Archive for the ‘Assignment 4’ Category

The Web is Dead?

Thursday, September 9th, 2010

Before we reach any conclusion of whether or not the web is dead, the first issue that needs to be addressed is the vast distinction between the web and the internet. The majority of ordinary citizens use the words “web” and “internet” interchangeably without hardly any thought as to the difference. I do not blame these people; in fact, I was standing amongst them just a few weeks ago. The division between the two terms that I perceive from the article is that the web’s mainstay is traditional sites that large entities such as corporations employ. In contrast, the most noticeable feature of the internet is the near limitless number of apps.

It came as not much of a surprise to me that the great shift from the web to the internet was based on the precepts of money and convenience. Money and convenience stand as two of the largest hallmarks of our digital era. Companies began switching their focus towards the internet because it became more profitable than the web. The internet allowed consumers of content to receive information directly instead of being forced to navigate to a source. This point stood out as fundamental to the whole article because human beings prefer to do as least work as possible and we wish to eliminate any unnecessary trouble for ourselves.

In my opinion, the article was just trying to hype itself up with the title, “Is the Web Dead?” One of the authors said himself that companies will always support a site on the web. This indicates that we will continue to us the web indefinitely; it is the degree of use that is the central question in this instance.

My main criticism about the article happens to deal with the format. Conceptually, the two columns were a good way to organize the two aspects of the issue, but actually reading it was a pain. Actually, now that I am looking at the article again, I feel hoodwinked because I read the left column up until the black dividing bar and then went back and read the right column in a similar fashion. I repeated this process four or five times, however many divisions there were. I am pretty sure the article was meant to be digested by reading the entire first column and then the entire second column. Maybe the layout was designed to be Web 2.0 where the audience gets to decide in what manner the article was read; who knows?

http://www.wired.com/magazine/2010/08/ff_webrip/all/1

Assignment Four

Thursday, September 9th, 2010

I understand the concept of the “The Web is Dead,” it’s just hard for me to grasp that what I do on the internet everyday isn’t considered the web. Everything the article describes is what I do and I didn’t realize that I was contributing to the decline of the web. While I agree with Morgan Stanley’s projection that the number of users accessing the Net from mobile devices will increase, I don’t necessarily agree that it will surpass that from access of PCs. I personally on access the internet from my phone when I’m bored or even waiting for class to start. I dislike the small screen and the lack of ability to do everything a PC offers.

Human nature does often take the easiest path and most will even go the extra mile to pay for convenience and reliability (as stated by the article). This may be a stretch and not 100% relatable to the topic, but the idea that human nature takes the easiest path in some ways is a downfall. As we gain technology we are losing some of our intellect. The more technology we obtain, the less our minds have to work for themselves. I think the new inventions and the internet are powerful tools that often people don’t appreciate or recognize their power. In a way this links to the idea that the web is dying out. As we find an easier way around something, we take that path and forget the basis of which something was formed.

“The Web is Dead” does an excellent and interesting interpretation of the causation of a dying technology. It works to cover both sides and presents proficient arguments to prove each idea. The “dying out” of web usage is directly linked from both our doings as well as the creators. Even at this point and after reading both O’Reily’s article and this one, I am still slightly confused on the difference between the web and the internet. There seems to be a distinction that I haven’t quite grasped. It’s actually quite interesting to me as I read further down to the comments that people made on this article and they seem to be in the same boat as I am. A lot of the issues of the deterioration of web usage come from the overall lack of the population’s understanding that the internet is not the web. This may be due to the lack of information provided or advertising of the difference.

The Internet is Alive?

Wednesday, September 8th, 2010

The web is dead or is it the internet is alive? This article states the changing nature of the web and how we the people are responding, and also contributing to these changes. If the web is dead and we are the web then what is going on here.

The article breaks topics down from us and them. The first piece is about apps and how this has essential eclipsed the browser. Apps are not the web but are running on the internet, and this is what threats the web. The apps are more convenient and do the jobs we want to get down better and efficient. The desktop was supposed to become the webtop. It was supposed to free, open and out of control. The web is not in our pockets, the internet is. The phones and other devices allows us to use apps which are better than one using the browser. The internet is what we do now, for example the article states Xbox live. I am on Xbox live playing video games and also watching Netflix, but not only that if I want to I can update my status on facebook all from my xbox. The desktop and browser are not needed anymore, in a way.

