Made to Break (2)

Reading the second part of Slade's "Made to Break" shed a lot of light on what seems to be the foundation for the philosophy of many aspects of American commerce. What I found to be most interesting was the story of the transistor radio and how it fits into the idea of "obsolescence". The trend with most companies in the world seems to be what I would like to call the "Wal-Mart" mentality, where cheap price is the most important element of the product. Sony was the first to start taking over the market because of their ability to contract workers at "inexpensive" prices in other countries, setting the tone for other companies to follow. Although this takes jobs away from the American people, the quality of the product has not been compromised in using this method of production. Motorola cannot compete with Sony so they develop an automated soldering system which cuts production costs greatly, but in turn the machine soldered radios cannot be fixed by hand. This renders the radio "disposable" and is an example of "death dating". Although Motorola was pushed into creating their version of the radio by other companies, they end up changing the whole market because they have the cheapest price which will influence the rest of the radio companies to follow suit. Once this change occurs, radios will not last long, thus ensuring customers will come back and buy more sooner than later.
It was also interesting how Slade made the idea of "obsolescence" even translate to real estate. The existence of "cape cod" homes was due to attempts to save "space, time and money" (133) by Frank Lloyd Wright. I do find more of a justified reason behind the existence of "cape cod" (no basement, no front porch) homes because there was a housing crisis in the country. I don't think it compares the same to something like radio obsolescence because a home lacking a front porch and basement does not lose quality in the sense that it will fall apart without these things. Also, many of these homes were being built in much more crowded areas than suburban neighborhoods (the edge of cities, etc.) so I don't really agree that basements and porches are "obsolete", but they are more of a luxury that does not have to be included with every single house that's built because of space. Although these homes might have changed the overall vision of what a "home" is or can be, it has not by any means eliminated basements and porches from the American people...so the effect is not as strong.
The third chapter deals with "planned obsolescence" and Brooks Stevens quote explains it very well "We make good products, we induce people to buy them, and then next year we deliberately introduce something that will make those products old fashioned, out of date, obsolete. We do that for the soundest reason: to make money". Although this is not the easiest concept to accept from a consumer standpoint, we know that this is the truth about many companies and products. I respect the fact that Stevens could admit this so bluntly, but also hate that somebody could openly say this and continue to do it.

Made to Break (part 1)

Chapters 1-3 of Slade's book "Made to Break" were very interesting to me. Chapter 1 discusses marketing strategies for a world that has yet to have any solid companies. The use of "unique" packaging and "trademark" promises were used to ensure people of the quality in the products they were buying. Today, many companies are already established and it seems that they have set the mold for other companies trying to compete. We see many of the same ideas being recycled or altered in a small way to make other companies look similar enough to the most well known brand that possibly they would be considered the same. I personally find this interesting because it seems in today's society people are making a shift towards the more local/small companies and moving away from the mass produced big company brands. At the same time, unique packaging is still a prime part of marketing for any company because all of the big name companies' packages/brands are so well known that they have become the norm for those products. I wonder if this shift away from big name companies is due to the fact that a "trademark guarantee" doesn't mean anything when people are so aware of ingredients and production information these days. The second chapter of the book really caught my attention because it talked about how Ford was against many of the marketing schemes that are used today by his company and basically any company with enough money to advertise. In this chapter, Slade quotes Calkin stating "...beauty, became a factor in the production and marketing goods" (49). I find it funny that Ford seemed to be against this type of marketing because it makes the product out to be dishonest or fantasized. Although I find this view to be true, the affect of advertisements on the human mind is so strong that people really are persuaded in some way whether they want to be or not. Seeing a constant image over and over again, especially when it looks perfect, will make a person consider that product when they are looking for something like it. Chapter 3's discussion of 'death dating' was the part of this book I was most looking forward to reading. Although it seems to be a shady practice, if a company does not give you a lifetime guarantee, they are not obligated to make the product to the 100% of their ability. It seems most companies only put about 80% of their ability into making their products in order to ensure that the business will continue to grow. This just proves that big companies never look at their customers as human beings, but as numbers. With this being said, I think our ability to recognize this and openly talk about it in a book is what is starting to drive people to more local/smaller companies who can only use quality of their products to battle the big mass produced products. If products aren't breaking physically, technology is constantly growing and evolving rendering products useless or incapable by the time 5 years go by. "People buy a new car, not because the old one is worn out, but because it is no longer modern" (49) explains this dilemma perfectly and speaks to the culture that we are living in today. The constant need to be "up to date" is what fuels many of these technological companies' success.

