The internet of things, the technological utopia. Whatever you call it, it's on its way and no one can stop it. As more and more devices are being entered into cyberspace it is a matter of time before every last thing in your room, outside your room and everything in between will be entering some sore to data into the internet. Although, since this is still in the implementation stage all we can do is speculate how this will benefit us and what the consequences will be.
Lets begin with benefits and they are easy to see. As more things are linked to a network, information on that thing is easily accessible and can be monitored at any time. Even the most inanimate things can hold great deals of useful information. If everything was linked to one network, nothing would get lost, ever. If looking for keys a quick internet search could come back saying: Sock, Shirt and table have all seen keys and they are currently in that location. Instantly i would know that my keys are in my pile of clothes near my table, and just like that my need to think becomes redundant.
With that last point it neatly brings me in to consequences. The first one being that the need to assess any situation or any problem would become redundant. The constant stream of information would mean that we would be demoted to merely following orders than to make individual decisions. Instead of knowing i need new shoes by how they look and feel, i would wait for a message from the shoes to tell me to buy more, until that time they must be fine. Also their is no guarantee that this constant feed of information would go specifically to me. There would be nothing stopping Nike from impleneting this technology so that they would discover every Nike customer's walking habits and adapt their products to suit you i.e. they are watching everything you do. Lastly i cant end this last blog without voicing the potential of a 2001 a Space Odyssey scenario. For those who don't understand click here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kkyUMmNl4hk. I fear the last words I would hear are "I'm sorry Chris, I'm afraid I can't do that"
Monday, 31 October 2011
Sunday, 30 October 2011
Week 12
In the past we have had Coca Cola vs Pepsi, McDonalds vs Burger King, Woolworths vs Coles and many other duopolistic battles. The new craze for this modern age: smartphones aka Apple vs Google. Gone with the days of the dominance of Nokia over the mobile communications industry, now it is merely a whisper of what it used to be. The focus has now changed from hardware to software or more specifically operating software. This battle is unlike the previously mentioned battles they consisted of two very similar companies offering very similar products with subtle differences. This time Apple and Google are two very different companies with different strategies and philosophies offering two extremely different products.
Ted's lecture ended with the focus on freedom vs comfort. When put in these words it is easy to assume that people would choose to be free over being controlled given any situation. However, not every phone user can fully understand the capabilities and the functions that the phone possess nor can they keep up with constant updates. Using a personal experience as an example, my mother recently purchased a new LG phone with Android technology. She is not tech savy in the slightest and has hence given up using the phone. The reason being that since Android is apart of Google, the phone did not come with any clear instructions as to how to use it, in her eyes the more options make it more complicated. Of course she is not alone which is why many people have invested in Apple's Iphone. Since there is no option as to how to use it, instructions can be very clear and people can learn how to use it knowing there is no alternative.
In my opinion, Apple's days are numbered as they will be swallowed up by competitors. There are three reasons behind this statement. Firstly, Apple software is produced solely by Apple and controlled by Apple. Any apps are bought on the Apple App Store and music can be bought from Apple Itunes, i think you can see a trend here. With such a narrow focus customers are restricted to anything Apple. However Android is produced by Google and sold by Samsung, LG, HTC etc. This amount products in the market mean Android phones easily outnumber Apple phones and offer greater freedoms. Secondly, Apple's breakthrough was by its 'revolutionary' technology. This technology spent years in research and development in the Apple garage. With so many competitors using Android, every one of those competitors has a R&D department, put them together and Apple looks miniscule. Lastly, Apple is predominately a fashion statement. The same with any fashion statement after a while people lose interest and before you know it will be a piece of history.
Ted's lecture ended with the focus on freedom vs comfort. When put in these words it is easy to assume that people would choose to be free over being controlled given any situation. However, not every phone user can fully understand the capabilities and the functions that the phone possess nor can they keep up with constant updates. Using a personal experience as an example, my mother recently purchased a new LG phone with Android technology. She is not tech savy in the slightest and has hence given up using the phone. The reason being that since Android is apart of Google, the phone did not come with any clear instructions as to how to use it, in her eyes the more options make it more complicated. Of course she is not alone which is why many people have invested in Apple's Iphone. Since there is no option as to how to use it, instructions can be very clear and people can learn how to use it knowing there is no alternative.
In my opinion, Apple's days are numbered as they will be swallowed up by competitors. There are three reasons behind this statement. Firstly, Apple software is produced solely by Apple and controlled by Apple. Any apps are bought on the Apple App Store and music can be bought from Apple Itunes, i think you can see a trend here. With such a narrow focus customers are restricted to anything Apple. However Android is produced by Google and sold by Samsung, LG, HTC etc. This amount products in the market mean Android phones easily outnumber Apple phones and offer greater freedoms. Secondly, Apple's breakthrough was by its 'revolutionary' technology. This technology spent years in research and development in the Apple garage. With so many competitors using Android, every one of those competitors has a R&D department, put them together and Apple looks miniscule. Lastly, Apple is predominately a fashion statement. The same with any fashion statement after a while people lose interest and before you know it will be a piece of history.
