TOPIC 1 wk 5

para. 7-9 What do you think constitutes ‘news’ on the Web?

News on the web has made the consumers into the researchers. They can now look for news from different people, in different forms (video/textual) and from different opinions. This leads to users choosing their own version of the news from a collection of differing sources (from hyperlink to hyperlink - see Lister). This 'Indymedia' has been brought into it's own by replicating a CNN style 24 hour news cycle - where it differs is it's presentation, ability to link with relative news articles and constant updates. I imagine this puts some pressure on tradition news types to produce relevant, interesting and entertaining news that is easier to buy than to research ourselves.

TOPIC 1 wk 5

b) Para 9 Are there ‘new kinds of journalist’ online? If so, how so?

The 'new kinds of journalist' found online are more likely to be the very people in our Media classes. They are opinionated individuals with a passion for journalism and media. This 'new journalism' gives Indymedia a kind of news that appeals to the public on a more informal level. Many of the news found on such sites will use less journalese, possibly be less academic and provide more of an insight into the issue. However, it may also be heavily biased from the authors perspective, not entirely correct or may possibly source fake or insignificant information. That is why research and opinion must be taken when reading such articles - even more than the biased newspapers we buy in the shops.

TOPIC 1 wk 5

c) Paras 14-15 Are those who want to make DIY news online, best thought of as part of an alternative culture (that also exists offline) or is it more diverse than that? Think of examples beyond Indymedia.

From the theory given, it seems DIY culture is meant to be a hyper modern practise that allows for more radical and individual opinions to be brought to light. There seems to be an emphasis on driving a gap between professionalised and amateur journalism. It's offline practise example was punk and the alternative music movement. As inspiring as this idea is, I disagree that all Indymedia is as 'out there' as what is described. DIY journalism allows for less restricted opinions - be them influenced by politics, gender, age, religion, place or experience. Although this will always bring out the people wishing for a 'blank generation', it also give amateur journalists and opinionated individuals a chance to share their experiences with others. I haven't an example for this yet, but I see topical blogs as a good starting point. (Check for updates later.)

It is understandable that Meikle would wish to distinguish himself and other academic professionals over Indymedia journalists - however I think it brings to light an important question; What is more important, academic approval, experience or talent? Should there be equal amounts of these factors or can a talented amateur create more entertaining and relevant news occasionally? I personally think so.

TOPIC 1 wk 5

d) Para 18 Is open news quality news?

I believe the opinion being put across here is that if news becomes too open it becomes less and less effective - a quantity over quality issue. When universal access is allowed to such sites there will always be some that treat the opportunity in the same way they would a blog or a comments field. It is then understandable why restrictions have been put in place on many of the Indymedia sites. It seems there must be a distinction between recognised web journalists and unfamiliar one-timers. This could be theorised as web news imitating the structural habits of newspapers, however it could also be said that there is a middle ground the new media has yet to reach. Trial and error must continue until a working formula is found. Whether or not open news is quality news depends on the reader's opinion and the author's deliverance.

TOPIC 1 wk 5

e) Para 19 Can open news ever be completely open? Do people take different (possibly unequal) roles in collaboration?

Although it is a nice idealistic idea to provide a completely open journalistic experience, I believe this can never be achieved. For example, Wikipedia is arguably one of the best information and fact based web encyclopedia we have today. However, it will not be recognised by Universities because of it's inaccuracy and none-researched tendencies - even though the site boasts a citation tool and the ability to edit and add relevant sources. So it seems even with these attributes in place, a site can still be uncreditable.
I believe in open news there will always be a hierarchy of established web journalists and the more informal styled opinionists. I personally don't see this as much of an issue though, as I believe that most of the time is it easy to see the difference and pick out the better informed articles. There will always be unequal roles in collaboration, but these are (in most cases) probably the most reliable.

TOPIC 1 wk 5

f) What do you think of the overall claim that ‘the Net could facilitate new types of media institution’?

