Category Archives: Networked Media

A category for Media.

1080PPR (Pixels per radi)

Posted on by under Networked Media

Rectangular film chamber. Photo: Peter Harris

Sounds weird, doesn’t it? Unsymposium 0.7 has been and gone. That was an eye opener to a completely different look at authorial control. Here I was thinking that the author had control over what codes and conventions they use to create a film of a specific genre. But I guess in retrospect, Adrian was right. The codes and conventions have the author at bay. You can’t just make a Sci-fi film out of nothing. You need the codes and conventions to make the film. You cant make it science fiction without them. So ultimately, the codes and conventions define what you can do, you don’t have that control. And with that your freedom is gone, you can’t do anything you want anymore. You realised that you’re at the will of technology and technique. Artificial intelligence will take over the world and humans will be the slaves to robots. It was nice knowing you.

Another point I guess, is that you can’t make the codes and conventions. They define themselves, or more so society and history does. But the author doesn’t. Back to the original point however (the one that comes in at the title), why do we have a rectangular screen for movies? There’s something you can’t control. It’s just deeply entrenched in cinema culture. It’s forever been a component of film. They’ve been rectangular frames, as far as I know, forever. That’s something right there that says a lot. What happens if someone makes a round film of sorts. Perhaps it could be interesting. I don’t know if it’s been done before, that requires further research. (Unless anyone else know’s differently).

There’s my take away for you. You’re under control. Now you do what they tell you.

Video unrelated, I couldn’t resist.

Making Something of it All

Posted on by under Life, Networked Media

What’s more manly than dead dears? Photo: Itenney1225

Here’s an interesting look at how a blog grows and develops into something that becomes a full time job (A six figure yearly income job too). The Art of Manliness is a blog I have been reading for some time now, and while I started reading it after it had already come to power, I have seen it grow substantially even in that time. I have seen what was a successful Husband and Wife team blog go to being something with regular contributors from different websites, as well as having people contribute in other ways, such as creating the videos for the blog, etc.

I think what Adrian has been saying the whole time about blogging and what he said in the first symposium about turning a passion into a career comes through in a successful blog like this. If you’re writing good stuff then other people will read it. Especially if it’s good stuff that other people aren’t writing. If there’s something you know a lot about and something that you have researched and looked into enough to be able to provide a positive contribution to the topic, then go for it.

Here’s a couple of interviews with the blog’s creator, Brett McKay:

The Rise to the Top

Grind and Thrive

This kind of thing is great for writers and those who blog to look at. It teaches you important characteristics of today’s online market internet uses, as well as what it takes to turn something into something.

The NBN Lives On, For Now

Posted on by under Life, Networked Media

Thanks to Jake Baldwin for this blog post, from Paul Budde, who I linked to in an earlier post about the NBN. I received an email this morning from the creators of the petition to save the FTTP NBN from the coalition, indicating that Malcolm Turnbull had officially released the planned investigation and review of the current NBN. What Budde says in his blog is 100% correct. The fact that the coalition are willing to perform a review that is “apolitical” and “technologically agnostic” is promising, no matter how honest these claims are.

We can only hope that the Liberal Government will enlist the helps of the appropriate experts around the world that are able to contribute to this issue and offer advice and first hand experience to both the government, the Australian people and NBN Co. Hopefully following the analysis, a more effective and efficient rollout of a similar network (One that’s FTTP) will be agreed upon and Australia will receive the infrastructure boost it deserves.

This is exactly what we need to keep up with the ever growing network and cloud computing. There’s no point storing everything in the cloud without fast internet speeds. Imagine backing up terabytes of data from back-up drives to the cloud or servers in the network with our current internet speeds? Don’t laugh, people do it, all the time. It takes a lot of time and resources. The NBN gives us a chance to improve our business operations as well as personal activities.

