Tuesday, May 24, 2005
Etiquette
I just realized that I do follow this etiquette -more or less- without being much conscious about it. I also realized that I do get a bit annoyed when others do not follow the same rules in front of or around me. Having said that, who can specify a global etiquette for mobile phone usage? I can reasonably expect that different groups or subcultures may well adopt different behaviors and tolerances towards the mobile phone. Also, as the mobile device evolves it is put into different uses. Etiquettes would have to evolve. The walkman has been a subject of a lot of etiquette regulation, as have other technologies. Generally, I am against blanket regulations. I would prefer that individuals undertook responsibility to adjust their mobile phone behavior according to the social context of use, without much global etiquettes.
Mobile phones as cigarettes
"Mobile Phones: Cigarettes for the 21st Century" Interesting (too)! Does this make mobile phones necessarily "bad"? Apart from all other similarities, mobile phones do seem to serve some practical purposes. Further, although this list of observations more or less exhausts the uses, properties and attitudes towards the cigarette, there is a lot more than this to the mobile phone.
Community Mobile Business Models
Cellphedia and Dodgeball are great ideas. These are the kinds of services that, in my opinion, are most likely to work best on a mobile phone. Interactive, community-oriented, and expressive. These are the characteristics of the services that made the web what it is today. Much more so on the mobile networks.
Mobile TV
Update: an interesting argument that, if it ever takes off, mobile TV will eventually be free! And an initial knee-jerk reaction of mobile operators.
There is a lot of hype lately regarding the new mobile TV services that are being launched over 3G networks throughout Europe. All the reports that I have come across are very enthusiastic about the market prospects of this service. I am more skeptical though.
The Guardian jokes with the possibility that people will be bumping into lamp posts as they will be walking, immersed into their favorite TV shows on their mobile phones. Another article half-jokes about the impracticalities of watching mobile TV while riding a bike, and says that this would be the only thing potentially holding back mobile TV adoption among young people. Both authors, however, are enthusiastic with the prospects of mobile TV.
Maybe they will prove right. But their examples suggest two potentially important limitations of this service.
First, the services that have worked best on the mobile phone are interactive (messaging and gaming). TV is the epitomy of passive immersion, and in total opposition to interactive engagement.
Second, it seems strange to me that while TV in general is rapidly moving towards large screen formats, high definition video and multi-channel audio, people will be so keen on the programming as to settle for such a poor video and audio experience on the mobile phone.
There is a lot of hype lately regarding the new mobile TV services that are being launched over 3G networks throughout Europe. All the reports that I have come across are very enthusiastic about the market prospects of this service. I am more skeptical though.
The Guardian jokes with the possibility that people will be bumping into lamp posts as they will be walking, immersed into their favorite TV shows on their mobile phones. Another article half-jokes about the impracticalities of watching mobile TV while riding a bike, and says that this would be the only thing potentially holding back mobile TV adoption among young people. Both authors, however, are enthusiastic with the prospects of mobile TV.
Maybe they will prove right. But their examples suggest two potentially important limitations of this service.
First, the services that have worked best on the mobile phone are interactive (messaging and gaming). TV is the epitomy of passive immersion, and in total opposition to interactive engagement.
Second, it seems strange to me that while TV in general is rapidly moving towards large screen formats, high definition video and multi-channel audio, people will be so keen on the programming as to settle for such a poor video and audio experience on the mobile phone.
Mobile Business as Ecosystem
"Mobile business be defined as an ecosystem of individuals and business actors, in given historical socioeconomic contexts, engaging in multiple successive technological frames through a learning process of co-creating new experiences of social interaction with the use of wireless and mobile technologies."
From N.A. Mylonopoulos and G.I. Doukidis, "Mobile Business: Technological Pluralism, Social Assimilation, and Growth", International Journal of Electronic Commerce, Vol. 8, No. 1, Fall 2003, p.8.
From N.A. Mylonopoulos and G.I. Doukidis, "Mobile Business: Technological Pluralism, Social Assimilation, and Growth", International Journal of Electronic Commerce, Vol. 8, No. 1, Fall 2003, p.8.
