Made to Break (Ch. 4-6)

Slade’s following chapters continue the extreme discussion of technological obsolescence in America. However, unlike the first three chapters, Chapter four begins with the introduction of a bitter rivalry that lasted for decades, or rather through a series of advancements in a particular field. The first competitor, David Sarnoff, was describes a business genius who saw the strategy in planned obsolesce and took advantage of it with attempts to introduce RCA and Television into the world. The second competitor was Edwin Howard Armstrong who never left the foundation of FM radio only to make it a stronger piece of communications technology.
Slade describes the movement of different sectors of market share and their how they went up and down at the times they did. The strategy that Sarnoff represented was to short live the time of FM radio and quickly destroy it with the introduction of television. However, Armstrong saw the potential greatness that FM radio had to offer and worked on perfecting it for the remainder of his life. The eventual excitement of TV made consumers excited and curious about the new product, but further penetration of FM radio continued to make record achievements in the world of wireless communications. After a series of legal battles between Sarnoff and Armstrong, the bitter rivalry that was once seen as mutual respect began to loose all integrity as time wore on. Once betrayed, Armstrong slowly regained power and authority of the communications world and as RCA began to bow down to the FCC, Armstrong “deliberately wanted to prevent Sarnoff from being able to manufacture FM radios and transmitters…His personal motive may have been to punish Sarnoff and RCA.” (Pg. 96)
Isn’t it interesting to view the corporate innovations of yesterday, and how their rivalry drove the technology of today? How did the TVs and radios that we use right now become the result of an epic legal battle of these two parties? I still find it fascinating how the ideas of obsolesce can be used as such a powerful tool in the hands of business mastermind. One can literally predict the market (hopefully correctly) for years to come.
While exciting, it was very sad to read about how such a battle between the two eventually lead to the tragic death of Howard Armstrong. Throughout the chapter, I really was rooting for Armstrong in the end just because I felt that he deserved the recognition after all the bullying over his patents and inventions.
Interesting how Slade discusses the silk trade movement in Asia. Till this point in the book, he has discussed obsolescence in a sense of technology. But the beginning of chapter 5 was a discussion of the obsolescence of silk. How synthetic substitutes made the market for silk slightly smaller and more elastic. Slade made it clear that “although it had not yet been invented, artificial silk was clearly the fabric of the future.” (Pg. 118).
In the beginning of the book, I didn’t really understand the meaning of the title, “Made to Break” but as I read on, I am beginning to understand what Slade means by this. He literally means that pieces of technology are made to be broken in order make room for new devices in the future.

Made to Break (Chapters 1-3)

Giles Slade’s book, Made to Break is my favorite book that we have read so far in this class. Not because it involves technology anymore that the other reading that we have done, but because it involves economics. I am an Economics major here at Rutgers University, and many of the arguments that Slade has to offer are not only compelling in theory, but also very interestingly applicable to real life as he clearly showed in the first three chapters. Chapter 1 discussed the variability of marketing strategy and the tough task to get loyalty among customers in an era where marketing and consumerism were primal. Slade uses several examples of how innovators used branding and packaging, eliminating cost, inventing disposables in a time of cheap consumption, and all the while maintaining reliability. A familiar name Slade introduces would be King Gillette himself and his innovation of the Gillette razor blades. This product was cheap to product, cheap to consume, and disposable; all characteristics of the demanded product at that time in history. However appealing these disposable products appeared, they became a hassle. Slade goes on to explain that the age of the disposables eventually turned into the age of waste and thrift. Apparently the sale of these incredible products didn’t come with any recycling labels, or “dispose of properly” labels. So, consumers felt that it was acceptable to just throw these products away. These products, being cheap, accessible, and disposable; were easy targets for trash, littering, and thrift. Campaigns were created by officials, yet their efforts seemed useless. America eventually cleaned up but not because of the campaigns, but rather a different direction on interest. As Slade explains, “…they now turned their attention to comfort, luxury, and prestige in the products they bought.” (Pg. 28)

To discuss this quote, I wanted to bring up the impressive analysis that Slade uses between (some of) the great masterminds who established the industrial revolution. Slade exemplifies the battle between the great Henry Ford and Alfred Sloan. These two geniuses developed GM and Ford (respectively) in different ways. As Slade points out, the outcome of their marketing turned out to be very different. In his cars, Henry Ford had much to offer; dependability, parts that last, and craftsmanship. Slade spells out that Ford was a strong believer “against unnecessary obsolescence. He represented an absolute ethic of quality and durability in manufactured goods.” (Pg. 33) He compares this to Sloan’s product where technological innovation supersedes this idea of “lasting” by “increasing efficiency and reducing cost.” (Pg. 33) Sloan’s product had a “new and improved” mentality in its sales versus Ford’s “if its not broken, don’t fix it” mentality. Both of these slogans can seem very attractive to different consumers; however, the idea of competitive advantage seemed to give Sloan the upper hand. I thought this example was excellent in that it showed the change in demand of what exactly consumers wanted. Slade displays that eventually, technological innovation took over the antiqueness of old fashioned models, and it was clear that people want new things even if there is nothing wrong with old things.

Finally, I’d like to point out one last thing about Slade’s book that I found attractive. He brings up the idea of Progressive obsolescence and hot it drove perpetual market change and thus our current capitalistic society. To clarify, Slade’s explanation of Schumpeter’s model of Creative destruction is the exact thing that works our current economic consumerism. Today, you see everyone (able) seeking the latest gadget, the coolest toy, or the smallest most compact tool. No longer are we looking for saving or investing, but rather the consumption of futuristic inventions. We can refer back to an in class discussion where consumption is a necessity to being involved with society’s upper class. I enjoyed Slade’s book because he gave us a very accurate depiction of the change that went from penny pickers to big money spenders.

