Living in a society where technology is continuously advancing, cell phones are making once popular devices obsolete. Already replacing traditional home telephone landlines, smartphones are about to evolve into next generation's source for all mediums. In Katz, Blumler, and Gurevitch's "Utilization of mass communication by the individual", the refer to
"...the relationship between unique grammar of different media-that is, their specific technological and aesthetic attributes-and the particular requirements of audience members that they are capable or incapable of satisfying" (Katz, Blumler, Gurevitch, 5).
In the past 20 years we have seen the Internet start to replace older mediums such as newspaper and radio. Today it now has a high viewership rate for TV and movies. In a fast paced, never stopping society, is it realistic to think these capabilities can all be replaced and become obsolete due to the smartphone?
A smartphone is a cell phone with superior computer-like abilities. The advanced mobile device offers applications such as email, Internet, and music software. Essentially a computer with telephone capabilities, the sophisticated device could potentially be the source for all other mediums.
The Internet is the best example of this theory. According to Information Week, an online survey revealed that "30% of smartphone users say they use their devices for enterprise connectivity, and 37% either occasionally or frequently leave their laptops at home in favor of their smartphones" (Wolfe, 2008). Given the increasing advancements these phone have made in a short period of time, it seems likely that they can take over this market share sooner rather than later. Looking at this trend, could you realistically see your main source of all media being your cell phone?
"Old media increasingly competes for our attention with a growing range of new media that serve similar needs more cheaply, easily, and efficiently" (Baran and Davis, 240). Given this notion, the smartphone is becoming the easiest and most efficient device to access all mediums making it hard to deny that it could make all other sources obsolete.
In the chapter "Audience Theories: Uses, Receptions, and Effects", Baran and Davis explain that "...people weigh the level of the reward (gratification) they expect from a given medium or message against how much effort they must make to secure that reward" (232). This theory helps make the argument for the smartphone. Being that there are essentially no limitations, why wouldn't you choose it over any other medium? If people are weighing the level of the reward on effort, many will choose the ease of the smartphone.
Katz, Blumler, and Gurevitch explain that "...individuals use communications, among other resources in their environment, to satisfy their needs to achieve their goals..."(3). If this approach is true, is there any easier and more efficient way to do this then by using a device that can access anything simply from the palm of your hand?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Most people go to their smart phone to look at weather, stocks, email, etc. There are over 2,000 applications on the blackberry and over 65,000 apps on the iPhone. This just proves the extensive use and the ability that smart phones have. The thing about smart phones is it does not just have the ability to text message and call people akin to “dumb phones.” Smart phones have constant information at your fingertips, which proves Matt’s argument that the “smart phone is becoming the easiest and most efficient device to access all mediums making it hard to deny that it could make all other sources obsolete.” Consumers enjoy the ability to multitask, and thus be able to read emails while also being on the phone. It totally changes people’s lifestyles, the way they think, and how they personally communicate. For instance, if I am walking down the street in an unfamiliar town and I want to go to a five star restaurant then I can just look up restaurants on the internet of my smart phone or even use an application to find it. On the contrary, if I had a dumb phone then I would have to ask people walking on the streets and rely on their answers. Smart phones are not just devices that enable you to call and communicate with other people, but it is the essence of mobility. Smart phones have the ability to communicate with others, as well as PC like capabilities but it is all included in a smaller device so why would not anyone want this innovation?
ReplyDeleteThe active audience theory proposed in chapter nine, of the Baran and Davis reading, focuses on what people do with the media they are presented with. Some audiences are more active with certain types of media, while others might be more passive. “This is obvious we all know too many couch potatoes, people who live their lives through the movies, or people addicted to their Blackberries (Baran and Davis 239). Although some blackberry or in general smart phones users might be more active using their device, while they also may be more passive when it comes to watching television shows. This may be because they get all of the information that they want to know from their smart phones and therefore they do not care to watch the television. They might be provided with enough entertainment by just carrying around their smart phone from day to day.
I do not think there is any easier and more efficient way to satisfy needs than by using smart phones. In the Katz, Blumler, and Gurevitch reading, it stated “the need to relax or to kill time can be satisfied by the act of watching television, that the need to feel that one is spending one’s time in a worthwhile way may be associated with the act of reading, and that the need to structure one’s day may be satisfied merely by having the radio on” (Katz, Blumler, and Gurevitch 167). All of these examples to illustrate actions of different ways to spend one’s time can all be done by using the smart phone. People can watch television by viewing shows online, they can also read on their smart phone, as well as listen to music by using a radio application or listening to music on the Internet. Most people want to multitask, have information at their fingertips, continuously communicate, and keep up with the advancement of technology; therefore, this explains why people want to own a smart phone.
