This course has provided me with so many opportunities to re-visit some of my favorite pre-doctoral literary favorites, including William Gibson. I finished his novel "Idoru" while riding home on the train from evenings on the town in Tokyo several years ago while on a business trip to Japan. The term "prescient" applies here, as I would look up from the book and still feel immersed into the world that Gibson had created in a slightly more modern Toyko. Gibson has an interesting way of looking at the world, and has a unique turn of phrase in his writing, and I've enjoyed all of his books. The statement "The future has already arrived--it's just not evenly distributed" was excerpted from a National Public Radio interview with Terry Gross on the "Fresh Air" program, November 30, 1999.
This quote speaks volumes, very succinctly stating the nature of what we refer to as the "Digital Divide". A separation of haves from have-nots with regard to technology and information--however, it is my own point of view that this divide is being closed rather quickly, as information access used to be the exclusive province of those with assets and connectivity, all of which required funds. However, we see in today's world that information access and the technology needed to get it have become cheaper and more readily available. The advent of wide area wifi networks, and the affordable cost of smartphones with the ability to access them has made the access concept more of an on-ramp than a barrier.
An additional factor to consider is that with large-scale manufacturing of these hand-held devices, the concept of "economy of scale" comes into play: the more that are made, the less they cost per unit as companies recoup their R&D costs and set-up costs for assembly lines. The end result is that the hardware is almost free, and any cost is the result of services required that are supplied by wireless carriers. These fees have gone down significantly in past years: I recently switched carriers and bought a new iPhone, and managed to save significantly on our monthly household wireless bills by going with a family plan that gives me a full data package plus calling and text messages and a separate line of service for my husband's phone with calling only (he is a phone Luddite) for less than I paid for my original data service only on the other carrier. Once again, economy of scale.
The other example of economy of scale that came to me as I listened to the podcast and vodcast was the "One Laptop Per Child" initiative spearheaded by Dr. Nicholas Negroponte of MIT. This foundation's goal is to provide every child in the world with a basic low-cost connected laptop computer that has software already loaded in order to support and encourage them to learn, connect, and change the world as they do so. The success stories from this program are compelling, and the push for computer literacy as well as basic literacy will help nations who have traditionally been on the wrong side of the divide to close and bridge the divide.
Another initiative that is not so much technical but one which promises to institute change for the better in the world's poorest nations is the work of Dr. Greg Mortenson, the author of "Three Cups of Tea" and "Stones into Schools". Mortenson believes that education, particularly the education of the girls who will raise the next generation of children. Not only does literacy have a direct effect on infant mortality, but it also exposes children to new ideas and concepts that they would not otherwise have contacted. His efforts have been concentrated in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and he has succeeded more often than not, even though he is changing cultural norms and beliefs.
For me, the path to closing the digital divide is going to require both technology as well as basic literacy. Together, those two factors create a powerful set of tools for their users.
References
Central Asia Institute. (2010). Accessed at http://www.ikat.org/
One Laptop per Child. Accessed at http://laptop.org/en/vision/
Mortenson, G. & Relin, D. O. (2006). Three cups of tea: One man's mission to promote peace . . . one school at a time. New York: Penguin Books.
Soloway, E. (2009). Podcast.
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
DVD vs. Video On Demand...and the winner is...
When our class was notified that a future assignment would involve the viewing of a movie based on a Phillip K. Dick novel, and I looked at the list, I knew exactly which film I wanted to see—Blade Runner (based on Dick’s novel “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?”). Furthermore, rather than borrowing a copy from a friend who owns multiple versions and formats, or renting it from somewhere, I opted to treat myself and go buy the Director’s Final Cut package on Blu-Ray DVD (the 5-disc set with all the special feature material).
Like most technology decisions in my house, there were consequences. This decision required several additional steps to be taken, the first of which was to unpack the new Blu-Ray player that had come with my new camera and was still in the original shipping box ten months after its arrival at our house. Once unpacked, it had to be connected with our system, which is an engineering challenge even on a good day. This required finding several additional cables as well as pulling the system switcher/amp out of the cabinet and patching the audio and video cables in appropriately without displacing any of the other components.