Tuesday, May 17, 2005
Tools and life experiences
What is the problem to which th emobile phone is a solution? Such is a question that Neil Postman would ask. What is the cost/benefit ratio of the mobile phone innovation? Are we better off with mobile phones? Such are the questions that Gordon Graham would ask. Has the mobile phone altered human communication in any significant way? This would have been Chrisanthi Avgerou's question.
All the above imply a conception of the mobile phone as tool. As the pen is a tool for writing and the axe is a tool for cutting wood, computers, the internet and the mobile phone are often conceived as tools. Of course, once conceived as tools, one has to ask what utilitarial purpose they serve and how good they are at it. And if you set this instrumental benchmark for the computer, the internet and the mobile phone, they suddenly appear as though they do not serve any well defined problem. Instead they appear as though they are technical achievements for their own sake; they look like technical solutions looking for a problem.
The car is a tool for transporting people and materials from A to B. Is it? To some extent, perhaps. Overall, however, the car is a way of living, a way of relating, a way for showing off, a way of seeking solitude or companionship, a way of expressing feelings through one's driving attitude. The car (or, better, automobility) is a modality of life. John Urry might have argued something of this sort. Others too.
Similarly, the mobile phone is far more than a tool. It defines a social space in which we create novel life experiences.
All the above imply a conception of the mobile phone as tool. As the pen is a tool for writing and the axe is a tool for cutting wood, computers, the internet and the mobile phone are often conceived as tools. Of course, once conceived as tools, one has to ask what utilitarial purpose they serve and how good they are at it. And if you set this instrumental benchmark for the computer, the internet and the mobile phone, they suddenly appear as though they do not serve any well defined problem. Instead they appear as though they are technical achievements for their own sake; they look like technical solutions looking for a problem.
The car is a tool for transporting people and materials from A to B. Is it? To some extent, perhaps. Overall, however, the car is a way of living, a way of relating, a way for showing off, a way of seeking solitude or companionship, a way of expressing feelings through one's driving attitude. The car (or, better, automobility) is a modality of life. John Urry might have argued something of this sort. Others too.
Similarly, the mobile phone is far more than a tool. It defines a social space in which we create novel life experiences.
Friday, May 13, 2005
Let the small deal reveal itself
I couldn't help it. This comment from my good anonymous (until she reveals herself :>) friend is truly inspired; or, I should say, a revelation (get the pun?). By the power vested in me by my position as blogmaster here, I copy it in its entirety. Here's the source.
I say that if there is a technological artefact that has earned the 'status' of a non-human actor, that would be the mobile. Why not try to move the issue away from how human actors are affected by the mobile and study the mobile on its own merits - as a social actor. [Can you see now how the dummy/co-star analogy is connected?]
What's the big deal? I thought we were done with big deals ... just let the actors do the talking, go beyond emerging cultures and boring addictions and let the small deal reveal itself.
I say that if there is a technological artefact that has earned the 'status' of a non-human actor, that would be the mobile. Why not try to move the issue away from how human actors are affected by the mobile and study the mobile on its own merits - as a social actor. [Can you see now how the dummy/co-star analogy is connected?]
What's the big deal? I thought we were done with big deals ... just let the actors do the talking, go beyond emerging cultures and boring addictions and let the small deal reveal itself.
Wednesday, May 11, 2005
So What?
Yes, adolescents acquire their first mobile phone at an increasingly younger age. And so what? Yes, SMS has given rise to an entire texting culture. And so what? Yes, we are now all highly dependent on, if not addicted to, the mobile phone. And so what?
People communicate in multiple complex ways like they always have been doing. Young people flirt by means of passing love notes on SMS, just like older generations used to pass paper notes. People are using their mobile phones a lot, just like people are using the fixed line phones, the internet, the automobile, the computer, the refrigerator, the microwave, the television, the newspaper. So what's the big deal with the mobile phone?
