What's a Newspaper?

Newspapers are in especially rough times. With more and more companies cutting costs, merging, or even shutting down. In February of 2009, Rocky Mountain News closed down, leaving The Denver Post as the only major daily newspaper left in the city. Other papers, such as the 146-year-old Seattle Post-Intelligencer, has recently started publishing its work strictly online, leaving The Seattle Times, like The Denver Post, the only remaining major daily newspaper in the city.

Why the sudden shift? Well, the poor economy might seem like the obvious answer, but it’s not just that – it’s technology. Advertising revenue for the papers have dropped sharply – about 17% in 2008 – according to the Newspaper Association of America. One possibility is that readers are migrating towards digital media and the internet to get their news, and along with the viewers come the advertisements. This is why many newspapers have created an online counterpart. It’s worth noting however that just about every news story you find on these websites can be traced back to an actual ink-and-paper story done for an actual newspaper.

Here are links to a few articles that talk about this issue in a bit more detail:

http://blog.nj.com/njv_paul_mulshine/2009/03/no_news_would_be_good_news_on.html

http://www.usatoday.com/money/media/2009-03-17-newspapers-downturn_N.htm

There have been a few things to help keep these papers afloat however. Aside from advertising online, some companies, such as the Wall Street Journal, have been charging consumers to gain access to their business stories, information and data, and it’s been working. This is a very limited solution however, as the Wall Street Journal is a very prestigious business publication, and caters to specific demographics, which are clearly willing to pay for its content. The same cannot be said for most other publications.

The other possible solution is the electronic reader. Both Sony and Amazon have created their own versions of this fancy device, though they’re very close as far as functionality is concerned. For this entry I will focus on the Amazon Kindle.

The first major innovation worth noting is the “electronic-paper” display, which imitates the look of real paper, making it much easier on the eyes compared to a traditional LCD and other bright screens. The device is completely wireless, weighs only 10.3 ounces, and runs on a long lasting battery, which lasts about two days with wireless on and a week with it off. The Kindle uses EVDO, a high-speed data network already utilized by many advanced cell phones, so users never have to search for a wireless hotspot for internet access. This access lets users connect to the Kindle store, where one can download one of over 250,000 books, as well as top newspapers – including international ones – magazines, and blogs. The device expands upon its informational capabilities by offering free and complete access to Wikipedia.org, as well as the ability to e-mail word documents and pictures to the device for portable viewing purposes.

The device has exploded onto the market, and Amazon already released the Kindle 2. Some updates to the device include a reduction in size, to a mere 1/3 inch in thickness,  25% more battery life, more memory, 3G wireless technology, and a text-to-speech feature.

For more information on the device(s), visit Amazon’s Kindle pages:

http://www.amazon.com/Kindle-Amazons-Wireless-Reading-Device/dp/B000FI73MA

http://www.amazon.com/Kindle-Amazons-Wireless-Reading-Device/dp/B000FI73MA

Since one can subscribe to newspapers and magazines on the device and have them delivered electronically, there is still hope out there for the struggling companies. I haven’t used the device myself, so I don’t know if advertising has worked its way in yet, but I’m sure it’s not far off – at least for the magazines and newspapers. This cannot be the sole solution however, as the device will most likely not become ubiquitous. It will help though. It’s a step in the right direction as the print industry, which once stood proud, must now learn to walk again in an ever-advancing technological society.

Music, Radio and the Internet

Another technology to have seen drastic changes is radio. You have your traditional AM/FM radio, then you have your satellite radio, and finally, you have your internet radio, which varies greatly. For sites like Pandora.com or Slacker.com, you can create and customize your own “stations,” or you can get streaming music from FM radio company websites, iTunes radio stations, and many other websites. Then you have podcasts as well. You can even find most songs up on YouTube. The possibilities are almost endless.

 

There is more music at our fingertips than ever before. The ability to listen to and broadcast just about anything is made possible via the internet. You can even get a lot of this stuff on smartphones, which I talked about last week. Pandora has applications for the iPhone, Windows Mobile phones, and various Sprint phones as well. Now that is something I’d actually appreciate on a smartphone.