Then the business side came in and alike all businesses wanted profit large amounts of money. The apps are easier to control and are also easier to make money off of. Capitalism is the battle over control and that is what is happening over the web, only the internet is easier to control. The monopoly is what makes money and this is happening, choice and competition are being diminished. Even Google is a monopoly yet it’s free. But Facebook started as a closed system one which was attractive to many and business. It created its own space in the web and also was easier to mold. This is what Google was not able to do because of its openness. This is a good example of what has happened, “We’ll pay for convenience and reliability, which is why iTunes can sell songs for 99 cents despite the fact that they are out there, somewhere, in some form, for free. When you are young, you have more time than money, and LimeWire is worth the hassle. As you get older, you have more money than time. The iTunes toll is a small price to pay for the simplicity of just getting what you want.” People want it to be easy and simple. So they pay and freedom is something they want which is true but simplicity is also important. The future stated in this article is commercial content, but the web is still around because we are the web. The people created the web and may choose to kill it, but not just yet at least.

The Internet is Alive?

Wednesday, September 8th, 2010

The web is dead or is it the internet is alive? This article states the changing nature of the web and how we the people are responding, and also contributing to these changes. If the web is dead and we are the web then what is going on here.

The article breaks topics down from us and them. The first piece is about apps and how this has essential eclipsed the browser. Apps are not the web but are running on the internet, and this is what threats the web. The apps are more convenient and do the jobs we want to get down better and efficient. The desktop was supposed to become the webtop. It was supposed to free, open and out of control. The web is not in our pockets, the internet is. The phones and other devices allows us to use apps which are better than one using the browser. The internet is what we do now, for example the article states Xbox live. I am on Xbox live playing video games and also watching Netflix, but not only that if I want to I can update my status on facebook all from my xbox. The desktop and browser are not needed anymore, in a way.

Then the business side came in and alike all businesses wanted profit large amounts of money. The apps are easier to control and are also easier to make money off of. Capitalism is the battle over control and that is what is happening over the web, only the internet is easier to control. The monopoly is what makes money and this is happening, choice and competition are being diminished. Even Google is a monopoly yet it’s free. But Facebook started as a closed system one which was attractive to many and business. It created its own space in the web and also was easier to mold. This is what Google was not able to do because of its openness. This is a good example of what has happened, “We’ll pay for convenience and reliability, which is why iTunes can sell songs for 99 cents despite the fact that they are out there, somewhere, in some form, for free. When you are young, you have more time than money, and LimeWire is worth the hassle. As you get older, you have more money than time. The iTunes toll is a small price to pay for the simplicity of just getting what you want.” People want it to be easy and simple. So they pay and freedom is something they want which is true but simplicity is also important. The future stated in this article is commercial content, but the web is still around because we are the web. The people created the web and may choose to kill it, but not just yet at least.

Is the Web Really Dead?

Wednesday, September 8th, 2010

Upon reading the article, the main point I drew from it was the claim that “apps” and big websites are destroying the internet. Now before I proceed with my interlocution, I would like to first point out the scope and magnitude of the statement “The Web is Dead”. What do they mean with that statement? I can still go on the web, check my e-mails, go to DS106′s blog site, and do virtually everything I did last year, and the year before that, and so on. So how in anyway has the web gone from 2.0 to 0.0? What Anderson and Wolff try and convince the reader is that the web should be classified by “us” and that the focus of the internet has gone away from being open, free, and a by-product of our own devices. Upon reading this article, and the following debate between Tim O’Reilly, Chris Anderson, and John Battelle, I have to side with Battelle, and that in my belief the article represents a semi-radical view of the current state of the web.