Wikipedia Part 2

In the second half of Andrew Dalby's "The World and Wikipedia" begins with the chapter discussing why Americans love the online user-generated encyclopedia. One example that gets brought up in the book and is a perfect representation of what sets Wikipedia apart from a normal Encyclopedia is the "Freedom Fries" article. As Dalby explains, there are many different factors that go into reading an article on such a term as "freedom fries". Yes, the term was a "euphemism used for French Fries" as the Wikipedia page explains immediately, but there are many other factors that go into this phrase. It was the result of Americans reacting to a decline in French support in our country's decisions. Also, there was a movement in America to legally change the name of "french fries" permanently. The reasoning behind the name change is much more significant and serious than the article on "freedom fries", and a person can easily click the blue links throughout the page that refer in more detail to the "2003 Invasion of Iraq". I believe this is the point that Darby is trying to prove, the CONVENIENCE of Wikipedia is something that no encyclopedia can compete with. The idea of information being a "click" or "search" away makes Wikipedia appealing and easier to use than opening a book and having to search for yourself. With the internet being able to work so quickly, a person can click away for hours and read about 20 completely different topics that all connect in some way (like a 6 degrees of separation for information). Dalby does not ignore the problems with Wikipedia either. Although a lot of the information a person can get off Wikipedia can be helpful, people also need to worry about bias when reading any article. He begins Chapter 6 with a quote "Internet cruelty is easy. We do not have to look at the people we hurt" by David Shankbone (148). I found this to be a very strong point about the problem with the anonymity of the internet. Before Wikipedia, if a person wanted to share their opinion with the world they would either create a blog (which is personal) or write a book (where they would need to present their case to be credible and identify who they are). A person has to be careful reading Wikipedia because it's set up and overall idea create the illusion of a credible source, but there is no consequence for lying or being biased...just future editing. Dalby states "We love Wikipedia because we love talking about ourselves" (148), which seems to be a fitting explanation for a country obsessed with 'reality television' and the idea of becoming an 'overnight star' that has been fueled by the media and the possibilities of the internet. Wikipedia is the people's ecyclopedia, constantly growing and constantly changing.

Wikipedia

I found it very interesting when the book talked about the certain (and rarely) topics that they actually ban from being created. I'm still not sure how I feel about Wikipedia's censoring of "Criticisms of Barack Obama" because the site is a user-generated site and I don't necessarily think it is a bad topic. The book brings up that there are criticisms of past rulers (Nero, Augustus, etc.) or even of George W. Bush, so I don't see why Barack Obama should be any different. Honestly, I understand that there is a high possibility of false or over-exaggerated information being put on the page, but that is why the site is user-generated and not claiming for the information to be 100% concrete facts. If a person wants to run for office and put themselves out into the nation/world as a leader, they should expect to be criticized. Not only does criticism come with the territory, but potentially if Obama wanted to, he could use the page as a way to see what people are complaining about (although he would take most of it with a grain of salt). I also was intrigued to learn about how people who regularly edit pages are regulated...I have never personally added anything to Wikipedia, but now I would like to try and get involved with something (probably music/bands).
Later, in Chapter 4 of the book when Dalby is talking about why/why not to use Wikipedia, he quotes Paul Boutin discussing the negative aspect of Wikipedia stating: "Even if a reference tool is 98 percent right, it's not useful if you don't know which 2 percent is wrong" (90). I agree with this statement 50% of the time...I believe that if you are looking on Wikipedia for serious/education related information then it is a horrible source. Nobody should be trying to learn or quote from Wikipedia about topics such as World War II, biographies of famous world leaders, etc. At the same time if somebody wants to look up less serious topics such as rules of sports games, or members in a band, etc. then I feel that Wikipedia can be an extremely convenient and useful tool.