0.6 The Long Tail and Feeding the Fire

Posted on by under Life, Networked Media

 

Not everyone wants a lifesize Gandalf statue, but it’s accessible to those who want it. Photo: Ewan Roberts

Of all the points raised in the Unsymposium 0.6, I feel the discussion surrounding the 80/20 rule, the long tail and niche markets to be the most relevant, and definitely something I can relate to. One of the great bonuses of having all of the small links in the network is the incredible wealth and depth of information that is available, something that Adrian has pointed out multiple times throughout the course, as well as reiterating in the Unsymposium.

An example of this is very prevalent in the film world. I read articles all the time from major newspapers, Time magazine, etc, that are catering for the general public in the best way they can. They’re a mass produced publication that has to appeal to as wide an audience as possible. For someone interested in upcoming films and productions, this can give you a brief sort of overview from someone outside the industry. As Adrian said, it’s enough to keep the people happy. But sometimes you get people who are incredibly interested in a single subject. For example, I am a Middle-Earth lover (in case you haven’t read any of my other posts that Middle Earth continually infiltrates). I can read major headlines in the paper and magazines talking about the upcoming Hobbit films (eg, major news such as the press release announcing the Hobbit as a trilogy over two films), but I can also access a plethora of blogs and websites, run by people like me and read by people like me, who absolutely love all things Middle Earth. Not even all of Middle-Earth, there are some websites dedicated purely to maintaining a public and accessible update on the next film of the Hobbit trilogy (Desolation of Smaug).

With access to such blogs I can read inside information, from people who have friends, family and relatives working on the project. I can read any sort of official news or updates (even some of this doesn’t make it into the mass produced news). I can read exclusive interviews with the cast and crew of the production. I can view photos (both behind the scenes and promotional), I can receive updates on when NZ Post is releasing the next series of New Zealand stamps commemorating the films release. I think you get the picture.

TOR.net (the one ring .net) is a perfect example of this. A site dedicated to Middle Earth. Thanks to the internet, I have access to this. Something myself and others are interested in, that normally we would have to have incredible connections to view. The kind of information the site contains used to be accessible to the people in the movie industry or involved in the production. Not anymore. Thanks to the long tail. So let’s support the little guys and the independent websites and blogs out there . The independent publications, the ones that matter for people like me, with unique tastes and interests.

Technological Culture

Posted on by under Networked Media

Technology will kill us all. Photo: Dave

The relationship between technology and culture, as Murphie and Potts have pointed out, is a highly contentious debate. One with many vastly different views and opinions. Amongst the differing theories and studies behind this relationship, there is an underlying factor. That is that there IS a relationship between culture and technology. It is without a doubt that they interact. They quote Marcel Mauss with a valuable idea:

we are everywhere faced with physio-psycho-sociological assemblages of series of actions. These actions are more or less habitual and more or less ancient in the life of the individual and history of society

This idea ties technology, techniques and society into each other. The technologies shape and are shaped by the techniques surrounding them, that become imbedded in society, passed down through culture and ancestory, as well as instinctive behaviours.

Murphie and Potts also teach as some valuable definitions for terms; technique, technology and culture.

Technique is expanded upon, from simply being a skill or way in which a technology is used, into the entire tree of thought stemming from a technology. The psychological thinking, the way it’s used, the way it is thought of and the way society and the individual utilises it.

As for technology, they offer us a number of definitions, from respected theorists and academics.

Lorenzo Simpson:

That constellation of knowledge, processes, skills and products whose aim is to control and transform

Arnold Pacey:

Ordered systems that involve people, organisations, living things and machines

It is clear that technology has been interpreted differently since the inception of the idea, and as Murphie and Potts state, the word has been broadened to include a greater arc of thinking.

Culture is dynamic and multiple in its meaning. It can be applied to a wide range of ideas, thus Murphie and Potts argue that it is always changing, hence dynamic. Culture changes with society and technology.

These ideas are all intertwined, for better or worse. There’s no yes/no, but we can definitely acknowledge the relationship that exists between these ideas.