I think the net allows anyone with an opinion to express that. A web news article would be a great place to put those ideas. However, it must also be said that many of those opinions are better suited to blogs or comments because of their lack of experience or academic/professional worthiness.I believe there will always be a distinct difference between web news and newspapers - however, I think we choose to consume them in different ways. Just as we may pick up a newspaper knowing it will be heavily biased in a particular direction, we may also understand that web news may provide an entertaining-but-not-entirely-creditable experience.
Personally, I would rather be entertained by a loosely based web article than forced to believe a newspaper journalists opinion because they are well spoken and have people in high places.

TOPIC 2 wk 4

Start considering user-generated content / social networking sites.

When attempting to answer this question I was faced with the fact that there are hundreds upon hundreds of sites I could pick. It was for this reason I chose to focus on the 3 most personally prominent.

Myspace

Myspace started as an ordinary social networking site, set up by a person named Tom. From my memory the site seemed to become popular around 4-5 years ago. I remember being in 6th form at this time and during breaks we would use the work computers to access our Myspace accounts. You can search for names, addresses, gender, sexuality and age. The site also homes just as many music profiles where bands (signed and unsigned) can post about themselves and upload their music for others to listen to and put on their profile. Looking back it was a very fickle past-time. I would keep my Myspace window open, refreshing occasionally to check if someone had messaged me. The site seemed to revolve around popularity - having thousands of 'friends' and picture comments was a must for a Myspace junkie. Layouts became heavily HTML edited, with most users trying to create the smallest possible page they could.
When I was 17 (and impressionable) I spent a lot of time on Myspace. There isn't much more I can say - I didn't blog, nor did I post on other peoples accounts. However back then, my connection to the site gave me solace that I was a popular and interesting individual.
The negative side to Myspace I experienced was mainly caused by the top friends list. As I mentioned above, it is possible to have thousands of friends. This is enhanced by the now even larger 'top friends list'. This became a risky business for the Myspace junkie.
Most people fitting under this category have top friends profiles of the most attractive people in their lists. However, they must be careful to make sure they put their true friends at the top - even if they aren't really pretty enough to be up there - otherwise arguments happen and best friends can become enemies.
The other negative to Myspace is the amount your profile is open to strangers. Bots can add you and spam your comments with fake advertising, fake profiles and stalkers can harass individuals and identity theft is very common with popular profiles.
The positive side to Myspace is its customisability. One can create any profile they want, be it for keeping in touch, blogging, posting their favourite music or creating a photo album.
I no longer use my Myspace account. For me it is a phase I've grown out of. I have more male singles and uninteresting bands trying to add me than actual friends. It isn't worth my time.
Has anyone else used Myspace? If so, what is your opinion?

TOPIC 2 wk 4

Facebook

I'm fairly new to Facebook personally. I joined at the start of September after being told many of the Media students choose to use the site. At a first glance it seemed to be yet another Myspace. Through the 'people you may know' tool, I went through a fairly laborious job of adding all my friends from school - as some of them had stated the year they started different from others. After adding 3 years worth of pupils I then had to go through each profile and check whether I actually knew the person. I think I had around 400 friends in the first hour. (I have around the same number on Myspace after 4 years!)
After signing up and deciding I wasn't going to activate my account, (you have to give your mobile number???) I started to look for customisation options. I soon realised this wasn't an option. I struggled to upload my pictures and my video upload attempts failed miserably.
For all of this however, I use Facebook far more regularly than Myspace. Once you are used to the setup, it is easy to post comments on people's virtual walls and photo's. These are open to any of their friends to see, as long as the user has confirmed they know the individual. I even have my blogger updated directly to my Facebook page, so I need not inform my friends I have posted something new.
Facebook is a great social network because of it's privacy options and fast connections to friends. It is not a site to use if you are after popularity or status, but it is brilliant for keeping in touch with old (and new) friends and finding family. It is relatively hard to pick up and is a site you are more likely to check once a day than keep open (although it does boast a PM messaging service). My main criticism with Facebook is it's advertising and spybotting. Any application a friend chooses to send you has free access to you profile and account. This (to me) seems like a huge risk and something I usually avoid. In regards to the advertising, no matter how many times we have declined adverts, I get spammed with weight loss and surgery ads and my fiance gets singles and dating ads. This may not seem particularly a problem, but as an opinionated individual driven by my morals it is frustrating to be put into such a stereotype.
Again, how do others find this site and do they agree with my negative points?

