A recent MobHappy entry received varied comments on the usability and usefulness of mobile search services. The main argument is that mobile search will not be about finding local info - we are all used to getting local info quite efficiently and effectively from the local social network - but it will be about "Need to Know Now". For example, I am out and about with friends without a plan and we think about going to watch a movie: what is on show in cinemas in our general whereabouts? This is a scenario that has happened to me several times. And I have tried using my mobile phone to find out. It's been too slow, too cumbersome, too frustrating. By the time I logged on, someone else had gone to the local kiosk, bought the equivalent of "What's On" magazine and found out all that we needed about movies, plus theaters and restaurants and you name it. You can replicate the same experience on a desktop or laptop but not on a mobile. The mobile interface is too handicapped for such a purpose, besides, it would cost a lot more in comparison to buying the mag. Not to mention that you can roll and fold and tear up and throw away the magazine but you'll never do such things to your expensive gadget!
Another consideration is the context of using the mobile phone. Professionals use their phones most in parallel with some other activity, such as driving, attending a meeting, walking down the street. In most such cases, you can't spare the other hand or the extra finger-clicks or the additional attention to the small screen to do a computer-like search. It's easier to plug your hands-free earpiece and call a telephone directory or yellow page service and ask the operator. It's usually also cheaper that the equivalent data service.
Thursday, November 24, 2005
Tuesday, July 12, 2005
Real time conference blogs
I dug this up from an older issue of the Economist (7 August 2004, "The new networking: How to network between coffee breaks"). Imagine that you are speaking at a conference and the live blog projected right next to your presentation slides suddenly reads "what a load of nonsense... you'd better step down before it's too late", the message having been posted by a member of the audience you are overlooking!. It's actually happening. And I think it's a good thing and will probably catch on.
At last, services we might actually use
It is widely reported today (and here) that mobile operators and other mobile technology companies have agreed with ICANN the launch of a .mobi top level internet domain. Web sites published under .mobi will have to conform to certain design standards as to make the site usable from the limited interface of the mobile phone. This move may actually spur the development of independent third party services that people may actually want to use on their mobiles (as opposed to the limited, clumsy, and unimaginative operator-driven services available in Europe today). The remaining barrier will be the cost of 3G and GPRS access which are still quite expensive.
Tuesday, June 21, 2005
Technomorphic Social Relations
The mobile phone does not just mediate existing forms of communication, it conditions our social relations.
Our neighborhood is the mobile phone. We don't accidentally run into social encounters; we choose whether to call or answer to someone. Although we are supposedly available anytime anywhere, we exercise full control over who we respond to, by what means we communicate (voice, voice mail, text, multimedia), what we say and what we hide, what appearances we present. Our social relations are more like levers on an instrument panel.
Gone are the days of the tightly knit neighborhood with its complex social nuances. Mobile-mediated social interaction also involves certain nuances, but these have to do with the handling of the device rather than the sustainance of face-to-face interaction. Notice how young kids feel more comfortable texting one another rather than talking face to face.
Not only isn't the technology anthropomorphic, it conditions our social relations into a technomorphic mould.
Our neighborhood is the mobile phone. We don't accidentally run into social encounters; we choose whether to call or answer to someone. Although we are supposedly available anytime anywhere, we exercise full control over who we respond to, by what means we communicate (voice, voice mail, text, multimedia), what we say and what we hide, what appearances we present. Our social relations are more like levers on an instrument panel.
Gone are the days of the tightly knit neighborhood with its complex social nuances. Mobile-mediated social interaction also involves certain nuances, but these have to do with the handling of the device rather than the sustainance of face-to-face interaction. Notice how young kids feel more comfortable texting one another rather than talking face to face.
Not only isn't the technology anthropomorphic, it conditions our social relations into a technomorphic mould.
Anthropomorphic Technology
I find it quite remarkable that the mobile phone, this highly personal and intimate device, still comes in such cold, industrial-age designs.
People refer to their mobile phones as if they were their best friends. Often the language we use to refer to mobile phones expresses affection and other sentiments that we typically reserve for humans or sometimes our pets. Moreover, we all have an unprecedented degree of attachment (or addiction ?) to our mobile phones: we never fail to go anywhere without them. Indeed, the mobile phone is the most personal technological artifact of our times. And it goes far beyond other personal devices (e.g. the watch, the pen) in terms of the social and personal uses it affords.