National Networks and Nodes

Posted on by under Life, Networked Media

The future is bright and beautiful. Photo: Dan Tentler

Networked media (What is Networked Media?) must tie in to all this stuff about National Network schemes and Australia’s NBN right? The viability of the network is dependent on society’s access to the network. To obtain the full benefits of interactive media, online content and subscription services, high level internet access is important. For me, with the recent election, one of the most important issues was the NBN. With such a tremendous focus from the IT industry and Media industry on cloud computing and interactive media, to remain competitive with the world leaders in business, health, medicine and education, we need infrastructure that is going to support the growing demands of the cloud. We now run into a number of problems with our new Liberal Government. They said they were all about infrastructure upgrades, yet failed to recognise the importance of the NBN. While politicians like Malcolm Turnbull like to think the NBN was an important election issue, in reality both campaigns failed to spend enough time on the issue. The Coalition obviously made a smart move in not bringing it up too much, because they knew that their NBN was inferior.

While I am not going to jump on board and say that Labor’s NBN plan is perfect (There are certainly some issues that need addressing), I am willing to say that it has the best intentions in mind for the future of Australian telecommunications. Maybe Tony Abbot and co. lacked a good understanding of design and design fiction? Because their version of the NBN certainly does not take into account the ever-growing demands of internet based technologies.

I think the issue of cost should be disregarded for the time being. There is plenty of competition over the fact that Labor’s NBN was expensive and the Coalition’s was cheap. But I think there’s plenty of evidence from economics and IT experts to suggest that the cost of the ALP’s NBN would be paid off in full over time, with excessive profit. Blogger Steve J presents some very valid evidence and arguments about this issue. So let’s put that aside for now.

What’s the go?

For those have no idea what’s going on so far I’ll give you a brief summary. to put it simply, the ALP’s NBN was a Fibre-to-the-premise network (FTTP), where fibre optic cabling would be rolled out to 93% of homes in Australia. This would give us a fibre network with a top speed capacity (in appropriate time) of up to 1Gb/ps, as countries such as South Korea have proved. Currently, the top speed available to users with access to the NBN in Australia is 10oMb/ps. In Tasmania, 44% of the population with NBN access pay for this top tier access. In the rest of Australia, 31%.

Contrary to Turnbull’s assertion of “nobody needs more than 25Mbps”, the real income figures of NBN Co released on 19-April, show that 31% of consumers are already paying for 100Mbps.

There is obviously a demand for it in Australia. In comparison, the Coalition NBN is a Fibre-to-the-node network (FTTN), which works on a skeleton of fibre optic cabling, with connections between homes and the “nodes” relying on our decaying and aging copper wire installations. Top speed and potential is always going to be 100Mb/ps, the maximum data rate achievable through the old wires. There’s no room for improvement. Bottlenecks will appear and make the new network installation almost useless.

Here’s a petition on change.org, which has attracted huge interest in only two weeks from Australians. It clearly presents all the points of contention regarding the NBN and makes the Liberal NBN seem effectively useless. Once you’ve had a gander over there, check out what Malcolm Turnbull had to say about it. It’s clear that the Liberal’s don’t really have a lot up their sleeves when it comes to defending their network scheme.

Last Saturday there was a general election at which the NBN was one of the most prominent issues. The Coalition’s NBN Policy – which can be read here  had been published in April – five months ahead of the election. The Coalition won the election.

Not content with having people pick apart and obliterate his NBN, Mr Turnbull has obviously decided the best response to ignore the argument and downplay it. Clearly if the Liberal’s won the election everybody wants their NBN, because it was such a big issue that was debated and discussed in comparison to Asylum seekers, the carbon tax, etc. Go ahead and have a read of the Coalition’s NBN policy that is linked to in the quote from Turnbull. The only issue that it makes you think about is money. And we’ve concluded that isn’t the key issue.

One thing that has struck me throughout this debate is that the Coalition believe there is sound evidence from other countries such as the UK, US and NZ to exhibit resounding success for a FTTN network. Sure there has been successes from this kind of network, of course there will be an increase in speeds. But the big issue here is that most of these countries are already moving to a FTTP solution. It’s obvious that a FFTN network is redundant in the grand scheme of things. Why would we spend billions upgrading our infrastructure to something that is not even at all competitive with world leaders, when we could upgrade to a very feasible, more expensive network that is cutting edge technology and potential?

