Trust Me: Your Number's Up!

Trust: A word that, although small, carries a large impact. We, as a society, collectively trust certain people or things. For instance, we trust that each day, the sun will rise. We trust that each year, Black Friday will dominate in overall sales. We trust the counselor will not divulge information of a personal nature. And, of all people or organizations, we trust that companies who have acquired identify driven information (addresses, social security number, credit card number, etc.) will keep it private. However, according to David Goldman, we may be placing our trust on them in vain. In an article released November 1, 2011, Goldman states:

“In mid-October, Verizon Wireless changed its privacy policy to allow the company to record customers’ location data and Web browsing history, combine it with other personal information like age and gender, aggregate it with millions of other customers’ data, and sell it on an anonymous basis.”

Verizon Wireless is using our information to pull a profit. After conducting some research, it would appear Verizon Wireless is in violation of its own Privacy Policy, which reads. “Specific laws govern our sharing and use of certain customer information known as Customer Proprietary Network Information.” Think about it: Verizon Wireless in violation of its privacy policy which in violation of this second law. Apparently that is acceptable in today’s society when selling private information comes as a type of sport. I mean, who doesn’t want their identity stolen, right?

A story of this magnitude blew up the newspapers, website, and televisions. We are supposed to be able to trust these companies. Especially today, when our lives are so heavily revolved around cell-phones and communication, we need to believe that companies aren’t going to betray our trust and sell what basically encompasses our personalities. I shouldn’t believe that my information is safe when suddenly, and without warning, these companies decide to make some extra money.

Don’t think Verizon Wireless is alone in this: At&T, Spring, and T-Mobile have jumped on this endeavor in attempts to make some “extra cash.” It is important to note that these companies do not hand the information over; rather, they provide opportunities for other corporations to target us with ads. (Because that’s what we all want with our days!) It’s still against all the policies that we have come to recognize. Apparently, we must come to terms with this. You know what they say, “An ad a day keeps the money at bay.”

Level....Completed.

All forms of technology provide benefits. With the Internet, it’s instant communication. The television brings in-home entertainment. Music can allow some to relax and focus. What about those pesky, addictive, and time-consuming video games? Can those possibly provide any skills or have any redeeming qualities? I mean, when one compares video games, it’s hard to tell which is worse: Grand Theft Auto or Modern Warfare. In fact, according to Christopher Ferguson, some feel that “playing violent video games may increase the risk of aggression in players” (2007, p. 309). Yes or no?

Honestly, I have never been a “video game junkie” and I rarely lock myself in my room until I beat the final level. Not to say never, but rarely. I don’t see the appeal of it. However, as a recent article by John Sutter points out, some game designs are implementing education into their games. Rather than battling mystical creatures or destroying galaxy cruisers, Adrien Tueuille has designed two games—“Foldit and EtrRNA—that put video games to work solving epic scientific puzzles” (2011). EteRNA, a game that allows players to “design complex new ribonucleic acid (RNA) molecules,” incorporates science into gaming (Markoff, 2011). In fact, each week, the winner’s design will be synthesized at Stanford University. That, right there, is living the gaming dream.

Obviously, this is only one example of how gaming is changing the world of technology (in a more concrete way), but other gamers have seen positive results after hours of gaming. Hand-eye coordination is often a go-to point for positives of gaming. While it may sound far-fetched, some merit does exist in this statement. Those who spend time playing video games are training their eyes to watch for certain targets. It works. Additionally, Robyn White points out that video gaming can make a person faster “processing and responding to perceptual information” (2007-2008, p. 1).

Many mothers say video games are corrupting and addictive. They may very well be right, but obviously some video games can introduce concepts to players they would probably not learn elsewhere. As demonstrated by EteRNA, video games carry some potential for scientific advancement. If students gain through interactive play, why is it condemned? Yes, I think some play too often and these players are the stereotypical “gamer,” but some just like to relax to a little GTA: San Andreas. I mean, that’s not the worst thing in the world, is it? Yay, I didn't think so either.