TOPIC 2 wk 4

Youtube

I chose Youtube as my user-generated content topic as I consider the site to be one large gallery of (supposedly) just that. Youtubebecame the 'in thing' around 2-3 years ago. It allowed registered users to upload videos of anything (as long as they confirmed it was their own content). Other users could browse videos using the search feature, look at related videos and video's by the same user.
The site now even includes a direct video response reel, so one can show their reaction more directly. Youtube allows one to blog, make films and series', comment on issues, post video game walkthroughs... The list goes on.
I believe Youtube got a lot of publicity from Myspace, with it's ability to copy and paste the correct URL into your Myspace HTML layout. Many Myspace users struggling to post music of their favourite artist because of copyright issues chose this method. Three years on and this is still a popular use of Youtube, however with it's popularity, music companies pressure the site to remove copyrighted material a lot more frequently. There is now even a Youtube site specifically for porn, in order to filter the seedier videos to a different location.
I believe it is because of Youtube that TV has changed so much. For example, (as mentioned in an earlier post) Tarrant on TV which hosted funny/rude clips from all over the world is now obsolete, as Youtube allows users personal direct access to any content. This program has been replaced by one called 'Rudetube' - a direct take on the name. This program counts down users favourite Internet material (and on the side offers free publicity to Youtube). This is yet another way of showing how new media and Internet communities are shaping and personalising our society.
I have a Youtube account which I use to comment and add my favourite Youtube series'. I often search from link to link for interesting material when I'm bored and find it not only informative but also entertaining.
Does anyone else have a Youtube account and what do they use the site for?

TOPIC 3 wk 4

TOPIC 3 wk 4
Music sharing online

a) How do file sharing, online downloading and the ‘networking’ of new material change the way music is consumed?


With the introduction of peer to peer software, music has been made more accessible and available to the masses, anytime, anywhere. With modern Internet bandwidth being vastly larger than ever before, we now have the option to use torrent downloads from mass p2p programs at the same time. This makes downloading albums, films and even larger files possible.

Music 'sharing' has allowed those who cannot or do not wish to buy music to download anything they wish absolutely free. The popularity of these services has now reached the stage where music companies aren't making money. Consequently, many of the original p2p software was shut down (Napster, Winmx etc). Although this halted the problem in the beginning, there are now far too many torrents and p2p programs for this to be viable. The new tactic seems to be to flood the programs with bogus music files, deliberately sabotaging them, thus lowering the chances of the users probability of finding their desired music.

Online downloads have also affected other media. Music programs on TV suffered from the consumers lack of need of their services. For example, Top of the Pops went from being one of the top most watched programs to being moved to Sunday and eventually axed. It seems users are able to find more personalised music choices from online downloads than Top 40.

The modern approach in tackling illegal downloads was in fact, to make them legal. Programs such as iTunes allow direct download access to music content for a small fee (usually around 70p). The positive side to this is the files are safe, secure and 100% official. The base behind this plan is that as a default, consumers will pick the option that is quickest and easiest for them. If legal downloading requires less effort, it is hoped that users will choose this option instead. However, with p2p software so readily available and illegal downloading habits so difficult to track, it seems unlikely to stop any time soon.

TOPIC 3 wk 4

b) How and why could any band ‘make it’ through social networking/content sharing sites?

Social networking has allowed people to reach out (and in a lot of cases reach in) to others with similar musical tastes. Websites such as Myspace have millions of band profiles, easily rifled through with genre search options. Youtube and web forums can also spread the popularity of unknown bands through their discussion. All this leads to a better choice of knowledge to the user. With bands able to post music on Myspace, one can even sample their tastes the way one would try on clothes. This makes it far easier for non-commercial bands to achieve appreciation (e.g. Lily Allen). With enough 'friends' subscribing and contributing to your profile, it becomes far easier to be scouted by online music scouts.

On a personal note, this is how my band started out. Now with a new singer to replace my absence and a manager, they plug Myspace for fans and a record deal. Try searching for 'Patchwork Grace' in Myspace. :D

TOPIC 3 wk 4

c) Has/will this change popular music?