Technopoly (part 2)

Chapter 6 of Postman's "Technopoly" discusses the ambiguity of every day life.  It claims "Individual judgments, after all, are notoriously unreliable, filled with ambiguity and plagued by doubt" (93) and arrives at the conclusion that "Machines eliminate complexity, doubt and ambiguity" (93).  While these statements are somewhat true, the reason humans are separate from other animals and machines is because of our ability to REASON.  Of course life would be less complicated without having to worry about opposing views or if the decision being made is the correct one, but that is a very important part of life.  Reading this chapter and taking in the message being spread throughout it got me wondering if all people want technology for is to make their lives as easy as possible, even if that means sacrificing having an opinion or a voice? This chapter deals mostly with technology in medicine/hospitals and the fact that our country or any country would even consider putting those important decisions in the hands of a "cut and dry" computer scares me.  Again, life is ambiguous for every single living person on the planet and this fact cannot be ignored because a decision is coming from a computer that does not contain ability to understand this concept.  "Machines cannot feel and, just as important, cannot understand" (112) represents the problem with relying solely on computers perfectly.  Computers are still PROGRAMMED by somebody to perform the same task the same way every time the details are the same on paper. Postman also claims that "Technopoly wishes to solve, once and for all, the dilemma of subjectivity" (158).  My problem with this statement is since when has subjectivity been a problem that needs to be solved?  Throughout history there are plenty of instances where great ideas/inventions, etc. would have never been possible without subjectivity of society.  How is the world supposed to grow/evolve without subjectivity? Science "cannot tell us when authority is 'legitimate' and when not, or how we must decide, or when it may be right or wrong to obey" (162) sums up the problem with technology and becoming too dependent on it.  A perfect example would be the "twitter for dogs" we heard about in class.  If you are a tech-savy person this invention could be enjoyable, but this in no way shape or form should be used as a "babysitter" or legitimate form of "keeping an eye" on a pet.  Although that is not what the invention is made to do right now, I could see developers aiming to make it more reliable and gear it towards this type of use.  I am scared for the future of the world because machines should not become superior to human reason and it seems that most of the world is too passive to care. 

"Technopoly" by Neil Postman

I found this book to be extremely enjoyable.  The beginning chapter "The Judgment of Thamus" raised some very good points based on Socrates' story.  Since writing is the basis of our culture, I never considered how it might have been viewed when it was first introduced into the world and I found this perspective to be very interesting.  In the same sense, I began to look at technology in a different way than I have in the past.  Postman best explains this when he talks of Thamus' one error being his "believing that writing will be a burden to society and nothing but a burden." (pg. 4) and not considering the benefits.  Although there are many benefits to technology, I don't know how I am going to feel as it begins to change our society more and more as time goes on.  Postman asks: "...in what ways [computers are] altering our conception of learning, and how, in conjunction with television, it undermines the old idea of school" (19) which in my opinion is a very important question.  Although there are many benefits to technology, one also needs to consider what is being lost/given up in return.  The chapter on Technocracy was also very intriguing to me, the way that Postman explains society as being run by an "unseen hand".  This idea seems to hold true the more dependent on technology the world becomes because everything (records, money, notes, etc.) exists in documents and digitally...the world is losing substance.  I understand that in many ways this use of technology is more efficient and effective, but there is something about relying on computers so heavily that does not sit well in my stomach.  The scariest part about reading the chapter "From Technocracy to Technopoly" was one of the last points Postman makes.  "To every Old World belief, habit, or tradition, there was and still is a technological alternative" (54).  He goes on to explain alternatives for sin, medicine, church, reading, restraint, etc.  Based on the first chapter of the book, I understand that maybe I'm too attached to an older way of life and there is a huge possibility that I can't see the benefits because I am biased against change.