Moving with the Future

JOMC 240:  Issues in Mass Communication- a course that should be titled "Media Disruption".  From class discussion to lectures from the great Professor John Robinson to researching for blog topics, I learned that the media around us is in a state of disruption.  Within this broad category, I learned about the past, present, and future of media disruption and about both the beneficial and negative consequences that these changes in mass communication and technology will have on my life.

Out of all this "media chatter," I think that one quote that Professor Robinson shared with us on the last day of class really sums up the most relevant and meaningful thing I learned this semester: "I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it's been."  Spoken by the famous Wayne Gretzky, this quote really highlights the action that we should take in our current state of media disruption.

The puck represents mass communication and tools of mass communication.  They are constantly moving and changing direction.  Technology has generated stronger players in the world of mass communication, causing the puck to accelerate and turn at even faster paces.  This puck has always been moving, but today its speed is faster than ever before, making our ability to keep up harder and harder.

Although we cannot predict the future, JOMC 240 taught me that we can try and that it is important to always skate towards where we think the puck is going.  Not only can it be helpful in both our personal and professional lives to know the puck's next move, but it is really interesting to think about where media is going and where it has been. 

I have reflected on the days of AIM, AM Radio, and the primitive stages of twitter and e-mail and have shared my opinions on the future of virtual reality, online identity, wearable technology, and even jeans! Through this, I learned that mass communication has always been conditioned to change, and its tools have been continuously replaced with new ones.  

The bottom line is that, currently, a strong wind of this change and disruption is upon us.  Today's change, just as change in the past, will be met with hostility and disapproval from many.  For example, Google Glass has fostered criticism from those who find them intrusive and ostentatious.  We often overlook all of the good that comes from the new, because we are fixated on the potential negatives. 

With that said, seemingly futuristic modes of communication are a reality, and we have to learn to move past the fear of the unfamiliar to take advantage of the benefits that these new tools can bring us.  Google Glass has opened major doors for the future of wearable technology and has proved valuable in several situations, like aiding individuals with visual impairments and providing opportunities for young patients in a children's hospital.

Each new development connects us further and quicker- creating a new identity for ourselves in the online world of communication.  While we should accept these new developments and use them for connecting, communicating, and bettering ourselves and society, at the same time, it is crucial to be aware of and educated on the implications that new forms of mass communication and technology will have on our brains, relationships, and personal security.

Mass communication extends into every part of our personal and professional lives, and, like with any thing that bears a heavy impact on our lives, we need to be fully educated on both its positive and negative effects.  We must keep up with the puck, while knowing its position the best that we can.

What's a Video Phone?

Today, we have several means through which we can communicate with others via video.  To name just a few, there's Skype, FaceTime, and SnapChat.  The company that I work for even has video calling tools in their personal software.  Video communication is all around us, and we use it all of the time.  It is easy to forget that video chatting is a fairly new universal development... or is it?  

Well.. the video chatting that we use today is a contemporary concept, but video communication has been around - or at least thought of - since the late nineteenth century.  However, it wasn't until the mid-1900's when the first video calling device was released for the public's use.  When I first heard about its existence, I was shocked.  But after reading this Mashable article that described it is a "historical failure," I wasn't surprised in the least that I never had heard of it before.

Fifty years ago today, Americans got the opportunity to make their first video telephone call.  The device, Bell's Model One PicturePhone, consisted of a black and white screen and required callers to remain completely motionless in order to see each other on the other end.

If the PicturePhone was released in the 50's, then why did it take so long for video calling to become a universal phenomenon?  The mashable article explains one answer:  "At $16 for three minutes, your up-to-15 minute video call could cost as much as $80 - the equivalent of $610 in 2014 dollars." But despite its costly use and unpopularity, companies continued to produce new and updated versions of the device for over forty years.

I have to agree with Mashable when it credits its downfall to "the need to buy not one, but two dedicated pieces of equipment."  If you wanted to make a video call, the receiver also had to own a PicturePhone to connect with you.   Because video calling was confined to one specific device, it ultimately failed.

What flipped the switch was the advent of the Internet and internet-enabled devices.  Practically anyone who is likely to make video calls owns a computer, cell phone, or other device that allows them to do so.  And, the calls are practically free.  