To address Anderson first, a brief summation of his argument is that internet applications (controlled by big corporations) are quickly taking over control of people’s preferences to access the internet, and therefore eliminating the purpose of the open-free environment that Web 2.0 was envisioned as. Yes, applications are now abundant and used much more than ever before, but how does this even change Web 2.0 in the slightest? Anderson cites at the beginning in his article “You wake up and check your email on your bedside iPad — that’s one app. During breakfast you browse Facebook, Twitter, and The New York Times — three more apps. On the way to the office, you listen to a podcast on your smartphone. Another app. At work, you scroll through RSS feeds in a reader and have Skype and IM conversations…. At the end of the day, you come home, make dinner while listening to Pandora, play some games on Xbox Live, and watch a movie on Netflix’s streaming service.” Sure, Anderson cites several applications that don’t involve access to the web, and as I have previously stated there are many apps that do this. However, I cannot remember the last day where I have not opened my browser, checked my email, and done the same routine checks I have done everyday. If Anderson is concerned with the idea that companies will dominate our access to the internet… when hasn’t it? What Anderson fails to realize is that companies (e.g. Youtube, Facebook, GoDaddy, even WordPress) are the medium through which we make the internet our own. I am quite sure applications are the least of our worries that threaten the web’s survival.

Lastly, to address Wolff, whose thesis was that the big internet companies are getting so massive that they are eating up the long-tail of smaller independent websites. I will not debate the fact that Google, Facebook, or Yahoo are becoming unimaginably huge in the internet world, but I will say that these big websites will never be able to fill the desires and wants of every internet user. What I mean is that I will not be able to find everything I wish to know from Twitter. That is where the long-tail comes in. All of those smaller independent websites fills the countless pieces of information that people need the craving to know. One might say that Google still may be the search engine to find the websites, but the main focus is still that those websites exist within that search engine and are found and used. So as a final point, big websites may dominate a good portion of the web, but they will never be able to fill the individual desires from all internet users. The smaller websites, created and maintained by us, are the only ones tailored to our needs.

The Web is Dead

Wednesday, September 8th, 2010

. . . . . . so what?

Well, really, I don’t think the web is dead quite yet. But maybe one day it will be – but who says that is such a terrible thing? Sure, it’s different and new and presents challenges, but so did the creation of the web in the first place. Things change. It happens. Chris Anderson talks in the ‘We are to blame’ section of this article that railroads, telephones, and electricity all started with one company, grew to many, and then were dominated again by one. Who expected the web to be any different?

Anderson also says that apps are taking over and replacing the web. While I can see this as partially true, I also think he is exaggerating a bit. Sure, I have an iPod, but I really only use it for music – not Twitter, facebook, or internet surfing, unless class is super boring. The iPad is popular, but I think a bit overdone, and I know few people that use Pandora regularly. RSS is almost unheard-of outside of more computer savvy circles and I only know one person who uses Netflix’s streaming service, and that’s because he can’t get any cable without paying a buttload. Sure, apps are super popular, but I don’t think I can agree with ‘The Web is Dead’ until they have completely permeated our lives – and that includes even those people who don’t use technology that much.

As to who to blame, I think I agree with the ‘Them’ side. Sure, we buy these apps and use them and seem to sometimes forget about actual web browsing, but we couldn’t do that if they weren’t offered to us in the first place. It’s like a child growing up in a house full of unhealthy food – if they grow up to be overweight or unhealthy, the fact that the parents bought all that stuff in the first place is largely to blame. If they did not keep unhealthy food in the house, the child could not eat it. The corporations and companies that create these alternatives for us give us the opportunities to utilize other forms of internet interaction, and if they don’t like how the internet is changing, then they should do something to fix it.

Also, I spite the creators of the Kindles and iPod apps for books. That is one area of new technology I cannot condone. Actual books are so much better than any application. Don’t want to read it on your laptop? Go get some paper you lazy bum.

Web is Dead Article

Benji Got It Right!

Wednesday, September 8th, 2010

“We must, indeed, all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately.” These words from Benjamin Franklin, quoted in “The Web is Dead: A Debate” pretty much summarized my feelings by the end of reading the article, “The Web is Dead: Long Live the Internet.” I went into the article reminding myself of the one, golden, highlighted rule we learned last class: “Hyperlinking is the foundation of the web!” So basically without hyperlinking, without those connections that we have in an open space, we have no web.

I went into the article with this point in mind, and still, I ended up writing down a whole slew of intriguing quotes and ideas from the “Blame Us” or “Blame Them” sections, and even some from “The Web is Dead: A Debate.”

Here’s what I found:

“Blame Us”

“They use the Net, but not the Web. Fast beats flexible.”

“As much as we intellectually appreciate openness, at the end of the day we favor the easiest path.”

“When you are young, you have more time than money, and Limewire is worth the hassle. As you get older, you have more money than time.”

“Every time you pick an iPhone app instead of a Web site you are voting with your fingers.”