 

If these options weren’t enough, there are a ton of methods to get your iPod to play through your car speakers. Some include wireless FM transmitters that you attach to your iPod and play through a specific radio station, ones that plug into the device’s headphone jack and are attached to a “cassette tape” that you put in your cassette player, if your car has one, and then there are kits you can buy to hardwire directly to your car’s radio. I actually have the Dension icelink Plus kit for my car, which is hardwired to the back of the radio, with the wire running through the back and coming out the side of the glovebox, and going into a mount with the small rectangular iPod output, which attaches to the center console of the car.

 

With so many options, I find myself very rarely listening to traditional FM radio for music. The only time I do is in the car when I forget my iPod and really want to hear music, but even then I occasionally won’t both because there will either be commercials, or I won’t like the songs being played. With technology the way it is, it’s almost difficult to not find and listen to music you like, be it new music or music you’ve heard before.

 

This is a major benefit to lesser known artists. Things like iTunes, YouTube, Myspace, among other internet tools and websites have allowed independent artists to get their music out there, and if enough people like it, even make some money out of it. I’ve seen this happen all the time with original songs from YouTube users, where after enough people watch and comment and ask for the song, it ends up in the iTunes download store.

 

Personally, I feel like all this change is for the best. Sure, CD sales might be down, but those benefit mostly the record labels anyway, and not the artist themselves. The internet allows the artist to shine, and focuses on them, and them alone. In this age of customization and infinite musical discovery, nearly anything is possible, and I feel like it’s a win-win situation for both the consumers and the artists.

Is Your Phone Smart?

Portable media devices are everywhere. Digital cameras, MP3 players, handheld gaming systems and cell phones, if they should even be called that anymore, are just a sampling from the crowd. In today’s world, cell phones are more like little computers you can call people with. That is the main topic of this week.

Communication has changed drastically over the years with the advent of things like texting, instant messengers, social networking sites such as Facebook and Myspace, and portable digital cameras. In fact, cell phones have all of these things and more now. Gone are the days of traditional communication. We are now in a time where communication and information is instant and nearly infinitely expandable.

The Apple iPhone and RIM BlackBerrys are the two major competitors at the moment. These devices are more aptly named smartphones rather than cell phones. A smartphone, by definition, provided by pcmag.com, is “A cellular telephone with information access. It provides digital voice service as well as any combination of e-mail, text messaging, pager, Web access, voice recognition, still and/or video camera, MP3, TV or video player and organizer.” Though the technology has existed for nearly a decade, it had not taken off until technology made it more practical to use, and of course the release of the iPhone.

The iPhone is very popular for good reason. It’s essentially a computer in your pocket. It’s a PDA, a GPS, an mp3 player, an internet browser, which already unlocks copious amounts of potential, and along with all this, the ability of users to create, distribute, and download various applications. These can range from video games to turning your phone into a level to measure a surface’s flatness. Though only 2 mega pixels, it’s also a camera, and even after all those features, I’m sure I’m still leaving something out. The BlackBerry isn’t far off either, however with less memory, mp3 functionality is low, but with an internet browser and YouTube, music isn’t far away. These devices seem like the epitome of convergence in technology. However, is this a good thing? Or are a lot of these things excessive?

To start thinking about this in a creative, humorous manner, have a look at these short iPhone parodies produced by CollegeHumor on YouTube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Ccxt6V7UoE&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LxEcewBI3SY&feature=related

Sure, while GPS can be handy, it isn’t much trouble to manage without one on a phone. Google maps and Mapquest work fine for me, as usually if I’m traveling to an unfamiliar location, I know a bit ahead of time. As for those directionally-challenged individuals who depend on GPS, they usually have one setup in their cars already. These GPS devices are a bit more thorough, with spoken directions, AI that adjusts the route to the destination based on things like missing a turn or going another way, without touching a button. While convenient on the iPhone as a free extra, Verizon wishes to charge extra for the service on the new BlackBerry bold.