The story of the videophone makes me think that without the internet, we could still be limited to a specific device for video chatting.  Also, I wonder what the video chatting of today would look like if the 1956 PicturePhone had been commonly used in society.  If they could have made it smaller and more affordable, with higher quality, then maybe we would still be using the PicturePhone- or some version of it- today.  

It's crazy to think how far we have come in the world of video communication.  But it's also interesting to take a step back and actually see all of the places that we have been. 

Keep the Comments

Blog posts and articles posted online open doors for commentary and criticism from readers.  Some of these responses are harmless comments, while some are spam or promotions for another company or product.  Some even result in hurtful attacks and bullying. For example, from Kristin's stolen identity story, you can see an account of some negative responses from within the community.

These nasty and sometimes pointless comments can build up and potentially ruin the intent or legitimacy of the original post.  We're often told to ignore the negative feedback that may come from others, and some people even suggest that there should be an option to close a comments section altogether.

However, I think that regardless of the comments that are made, a comment section adds value to a blog.  It creates a conversation (or an opportunity for a conversation) between the author and the reader.  The poster can make their argument, and the option to comment leaves the reader with a chance to refute, critique, or even add to the claims that the poster made.

Whenever I read a blog that has left me curious for more information or for a different viewpoint, I immediately scroll down to see if there are any comments.  Even though I often have to sift through the ignorant responses and the spam messages promising me a new job, the comment section rarely ever fails to provide me with further insight on the topic.  Sometimes it even proves to be pretty entertaining.

SocialMedia Today agrees with me on keeping the convo open, and goes further to discuss the importance of comments for brands.  It suggests controlling the offensive remarks through "outside moderators" and making sure to engage on social media to continue a conversation.

Even if the comment section does not actually start a conversation between the reader and the poster, I think that it is important that a comment section exists.  It creates a more inviting and open environment within a blog, which, to me, is one of the coolest parts of blogs in the first place.  They're not a news article or definite information source.  They give readers an individual's personal opinions and thoughts on real topics and events.  Their subjective nature is furthered through their supplemental comments and makes them more interesting than a typical news article online.

Although they may sometimes be pointless, negative, or just downright mean, comments should not be eliminated from blogs and online posts.  Sometimes we must ignore the hurtful commentary to have the opportunity to benefit from the valuable outlooks of readers.  Perhaps tools will be created that eliminate comments of spam or irrelevance and sort the good comments from the bad.  But until then, we just need to learn to suck it up and see the potential value that readers can add to any post.

(Feel free to add your own comments below)

The Ancient Times of AIM

In discussing more recent disruption in mass communication tools, we tend to focus on Myspace, Vine, and even the newspaper.  But we have overlooked one of the greatest communication innovations of our time.. or my time at least.. AOL Instant Messaging.  Better known as AIM- pronounced A.I.M. or 'aim' if you're feeling really hip.  

In the days of screen names, away messages, and buddy lists, AIM started and took over the instant messaging world.  Under the super cool screen names of "billabongbaby" and "dancinqt94," I would spend hours each day on AIM, chatting with friends (sometimes even robots) and updating my profile.

AIM was the main medium through which I communicated with others, and I spent the majority of my free time there.  But looking back, I cannot pinpoint what caused me to stop using the instant messaging device and when AIM really started to disappear. Luckily, Mashable posted an article about the "rise and fall of AIM" that provides readers with a detailed history of the messenger.  I'll summarize their explanation...

In the 1990's, AOL became the dominant internet service provider in America, and users paid a monthly subscription fee to use it.  One of its first features was being able to request to see if a certain user was online.  As more and more people used AOL, and more and more people began trying to check if someone was online at once, crashes occurred more frequently, and the buddy list was born.  The buddy list allowed users to see who and who was not online at the time, without having to specifically request knowing their status. 

Shortly after the buddy list, AOL switched its subscription fee from an hourly rate to a flat fee for users. The flat flee fueled the more frequent presence of users online, and soon the service experienced further crashes within its messaging systems.  A small team of AOL employees knew that something had to be done.. that a messenger tool needed to be created outside of the "garden walls" of the AOL system.