Are smart phones going to replace other sources of media transmission? Personally, I think this is a highly likely occurrence. According to the uses and gratifications theory, Baran and Davis point out Wilbur Schramm's argument that “people weigh the level of reward (gratification) they expect from a given medium or message against how much effort they must make to secure that reward" (232). Using this approach, the better question is why wouldn’t people use smart phones to replace other less convenient ways to retrieve media? I think the determining factor is cost. Blackberries, iPhones, the Droid and other smart phones come with a higher price than regular phones. Am I going to go for the free upgrade or pay a couple hundred dollars for a smart phone that comes with a $15 a month fee? Personally, I plan on waiting for the smart phone to become the standard available phone. Once this happens, I’m sure I won’t remember what life was like before it.
ReplyDeleteAfter all, we are a part of what is arguably the most “connected” generation yet. On this topic, Katz, Blumler, and Gurevitch argue that “mass communication is used by the individual to connect themselves” (166). Likewise, the easiest connectivity is the most ideal. Regarding the smart phone, one can constantly be connected. A phone is more easily accessible than a computer and can be taken anywhere. One can walk down the sidewalk and respond to an e-mail, whereas if one wanted to do that with a laptop, it would just be cumbersome and would look foolish. It is questionable whether or not all this constant connectivity is necessary, but there seems to be a race for efficiency these days. Everything needs to be faster, easier and less work. The smart phone provides this, but what are we losing in turn?
I do think that Smart Phones are replacing other technologies. I also think that is a direct effect of two things. The first is the uses and gratifications theory that we have discussed in class. Which applies here because people expect to have a gratifying experience. Baran and Davis discus this topic by invoking Wilbur Schramm's idea that, “ people will weigh the level of reward”( Baran and Davis 232) in the case of the smart phones such as a blackberry or phone is the fact that a person has instant access to things that no more than ten years ago were only able to access on their computers. My second point is this. As a college student working for the basketball team here I have what could be considered low level panic attacks if I lose my phone and am unable to have access to it. I feel the need to be able to check my email constantly and if I cannot I feel very uncomfortable and I can only imagine what a adult with a real job would feel like if they did not have access to their emails on a constant basis. This need for constant communication, reminds me of two things the first is the passage in our textbooks where the authors discus my generations need to be connected and it also reminded me of a quote my coach gave to the newspaper when he was hired, and he said, “my phone has not been off for almost ten years” to me that quote exemplies my thought that we as a generation need to be connected to some sort of smart phone. In answering the question I believe we are losing some part of our independence, and we are becoming to dependent on technology to survive
ReplyDeleteEven though I am one of many that is guilty of having a smartphone, and using it in excess, I can still see a problem that occurrs when using these devices. We depend on such devices, as we do with almost all media and technology, to take up a large portion of our daily time, and ultimately, our lives. Baran and Davis write, “With the development of new media and with new technology applied to old media, we can surround ourselves with powerful forms of entertainment and information wherever we go (228).” I think the big question is, is that necessarily a good thing? I know that many people criticize all the different forms of technology because it can interfere with our daily lives, and I agree. Just like many college students, I will often find myself checking my cell phone, or wasting time on my laptop during a class when I should be paying attention. All these different forms of media are just non-stop distractions and temptations that prevent us from taking part in tasks in our “real” life.
ReplyDeleteThe uses and gratification approach, which is defined as the “approach to media study focusing on the uses to which people put media and the gratifications they seek from those uses (Baran & Davis 232),” is intresting to consider when thinking about technology and media, and what exactly we get out of it. Many people questioned stated that they use such outlets to satisfy various mental needs, whether it was a need to relax, a need to be entertained, or a need to see things that they wouldn’t be able to see normally. One has to ask, what are we lacking in our everyday lives if we are turning to different media and technological outlets to fill the “holes”?
Celia von Feilitzen writes that “television meeds a large number of social needs on the part of children (McQuail 359).” If this is the case, what does that say about our future generations? If they are turning to TV’s, movies and the internet to fill social needs, what are we going to end up with in 20 years?
Whether we are turning to Facebook to keep in touch with friends rather than call them, or if it’s turning to TV to be entertained rather than getting together with a group of friends, what are the lasting effects of these decisions? Are they making us lazier people? Are they affecting our social skills? Is something like picking up the telephone to call a friend going to be outdated and obsolete by the time 2030 comes around?