BLOGJECTS: SAVING THE WORST FOR LAST

What the hell is a Blogject? I read Julian Bleecker's 'Why Things Matter' and im still not sure. According to Bleecker (2006), a Blogject is an "object that blogs" and has three main peculiarities:

• Blogjects track and trace where they are and where they’ve been;
• Blogjects have self-contained (embedded) histories of their encounters and experiences
• Blogjects always have some form of agency — they can foment action and participate; they have an assertive voice within the social web.

Bleecker (2006) uses the example of "the pigeon that blogs" where a number of pigeons are rigged with technology thats tracks their location and records the levels of toxins and pollutants in the air through which they fly. I pretty much use this example for the whole basis of understanding the blogject. If we consider the fore-mentioned "peculiarities" of the blogject, they all seem to apply to the pigeon example. The technology traces where the pigeons are and where they have been as well as store information. The agency the blogject has (from my understanding) is its ability to spark and fuel conversation once the data has been transferred to the web.Bleecker (2006) puts it like this: "Their agency attains through the consequence of their assertions, and through the significant perspective they deliver to meaningful conversations". Even with my very basic understanding of the blogject (strapping technology to animals), i can see how this tool can help us learn more about many different aspects of our existence. If anyone had an easier time understanding this let me know. Thanks for reading. Peace out.

References

Bleecker, J. (2006) 'Why Things Matter: A Manifesto for networked objects', accessed on 30/10/2011, http://www.nearfuturelaboratory.com/files/WhyThingsMatter.pdf

Image sourced from: www.navigadget.com

APPLE VS GOOGLE

I found Daniel Roth's article "Google's Open Source Android OS Will Free the Wireless Web" really interesting. I'd never given much thought to the birth of the smart phone. As far as i was concerned, one day they just appeared and now everybody has one. The early developments and competition between Microsoft and Google really did lead to the smart phones of today. It seems from the reading, that Google had the better ideas in terms of software and getting people to develop applications for a cash prize. Yet Microsoft dominates the market as the most popular smartphone. Apple have somehow convinced the world that their products are the only "cool' option. I have an iPhone and i cant see myself switching anytime soon. The only time i hear about androids are on Saturday Night Live where they joke that "The new android phone is expected to play well in the 'mum's who always buy the wrong thing' market". That being said, there is statistical evidence showing that Android is competing with the iPhone. I believe the seemingly endless flow of glowing reviews about the new iPhone 4S will tip the scales a bit more.


Aside from Apples marketing genius, i believe that Google is the true winner. Its android software is used by nearly everyone smartphone that isn't an iphone and iPhones direct traffic to Google, YouTube and other Google owns sites anyway. However, it seems Google will have to pull something special out of their asses to dominate the smartphone world


References


Roth, D. (2008) 'Google's Open Source Android OS Will Free the Wireless Web'. Wired, June 23. accessed on 29/10/2011 http://www.wired.com/techbiz/media/magazine/16-07/ff_android

Image sourced from: blogfornoob.com

FACEBOOK & TWITTER: REVOLUTIONARY TOOLS?

The main discussion point that i took from the reading and probably more the tutorial, was the argument: "Do people or technology start revolutions?". There were alot of points for and against. "Revolutions cannot start without the people", "Technology is the only way these revolutions are successfully coordinated", etc. One of the groups did a great presentation on the history of communications technology and how they have been used in aiding and fanning the flames of revolution. Evgeny Morozov (2011) touches on this point by acknowledging the role of the telegraph in the 1917 Bolshevik revolution – just like the role of the tape-recorder in the 1979 Iranian revolution and the fax machine in the 1989 revolutions. He goes on to say that the fetishism of technology is at its strongest immediately after a revolution but tends to subside shortly afterward (2011). Will Twitter's and Facebook's influence on current events be forgotten in future years? Is the outcome of these acts of activism the only thing that matters? To come back to my original discussion, i believe people start revolutions and use available technology to spread their message and connect with like minded people. The revolutions of the past would have been nowhere near as successful if not for technology but they wouldn't have occurred at all if it weren't for the people. Thanks for reading. Peace out.

References

Morozov, E. (2011) ' Facebook and Twitter are just places revolutionaries go' The Guardian, 7 March, accessed on: 29/10/2011 http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/mar/07/facebook-twitter-revolutionaries-cyber-utopians

Image sourced from: thefosburyflop.com