“Blame Them”

*Facebook–500 million users, not a Web site

“…it’s at least in part because of the rising dominance of businesspeople more inclined to think in the all-or-nothing terms of traditional media than in the come-one-come-all collectivist utopianism of the Web.”

*Google=Rome

* Steve Jobs and Mark Zuckerberg fight Google’s open space with the closed space of Apple and Facebook.

“The new business model is to try to let the content–the product as it were–eclipse the technology.”

“The Debate”

*Applications literally get smarter as they gather more data from their users.

*points of control= data

OR = monopolies

“Open is almost always better.”

“Openness is where innovation happens. Closedness is where value is captured.”

“One ring to rule them all.”

VS.

“Small pieces loosely joined.”

“So I’ll agree that the Web is dead if you agree that a child is dead once he or she becomes an adult. But frankly, I don’t see it that way. The child lives on, but changes as he or she grows older” (O’Reilly).

WHEW! Ok, so those are all my quotes, and now it’s time to try and make some sense of them. Basically what I gather from all of this that more and more people think that the power of the Internet lies in closed spaces, with the use of iPhone apps and Facebook, where everything is simple, concentrated, and fast. What’s interesting to keep in mind however, is that app technology is still in its infancy (only about 3 years) and probably can’t be judged for its efficacy just yet. The iStore still has some say, so I found the Limewire analogy right up my alley. As a young person, I’m totally willing to spend the extra time and effort searching out stolen mp3′s and sharing files than spending $0.99 for each song. (In fact I’ve always wondered who iswilling to spend that much for one song!) However, I can see how this technique is not exactly ideal for those who value their time over their money. Maybe having too much money has brought us away from our collectivistic ways?

I dothink it’s pretty cool to think of the Internet as one big empire, with Google being Rome. The thing with the Roman Empire analogy is that Rome got too big for its own good, and fell in the 400′s. Is that the path that Google is on, and will Steve Jobs and Mark Zuckerberg ensure that Google collapses? It’s too soon to tell.

This ties really well with the Lord of the Rings theme of a closed space versus the hippy, communal theme of an opened space. Microsoft, Apple, Facebook, and Google (The Big Four) could all vie for the power of the one ring, but I think we would all benefit more from “small pieces loosely joined.” This would be the best route if we all believed that the Web is still alive and kicking, but maybe just growing up a bit. I think ‘ol Benji (Not this Benji!)got it right when he said we have to “hang together.” That’s what the Web (even a spider web) is supposed to be after all, connections that hang together!

:]

Assignment 4: The Web is Dead (and we didn’t know we killed it)

Wednesday, September 8th, 2010

My first feeling after finishing Wired‘s aricle The Web is Dead. Long Live the Internet was the same way I feel after I read a long complicated essay question on a test. My brain had just taken in a lot of information and now I have to figure out how to put this into a blog post. Anyways, I hardly feel ready to comment on this because only last class was I enlightened to the point that I separated the ‘internet’ from the ‘web’ in my head. There was always some distinction between the two, but to me what the article defined as the internet was always just an extension of the web. Playing videogames and having stupid arguments with people was always just an extension of being on a forum and having stupid arguments with people, with the only reason for two people being there the game itself. But now that it’s been so separated for me over these last few days, I have a couple thoughts.

I don’t believe the web is dead. I believe the web has turned into a handbook, or some sort of dictionary. Using videogames as an example, while I might have Xbox Live (even if I can’t figure out for the life of me why I still game on consoles), I still need to get online to manage my account. When I bought Starcraft II, I still had to go manage it on the web. Or, if I want help or strategies, I still have to go online and look them up. While the scale of the web has decreased (according to Wired), I don’t believe thats a bad thing. The web is, for lack of a better word, annoying a lot of the time. Most of it is not even worth one second of my time. With ‘internet’ based applications, while I might be paying more to have access to these things and even sometimes to use them, I know when I use them that I’m going to probably enjoy what I do with my time. If i was confined to searching the web for hours looking for stuff to do, I would probably become bored a lot faster.