I think music will become more and more diverse. In the past, most of the Top 40 was made up of pop hits - commercialised and mainstream music that appeals generally to everyone. I believe the current Indie movement is down to a lot of British bands using online communities to reach out to the world. These days there seems to be less 'one hit wonders' and more bands producing their own music, under their own labels. I'm personally not a fan of Indie, but I'm glad it's pushing 'real' lyrics and handwritten songs as being the 'in thing'.

TOPIC 3 wk 4

d) Will we still need media companies in future if people can produce and distribute cultural products directly?

I think if the media companies go under from the pressure of illegal downloading, the music production will suffer. However, I believe urban music and bands who just enjoy playing will thrive because of the downfall of commercialism.
It's difficult to say how the media companies are planning their next move. It is sure though that while they can make money from the business, they will be around.

Thoughts on Second Life

Just as a topic of discussion for others in my group. Out of interest, how did you choose to customise your avatar on Second Life and why did you choose to do so?

Personally, I tried to make my avatar as close to my own self as possible. I dislike the idea of wearing a 'mask' in online chat and find the notion of conversation between avatars as fake and illusive.

I think the way we choose to present our avatar shows a lot about ourselves. By having a down to earth character I am not over expressing any needs for online role play. It gives the impression I am happy with myself and shows I am not trying to attract any particular form of attention.

What is everyone elses views on this subject?

TOPIC 3 wk 3 Q. A

This topic has already been discussed quite a bit, so I will be contributing to the information already given.

a) How does it work?

Second Life appears to be a simulated virtual environment situated online where role players can create and customise characters, buy virtual clothes/accessories etc and communicate with other avatars and friends. You can walk around as a fully animated character in 3D environments, chat using text or a microphone, and purchase virtual credits to spend in the game. Unlike typical MMO's and MUD's there is no storyline, meaning this software is used for different purposes to role players.

TOPIC 3 wk 3 Q. B

b) What is it for?

Second life is generally used as a means of virtual communication between friends and strangers alike. It has been used in Universities as a form of distance learning and gives a perfect opportunity for long distance relationships to blossom. To counteract this argument, as S.L. is generally a sandbox environment, you can make what you want of it. Players may choose to role play in whatever manner they wish, or whatever needs. This brings up the ever important argument that online communication is unsafe. Although your 12 year old daughter may be thinking she's talking to another girl her age, the truth may be very different. In my personal opinion the true meaning behind Second Life is business related. As free involvement in the game is limited, players interested in becoming more absorbed in the virtual world will have to pay for credits and premium subscriptions. It seems S.L still has the same intentions as IMVU and Habbo Hotel - to make money.

TOPIC 3 wk 3 Q. C

c) What is the appeal of ‘acting out’ in such a forum? Is it something different from ordinary life or a projection of it?

I believe this is closely related to my thoughts on 'Who Am We?' below. Although many may show a desire to escape from real life and become their desired persona's, it depends on what the individual wishes to achieve. Many may wish to fulfil darker or secret parts of their personality, others may have sexual urges they wish to relieve themselves of. I believe Second Life to be primarily a projection of a real life environment - it just depends on how 'unreal' the players choose to imagine it.

TOPIC 3 wk 3 Q. D

d) What kinds of relationships and identities are involved?

Again, I believe the relationships and identities involved are purely personal. There are romantic relationships, with virtual dating and marriage being a strong point. There may also be sexual relationships - particularly anonymous sexual relationships. Reasons already given for such involvements are repressed urges, fetish experimentation, gender swapping and escapism. Friendships can evolve and topical conversations can occur. These different interactions attract different identities.

TOPIC 3 wk 3 Q. E

e) Do Turkle’s theories based on MUDs apply here also?

I definitely think Turkles theories on role playing and escapism apply to Second Life. Whereas many of the MUDers showed interest in role playing and interaction in gaming, S.L provides the raw aspect to virtual communication and simulation - choosing to ignore the gaming aspects and focus primarily or providing a virtual environment for sandbox play (Sandbox meaning the practise of being free to explore a virtual environment with no pre-programmed goals).

Reading: Sherry Turkle ‘Who Am We? thoughts on character travel

Just a quick comment.

