Made to Break Analysis Page 83-185

The second part of Made to Break began with Radio transmission. David Sarnoff was the head of RCA and he made his fortune in AM Radio. He envisioned the obsolescence of radio once the television was introduced to the American public and he believed that RCA would make a profit from it either way. This did not work out exactly as planned for him. The obsolescence of radio came from to two inventions. One was a technology that eliminated static and improved the sound quality, and the other replaced vacuum tubes and wire circuitry and transistors. Both of which were out of the control of Sarnoff. Another important person in Radio was Edwin Howard Armstrong who is considered the father of FM radio. Armstrong and his team dedicated themselves to improving radio and they finally developed a reception system that eliminated static and produced a much wider range of sounds than AM radio. FM radio posed a huge threat to AM radio, almost making it obsolete. There was so many more advancements made to radio since then, and in the 50's they even developed a radio that could fit right into your pocket. Although, with these advancements came obsolesce. "Product life spans were no longer left to chance but were created by plan, and it is at this moment (from about 1957 on) that the phrase planned obsolescence acquired the additional meaning of death dating," (113).
When the depression hit, common products became luxury items for Americans since they could no longer afford them. The depression not only affected U.S but also other countries we traded with. Japan had a very hard time since we were no longer importing from them and they could no longer afford raw materials that they needed. This caused much stress between the two counties and many people thought that a war would break out because of it. An even a scarier thought which caused much anxiety was that Atomic technology was being worked on and as Bradley stated, "there is no defense against atomic attack," (149).
In the 50s and 60s, there was increase in automobile and industrial obsolescence. Tailfins were a new invention during this time and they were put on most American cars. Planned obsolescence was often blamed on the automobile industry based on a Teague's Rotarian article. This caused many people to stop buying new automobiles and it caused a small depression in the industry. When asked why people stopped buying cars they stated there reason was due to the fin put on the cars. 
Planned obsolescence continues throughout the history in America and the rest of the world. Without it the consumer industry would not exist. Products need to become obsolete at a certain point so there will always be costumers buying the product at all times. Henry Ford tried to resist planned obsolescence by making his products reliable and long lasting, but eventually he had to give in to the pressures because without the obsolesce of his products he did not have a continual flow of costumers, as other automobile companies did. Planned Obsolescence is entrenched in our culture and our buying habits and without it many industries would cease to exist.

Made to Break Analysis Page 1-81

              Made to Break by Giles Slade analyzes the introduction of advertizing and obsolescence into American production. Thanks to industrialization, products were being manufactured at much faster rate than ever before. At times the amount of inventory was overwhelming because production was much higher than consumer demand. This issue led to the implementation of effective marketing strategies and advertizing campaigns to get their name known and have a loyal costumer base. Another problem was distribution. In order to combat this issue, highways were built and cheap, reliable railroads were used. Also during this time, manufacturers began making products based on planned obsolescence, which guaranteed that they would have returning costumers and a constant inflow of revenue. Companies created products, at reasonable costs, that would be used once and then be thrown away. Popular examples used in the book were Yankee watches, Gillette Razors, and disposable clothing. Yankee watches were cheap and the consumer preferred to just buy a new watch when it broke instead of sending away for a “free” new one. Razors got dull after a few uses and had to be sharpened often. Gillette came up with the idea of disposable razors that were cheap and could be thrown away after use. Disposable clothes made out of paper were also very popular at the time, since laundry was not so convenient, especially for men. They would wear paper cuffs and collars and just throw them out when they got dirty. This sales strategy was very effective and people were willing to spend the money to buy new products that were more convenient for them. Another type of obsolescence was progressive obsolescence, first coined by Justus George Frederick. Progressive obsolescence was the idea that products should constantly be traded in after a short period of time, more for new style, then waiting for them to break. This was a very affective strategy and people were drawn to the idea.

             Obsolescence is key in the production industry. As consumers we are always looking for the next best thing and often buy new products way before they have reached their end of use. We often trade in our cell phones at the end of our contract to get an upgrade even though our old one might work perfectly well. We also are constantly getting new electronics, such as iPods, whenever a new model comes out. We fall for the marketing strategies and clever packaging every time.