Time and money are against the ALP NBN, but sometimes rushing things isn’t the best option. If we take a big step to FTTP now, we will eliminate the need for another change of infrastructure 10 years down the track. That’s not only saving more time in the long run, but money. Two big infrastructure projects will always cost more than a giant one. The fact that the ALP NBN will actually bring huge profits in the end should negate all issues of cost. Steve J makes some excellent findings and arguments for the ALP NBN in this article: The Real Deal on the Coalition NBN: same price, worse outcomes.

So while you wrap your head around that one, I’ll give you something simple, interactive and graphically based that might send the message more simply. How Fast is the NBN? That site provides real time examples of download times using both the ALP and Coalitions desirable speeds.

 For more NBN information try these sites:

Petition against Coalition NBN

 Steve Jenkins on the NBN

NBN Myths

Paul Budde

Malcolm Turnbull response to their NBN’s opposition

Coalition NBN policy

An article on South Korea’s world leading Telecomms network (Also Paul Budde)

 

 

 

 

Taste Testing

Posted on by under Entertainment, Networked Media

Amazon, it’s a jungle out there. Photo: Michael Durwin

One of the important aspects of Anderson’s Long Tail and the Unsymposium this week was the interconnectivity of the network and the recommendation engines of online shopping sites and services. As I touched on last week, I’m a fan of services like Spotify and other ways of buying “things” online. One of my reasons for liking Spotify is the artist recommendations that I get, based on what I listen too. It opens up worlds of exploration. However as was discussed in the Unsymposium, there are some issues regarding these systems. They are mainly based on the technical component of the recommendation; meaning the engine that runs the system as Adrian said. Services like Facebook make recommendations that are based on advertising and money making. They should be ignored, or at least dealt with more thoroughly. Something like Amazon or Spotify make recommendations based on what you and other people are interested in, and how one product relates to another. This is a much better system and one that has much more potential.

I have a bone to pick with these systems though. When I first started to buy things from Amazon, I thought great! Look at all these interesting books, movies and albums that I would have never thought to look at. Now I’ve been buying things online for years and they’ve harvested a lot of my personal data. Unfortunately I have varied interests, like most people. Sometimes I get a good recommendation. The rest of the time, I don’t. I have sent Amazon’s emails to my spam folder. The problem? As soon as I show interest in something that is incredibly popular, say for example a blu-ray like Marvel’s The Avengers, my personal recommendations become over powered by garbage. Millions of people like that movie, they look at it, wish list it and buy it. That means I start getting lots of recommendations for the big box office hits of the year. The problem with this? Unlike a lot of people who buy movies, I’m not really interested in the biggest and best movies for the most part. What began as a personal recommendation has been polluted and violated by trends. I guess that’s the problem of buying a huge range of different items from these sorts of services, it becomes almost like a grocery store. It wouldn’t make sense for Woolworth’s to recommend carrots to people who buy bread, simply because so many people do large grocery runs that contain both. Sure some people might be interested in both, but if you’re looking for a recommendation, it needs to be more specific. Perhaps these systems in their current form are best for purists and people who tend to purchase only products from a niche market online. I guess their potential is limited by the current software and engines that run these systems.

So in some ways, there are issues with these systems limiting the scope of what you buy, like Elliot said. But I’d also like to believe what Jasmine said, about it not being an issue because people are capable of ignoring the system. I think media literacy comes into it again. As someone who has grown up with these things coming into play and has studied media and advertising, I’m pretty switched on when it comes to these recommendations. I’m confident enough on the web to make my own decisions, and know when a recommendation is relevant or simply just another popular pick. For me, they don’t really create an issue, other than the fact that I don’t get to reap the benefits of them properly. A lot of people who aren’t as experienced with web based media and recommendation systems, don’t take recommendations lightly, they’ll follow up on them, especially if they’re something super popular. What it really comes down to is your literacy and knowledge of your own tastes and interests, in combination with recommendations. On Spotify I tend to ignore a lot of recommendations, because they’re bands I don’t like. There’s a few bands I like that are like a diamond in the rough. Maybe one band out of a genre that I find entertaining. Where Spotify assumes that I like thinks simply based on what other people like and similar music, that’s not really how my tastes work. Perhaps I ask too much of the system? I think though that they are definitely a positive factor of the network and something that I can see being developed and implemented to become more personal and effective in the future, as Adrian said.