Shouldn't therefore its design be more anthropomorphic, as opposed to the cold, metallic and boxy phones that we have become accustomed to? If a more anthropomorphic design were not to find widespread acceptance, what would the dominance of current designs signify for our social relations?
People refer to their mobile phones as if they were their best friends. Often the language we use to refer to mobile phones expresses affection and other sentiments that we typically reserve for humans or sometimes our pets. Moreover, we all have an unprecedented degree of attachment (or addiction ?) to our mobile phones: we never fail to go anywhere without them. Indeed, the mobile phone is the most personal technological artifact of our times. And it goes far beyond other personal devices (e.g. the watch, the pen) in terms of the social and personal uses it affords.
Shouldn't therefore its design be more anthropomorphic, as opposed to the cold, metallic and boxy phones that we have become accustomed to? If a more anthropomorphic design were not to find widespread acceptance, what would the dominance of current designs signify for our social relations?
Friday, June 03, 2005
Social Ambient Intelligence
Talking of hypertext living and ambient intelligence... Crudely putting it, ambient intelligence is about my mobile or other wearable device interacting with intelligent rooms, buildings, kiosks, roads, vehicles, lamp-posts, etc. Fair enough.
But although people interact a lot with inanimate objects such as the above, we do so without consciously thinking about it. I switch on the light, open the door, buy a newpaper, drive my car, avoid obstacles when I walk, and more, without consciously analyzing and planning my interactions. And I manage all that quite skillfully and effectively nonetheless. So my guess is that additional intelligence in my interactions with my physical surroundings would not make too much of a difference.
The kinds of interactions on which we focus consciously are social interactions (or, at least, we tend to do so more often). Whether I am genuinely interested in the other person or I am faking a polite exchange, I focus on handling a person-to-person communication.
A counterexample might be the checkout process at the supermarket: unless they engage in a purposeful conversation, both the client and the cashier can happily expedite this largely mechanical process, being totally absent-minded and ignorant of the identity of each other other, and still complete the checkout and payment process flawlessly. Note that this is not a social interaction though; this is typical of a non-place.
So how about some ambient applications that would enhance the social "intelligence" of our environment? Instead of enhancing interactions with objects, I am trying to think of possible applications that might enhance interactions with other people. Some community business models would probably fall in this category, though I'd consider them rather primitive.
You might ask: what's wrong with plain old talking to one another? Nothing whatsoever. And what would be the use of such applications? I don't know; does anybody know the use of all those other features that are being built into mobile phones? Not really; we are just figuring that out in practice (hence many of them fail) [1, 2].
Here's another primitive idea: you're attending a conference presentation and there are a couple of things you feel you have to say but you miss the chance during Q&A; wouldn't it be nice if you and other attendees could post those comments on a shared 'mobile' space while attending the presentation? You are as likely to use the same time and place to exchange irrelevant SMS with your best friend back home, anyway [1, 2].
But although people interact a lot with inanimate objects such as the above, we do so without consciously thinking about it. I switch on the light, open the door, buy a newpaper, drive my car, avoid obstacles when I walk, and more, without consciously analyzing and planning my interactions. And I manage all that quite skillfully and effectively nonetheless. So my guess is that additional intelligence in my interactions with my physical surroundings would not make too much of a difference.
The kinds of interactions on which we focus consciously are social interactions (or, at least, we tend to do so more often). Whether I am genuinely interested in the other person or I am faking a polite exchange, I focus on handling a person-to-person communication.
A counterexample might be the checkout process at the supermarket: unless they engage in a purposeful conversation, both the client and the cashier can happily expedite this largely mechanical process, being totally absent-minded and ignorant of the identity of each other other, and still complete the checkout and payment process flawlessly. Note that this is not a social interaction though; this is typical of a non-place.
So how about some ambient applications that would enhance the social "intelligence" of our environment? Instead of enhancing interactions with objects, I am trying to think of possible applications that might enhance interactions with other people. Some community business models would probably fall in this category, though I'd consider them rather primitive.
You might ask: what's wrong with plain old talking to one another? Nothing whatsoever. And what would be the use of such applications? I don't know; does anybody know the use of all those other features that are being built into mobile phones? Not really; we are just figuring that out in practice (hence many of them fail) [1, 2].