As this particular reading is fairly dated now, I believe it is important to bring the theories up to speed. My subject matter happens to be Animal Crossing again.

The idea of virtual reality characters 'travelling' between computers through the means of the Internet and floppy discs (more likely to be USB devices or CD's in this age) I started to wonder how close we have got to this notion, some 10 years on. It seems we're very close indeed.

As explained in later posts, Animal Crossing is a persistent world game where you role play with real or CPU characters in a virtual environment. However with the addition of the game for the Wii console, this has allowed for more advanced communications techniques.

I am referring to the 'suitcase mode' on the Nintendo DS version. This mode allows one to 'pack' their character and belongings into a 'suitcase' and transfer onto the Wii version of Animal Crossing. This, I'd presume, allows for one to look around the new city additions, buy new clothes/accessories and obviously interact with the Wii games owners' character.

So it seems we have got to a stage where we can allow our character's to 'pack up and leave', although the idea of consciousness and control still differentiates between this being my decision or my characters.

Reading: Sherry Turkle ‘Who Am We? thoughts on MUD roleplaying

In regards to the motives behind MUD players I believe many can be put down to a form of escapism. From the examples shown, it seems many of the subjects found real life social situations difficult. I believe that it is a basic need to have some sort of communication with others. It is then understandable that such MUDer's would choose to interact in a less personal and demanding virtual world. The need for escapism however, I believe to be personal.

It was shown that many choose to show parts of their hidden personality, or create a new persona for themselves. It is then understandable why this is theorised as a type of self-improvement or adjustment. The role playing elements of MUD's allow for one to become whoever they want to be - a sort of secret life if you will.

However, when the issue of gender swapping was brought up, I disagree with such a straightforward 'cross dressing' idea. From a personal perspective, I'd say 3/4 of the male gamers I know play as female characters. This is not something they feel embarrassed about or try to hide. It is generally agreed that if one is going to spend a considerable amount of time looking at a character, they'd prefer it to be attractive. If a male finds another male character attractive, surely that is more homosexual than wanting to see a female character?

As I believe it is important to give a personal point of view to issues that effect oneself, I shall discuss my own MUD habits.

I know many MUDer's that play online MMO RPG's (Massively Multi player Online Role-Playing games) regularly. Their general view of their gaming habits is as a form of addiction. With so much to do, it is hard to prioritise real life activities over gaming ones. This is a point I'm inclined to agree with.

I personally do not play MMO's. I find them too time (and money) consuming and do not have time to commit to such demanding hobbies. The closest I have to MMO practises is Guild Wars.

Guild Wars is similar to an MMO in that it allows you to play and role play with people from all over the world. You can create characters with different professions, travel over continents, fight with other gamers or simply role play in the virtual world. In reflection with creating a 'new you' or 'real you', my gaming experience differs slightly. My characters are based on what profession they are. My monk is a simple blonde Asian character, my assassin is a small, dark haired ninja type character. I have never created a character that reflects myself or my personality. However, as I have low self esteem, it could be argued my form of escapism is by becoming all these different characters.

Where my MUD habits differ is that I don't play for communication. I have only ever experienced males wishing to 'cyber-sex' in online chat rooms and find them pointless unless you are meeting someone specific.

In conclusion, I believe the theory of MUDers practising a form of escapism to be correct, however it is always important to see the difference in personality and desire between each subject.

Refection topic: Persistent Media?

This is just a topic that made me think this morning. I think it's fairly relevant to the idea of new technology we have been discussing.

Since I have been ill over the past week, my fiance decided to get me a form of entertainment I could do in bed. I've been incredibly bored since most the time I have only been able to be up in short stints so this was a well welcomed relief.

The entertainment came in the form of a game. It was Animal Crossing.

For the sake of anyone reading this who hasn't heard of Animal Crossing, I will do a brief synopsis.

Animal Crossing is a game for the Nintendo consoles that takes the shape of a 'persistent world' (I will come back to this later). You choose how you look through the type of personality to have. For example, if you are friendly and 'cutesy' towards the bus driver, you will have big eyes with pink pigtailed hair. If you are more stand-offish you will have short darker hair with small eyes.