Week 11
Twitter and Facebook have been proven to be more than just sites to talk to friends, to invite people to parties and to grow digital crops. These social media sites have proved to be quintessential communication mediums of the new decade. Volume of people using these systems and the speed at which they operate is unlike any other communication format ever seen before. Henceforth it wasn't long before people were able utilize these sites and use them to spread awareness for certain causes. As we have seen in the Arab Spring no less than 17 different countries holding protests against their current government, many of those admitted to using social media websites to drum up support hence creating a Twitter Revolution.
Of course giving all the credit to these sites would be wrong and foolish. These demonstrations were created by people with ideas and beliefs who spread their message and create a following. Without the instigators and their followers the revolutions would not have had as near an impact and would have failed to be successful. However at the same time, the use of Twitters #tag and Facebook's event creation meant that all demographic factors could be overcome. Anyone of any age, any race, any religion living anywhere was able to see this message and choose to support it, ignore it or help spread it.
The Arab spring would not have succeeded in places like Egypt and Libya without people power. The sheer number of people willing to stand up for what they believed in was the reason that these protests were successful. Social media sites contributed dramatically to this cause yet credit can not be given to this technology. Credit is given to every person who walked the streets calling for improvements to their nation.
Of course giving all the credit to these sites would be wrong and foolish. These demonstrations were created by people with ideas and beliefs who spread their message and create a following. Without the instigators and their followers the revolutions would not have had as near an impact and would have failed to be successful. However at the same time, the use of Twitters #tag and Facebook's event creation meant that all demographic factors could be overcome. Anyone of any age, any race, any religion living anywhere was able to see this message and choose to support it, ignore it or help spread it.
The Arab spring would not have succeeded in places like Egypt and Libya without people power. The sheer number of people willing to stand up for what they believed in was the reason that these protests were successful. Social media sites contributed dramatically to this cause yet credit can not be given to this technology. Credit is given to every person who walked the streets calling for improvements to their nation.
Friday, 21 October 2011
Week 9
The picture that springs to mind when the word Hackers is mentioned would be a geeky mid 20s guy with nothing but bad intentions. However is this a inaccurate interpretation of a hacker. we have seen that in fact hackers can be used for good and even help fight crime (literally). With constant threats of viruses, Trojans, worms, malware and various other things that can potentially take over and destroy your computer, it is easy to forget that hackers can and actually do work to help us.
White flag hackers have been around just as long as black flag hackers and are just as effective. Many hackers have a full time career helping companies set up networks and systems that are fully protected and cannot be hacked. how do they do this? By actually hacking into the system to start with, which kind of makes sense when you think about it. However these skills can be used against systems albeit in a positive way. Take anonymous for example. Although this group is highly controversial and have been blamed for hacking into well known systems, it is a way of making a protest. Looking at the groups targets: Sony, Facebook and Amazon, each one of these companies were targeted due to the way in which they treated their users and the user's details. A normal protest would consist of hundreds or thousands of like minded people shouting and waving signs outside a store or down a street usually halting business for that organization. But these companies are completely virtual so using conventional methods would be useless. Henceforth using a new type of protest, hackers are able to halt business for a company in order to get their message across.
Of course i can not sit here and praise all hackers as it is well known that hackers can and are very dangerous. Hackers have been known to steal information for personal gain which can include anything from money to a persons details. As Ted stated in the lecture some of these hacker groups are in it mainly 'for the lulz'. It is these groups that are in my opinion the most dangerous. Without any agenda or real targets, these groups simply operate to cause anarchy. These groups are not looking for any for information to steal or use, instead they seek only to corrupt. Without the help of the white flag hackers the internet as we know it today could have been very different.
p.s. This blog was a little behind the times i know but better late then never.
White flag hackers have been around just as long as black flag hackers and are just as effective. Many hackers have a full time career helping companies set up networks and systems that are fully protected and cannot be hacked. how do they do this? By actually hacking into the system to start with, which kind of makes sense when you think about it. However these skills can be used against systems albeit in a positive way. Take anonymous for example. Although this group is highly controversial and have been blamed for hacking into well known systems, it is a way of making a protest. Looking at the groups targets: Sony, Facebook and Amazon, each one of these companies were targeted due to the way in which they treated their users and the user's details. A normal protest would consist of hundreds or thousands of like minded people shouting and waving signs outside a store or down a street usually halting business for that organization. But these companies are completely virtual so using conventional methods would be useless. Henceforth using a new type of protest, hackers are able to halt business for a company in order to get their message across.
Of course i can not sit here and praise all hackers as it is well known that hackers can and are very dangerous. Hackers have been known to steal information for personal gain which can include anything from money to a persons details. As Ted stated in the lecture some of these hacker groups are in it mainly 'for the lulz'. It is these groups that are in my opinion the most dangerous. Without any agenda or real targets, these groups simply operate to cause anarchy. These groups are not looking for any for information to steal or use, instead they seek only to corrupt. Without the help of the white flag hackers the internet as we know it today could have been very different.
p.s. This blog was a little behind the times i know but better late then never.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)