With New Media, comes great responsibility...

Looking over the questions on the Intro to New Media final study guide, I've come to realize that it isn't really new media or convergence to blame for some of today's supposed media problems - it's how people choose to use them - often irresponsibly or with poor judgement.


Take peer-to-peer file sharing of music, for instance. On one hand, this can be a great thing - giving new artists exposure to listeners across the worldwide web and freeing artists from the previous constraints of major record labels. But take file sharing too far, and it isn't such a good thing anymore.


I now know that revenue from actual music sales isn't a significant part of many artists' total revenue, but I still feel they should make some money directly from their music. If no one were to buy music at all anymore, that couldn't be a good thing for these artists; besides, not everyone is popular/successful enough to have sold-out shows to make up for that lack of revenue. If people could use file sharing to find out about new artists and then actually pay for the music if they really like it, this situation could be avoided.


Similarly, there are many ways to filter the news you receive online: social networking site news feeds, Google News, Yahoo News, etc. In moderation, this can be a good thing because it gives us easy, quick access to the news that matters most to us as individuals. However, if we choose to rely only on these personalized news feeds, we may be missing out on other important information, simply because it doesn't fit within our 'ideal interest range.'


We can't just blame the existence of personalized news feeds for this - just because they're available doesn't mean we have to rely solely on them to get our news. We can enjoy the benefits of convergence and personalization - like convenience and speed - but we can also be responsibile enough to look into the mainstream news and see what we might be missing out on.

Way to go, Apple.

It's pretty safe to say that we're all (uncomfortably) familiar with the monopoly Google has over the Internet, from its massive search engine to YouTube and Blogger. I personally dislike how much I rely on Google to constantly look things up, but I hadn't really realized that I've also been the prey of another new media monopoly - Apple.


My relationship with Apple-branded media is relatively simple, so I never really noticed this phenomenon before. I typically buy hard copies of CDs, load them onto iTunes, and then sync them to my iPod. Occasionally I download a free song from iTunes or Amazon, but that's about it. I do have a MacBook Pro laptop, but iTunes and iPhoto are the only apps I've ever really used on it.


However, just today I decided to treat myself for my birthday and download Angry Birds for my Mac (I only have the Beta version, and I need more!!). But the only way for me to (legally) download it is through the Mac App Store. 


The Mac App Store is only available to Mac users whose OS is 10.6.6 or higher (OS X Lion). Mine is 10.5.8. Guess how much it costs to upgrade? $29.99.


Considering I don't really use apps on my MacBook, I think this is ridiculous. I'm not paying $30 for the App Store just so I can then pay another $5 each to download the Angry Birds games. Even when I try to download the game from another site, like the official Angry Birds site, it just redirects me to an Apple page telling me how to pay and upgrade to Lion to get the App Store.

"Simple," perhaps. Free or fair? Think again.

I think that after paying the purchase price of a MacBook, you shouldn't have to keep paying more and more just to upgrade the system ("first sale doctrine"). If you're going to go out and buy another whole laptop, then fine - it makes sense that you should pay for that. But paying $30 to upgrade a system I already "own"? I don't think so. 


Maybe Apple thinks that for anyone who can afford to buy a Mac in the first place, $30 is merely chimp change. Well Apple, I happened to get my laptop on a student discount and to me, $30 is nothing to sneeze it. I am a college student, after all.


Oh well. It looks like I'll either have to upgrade to Lion or forget about playing Angry Birds for a while. Way to go, Apple.

A threat to traditional handheld gaming? (Should Nintendo and Sony be afraid?)

In the first half of the term, we talked about the downfall of "deep reading" at the hands of the Internet and "web scanning." After doing research for my final project on mobile/portable gaming in the 21st century, I've started to wonder whether a similar phenomenon might be happening with games.


Traditionally, the most popular games for both consoles and handhelds were those designed for a dedicated gaming platform designed by companies like Nintendo and Sony. Even though Nintendo's and Sony's handheld devices have smaller screens and more technical limitations than their console counterparts, because they are still dedicated to providing top-notch gaming experiences, they generally don't lose any game play depth.


But smartphones and similar devices are changing that. Now you can play simple yet entertaining games on your iPhone or Android for a mere fraction of the price of a Nintendo DS or Sony PSP game. Smartphones provide games for their users even though they are designed for far more purposes than gaming (texting, sending emails, surfing the web, shopping online, oh yeah - making calls, etc.). The low prices and addictive nature of many of these smartphone games (Angry Birds, Cut the Rope) are giving traditional handheld gaming devices a run for their money.

That's right, Nintendo. FEAR US.

Smartphone games are generally quick to initiate and can be played in very short intervals, making it easier to incorporate daily play than a typical DS or PSP game. Their pick-up-and-play nature also makes them accessible to a much wider audience than just the people that traditionally consider themselves 'gamers.' Your average person is much more likely to play a game that takes a few seconds to learn than one that requires extensive practice and trial-and-error to play.


This reminded me of "web scanning" - another extremely simple, quick activity that nearly anyone can do. Scanning a web page is often more practical than fully reading the page, given all the time-consuming demands of everyday life. Similarly, the average person is more likely to find five minutes in the day to squeeze in a few rounds of Angry Birds than to sit down with a role-playing game on their Nintendo DS.


What do you think? Are smartphone games the threat to traditional handheld gaming that "web scanning" was to "deep reading"? Should we look down upon this new development in gaming, or should we embrace it alongside more traditional portable games?

Google's new privacy policy goes into effect today

The changes to its privacy policy that Google has been 'promoting' as of late have gone into effect today, March 1, 2012.

In an article from USA TODAY COLLEGE, the changes to the new policy are briefly summarized in an easy-to-read format. Considering how frequently I use Google, I know I should get around to reading the full version at some point, but for now, this article does a great job of communicating the basic gist of the changes.

Basically, the biggest change is that Google will share the information of Google account users with all of Google's services. Based on our in-class discussions, this was something that I'd assumed was already in effect (considering the 'monopoly of Google,' I figured that information that Google the search engine knew about me was also shared with Google services like Blogger and YouTube). But apparently that's just starting today. 

Google Director of Privacy Alma Whitten said in a blog post that this new protocol "will mean a simpler, more intuitive Google experience." Hmmm...seems to me like Google is pretty darn simple and intuitive already without additional data sharing.

Some things of more obvious benefit are supposed greater clarity in how users can control what information is being shared and what ads are being shown (through Google Dashboard and the Ads Preferences Manager). 

Additionally, the new policy better explains the lag between a user deleting information and it being removed from backup systems: to "maintain our services in a manner that protects information from accidental or malicious destruction." Whether this is actually true or just elaborately scripted jargon is another matter entirely (and yes, I'm being cynical).

For those paranoid Google users who want to know exactly what the 'Google gods' know about us now that they might not have before, check out this interactive view of the policy changes Google has undergone from 2000 to the present day. The policy changes are highlighted in yellow, so it's super easy to read! Even a busy college student has a few minutes to look it over.