I found that the core fundamentals of the first three weeks have built off and expanded on O’Reilly’s What is Web 2.0. This article aids in understanding the infrastructure behind the old and new generation(s) of software. Being in a web driven society it’s key to/in understanding the concepts behind web 2.0, and how this has shaped and will shape the web. The first concept is viewing the web as a platform that provides a “Google” amount of data that is controllable and manipulated by the user. We can see how earlier web applications (those from web 1.0) have pioneered and paved way for newer web applications that have more accessibilities and data. Another concept within web 2.0 that I found to be crucial is the end of the software release cycle. This defines the internet software era as a delivered service and not a product. What this allows is for users to affect current and future possibilities of applications which are determined by the producers monitoring of users usage of the product. What this bridges to is the evolution of software compatible on multiple devices that add a conscience to the users and eventually the concept of convergence.
Convergence is a key concept that is essential in understanding and creating rhetoric of digital media. We need to understand the way we as a society use and interface with the technology we have at hand through daily means, or any other means of social media usage. It is the concept of the users and producers of media devices, which in themselves are merged (i.e. cell phones with cameras and internet service, internet radio, etc) that perpetuate the production of current and new media hardware and software.
In the article It takes a Village to Find an iPhone, the expansion and the ethos and pathos of the citizens woven together through the social media structure is an interesting feat. There are people daily who lose or have stolen, their phones, mp3 players, wallets so on and so forth. Yet in this case a woman had lost her phone in a taxi, she inquired a friend to post a reward to any person to find the find. Sometime later she ended up purchasing a replacement phone, and had all of her info (located on the phone provider’s server) transferred and gained identity of the person who had her phone. The persons contact information was available, and the two sent the person an email requesting the return of the phone. The request was denied and soon led to a post about the incident on a web page, which gained recognition through the online community and became a top story on DIGG. (Millions of viewers read and began to follow the story aiding the two in the return of the phone) Ten days later the phone was returned to the owner, but the power of the online community demonstrated how connected we become when a fellow person is in need and the need strikes an emotional an relatable connection between the people. These similar tactics are applied to various advertisement agencies as well as disaster relief groups. My question, or concern, is, how much power and control one can have through digital means such as the one provided in the story. Would similar results have occurred if the post for the lost phone was in a physical print media, rather than a cyber-form?
With the convergence of media(s) and the expansion and evolution of web/digital media, how connected are we going to be as a society? Some critiques believe that the digital world can isolate people, yet from various accounts the opposite is occurring. How much further can the digital infrastructure expand from what we have currently, is there going to be an age were all software is available, and requires just the force of a thought process to run?