Also, while it’s a shame the web has turned into every single other technological innovation of the last… ever, it is true that there isn’t really a lot of reasons for content companies to be there. While South Park may have their fancy www.southparkstudios.com website with every episode of South Park ever made, they don’t make much money off it, just enough to keep it going. And they’re South Park, one of the most popular TV shows of the past 15 years. Google has figured it out, but while figuring it out they also locked the market down. As the article correctly describes it, Google is Rome. And as long as they continue to make smart business decisions and release quality products, it seems that they may continue being Rome for the foreseeable future, so its inevitable that companies would try to work around them rather than directly compete with them. It’s easier to invest money to create an app and just sell the product as is without trying to produce content on the web and get people to go there.

While the web might be changing, I certainly don’t believe it is dying. If there was no web, these internet applications wouldn’t be able to function. And until something else comes along and changes that, the web will have to exist. And if that does change and the web does die, we will all have moved on anyways. I hope Web 3.0 comes along and makes the web better, but the web may just have to accept a more reduced role in our lives from here on out.

Link to the article: http://www.wired.com/magazine/2010/08/ff_webrip/all/1

“The Web is Dead” Initial responses: More questions!

Wednesday, September 8th, 2010

My biggest reservation with Chris Anderson’s and Michael Wolf’s “The Web is Dead: Long Live the Internet” is that provocative title statement: the web is dead.

Dead implies unresponsiveness, an incapability of use.

To start, I am hesitant to agree that the web is no longer functioning, that it has lost all productivity, and I wonder how I would feel had the authors used an adjective other than “dead” to describe the state of the web.

In our class discussion yesterday, Jim Groom explained the Internet is how users get online to access information; the web is only one particular way in which we’ve been able to do this. Another way, which according to the authors is becoming a more frequent way, is through applications. They write:

Over the past few years, one of the most important shifts in the digital world has been the move from the wide-open Web to semiclosed platforms that use the Internet for transport but not the browser for display…It’s the world that consumers are increasingly choosing, not because they’re rejecting the idea of the Web but because these dedicated platforms often just work better or fit better into their lives (the screen comes to them, they don’t have to go to the screen).

I am not against this shift. In my experience, applications are typically convenient, and that’s why I use them. Rather, what I keep getting hung up on is that “web is dead” declaration. I have not (yet?) abandoned the web as a means to obtain information. I’m fairly knowledgeable of its pros and cons, and I wonder if my development of that familiarity prepared me for my eventual shift to the use of certain applications. Sometimes you have to know what you don’t like to figure out what do you like, right? In yesterday’s class, I remembering developing countries being referenced, and I’m curious about how this applies to them. At this point in time, is it better for a “mastery” of the web to come before an exploration of apps? How do “we” approach these countries now with the Internet? Do we abandon the idea of the web completely or introduce it, followed by apps? In other words, I’m trying to wrap my mind around the potential ways technology and culture will be different if the web truly dies and we begin to exclusively integrate apps into our lives and teachings. Is this a good idea? I don’t know enough about technology to speculate on this.

On a similar note, if the web is dead, what happens to organizations/publications/industries who are just emerging on the web and beginning to build a presence on the web? If they are just reaching this stage now, are they even prepared to begin thinking about how to best deliver and display their content through apps?

Assignment 4: The Web is Dead

Wednesday, September 8th, 2010

This article was very interesting to me and the way it explains the evolution of the web and if it is dead or not. I did not fully understand the debate, so I am kind of just going off of the article. One thing that interested me from the article was when he explained apps and those sorts of things that take away from the web browser. Until reading this, I did not realize how much more I looked at facebook or my email from my blackberry, just because its right there and so fast. I didn’t even put it together that doing this is contributing to the demise of the web. The quote that especially influenced me was that “Within 5 years, Morgan Stanley projects, the numbers of users accessing the Net from mobile devices will surpass the number who access it from PCs”. When I thought about this, I realized that this probably will happen much faster than 5 years. Since the price of smart phones and Iphones are decreasing, more and more people are able to purchase one and use the apps and such to access the web. I know that most of my friends and family have smart phones and use facebook mainly from these devices. Although a lot of people do use these to access apps, I do not believe the web is totally dead. It is definitely on its way, but there are still many things you cannot do on a cellphone that you need a pc for. One thing that stops me from using my phone to look up things is that the screen is so small I do not enjoy reading off of it. I know the Ipad changed that problem, but for people like me who cannot afford the ipad, I need a computer for certain aspects of the internet. So I think he is almost right in saying the web is dead, but there is still a few more years to go until it goes fully.