You are asked why you are moving to your new village ( of which you can pick the name). Depending what you choose depends on your houses location (I picked the beach so I was by the shore).

In this village the neighbours come and go depending on how much they like the village (in real terms, how much you spoke to them). And you get to shop for and design clothes, fish, collect shells and grow trees and flowers.

I said at the start that the game involved a 'persistent world'. This is to say that everything in the game is reflected and evolved with your interaction. The flowers grow if you water them but die if you don't go onto your game regularly. The neighbours get bored and leave if you pay no attention to them. This simple dynamic is perfect for the more immersive minded (see my theories on 'immersive personalities', as it embodies a real life experience in the form of entertainment.

My fiance and I have this game for the Wii and one each for our DS's. (I said this topic tied in with new media theories and so here goes).

When I started up my DS last night I found I had new mail. My fiance had bought and sent me a new sofa for my house that was in the same style range as my decor. This made me think about interaction and mass interaction between communities. To put this onto a larger scale - if I was to join an online Animal Crossing community (I've researched this and they exist), I could exchange friend codes with people all over the world. If I was to make friends with this community, they could visit my town, exchange gifts and write me letters. I believe this shows just how close to real life some new media has taken us (I believe we will be discussing 'second life' soon in our lectures which is a similar idea).

Even spookier than that, my google calendar application informed me earlier today that it is 'Groundhog Day' on Animal Crossing. If I choose to play the game today, I may be able to take part in the festivities. It's scary to think that I don't even have to have my game on in order to find out this information. It makes me think how much of our lives we can interlink with technology?

Well, I hope this post made sense. It was just something that got me thinking of how new technology effects my own life. Happy commenting!

TOPIC 1 wk 2 Q.E

e) p. 17 Digitality and code. Imagine you couldn’t compose your assignments on computer. How would a hand-written editing and composition process be different?

The main difference would be the lack of a 'delete' or 'undo' button in handwriting. If I was to write my essays by hand I would probably be armed with highlighter pens and tip ex. I would probably separate my topics into sections and write notes firsthand, then extend those notes into paragraphs of my essay. If I had a word count I would have to count several times in order to get an average estimate. After all this is done I would probably read through my sections and highlight the parts that I want to move or remove. I'd tip ex the spelling errors (with the aid of a dictionary) and after they had dried I would write the correct spellings. Then I would cut and paste my sections into a coherent order and write links between them in order to make a smooth flowing essay.

The final product would probably include far more separate paragraphs than a word processed document. The simple spelling mistakes I thought were correct would still be present. My word count would have to be under by a fair amount to counter my average guessing skills. The entire process would take a huge amount longer than if I had word processed the piece. As a side note, I probably would have aching hand muscles and be sick to death of seeing my work.

As a short conclusion - I'm glad we have digital aid in our essay writing!

TOPIC 1 wk 2 Q.C

c) p.11 Are new media a source of ‘progress’ in the sense that they enhance things we do in spheres of social activity – business, education, shopping, democracy etc? Could we say that such a proposition involves an ‘ideology of progress’?

In regards to the definition of 'progress', I believe that our new technology becoming faster/cheaper/more accessible etc is a form of progress. However, this brings an ideology along with it that just because something makes life easier for us, it is progress.

On similar lines, there has been a big turnaround in the UK about women's perception of weight in magazines. Not that long ago, the magazines were full of skinny celebrities glorified for their figures. However, through the progress of our society we now have a better understanding that being skinny is just as unhealthy as being overweight.

Although this progress allows us to understand dietary habits more fully, the ideology of the 'perfect figure' has now started to glorify much curvier celebrities. It seems all the progress has done has changed out perspective on what we believe to be 'correct' or 'perfect'.

I believe technology to be on similar lines. If progress in technology makes our PCs run faster and our mobile phones work more efficiently, we are more tempted to believe that a lazy society is a up-and-coming society.

I would like to believe in an ideology of progress, however I wonder how much the idea is forced upon us by the companies rather than the people.