Current Event: Bing Friends Facebook

     The article examined the collaboration of Facebook and Bing to create a social aspect to the search engine. They want their users to be more socially connected when they use their site. Microsoft, who is already a share holder of Facebook, has worked on many occasions with the social networking site. Bing is already embedded into Facebook’s search box and now they’re looking to integrate the social aspect of Facebook into their own search results. In the article they gave an example. If you search Motorolla Droid on Bing you will see related links that your friends have shared of Facebook or if you search a movie it will show which of your friends liked that movie. Also if you are searching for people, Microsoft will scan through your profile and friends to narrow down which person you might be searching for. In regards to the privacy issue, they stated that this search will only work with information that is listed as public on your page and you can opt out of it if you want. Also, Bing and Facebook have always been rivals of Google and in response to their announcement on Wednesday, Google has also reported their own efforts of becoming more socially connected with a feature they are calling Google Me. Microsoft’s president of online services stated, “We see the web going far beyond a web of documents to a web of the world. The social graph enables our users to access and discover information and complete tasks more efficiently. We will be able to harness and unlock the power of Facebook’s platform and take search to the next level.”

     In class I posed the questions, "Do you think this will be a useful tool and how much do you value the opinions of your friends when it comes to your own decision-making?" and "Do you think this new feature will take away some of the users from other search engines such as Google?" Responses to the first question proved that this new technology will not be a useful tool. People want the facts rather then their friends opinions when searching the internet. Also how could the likes of your friends possible spread across the vast knowledge of the internet, making it an inadequate technology in most cases. In regards to Google, most people felt that their search results far surpass that of Bing and they would not be swayed by Facebook's involvement with Bing. On the other hand though, if Google was to make a social networking site it would not be very successful because Facebook is already too entrenched in our culture. Overall, I believe that Google and Bing should stick to what they do best and just offer the best possible search results system that they can and leave the social aspect to Facebook.

http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2010/10/bing-friends-facebook/

Wikipedia Analysis Page 114-225

Whereas the first half of Andrew Dalby's "The World and Wikipedia: How We Are Editing Reality" talks largely about the history of encyclopedias and Wikipedia, the second half focuses on its pros, cons, and societal impacts. He begins by talking about why we as a culture like Wikipedia. Anyone can edit or create a new article, which puts users in a position of power. This allows Wikipedia to add a great amount of new information every day. This is incredible, especially compared to traditional encyclopedias, such as the Encyclopedia Britannica. Scholarly authors create the Encyclopedia Britannica, which allows it to be a credible academic resource. However this limits the range of topics that it can add every edition. Wikipedia can offer many thousands of new articles all the time, but their quality is sometimes lacking.  Andrew Dalby said, "No one can claim that Wikipedia, as a whole, is a reliable source. Instead accepting it as not the least reliable of online guides, and drawing thirstily on its footnotes and external links, we - I'm speaking now for myself and all the others, writers and journalist, scholars and scientists, who actually use Wikipedia already - judge each article for reliability on its merits" (Dalby, 220).  I predict that one day Wikipedia will have killed off its competitors and be considered a credible academic resource. It only remains to be seen when that will happen.

Wikipedia Analysis Page 7-113

     Wikipedia has revolutionized the age of the encyclopedia. With thousands of articles being created each day, Wikipedia offers an incredibly wide range of information, from the most obscure issues to worldwide phenomena. The act of collecting information from a broad range of topics and ideas and compiling it into an enormous group of text began thousands of years ago with the work of Pliny the elder. Pliny constantly took notes and wrote down excerpts of what he read until he had collected enough information to create the Naturalis Historia. Pliny was the first person to use the term encyclopedia. Many followed in Pliny’s footsteps to assemble another encyclopedia and throughout the years it has evolved to become a competitive industry. Among the most popular was the Britanica. They faced many drawbacks trying to keep an updated text, due to the fact that many people did not feel the need to purchase a new edition each year. They faced even more competition when encyclopedias began to transition to online databases. Microsoft created a program called Encarta, which could be sold quite cheaply, causing the Britanica to significantly reduce their prices. 

     Finally in January of 2001, Wikipedia was created as an expansion of the former Nupedia by Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger. Wikipedia was different than Nupedia because new information could be added or altered by the public wherever they saw fit. This feature created much controversy since anyone, no matter their level of intelligence or background, could create and update new Wikipedia articles without proper citations, leading to many inaccuracies. Ira Matetsky was quoted as saying, “The best feature of the site is that anyone can edit virtually anything contained on it. The worst feature of the site is that anyone can edit virtually anything contained on it.” This statement is quite true. Wikipedia is a great resource when it comes to its vast range of topics, but can also be detrimental due to its lack of reliable sources. Many peoples’ biographies have been altered with misinformation that could defame their character. One example of this was the Seigenthaler incident. Brian Chase, an employee at a Nashville delivery company, added information to John Seignethaler’s Wikipedia page stating that he might have been involved in the Kennedy assassination. What was intended as a joke, turned into a highly publicized event that cost Chase his job, smeared Seigenthaler’s name, and greatly affected the credibility of Wikipedia.