Want an 'A' on this Assignment--There's An App For That!

Just when we thought Facebook was done with the changes, they pull another major switch that leaves readers baffled, confused, and down-right…interested. That’s right, this time the changes are not to their site per say, but rather an app they are developing (or assisting in development). This one would, according to John Sutter, “let people share data about how much—or little—electricity they’re using at home” (2011). Basically, it’s a way to keep people accountable for all the times they leave the light turned on or the fan switched to high over low. Our social media has become a maternal figure (and that is hard to deny).

What’s truly at debate here? Is it that Facebook is now watching our every move? Or perhaps, is it because there is an App for EVERYTHING. You can get an app to check the prices of groceries. You can get an app to look up the latest stock market change. You can get an app that shows you the latest gossip on certain celebrities. Our lives can be summed up quickly thanks to the new new media coming our way, and if it can’t, I imagine sooner or later “there’ll be an APP for that” too.

Back in December 2009, Apple filed for the trademarked phrase “There’s an App for that” and began to use it commercially on January 26, 2009. What’s the buzz about this time? It seems every time Apple does something innovative, other companies are only steps behind. The slogan refers to “Apple’s marketing and advertising initiatives around the iPhone and all other iOS devices” (Grove, 2010). For me, that was still a bit too techy, but Jim Blasingame breaks it down further, stating that “a mobile app converts content and resources that otherwise would have been consumed through a browser on a computer desktop, to the much smaller and variably shaped screens on the many different kinds of hand-held devices” (2011). In short, an app makes things easier by making them mobile.

In our current day-and-age, this is just fine. Apps are all the rage. During research for the Organizational Usage assignment, Dylan Edwards—Digital Communications Specialist for the Theodore Roosevelt Medora Foundation—said one thing he wants to work on is getting an app. Companies are continuously trying to create apps for other companies. It’s hard to believe but this is the new supply and demand. I do not own a Smartphone (iPhone particularly) so I am not in the App scene. I imagine my next upgrade will cannonball me into an arena I won’t quite understand. But luckily, apps are easy to learn and available on whatever subject a user desires. If that’s not enough, it doesn’t take much to learn the lingo. And if it does—well, I’m sure there’s an app for that.

When Life Gives You Lemons...

Imagine for a moment that I am the owner of a lemonade stand (C). My stand, while it has been successful in the past, has never caught up to the income of my top two competitors (A and B). However, I swear I have the best product possible and I will be as good (if not better) than A and/or B within the next couple years. Why? I am completely changing my formula to something no one has really seen before. All I need is more money. You, the investor, now has to decide if my stand is worth the money.

While this is a long-shot example, let’s place this on a larger spectrum. Say, for example, my lemonade stand is now called Sprint. My competitors, A and B, are Verizon and AT&T. Obviously, the topic is not actually centered on lemonade, but 4G services. Sprint has done just what is implied above: they have declared they will be able to catch-up to Verizon and AT&T in terms of 4G service as long as they receive more income. They don’t have the money to spend the way they would like; however, Sprint Chief Financial Officer Joey Euteneuer said, “liquidity should begin to improve in 2014 once the roll-out is complete” (Goldman, 2011).

The question remains: is this a bargain worth investing in? Given their track record, is Sprint the company to trust in a situation like this? In April of this year, it was said that Sprint still lost money despite their adding 1.1 million new customers. Goldman states that a major reason Sprint is losing money is because they are not selling the iPhone 4 (2011). If one runs a search on Sprint, it would be evident that they have lost money AND customers the past three years. Can the iPhone 4 really be responsible for this? I mean, did it come out in 2008 and they still aren’t selling it?

What Sprint is attempting to do is courageous. Their business has not been able to stand up to mobile giants such as Verizon Wireless and AT&T. The fact that they are not ready to “throw in the towel” is admirable, but foolish. Or is it? The adage declares “it takes money to make money.” Perhaps if given the opportunity, Sprint will rise up and take down the competition. Take notice of the graph: Sprint is down from Verizon but up from AT&T. If customers want it, who are we to say no?