This was more or less the feedback I got from Chrisanthi Avgerou during a break at the Mobile Interaction workshop at LSE. I guess she has a point. I am not sure exactly what that point is, or what the answer should be like. But I am not withdrawing my brain cells from this line of work!
People communicate in multiple complex ways like they always have been doing. Young people flirt by means of passing love notes on SMS, just like older generations used to pass paper notes. People are using their mobile phones a lot, just like people are using the fixed line phones, the internet, the automobile, the computer, the refrigerator, the microwave, the television, the newspaper. So what's the big deal with the mobile phone?
This was more or less the feedback I got from Chrisanthi Avgerou during a break at the Mobile Interaction workshop at LSE. I guess she has a point. I am not sure exactly what that point is, or what the answer should be like. But I am not withdrawing my brain cells from this line of work!
Tuesday, May 10, 2005
Only one place: the mobile space
Physical living is homogenized. Differentiated living exists only through the cellular network, to the extent that we intentionally craft our mobile phone personas every time we engage in a mobile-mediated interaction.
We can't survive physical living outside the mobile phone, because physical living is now homogenized; it's no fun anymore. If we want to act out different roles, if we want to project differentiated character and emotion, there's only one place were this is now possible: the virtual space of mobile-mediated social relations.
We can't survive physical living outside the mobile phone, because physical living is now homogenized; it's no fun anymore. If we want to act out different roles, if we want to project differentiated character and emotion, there's only one place were this is now possible: the virtual space of mobile-mediated social relations.
Emotional survival
If you want to snap out of homogenized, singular, living, if you want to restore social distance and duration, you have to switch off your mobile. Do you dare switching it off? Can you emotionally survive being switched off? How long will it take until you rush back to check your messages and missed calls?
Homogenized living
The mobile opens multilpe wormholes through our living. It brings work into personal life and vice versa. It brings every friend, family and acqaintance along to your secluded holiday spot, and with those people, it carries over the emotions, the stress, the thoughts and worries of each relationship. Or you can think about it inversely.
With my mobile phone I can travel through social time and space to meet colleagues, family, friends or whoever, nomatter where I am and what I do, and nomatter where they are and what they do. My social universe becomes condensed, compressed to the singularity of the moment; of any moment when I make or take a call or message.
Nomatter what role you are supposed to enact and where you are, you can be all things at all places all the time. You can be the mother and the manager at the same time; you can cook dinner and soothe a troubled friend simultaneously. The house is the office and the meeting room is the bedroom. Living is thus homogenized.
With my mobile phone I can travel through social time and space to meet colleagues, family, friends or whoever, nomatter where I am and what I do, and nomatter where they are and what they do. My social universe becomes condensed, compressed to the singularity of the moment; of any moment when I make or take a call or message.
Nomatter what role you are supposed to enact and where you are, you can be all things at all places all the time. You can be the mother and the manager at the same time; you can cook dinner and soothe a troubled friend simultaneously. The house is the office and the meeting room is the bedroom. Living is thus homogenized.
Mobile or Cell Phone?
According to Paul Levinson the term 'cellphone' is better than 'mobile phone' because "it not only travels, like organic cells do, but, also like cells, it can generate new communities, new possibilities and relationships, wherever it happens to be ... is not only mobile, but generative, creative ... the cellphone thus can imprison us in a cell of omni accessibility" (p. xiii).
It is interesting how a term drawn from the architecture of the network infrastructure does indeed have profound social connotations. As I have suggested in another post, user mobility per se is probably not the most important property of the mobile (or cellular) phone. I also like the term 'handy' used in Germany and other northern European countries. It is a very accurate and literal term. I'd be interested to see a study of the names given to the mobile phone in different languages and cultures.
It is interesting how a term drawn from the architecture of the network infrastructure does indeed have profound social connotations. As I have suggested in another post, user mobility per se is probably not the most important property of the mobile (or cellular) phone. I also like the term 'handy' used in Germany and other northern European countries. It is a very accurate and literal term. I'd be interested to see a study of the names given to the mobile phone in different languages and cultures.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