     Postman, the author of Technopoly, would surely find issues with the usage of Wikipedia, as do many others. He might view this as society taking advantage of technology and power, and altering information for their own sadistic purposes. In retrospect this may be true, but the amount of information that is factual and beneficial to users all over the world, to me, seems to greatly outweigh the negatives. I use Wikipedia quite often when I want to expand my knowledge on a specific subject. For quick searches, Wikipedia almost always yields the top results. Although there are some drawbacks to the site, Wikipedia will continue to grow and overflow with new information each day which will be used all over the world.

Technopoly Analysis Page 92-199

     In the second half of Technopoly, Postman talks about three specific types of technologies; medical, computer, and invisible technologies. One issue in particular that Postman argues is how nowadays, due to the use of technological advancements and the integration of machines into the practices of physicians, that they have become less competent and do not take responsibility for their actions. Postman also lists statistics that show how the United States has an elevated rate of aggressive health care practices, compared to competing countries, such as a more surgeries and elevated doses of medication. This claim only supports Postman’s claim that the U.S is a technopoly based on our reliance on scientific advancements, but does that make us any less competent? In my opinion, I strongly disagree. With the technology we have today doctors are able to be increasingly more productive and are able to diagnose and treat an exceptionally higher amount of ailments than was possible in the past.

     Postman writes that although the U.S might be closely matched in technological advancements to other countries around that world, what sets us apart is our complete acceptance of technology as an ideology. He states, “We have devalued the singular human capacity to see things whole in all their psychic, emotional, and moral dimensions, and we have replaced this with faith in the powers of technical calculations,” (pg 118). It appears that Postman looks down on the U.S for its omission of traditional processes that shape society and create a morality and culture, but I believe that we have progressed so much due to this technology and there is still so much to explore and discover that can assist us in everyday life. There are still moral implications to uphold, but as long as we stick within the guidelines, there’s no reason why we should hold back the development of any further technological advances. I believe that Swedin and Ferro would disagree with Postman’s argument. Not all the outcomes in the history of Computers have been successful, but they still focus mostly on the benefits that technology brings to the world. Although he does raise some valid points at times, to me, Postman’s beliefs seem flawed and very one sided. Where would we be today if we did not push the boundaries of science and technology?

     P.S I don’t often take notice of algorithms, but sometimes they can be useful. One instance of this was when I was shopping on Target.com to buy a comforter for college. Under the page for the comforter was a list of suggestions for items that were similar to what I had bought and it helped me put my room together quite nicely. I don’t usually pay attention to the ads on facebook, but at times it creeps me out how much they pertain to what is going on in my life at the time.

Technopoly Analysis Page 1-91

     Technopoly examines the substantial effect that technology has had on society as it becomes increasingly integrated into our everyday life. In previous centuries, our way of life was defied by the political and religious values set forth by higher authorities. God was considered responsible for all of the world’s activity and advancements in science and technology were often modified or completely ignore if it went against this belief. Many scholars, such as Copernicus, even refused to go public with their discoveries because they did not believe it was in accordance with the scheme of God and religion. As time went on, some began to push the boundaries of this ideology and from it many advancement in technology and science were made. This is the time when society began to move from a tool-using culture to what Postman describes as a technocrocy.

     A technocracy is “a society only loosely controlled by a social custom and religious tradition and driven by the impulse to invent,” (pg 41). This term validates the achievements of the technologically savvy individual and encourages them to create for the betterment of mankind. Francis Bacon embodied this design and Postman names him the first man of technocracy for his revolutionary approach to the scientific enterprise. What came next after the technocracy was a technopoly, which was only achieved when the society “eliminates any alternatives of itself,” (pg 48); when the technological world overpowers the traditional methods of the past and they become irrelevant. The United States is the only country that can be considered a technopoly, thus far, but Japan and some of the other European countries are not far behind.

     At times Postman seemed to react very negatively to the rise of technology in society. He often focuses on the harsher, more theological side of the history rather than expressing the tremendous success that technology had brought to the world. He explains how earlier centuries, at times, viewed technology as “evil” since it went against the teachings of God and religion. Not everyone was very accepting of its introduction and many advancements were put off due to the individual’s wish not to go against their beliefs. The Luddites deeply denounced the use of technology due to the fact that it challenged their previous existence and complicated their old-fashioned way of life. Computers, on the other hand, focused on the accomplishments in the fields of science and technology. It did not include much opposition to the advancements, but rather outlined the succession of events in the history of the computer.