Why Things Matter: A Manifesto for Networked Objects

Julian’s paper “A Manifesto for Networked Objects - Cohabiting with Pigeons, Arphids and Aibos in the Internet of Things”, in its simple form also known as “Why Things Matter” has expressed on the issue that in the future, things will matter. It’s about a coming wave of “Blogjects”, in another word, objects that blog. This paper explained two points of blogject. First is the reason of why objects blog and second is the reason why and whether people care about this. The concept of objects that blog has characteristics such as the ability to trace where the object has been, its previous history/encountered experience, then collect and distribute product information followed by how social networks has as much social impact on people in an assertive way. Basically it makes us eventually to rather live “in” the Internet than “on” them instead. Most of all, the reason of how people accept the idea and foresee it to be a success.

 

In the introduction of Julian’s paper, it stated the reasons why he has created the “Blogject” to inform a difference between “things” that connected to the Internet apart from the “things” that actually participate and work within the Internet itself of the social networks. However, Julian’s did not want to simply intro objects which that blog, as how we have now understand what is blogging. Also, he was trying to say that those objects can definitely work like human being, especially those who write blogs, using conversations for communication, network creation and trackback.

From the example given by using real pigeons carrying some electronic devices, it came to my attention that it is trying to talk about the usefulness of a such mash up. Julian uses this similarity to inform us that the pigeons can tell us the freshness of the air we are breathing are the Web 2.0 children of the Canary in the coal mine. This is indeed brilliant.

 

Make everything short and simple to understand, basically there are few important and vital characteristics of “Blogjects”. Blogjects has the function and ability to track and trace the places of where they have been. It works similar like the Foursquare website where it allows you to “check in” into places you are at by using your mobile phone. In this case, your mobile is the Blogject device. It tracks then traces the places you have checked in through the social media website. Furthermore, Blogjects have self-recorded histories of the encounters and experiences. Let’s take Foursquare as an example again, it keeps a record of the all the places you have “checked in” and you can comment on the experience you had at the venue, a restaurant or an entertainment spot perhaps? These experiences can be shared among Foursquare users and all. Moreover, usually Blogjects will have a form of agency which they are able to increase and then take a part in. they have an influential voice within the social web. For example, Foursquare has a big market share in the located base social networking websites’ category.

 

All the Blogjects have the ability to lead to a new world where “objects” or “things” actually matter for cohabitation and participation. Nobody know if all these Blogjects will actually succeed in the transformation that the internet of things is a platform for the world 2.0 or will it actually help to create a better world for us in the future. We can only wait and see to find out what it’s going to be in.

 

Personally, what would I want from the networked world is a better drop on what the actual state of the world is actually impactful. Thus, my uncertainty of trying to portray a world of networked things that aren’t only around to help to deliver simple actions such as delivery packages, but actually are around here to help us to create a global accessible of real time feeds of the social and environmental environment. 

Google's Open Source Android OS Will Free the Wireless Web

Other than shopping tools and contact management system that offered by Google’s Android, there were other applications that fulfilled the promises made by it such as the use of their location awareness and social networking. Jamdroid is a program where you use when you are on the road and give you real life traffic data among Jamdroid users. Also, LifeAware helps you to track your friends and family’s locations. E-ventr assists you to organize parties and Breadcumbz lets you share photos with people around the world.  

Google’s renowned and patented technology is one of those things that really terrified many competitions in the market now. It is believed that it is totally fine to be the one of the best in the industry if one can really make a sufficient number of people who want to be in the competition. However, questions and problem will arise if one scared off all your competitors, who are out there, have left for you to compete and “play” with?

The coming up idea of Android is indeed brilliant, but again, many things need to be thought of carefully such as what handset is going to be used for the phone, what form of factors and etc. it seemed that big firms like Nokia has already keeping their eyes on Google’s strategy which that they themselves took over the control of the Symbian operating system. Only if Nokia had stayed just being an assembler and without teaming up with Microsoft in the first place, they would definitely would be glad and teaming up with Google instead.