Once connected, I turned on the projector and crossed my fingers—it WORKED!!! I was then able to sit down and view the film in its full glory in the form director Riddley Scott imagined it, while taking notes on the technologies that appeared on the screen.
Yes, there were probably easier ways to accomplish all of this, but without a compelling reason, nothing changes. I am gradually building my DVD collection of films that I have enjoyed or believe that I really want to see, in hopes that someday I will have time to view them. My husband, on the other hand, cannot be bothered with DVDs, as he has all the shows he has collected off of the various cable channels (which he watches incessantly) that aired while he was not able to watch in real time, so he had the DVR watch for him. On any given day, he has two day’s worth of viewing sitting there waiting to be viewed. In addition to all of this, he has us signed up for several movie pay channels (I honestly don’t know what we have, as my TV viewing habit usually consists of the Weather Channel while eating breakfast in the morning before heading out to work).
We have never actually used the On Demand function on our cable system. We do not subscribe to Netflix or Blockbuster because no-one has time to watch additional movies. On the other hand, no-one has ever called us normal with a straight face. It’s OK—we manage.
In the real world, people do seem to care about these matters, so for the purposes of meeting the assignment requirements, I would suggest that the competition between DVDs and video on demand is an example of increasing returns. The point that is made by Dr. Thornburg in the vodcast (Laureate, 2008) is that the technology that wins in an increasing returns contest is often sub-optimal, and this is in fact the case. If one considers the resolution and image quality of a film viewed from a Blu-Ray DVD and one viewed from the cable on-demand system, as the image produced by the Blu-Ray is significantly better.
The reason behind this is not so much the image, but what happens to the image between the source and the display: all High-Definition images begin at 1920 x 1080 lines of resolution, but your Blu-Ray player produces this image quality consistently, because it is a dedicated source with a dedicated “pipeline” connecting the source with the display. The cable system begins with the same level of image quality, but then compresses the image in order to send it through the cable system (along with the other 250+ channels with infomercials, car racing, wrestling, sports you have never heard of, and home improvement shows).
Video compression involves taking any redundant information within the signal, and throwing it out in order to better use their bandwidth. Other compression methods use the philosophy of taking parts of the picture that will be missed least (the outer edges, for instance), and removing them. Some cable systems routinely compress more than others, and the more compression that is applied, the worse the picture appears.
However, the convenience factor often trumps quality for many—the ability to use on demand technology to view movies without ever having to wait, go out in the rain/sleet/snow/darkness/sunlight, and not having to worry about losing DVDs, late fees, or other accountability issues. It becomes a trade-off between quality and convenience—many opt for the convenience. Several media sites have noted that DVD sales and the sale of DVD players are both declining. Ironically, cable subscriptions are also declining, with cable providers having to compete for customers’ loyalty. The only area that is stable and growing is Internet service providers.
More Americans are watching television on their computers or portable devices, while cutting back on their cable TV services, opting out of pay channels for basic service or passing on service altogether in favor of Netflix and website TV. This is hurting the cable companies’ bottom line, and they are taking notice. Because they are being undercut by a competitor who uses their bandwidth to deliver its competing product, the cable companies are starting to charge surcharges for high-data-rate users (many of whom are downloading movies). Technology is providing more and more new options to the traditional cable package, and so the progress marches on. Television as we knew it is gone, and the future looks great (although there is still nothing on when I sit down to watch).
References
Laureate Education, Inc. (Producer). (2008). Increasing returns, featuring Dr. David Thornburg.
Netflix vs. Cable (2010). Accessed at http://suite1102.com/?tag=netflix-vs-cable
Wikipedia (2010). Display Resolution. Accessed at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Display_resolution
Like most technology decisions in my house, there were consequences. This decision required several additional steps to be taken, the first of which was to unpack the new Blu-Ray player that had come with my new camera and was still in the original shipping box ten months after its arrival at our house. Once unpacked, it had to be connected with our system, which is an engineering challenge even on a good day. This required finding several additional cables as well as pulling the system switcher/amp out of the cabinet and patching the audio and video cables in appropriately without displacing any of the other components.