A camera is convenient, but at only 2 mega pixels, there’s not much you can do with it. And sure, the internet is nice, but I personally would prefer to view it on a larger screen, such as the laptop I’m currently typing this on. As a PDA, I’ll admit it’s useful, but mainly only to those as busy as to not be able to stop and check e-mail on a computer, or those who need the constant contact for vital purposes. As for myself, sure I use the calendar feature on my phone sometimes, and frequently use the alarm, but these things can be replaced with an actual alarm clock, and a planner on your computer. The main things I need from a cell phone are calling and texting, and sometimes pictures, though only because I surprisingly don’t own a digital camera. 

In the end, all the excessive features of these smartphones may be just that — excessive. They lack in quality in comparison to dedicated devices, like 30 to 60 GB iPods (or the iPod nano for exercise), 10+ mega pixel digital cameras, and regular computers. So for me, though all the features on smartphones seem fun and cool and convenient, the convergence is easily done without, at least until the quality of the converged devices increases without prices going through the roof.

Television and Convergence

If you walked up to a random stranger on the street and asked if they had both a television and a computer with internet access, odds are they would say yes. However, if you asked them if they had a television with internet access, they’d probably say no. They might even shoot you a funny look, who knows. Even while we live in an era where internet can be accessed almost anywhere, on almost anything, even an iPod (the iPod Touch), most people don’t expect television to be on that list. We live in an age of convergence, but I feel TV and the internet will, for the most part, remain separate.

This separation is due to several factors. When people browse the internet, they’re usually on a computer, and they’re usually doing other things as well, such as talking with friends, doing homework, listening to music, etc. These things just aren’t ideal to be doing on a television. If there’s only one television in the house, then you would need to use that for internet, meaning there would be a lack of privacy. It would also just be uncomfortable to try to do without a proper setup, because you need to use a mouse and a keyboard, and you’ll also be further away from the screen if on a couch or chair or something. In addition to those things, if someone else in the house wanted to watch TV, it would be tied up. And when people use the internet, it’s usually not to check something quickly, but tend to be on it for an extended period of time, so it would stay tied up for a bit, or they’d be rushed to get off.

There may also be a few benefits, such as watching videos from YouTube, or Hulu, or other web pages on a larger viewing platform, like a television screen. However, these applications are limited. I feel the more ideal option would be to simply view what your computer is displaying on a television screen. That way, not only can you view websites, but you can also watch videos or movies, view pictures, and listen to music saved to your hard drive, as well as play video games. This of course also includes any videos, movies, pictures, music and games from the internet. And all one would need is a simple S-video cable, or an adapter if deemed necessary, depending on the type of television you have. Either way, it's a cheap method for essentially using your television as both a TV and a computer.

 

I personally feel that is a much more practical option. The second best alternative I feel would be a TV card for your computer, so that, among doing everything else on your computer, you can also watch the same television that you get on your normal TV. The following link goes to a New York Times article from Feb. 15, 2009, regarding the convergence of television and the internet - Article. What I noticed most was the fact that the majority of television manufacturers simply did not want the chip to make their sets internet-capable, because they feel the general public isn’t ready and wouldn’t have a use for such a technology at the moment, and as you can probably guess at this point, I agree.

 

Here’s a short sample of the article for those who wish to get the gist of it:

 

“Sony's stance is that consumers don’t want an Internet-like experience with their TVs, and we’re really not focused on bringing anything other than Internet video or widgets to our sets right now,” said Greg Belloni, a spokesman for Sony. Widgets is an industry term for narrow channels of Internet programming like YouTube.

Ditto for Sharp Electronics. “I don’t think that consumers are yet ready to access all content on the Internet on the TV,” said Bob Scaglione, senior vice president for marketing at the Sharp Electronics Marketing Company of America.

He added: “For now, it’s more important to deliver content consumers want on a TV and let them do their browsing on a PC.”

 

There is already a form of computer and TV convergence via the Xbox 360 and Windows Vista. Using Windows Media Center and an internet connection, one can do things like watch videos, view photos, and listen to music from your computers hard drive on the screen the Xbox 360 is connected to — wirelessly. For now, this seems like enough technology for me, and I feel like it’s enough for the general public. Unless people’s lifestyles change, or the setup of their homes change, I feel like this will continue to be a useless technology, as advancements in technology will undoubtedly open the door to more practical, accessible methods of viewing your computer on a television set.