Behind the backs of AOL executives, the team produced AIM.  They showed their final product to AOL, but the company, who charged subscription fees to members, was not pleased with the fact that a major tool of AOL would be provided for free.  However, the messenger was released, without the support of the executives.

AIM was met with early success, and the struggle of "AIM versus AOL" emerged.  "Every single executive wanted to shut it down and kill it."  But AIM continued to flourish and soon expanded to 18 million users. 

A great tool amongst employees in the workplace, "AIM became how all of Wall Street communicated," and at that point, there was no killing it.  Some of the features that developed, many of them slipping past AOL, were warnings, the away message- labeled as a "corporate need"- and buddy icons. Later, more advanced developments were made with mobile chat and the voice call. These later developments were far ahead of any other communication tool, and AIM could be said to be almost before its time.

As AOL continued to express their lack of support for the messenger, AIM pushed to monetize itself through advertisements.  However, they never ended up spending money on any outside ads and only ran promotions for AOL.  Perhaps with funding through outside advertising, AIM could have continued to make further developments.

Another factor that contributed to its stagnancy in development was its refusal to work with third party developers.  Outside companies wanted to create their own features for the messenger, but AIM rejected their ideas, because they were adamant about creating their own.  Soon other messenger tools and social media applications arose, and AIM began to fall behind and become the "ghost town" that it is today.

It is crazy to think of the success of AIM, when it lacked major support from AOL.  Perhaps if AOL would have worked to monetize the tool, take advertising opportunities, and allow outside developers to intervene, AIM could have been one of the first big names in social media.  The story of AIM tells of the importance of monetization and of constant disruption of communication tools by the rise of new ones.

I personally think that my disconnect with AIM must have been a result of the acceptance of texting and Myspace.  Texting allowed users to be more mobile, and Myspace encouraged more personalized profiles, opened conversations, and sharing of thoughts and comments.  

Despite its shortcomings, AIM will not only be a valuable part of my childhood and early teen years, but it will be a valuable step in the history of progress of communication technology.  Just think of all of the social media and communication applications that incorporate an instant messenger that reflects the original AIM in some way.  From the days of 'billabongbaby' to today's Facebook, we continue to feel the AIM legacy that the instant messenger left behind.

For some further reminiscing about AIM, I suggest reading this Buzzfeed article on "The 15 Away Messages You Definitely had Growing Up."

GoogleLenses

Wearables have taken over the world of technological innovation.  From the Nike Fuel Band to smart watches, wearable tech devices are popping up everywhere.  Perhaps the most popular of these new devices is Google Glass- you can read some of my opinions of the glasses here and here. 

Met with much criticism, Google Glass is a huge step in the future of wearables and just recently, Google has taken this visual computing concept one step further...

Google has patented tiny cameras that can be embedded in contact lenses.  These cameras can be used for both personal photo and video-capturing endeavors and as a visual assistive device.  However, it is easy to predict the hostility towards the lenses after examining the backlash to the release of Google Glass.

While the lenses would protect wearers from the assault that some Glass users have experienced, they will surely fuel skepticism in many non-wearers because of their secret intrusive nature.  People who fear being recorded by Google Glass without their knowledge will now not even know if a peer is wearing the lenses.

Initially, this seems a little creepy.. But when focusing on the "surveillance environment" that the universal acceptance of these lenses could create, it is easy to overlook the implications that this development will have on individuals with visual impairments and on the future development of contact lenses.

For example, Google recently released news about contact lenses that would monitor blood glucose levels of diabetics.  This has huge benefits for people who live with diabetes, and it is important to acknowledge the benefits that the camera lenses will have for those who are blind or visually impaired.

The contact lenses operate through blinking patterns and have wireless capabilities that allow them to communicate with a wearer's smartphone.  They could spot obstacles in a users line of vision and alert them of any dangers or obstructions.  To me, the coolest function of the lenses is their potential for face recognition.  The Week says, "the system will also be able to detect faces, helping the blind to recognize people they know."

I think the lenses are awesome, and if they gain traction in society, they will significantly help individuals with visual impairments and will lead to further advancements in the realm of visual computing.  Perhaps one day (maybe very soon), our contacts will have the entire computing capabilities of Google Glass.  