Ultimately, the world of 4G mobile coverage could be rocked in the coming months. Sprint is the third giant in wireless connectivity; if they fall out, where does that leave us? Goldman (2011) agrees that Sprint “has struggled to add new customers” but are working diligently on the problem. This little lemonade stand may be down, but it’s not out.

They Lie: Size Does Matter!

For all those out there who say size isn’t a factor, they’ve obviously never used a Kindle Fire. Amazon’s new 7-inch tablet is no longer strictly a reading device; instead, it is a consumer-friendly entertainment program that allows users access to books, gaming, movies, and music. Amazon has advanced in the world of portable technology and created something that users can take with them everywhere.

The Kindle Fire is the next generation of technology. Similar to the iPad, it offers users mobile contact with several programs. However, the major difference that separates the Kindle Fire from the iPad is the one-hand usage. The iPad is a bit too large to operate with strictly one hand. The Kindle Fire does not have that problem. Users can perform several tasks with in a wide variety of locations: subway, restaurant, Laundromat, etc. Additionally, Christina Bonnington notes that, unlike the iPad, which is attempting the bridge the computer/gadget divide, the Kindle Fire is sticking to the mobile e-reader design.

What does all this mean? Simply, it means that our society is facing another change in devices. The Kindle (which I own and enjoy to an extent) and Nook were new, revolutionary gadgets that gave our society a will to read again. The iPad was the first big mobile computer that did not run like a laptop or smartphone. We are so busy gearing up for the next big thing, we often forget about what is right in front of us.

There was a commercial on television last night during Friends, and it featured a young lady who was discussing “the next generation.” She said she did not want her parents to get lost in a world based on technology, so she was adamant about them signing up for Facebook. At that point, they were up to 19 friends. The commercial then split to the parents, who were out mountain biking with another couple. They were laughing, smiling, and appeared to be having a good time. The daughter sat inside, on her computer, and made comments about a person’s profile.

Let’s get real: The parents are not connected to our most modern technology, but should they be? Do any of us really want to see adults on Facebook? Not really. It's not their thing -- it just doesn't make sense. And yet, for many of us, the danger of all these new devices is a co-dependence. How many of us can go a day without our cell phone? Computer? Kindle Fire? Is it possible to resist texting for a weekend? I have a friend who shut off her phone for the weekend to get some work done. For me, when I could suddenly not get a hold of her, I panicked. We are so used to the technology around us, we are not sure how to cope when it’s no longer there.

The Kindle Fire may be the next thing to come out in the world of digital communication. Yes, it probably has all the top features and can run for X.X hours and has Y.Y memory. Honestly, I would rather be like the parents in the commercial, who were OUT making Memories and lasting for their Own number of hours. That is what our world is supposed to be? Technology should assist us not control us.

"I read on the newspaper that sending text messages causes a radiation that is cancerous."

So far this semester, we have discussed what makes technology addicting, what we are addicted to, and how technology has altered our way of living. What started with a computer has ended with a TouchScreen E-Book. Once a person had to send a telegram, not they send a text message. Technology has quickly changed our preferred means of communication. The interesting part is what people do prefer when given an option. Simply: Phone Call or Text Message.

According to Aaron Smith of the Pew Institute, 31% of Americans prefer text messaging compared to a voice call. This means that, out of 100 people, 31 will more likely respond via text message over a phone call. Our dominant form of communication is beginning to change, and people are choosing the least personal means of communication.

What’s more, the majority of those who prefer text messaging are in the age group 18-24. These users send, on average, “109.5 messages on a normal day – more than 3,200 texts per month” (Gahran, 2011). For example, so far this morning, I have sent and/or received 15 text messages, meaning I do not fit the stereotype of a normal 18-24 text message user. However, when I consult a peer, their text number is in the 50s at 12:00pm. This person could very well-likely send another 59.5 messages in one day.