80/20

Posted on by under Networked Media

A small part of the internet. Photo: Cesar Harada

 

After learning about the 80/20 rule in Business Management during VCE I was fascinated with the seemingly magical equation that is very relatable to a lot of areas of life. The rule is important to business matters, mathematical studies (Maths methods, another fantastic part of the VCE curriculum – good riddance), and the all powerful network. I guess I was exposed to it regularly in high school as a result of these sorts of classes making up the bulk of my curriculum.

I also find network structures interesting and enjoy the strand of thought that goes along with them. Here’s something I posted back at the start of my blogging career.

Adrian’s rough equation that the rule applies to the blogging makes sense too. It ties right back into power and the world, society, economics, whatever you want to call it. There is always power inequalities in the world. I guess the fact that countries like America manage to have some of the richest people in the world, as well as the poorest contributes to this. It’s a natural sort of structure and hierarchy that humans have become a part of.

And so the relevance of this in regard to the network, (apart from all the obvious links and connotations) is that to have power in the network, you need to be part of the 20. The more links to your blog, website, business, or whatever property you own on the network there are, the more power you have over the network’s economy. The more connections there are to your node, the more relative control you have. I say relative because you cannot control the network. The network is its own being. But you can certainly help shape it to an extent. If you put something out there that’s worthwhile, people will resonate with it, learn from it, refer to it, link to it. All of a sudden, you become a power node. Instead of a link from your Mum to your blog, suddenly there are millions of people, website and organisations interacting with your node in the network.

Back to the big picture, as Barabási notes in Linked: How Everything Is Connected to Everything Else and What It Means for Business, Science, and Everyday Life, the prominence of complex structures and power relations in systems such as the network, yield to a new kind of order. While in some applications, such as economical inequality, the 80/20 rule can be indicative of a negative system, for a intricately designed web of nodes such as the network, the power balance is important. It gives the network a way in which to organise itself, it makes it understandable and accessible.

Into the 7th

Posted on by under Networked Media

Seven Samurai for Seven Weeks. Photo: ORAZ Studio

So as we enter the seventh week of semester, the symposium enters its 4th incarnation. It was an interesting hour of discussions and debates, one that yielded enough to satisfy the avid networked media fan. It’s very interesting to see the ideas of three minds collide, and certainly makes for a much more invigorated sense of learning. I think I found one aspect of the symposium more interesting then any other, coincidentally it was one that was touched for the longest. That is the issue of authorial control.

Coming from a background of learning about communication and audience theories, I have always found the control (or lack of) of the author to be a complex and intriguing debate. It is clear that people from different backgrounds and with alternative ideologies have substantially different views. The key is to find the common ground. I think that’s what’s so important about the symposiums for networked media. In the end thanks to some thorough rebuttals and discussion from our celebrity panel, it was clear that there is an authorial intent in the work, but you can’t expect to have control over the audience. Something I agree with. Timeless debates have raged over this issue, and it is quite contentious. But it is true that you will never be able to control what your audience read from your message (Goodbye hypodermic needle).

With that being said, Brian and Elliot both raised valid points in that there are conventions and expectations that history and society prove can to some point be relied on. That is being said, I think, that there is a certain extent to which you can safely suggest your message will be received, the way you intended, based on certain principles that are pre-learned and developed.

It would be rash to suggest that the message intended by a filmmaker is not to some greater extent received by the audience (if he sends it and codes it properly). But it is also definitely valid that the work does not grant you access to the mind of the creator. Not their person anyway.