Once connected, I turned on the projector and crossed my fingers—it WORKED!!! I was then able to sit down and view the film in its full glory in the form director Riddley Scott imagined it, while taking notes on the technologies that appeared on the screen.
Yes, there were probably easier ways to accomplish all of this, but without a compelling reason, nothing changes. I am gradually building my DVD collection of films that I have enjoyed or believe that I really want to see, in hopes that someday I will have time to view them. My husband, on the other hand, cannot be bothered with DVDs, as he has all the shows he has collected off of the various cable channels (which he watches incessantly) that aired while he was not able to watch in real time, so he had the DVR watch for him. On any given day, he has two day’s worth of viewing sitting there waiting to be viewed. In addition to all of this, he has us signed up for several movie pay channels (I honestly don’t know what we have, as my TV viewing habit usually consists of the Weather Channel while eating breakfast in the morning before heading out to work).
We have never actually used the On Demand function on our cable system. We do not subscribe to Netflix or Blockbuster because no-one has time to watch additional movies. On the other hand, no-one has ever called us normal with a straight face. It’s OK—we manage.
In the real world, people do seem to care about these matters, so for the purposes of meeting the assignment requirements, I would suggest that the competition between DVDs and video on demand is an example of increasing returns. The point that is made by Dr. Thornburg in the vodcast (Laureate, 2008) is that the technology that wins in an increasing returns contest is often sub-optimal, and this is in fact the case. If one considers the resolution and image quality of a film viewed from a Blu-Ray DVD and one viewed from the cable on-demand system, as the image produced by the Blu-Ray is significantly better.
The reason behind this is not so much the image, but what happens to the image between the source and the display: all High-Definition images begin at 1920 x 1080 lines of resolution, but your Blu-Ray player produces this image quality consistently, because it is a dedicated source with a dedicated “pipeline” connecting the source with the display. The cable system begins with the same level of image quality, but then compresses the image in order to send it through the cable system (along with the other 250+ channels with infomercials, car racing, wrestling, sports you have never heard of, and home improvement shows).
Video compression involves taking any redundant information within the signal, and throwing it out in order to better use their bandwidth. Other compression methods use the philosophy of taking parts of the picture that will be missed least (the outer edges, for instance), and removing them. Some cable systems routinely compress more than others, and the more compression that is applied, the worse the picture appears.
However, the convenience factor often trumps quality for many—the ability to use on demand technology to view movies without ever having to wait, go out in the rain/sleet/snow/darkness/sunlight, and not having to worry about losing DVDs, late fees, or other accountability issues. It becomes a trade-off between quality and convenience—many opt for the convenience. Several media sites have noted that DVD sales and the sale of DVD players are both declining. Ironically, cable subscriptions are also declining, with cable providers having to compete for customers’ loyalty. The only area that is stable and growing is Internet service providers.
More Americans are watching television on their computers or portable devices, while cutting back on their cable TV services, opting out of pay channels for basic service or passing on service altogether in favor of Netflix and website TV. This is hurting the cable companies’ bottom line, and they are taking notice. Because they are being undercut by a competitor who uses their bandwidth to deliver its competing product, the cable companies are starting to charge surcharges for high-data-rate users (many of whom are downloading movies). Technology is providing more and more new options to the traditional cable package, and so the progress marches on. Television as we knew it is gone, and the future looks great (although there is still nothing on when I sit down to watch).
References
Laureate Education, Inc. (Producer). (2008). Increasing returns, featuring Dr. David Thornburg.
Netflix vs. Cable (2010). Accessed at http://suite1102.com/?tag=netflix-vs-cable
Wikipedia (2010). Display Resolution. Accessed at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Display_resolution
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)