Few years ago, they had already invested into the Symbian partnership by developed a network with other big phone organizations such as Motorola and Ericsson. Also, they were obviously threatened and pressured by Google at the same time too. The basic idea of this is that you can’t succeed in platform strategy if you do not have the power and the backup from other companies to assist and collaborate with in order to bring the best out of a product. The challenges that Google faced would be the confidence design such as Apple and user interface ability network like Nokia.

As well known and aware of, Google and Nokia’s platform strategies imply the battle for competitive advantage which will be won using open platforms rather than proprietary platforms. It seems that both firms are freely making the OS technology interfaces which had widely motivated innovation in mobile web services and applications. The ability of having and creating a suitable incentive strategy with sustainable network of complementors in the skill that is able to perform is an important element that needs to be considered.

Google need to hit the balance between platform leaders and as well as industry enablers to become more innovative. This is in order to build the right momentum that is required to maintain the leadership position in the market. On the other than, Apple is maintaining their leadership platform base by focusing more on internal design capabilities for handsets and the applications to promote their products services and system.

Google’s Android community is more of a flexible and free form of network partnership by drawing opening source development strategies from lead programmers. The more users using a program, more likely the quality issued will be resolved faster and more efficiently through innovation. Hence more people know about this, a greater potential of exposure for Android to become a wireless network standard. In these new significant network effects of collaboration, usually the ideas are peered viewed and learning is done faster on social integration through network. Also, developers will feel a great sense of accomplishment within their community because of their involvement with Google.

Google’s Android stands on top of their mobile operating system and has the proprietary competitive advantage. Competitors are most likely forced to research, develop and compete in areas such as web services and software applications. All these are considered the main assets of Google. This can be a new opportunity scene for wireless firms to further secure their customers and generate new profits. However, lack of the ability to develop new capabilities by strengthen on new functions during the time of competence can lead to failure which could leave the firms vulnerable.

Facebook and Twitter are just Revolutionaries Go

After reading the article on Facebook and Twitter are just places revolutionaries go by Evgeny Morozov, few issues caught my attention and I would like to discuss and give my opinions on it.

First of all, I highly doubt that Facebook and twitter actually had a lot of influence on Tunisia and Tahrir Squares. The reason to my judgment is because most Tunisians and Egyptians do not have that kind of access in their countries to carry out such activities. Therefore, I personally think that it more has something to do with the popular movements that have already been growing in both countries for a period of time and it have become a part of their culture. This is a typical kind of scenario where individuals are blamed for the fall of something in particular, however, people neglected the fact that the public or others play might or could have play an part too.

This article had opened the aura of social media’s self enhancement. In the framework of huge confusion, protest and violence are considered common. This is when once information was difficult to obtain and required a lot of time and man work on a 24/7 stand by and always ready basis. However, some of these useful information were being used in the Tunisian and Egyptian revolutions. The fact that it weren’t the tweeters or the retweeters who forced their government out, but they were the activists, the citizens who took the action. Furthermore, some people combined the two roles together, but one thing must always keep in mind, no technology or applications can replace people power.

Also, I think the evolvement of technologies are not the real cause of the world revolutions, in fact, they are just simply tools as the author had mentioned. However, 20 years ago, an upcoming country like Egypt could have been restrained and overturned by the government in just a few days of time and the rulers back then would have been free to speak out on the stories of happenings to the medias and press right after the event. Unfortunately, as Mubarak realized, that is impossible to do so when you have uncountable number of mobile phones, cameras, computers and other high tech devices around happily recording every detail of what’s going on the whole world and people are being informed in just seconds.

Facebook Twitter in some sense may have helped in organizing the protests and all, but these are simply nothing more than being tools itself. The foundation reasons are pure and easy to understand. Each country will have their own different problems and circumstances. It is all depending on the will and desire of what extend the particular country is willing to go on about something and how capable they are in order to maintain the situation. It would be better if they can resolve the problem within without getting help from the outside world. As much as moral support is good enough.