TOPIC 1 wk 2 Q.B

b) p. 3+ According to Lister et al., some commentators stress the ‘newness’ of new media, but others (such as Kevin Robins) can be seen to be saying that nothing fundamental has changed, because new media technology is another product of capitalism, and therefore will fit into and serve a pre-existing capitalist society and culture, rather than transform it in any fundamental sense. Any thoughts? Can we critique this position?

I think this is a simple case of whether you agree or don't agree. As it has already been shown that 'new media' encompasses so many different types of things into the equation, I believe it would be impossible to tar it all with the same brush.

I believe in regards to digital media as we know it (PCs, cameras, phones etc) that there is nothing particularly 'new'. In regards to question A below, they are a good business opportunity to get people with the money and consumerist habits to shell out for a new upgraded product. The technology gets faster, more powerful and more effective but overall it is still the same product. However, if we take into consideration 'new' new media I believe we are pushing our society and culture forward. New technology can make our PCs faster but they can also save lives. They can improve our medical knowledge and they can give us a whole new way at looking at old problems. Surely, this is 'newness' that is important and exciting?

In conclusion, I believe new technology is important. In regards to capitalism - that is a view on the entire country and shouldn't be fixed to everything as the only answer. It just depends on your point of view.

TOPIC 1 wk 2 Q.A

a) p. 2 With Windows Vista replacing XP and Office 2007 replacing Office 2003, (and so on), what is ‘upgrade culture’ all about? Is some new media change just consumerism thought up by big business?

'Upgrading' is an idealist view on technological change. Lister speaks of idealism in regards to how our culture view new media and it's ever-evolving transformation. However, if many find new upgrades hard to grasp, this surely cannot always be idealistic? For example, there has been a divide in lecturers in whether they prefer Blackboard to the Virtual Campus. In Media's case, we still use an 800x600 website (very old!). I personally find this incredibly hard to navigate in comparison to Blackboard, however it takes a lot more 'getting to grips with'. If digital media is supposed to make our lives easier, it is understandable why many may choose to give up with upgrades and stick to what they know.

In regards to this idea, I feel in noteworthy to mention my Xmas experience.

I wanted to have a PC for Xmas to replace my university laptop (which was OK for work but couldn't handle anything more complicated.) I found a great site that allowed me to put custom parts together in order to get the best and most personalised choice for myself. However, the one thing that was fixed was the Windows installation. This happened to be Windows Vista (the newest addition to Windows software.)

I'd personally heard mixed reviews on Vista, hearing it was hard to grasp with many applications harder to get to from an administrators perspective. It took a lot of work but I managed to change my deal so I got Windows XP instead of Vista. Strangely - this cost me more.

So, in regards to consumerism - it seems that sometimes the businesses make more money from the people trying not to upgrade than the ones who change with the times. I know eventually I will have to change to Vista, as everything that was once on XP is slowly being fazed out.

This leads me on to talk about video games.

Similarly to the idea I just spoke about, video games have to change with the times too. You may have heard of the 'console wars' between Xbox 360, Nintendo Wii and PS3. The war is between each console trying to 'outdo' or 'out power' the other. This is especially relevant between the Xbox 360 and the PS3.

The PS2 was the biggest selling last generation console, with more games dedicated to it than any other platform. When the PS3 was in development, however, things seemed to go downhill.

There are many arguments suggesting that Sony did not market their product with good advertising. The general idea is that Sony believed people would shell out for their upgraded technology because they won the previous 'top of the consoles' battle with the PS2.

However, with the PS3 costing £100-£200 more than the runner up Xbox 360, it seemed many gamers did not want to spend so much money without knowing they were getting a good deal. Sony had talked a lot about having the most power, but when it came to games they seemed to be 'shtum'. When the PS3 was finally put on the market, many of the promised 'console dedicated' games never appeared for it's title. It seems Sony didn't think they needed to convince their developers their product would make them money either.

At the moment, the Xbox 360 is selling far more consoles than the PS3 (who at this point are losing money on every console). It is mainly argued that the Xbox has more games, is easier to play and doesn't cost the earth.

In conclusion, I believe that businesses see upgrade culture as a possibility to make money, whether this be from the ones hanging on to the last generation technology, the battle to be the best in their field, or just the general idea that we need to improve with the times.
New versions of technology have a way of pushing consumers to shell out, whatever their motive may be.