Is anyone truly surprised by these numbers? Well, of all the different types of social media, is text messaging not one of the safer options? Consider the following by Bryant, Sanders-Jackson, and Smallwood:

“Instant messaging and text messaging are both forms of technology-mediated communication that provide a way for individuals to communicate with one another and to create and reinforce social ties and friendships. Text messaging, however, is different from IM and many other forms of CMC because it is not anonymous. Because text messaging is usually facilitated through mobile phone technology, it is difficult to obtain a telephone number from an individual without at least having met the person or knowing their first name” (2006).

Bryant, Sanders-Jackson, and Smallwood are pointing out that text messaging is so widely accepted because it does have some degree of restraint. I do not post my number everywhere for the whole world (it’s in my email signature, but if I email you, I know you right). Unlike mediums that are online, text messaging is a safe alternative to F2F communication (although less rich). Users are simply choosing a different form of communication; the winner, text messaging.

My title, as it reads, introduces a joke. “I read on the newspaper that sending text messages causes a radiation that is cancerous.” That part is pretty basic. The author is making a joke at the expense of an aged form of communication. Now, the end: “That's why I have decided to stop - to stop reading newspapers.” Ultimately, the author has shown how we, as a thriving technological society, would prefer the dangerous, new-age over the safe, old-age. Although text messaging isn’t always dangerous, there’s got to be a reason for the new ban while driving. Connection—who knows?

Bryant, J. A., Sanders-Jackson, A., & Smallwood, A. M. K. (2006). IMing, text messaging, and adolescent social networks. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11(2), article 10. http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol11/issue2/bryant.html

Gahran, A. (2011, September 22). One-third of Americans prefer texts to voice calls. CNNTech. Retrieved from http://www.cnn.com

Smith, A. (2011, September 19). Americans and text messaging. Pew Research Center. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org

That "Ubiquitous Red Envelope" Endures

This morning, a Monday similar to any other Monday, I was sitting in my Methods of Teaching course, when one of my classmates stopped in the middle of everything to make a semi-serious announcement. “Did you get that email from the Netflix guy?” The conversation then proceeded to talk about the change in prices from $9.99 for unlimited everything to $15.98 for the same services. Apparently, for those users of Netflix, this event is a travesty. How could the company make this swap?

What students were not discussing was the economic standpoint for Netflix to make such as switch. Instead, it was all about how this devastates the students who are no longer going to use the company. It’s true that some users quit the service immediately and called the switch ridiculous. Netflix increased their price by 50% for the exact same service. Why not quit? Users of Netflix are also upset about the loss of Starz in February. Obviously, Netflix does not want people to be satisfied with their service any longer.

Is that the case? According to Milian (2011, September 19), Netflix is changing the name of their movie shipping service to Qwikster, although the “ubiquitous red envelopes will endure.” Additionally, the company will now ship video games in a similar format.

In our age of technology, everything is about the user and the dollar. Many times, these two factors do not coincide. In this particular case, Netflix is not upset about losing Starz, but those who watched movies through the service are enraged. Milian (2011) notes that stock for Netflix “plunges as subscribers quit,” making the whole issue very two-sided.

Now we ask the main question: Why should I care? I, personally, have never used Netflix. There is something about owning a DVD in hand that makes me happy (which is hypocritical as I just bought a KINDL). In short, this type of company alteration greatly affects the way a person views their current service.

As I have been saying these past five weeks, users of technology expect it. Many have become so used to Netflix; it becomes hard to go back to normal. Not saying that it is impossible, but it is not the ideal scenario, so many rebel against it (as we see with the quitting subscribers). Technology is a vital piece of our society, but at what point do we say enough? When is an addiction to technology classified as such? I am not insinuating that those users of Netflix are addicted, but to quit a service because of a company decision shows an inability to accept change. In a thriving technology society, change is as vital as the computer we type it on. That’s just how it is.

Milian, M. (2011, September 19). Netflix renames DVD-by-mail service, adds video games. CNNMoney. Retrieved from http://www.cnn.com