It's time to notice the extreme benefits of wearable devices.  Sometimes we need to ignore the potential unfamiliarity and fear of new tech and realize its more important advantages.


Further reading : http://techcrunch.com/2014/04/14/google-patents-tiny-cameras-embedded-in-contact-lenses/

Telecommuting Troubles

As technological advances have made our society more mobile and connected, we are being driven into an age of telecommuting.  Telecommuting, a term coined by a rocket science at NASA in the seventies, basically means working from home.

Our ability to use technology to communicate in different ways, with different people, and across different mediums has allowed jobs to be taken from the office to the bedroom.  It is strange to think that only forty years ago, working from home wasn't even a common option when choosing a career. And today, most of my friends parents work out of their home offices or at least complete some of their work in a home setting.

The telephone made instant communication possible.  The internet made information more accessible and in-office tasks portable.  And then innovations like Skype and group messaging lead to video conference calls and the ability to communicate with an entire team of staff all the way across the globe.

These tools have sparked an age of telecommuting, which I believe can have both positive and negative implications for companies, individuals, and our world as whole.  

One of the benefits of telecommuting is not having to physically commute to a workplace.  Not only is this convenient for an employee, but it reduces traffic congestion and environmental impact.  Also, a company does not have to limit its hiring process to individuals who live or would live in the area, and employees do not have to move for their career.

Although telecommuting saves time, employee energy, and the environment, telecommuting presents major setbacks for the company that has distributed staff members.  It eliminates the real face-to-face connections that exist in a normal work environment and limits the team-centered atmosphere of a workplace.  

My own experiences with working in an office have revealed the value of working side-by-side with the entire staff.  I work for a wealth management firm, and communication technologies are used in pretty much everything that we do.  Whether its calling clients, distributing an electronic newsletter, emailing home office, or having an appointment with a client over Skype, communication technology is involved in almost every task.

With that said, it would definitely be easy for anyone in the office to work right from home.  But.. being in the same building as everyone else, you see how the team atmosphere is a breeding ground for learning from one another and developing new ideas.  

My favorite part of the week is our Monday team meetings. We come together on Monday afternoons to talk about updates and goals for the week.  Sure, we could have the meeting over Skype, but there is something about having real, face-to-face interactions with all of the staff that adds value to the experience.  I think this mashable article puts it best when describing being in the same room as your co-workers- "you can see facial expressions, you can feel energy in a room."

I think that if telecommuting becomes a reality for most careers and we begin to rely on video conference calls and email as our sole forms of interaction, we will weaken our capability to communicate with others and truly work with a team.  Think of all of the invaluable ideas that have resulted from those "water cooler" conversations that take place in the office.  

While communication technologies have definitely added value to the workplace, they are not a substitution for real-life communication with co-workers.

"On the other hand, consider serendipity. If you put dozens or thousands of creative people under one roof, a few might connect and create something that they wouldn't have thought of if they stayed home in their pajamas." - check out a full article about Mashable's thoughts

Finding the Good in Glass

I think that Clare made an interesting point of focusing on the positive effects of adopting Google Glass in society.  We tend to focus on the unfamiliarity of the device and its use in everyday silly tasks.  We forget what innovations like Google Glass and virtual reality can mean for education, healthcare, and even happiness.

Children's Memorial Hermann Hospital in Houston, Texas is proof that good can come from Glass. The hospital is using the wearables to give young patients the opportunity to take virtual tours of the Houston zoo.  Facetiming with a real zookeeper, they get a full tour of the zoo and get to interact and speak with the keeper about the animals and the facility.

Seeing the smile on the little boy's face in the video was enough to turn me into a Glass supporter.  New technology, like Google Glass or Facebook's Oculus Rift,  can allow patients to temporarily escape from the everyday walls of the hospital.  They could go to a petting zoo, explore a tropical island, or ride a roller coaster, all from the comfort of their own bed.

Virtual reality devices and wearables will surely dominate the future of technology.  It is important that we consider how we can use these new innovations to better society. When you consider their educational value, the temporary escape that they provide, and the excitement on the young patient's face, it seems silly to protest the glasses simply because they are unfamiliar or appear intrusive.