Here's another primitive idea: you're attending a conference presentation and there are a couple of things you feel you have to say but you miss the chance during Q&A; wouldn't it be nice if you and other attendees could post those comments on a shared 'mobile' space while attending the presentation? You are as likely to use the same time and place to exchange irrelevant SMS with your best friend back home, anyway [1, 2].
Hypertext living II
A while after my previous comment I came across this story on physical world hyperlinks. There are some interesting ideas in the story and even more interesting ideas in the comments that follow. I guess the main story itself is probably just a subset of the broader vision of ambient intelligence. Incidentally I should mention that although interested, I remained unconvinced by most of the ideas in those pages.
What is remarkable in all those scenarios (from the point of view of this note) is the possibility that the mobile device will increasingly open up pathways for each of us to divert from our physical itinerary to explore other social or cognitive domains, without relocating physically; without even changing our physical itinerary.
What is remarkable in all those scenarios (from the point of view of this note) is the possibility that the mobile device will increasingly open up pathways for each of us to divert from our physical itinerary to explore other social or cognitive domains, without relocating physically; without even changing our physical itinerary.
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.
Wednesday, April 27, 2005
The slow death of mass media and the lesson for mobile operators
The Economist, 23-29 April 2005, p. 59: "... news providers ... had better get web-savvy, stop lecturing their audiences, become places for conversation and destinations where bloggers and podcasters congregate to engage ... in more extended discussions". Who says so? Mr. Rupert Murdoch, the mass media magnate. This article is telling of the slow death of hub-and-spoke (mass) media such as newspapers and television, but this is a discussion for a different blog.
Interestingly, mobile operators take an equivalent perspective on the future of value added mobile services. They throw money developing hub-and-spoke services, namely server downloads (ringtones, music, games, video, TV, etc.). And they expect to see their markets grow as fast as nothing before. Is this a smart strategy?
Take the Internet and the Web as examples. The Internet was around for about 30 years before Tim Berners Lee brought us html and Mosaic in 1992. Until then the Internet was small and unknown and dominated by hierarchical and generally controlled information structures. What fuelled its explosion thenafter? I'd say it was the personal web pages. The technology is easy and anyone can have a go at presenting something (expressing himself) to the world, at zero or very low cost. Do you remember Yahoo when it was the personal page of a couple of guys at Stanford? I do. My own page at the time wasn't quite as popular!
Innovation on the web did not come from a few wise companies down to millions of stupid users. It was the result of millions of brains trying it out. Some good did come out. It seems to me that the few mobile operators today are treating their customers as brainless minions who ought to buy whatever expensive and useless stuff their marketing and R&D departments come up with. It seems to me that giving mobile users the tools to present their own content in their own ways (to express themselves creatively) at zero or low cost would be a much more effective growth strategy. Evidently, the revenue models in this case are not as clear. But it is blatantly short-sighted to use this excuse for persisting with paleolithic hub-and-spoke business models.
Interestingly, mobile operators take an equivalent perspective on the future of value added mobile services. They throw money developing hub-and-spoke services, namely server downloads (ringtones, music, games, video, TV, etc.). And they expect to see their markets grow as fast as nothing before. Is this a smart strategy?
Take the Internet and the Web as examples. The Internet was around for about 30 years before Tim Berners Lee brought us html and Mosaic in 1992. Until then the Internet was small and unknown and dominated by hierarchical and generally controlled information structures. What fuelled its explosion thenafter? I'd say it was the personal web pages. The technology is easy and anyone can have a go at presenting something (expressing himself) to the world, at zero or very low cost. Do you remember Yahoo when it was the personal page of a couple of guys at Stanford? I do. My own page at the time wasn't quite as popular!
Innovation on the web did not come from a few wise companies down to millions of stupid users. It was the result of millions of brains trying it out. Some good did come out. It seems to me that the few mobile operators today are treating their customers as brainless minions who ought to buy whatever expensive and useless stuff their marketing and R&D departments come up with. It seems to me that giving mobile users the tools to present their own content in their own ways (to express themselves creatively) at zero or low cost would be a much more effective growth strategy. Evidently, the revenue models in this case are not as clear. But it is blatantly short-sighted to use this excuse for persisting with paleolithic hub-and-spoke business models.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