It is valid to point out that a work of an artist will carry their values and beliefs to an extent. Everyone has their own personal beliefs, bias and so forth that they take into the creative process, and in some way this will always end up impacting the work that is created. But as Adrian pointed out, context gets left behind. As society changes, so to do the contexts in which we consume texts. That’s what the author can’t control. I guess that’s why it’s hard for a lot of people to watch an old black and white monster film, and feel any sense of thrill, excitement, shock, or horror. They’ve seen it already. We’re a different society. I’ve tried watching the old Universal Monster films with friends (Some of my favourite all time films) and they usually end up laughing. Most people don’t take the time to consider things from a different context to the one that they understand, breathe and live in.

 

Why Can’t We Just Have Both?

Posted on by under Entertainment, Life, Networked Media

I gave this a little thought awhile back. Jake makes some good points, and offers a different perspective. One that I agree with completely. Subscription and cloud based services offer us something extraordinary; that is the ability to literally carry everything from the world around us in our pockets. Well, not exactly, it’s all up in the cloud (That’s also known as Council Bluffs in Iowa, USA). But still, we have access to it all in our pockets. And that’s what we need, to increase productivity, efficiency and accessibility. The potential wealth of knowledge and data available to us as beings of this earth is sensational. It’s the kind of thing that was unfathomable to most, but George Orwell, 50 years ago. And it’s great.

As Chris Anderson notes in “The Long Tail”, this accessibility also provides us access to the entire network of knowledge. It’s thanks to this huge network and the interconnectivity it yields that we have access to so many great things. I’m definitely an advocate of this. I love music. I can’t afford to pay huge dollars to go see an unknown band to satisfy my ever increasing hunger for good music. I can subscribe to Spotify though. Recommended artists. Perfect. Only problem is, sometimes I feel I get a little swamped by people like Amazon, Spotify, Ebay and their other friends. Sometimes they try and do a little more than suggest, they almost preach. They know so much about me, yet why do they still offer me the latest tracks from some pretentious hipster black metal band I clearly have no interest in? I think sometimes the only problem with these services is the network is so complex and interrelated, that sometimes things that seem relatable to you, don’t actually relate to you. There’s plenty of people out there who like The Rolling Stones and the Beatles.But there’s some who are Beatles purists and won’t touch the Rolling Stones and their “edgy” rip off of the Beatles. That’s where the computer loses. Some things can’t be predicted. While the network can help computers relate to us, it also reminds us that computers are not people.

Alois also raises valid contentions in this response. The digital and cloud technologies are less resource heavy then physical belongings, they’re simpler to store. That’s why they’re great. And I guess, for people like Alois, who only use things once, it is an obvious choice as to which kind of possession is more suitable. This is why the possibilities of technology are so exciting. For some people though, like myself, the experience that is related to the physical mediums is to rich to give up. Is it still wasteful to have a tangible possession if you use it repeatedly? I have a lot of things, and I lament it at times as space can be an issue. But I love to immerse myself in these things too much to give up on “real things”. I have lots of books, but I read them more than once. I have lots of records, but I have listened to them through a multitude of times (that number’s still counting). I have a lot of Blu-ray movies, but I watch them more than once. I’m not saying that digital possessions can’t be used more than once. But to me if it’s an experience you can repeatedly enjoy, I do not see it as a waste.

I guess that brings us to the crux, and my initial statement. I talked about this a while back, and it’s something I support. I can’t see a reason why it wouldn’t be viable in the market. It’s a great idea. Physical books being accompanied by a download for a free ebook version. One of the reasons I haven’t given up my physical possessions is that when I buy a lot of them (most vinyl records, all blu-rays, etc) is that they come with a digital version. I have a beautiful tangible object that yields an experience that is more intimate and irreplaceable, but I also have a convenient and accessible version that I can take with me wherever I go. I think this is the path to go down for the future. Sell digital content of all medias on its own. But sell physical versions with a digital interpretation. It would help propel the digital industry and help connect more people to the network, while still embracing the traditional experience based medium.

Disclaimer | Background image: Emma Gawen
Skip to toolbar