Facebook and Twitter are just a medium for communication and organizations. We must not mix and confuse the meaning between the medium and the message. What they provide is only instant communication. There isn’t much prove or evidence telling that social media is the final step of serious decision makings. For example, some people only knows and understand that Facebook is where you play SimCity to kill time when you are bored and Twitter is another where people go and see what their friends are up to, or a particular celebrity they like are doing too. Indeed technology plays an important part in people’s lives, but personally I do not think it is really as big or as important as how some people would like to make it as. At the end of the day, it will be all about people being themselves of who they are and how they interpret things and technology is just another tool at our disposal as we like. 

WikiLeaks - No Secrets: Julian Assange's Mission for Total Transparency

A rapid of change in the way of how people are communicating is sweeping around the world. The advancement spread of weblogs, social Medias and online optional Medias are rapidly changing the way of how people are obtaining and being informed on the current events that are happening. More and more people are turning down on newspapers and televisions. Came along the new generation age of the Internet, WikiLeaks and their operations of releasing secret government documents has clearly changed the setting of the media. We are now in the age of the WikiLeaks.

Lately, with the whistle blower website of WikiLeaks, this has been thrusting around the world with two releases on separate note regarding on classified documents of the US government. The first document released was a video footage from the Apache gunship attack back in Baghdad in 2007. The second released was considered one of the largest ever military leak in the history regarding on the US and Afghanistan war. WikiLeaks has named the thrilling 2007 footage as Collateral Murder. It was a video footage from the point of view of US army soldiers in an Apache helicopter gunning down of innocent of Iraqi civilians and as well as reporters openly on a street of Baghdad. As such controversy video has surfaced to the public, serious doubts and questions have been raised about government’s secrecy of keeping the truth from the public. The importance of transparency and also the legal and moral facts of the death of innocent civilians.

Some have against and also criticized at WikiLeaks on the release of the of war documents which has putting lives in danger war zones and have accused WikiLeaks in the political manner of editing the video footage of the Collateral Murder. Founder of WikiLeaks, Julian Assange stated out in an interview that WikiLeaks had purposely edited the video title, Collateral Murder and then released the edited version along with the full unedited version. Nevertheless, some found this was pure manipulation. Assange stated that the purpose of released the video is only to show the world of what war is actually like and he believes his mission only to expose justice instead of providing a record of events.

It was believed that the way of how one person edited the video, it can carefully examines the person’s reaction and as well as their position and perspective towards the matter. A controversial question has brought up regarding on the ethics of whistle blowers, whether they should be taken into legal actions for what they did. Assange commented on the statement that the answer to the question would be different depending on the side of the reality which you consider is right and a place you call home. He mentioned that the title Collateral Murder was named to the video because the disturbing images of American soldiers shooting down innocent civilians for fun will have an effect on the people.

For most people, if they were to come across when innocent people are being killed, they would actually feel such action is unacceptable and with a feeling of misery. However, as for those who are involved in the military, the deaths of innocents simply mean unavoidable “damages”. Just imagine, if in a situation where a foreign country is invading the US, killing American’s and their own loved ones, do you think they would still use the description of  Collateral Murder to their own family?

Now days the media blocks and filters the access of images and videos. People’s perception is shaped by the controlled access of words. Those words often distort reality and manipulate on the way people think and make them to believe what is wanted to be known. Assange said that a simple goal WikiLeaks is trying to achieve is to loosen up the illusion of manipulated perceptions which has been monopolized the mainstream flow of communication. It provided a path to answer many doubtful questions and assumptions by providing a new way of looking into things, in this matter, the emotional appeal of shocking to see the war in a new way.

Personally, I think WikiLeaks indeed exposed the world to a new dimension. In terms of how we look at the war, now we are faced in to two realities, collateral damage and collateral murder. Also, WikiLeaks will never die. Even if it falls apart tomorrow, the culture lives. The door has already been opened. Another will arise sooner or later. WikiLeaks is everywhere and after all, WikiLeaks is considered everyone.