun as it sounds either. They give no cool insights into how to jump in front of a bullet in slow motion, but rather report on the danger of fraud and identity theft schemes. To top it off, the USSS aren’t even ‘following’ anybody. Way to be a selfish Twitter user. Of course that’s probably a good thing; because when the day comes that I’m ‘followed’ by an international anti-crime organisation I’ll probably transform into a paranoid maniac and try and burn down the Twitter servers. Or the Pentagon.*


And finally...

I could attempt to write thousands of words on how the internet has changed our lives but I think this picture sums it up nicely. A pile of brand new phonebooks sit untouched in the foyer of my apartment building, not even worth the paper they're printed on. 

*If the USSS weren’t following me before, they definitely are now.