The world and Wikipedia...second reading

The second part of Andrew Dalby’s book has three main parts explaining: why we love it, why we don’t trust it, and why we will trust it. The first of the three, why we love it, has five parts to it that Dalby considers; however, I felt that only two of the reasons had some real substance to it, and practical meaning behind it. According to Dalby, one of the reasons why we love Wikipedia so much is credible to the freedom that it allows its authors. Dalby clearly states on page 130 that, “we love Wikipedia because it lets us write about whatever we want.” Unfortunately, the author uses this one characteristic as one of the main flaws of Wikipedia as he pointed out several times in his book. I feel that the freedom that Wikipedia offers is both a gift and a burden. As I mentioned in my previous blog, the access to edit pages and topics is in the hands of anyone. This means that anyone can log in (anonymously) and change the wording of subjects that they don’t even know about. The controversy here, is that Dalby’s reason for us hating Wikipedia is the same reason why we love it.

Dalby also claims that another reason why we love Wikipedia is because of its equality. In the world of Wikipedia, every user has the same credibility. This simply means that anyone can edit anything on Wikipedia and not have to show proff of their knowledge. What does this mean? Well, ordinary textbooks, encyclopedias and other credible sources of information are based off the findings and impeccable research of professors and doctors, but when an article is found on Wikipedia, the author could be a high school kid. Again, Dalby’s point can be made here, “in this virtual world, we’re all equal, from professors…to unexpectedly learned school kids.” (Pg. 136) As Dalby shows us, the reasons why we love Wikipedia so much can very well be the same reasons why we hate it.

If that section didn’t make you dislike Wikipedia enough, Dalby mentions the amount of political controversy that arises with Wikipedia. Here, Dalby brings up Richard W. Worth again, and discusses how politicians, friends of politicians or even affiliates can change the articles of important people; dismissing the bad and glorifying the good. An interesting point that Dalby brings up is how Wikipedia has become a Virtual Marketing Tool. He uses the example of a fictional character, Jamie Kane and the Boy*d Upp band. Conspiracies flourished in this section of the book as one measly fictional article. With this one article, accusations were made, and fingers were pointed at, but in the end, everything turned out to just be a fake, fictional joke.

In one of Dalby’s closing remarks, he mentions that one of the reasons why we don’t trust Wikipedia is due to one huge faulty error. The fact that an article can make footnotes based off of another Wikipedia article makes room for something called double error. As Dalby explains it, this could result in false data based off of false data built on a foundation of false data. One could easily see the catastrophe in this type of background.

As for the book, I can’t say that I was a fan. I wasn’t a fan of Andrew Dalby’s random bolding of words, or the sporadic usage of usernames and witty remarks. And one thing that I couldn’t take was the topics that he chooses off of Wikipedia. Sure, Star Wars was cool, but did he really have to talk about historical politics for more than 10 pages? Ugh…

The World and Wikipedia (Pg. 7-113)

Andrew Dalby in his book, The World and Wikipedia, portrays the costs and benefits of the resource known as Wikipedia. He starts his book with a strong example of how volatile Wikipedia can really be. In his example, he mentions the 2009 Earthquake in Italy Shows how users initially based their articles with elementary info from rudimentary broadcasts from credible sources. Even though articles can only start out at a few lines, hundreds of different contributors add to the article as the news gets older; adding statistics and details of the incident. Eventually, the article explodes with information, editing old news with the newest and latest stuff. I thought this was amazing how one topic started generically by any random guy can turn into a reference backed up by multiple users all in matter of a few hours.
Wikipedia proved itself to be astonishing, however deceitful as Dalby later introduces a somewhat chaotic event. He describes that while many users can contribute so much, certain ones, incompetent ones, can destroy Wikipedia and all the credibility that it stands for. For example, Dalby mentions keykingz13, a one time user of Wikipedia who edited several pages that didn't really know what or who they were editing about. This type of destruction of legitimate information and recreation of 'fake' information is what makes Wikipedia seem so weak. Its instances like this that create havoc and distress in the Wikipedia World.

Another section of the book discusses the identity crisis in the online resource. He uses Richard W. Worth as an example, a politician who made changes to his own Wikipedia page using the user name ‘Richard Worth.’ This created a scramble in Wikipedia because of the fact that Worth revised several demising notes about himself and his career. Later, Dalby mentions that “Worth’s approach to Wikipedia was perfectly honest and open. That was his mistake.” (Pg 17) What can this tell us about Wikiedia? That people don’t possess the power to edit the information that the world tells about them? Where is the freedom in an encyclopedia that doesn’t accept information from the source itself? That is at the mercy of its critics?

On a lighter note of the Wiki, Dalby credits its unprecedented variability in language. He mentions that there are now 265 languages in Wikipedia. That means that there are thousands of articles all published for a different demographic spread of users. Never before has a encyclopedia granted its users the same information in hundreds of languages; freely edited by the people itself. Admittedly, some users prove incompetent, but amazingly, one topic can get the feedback of 5 different people from all over the world. As Dalby notes, this can all be credited to Jimmy Wales, who was the one to had the far-fetched visualization in the first place!

Dalby’s first appealing pro for Wikipedia came when he mentioned the Nature survey that paralleled Wikipedia’s performances with that of other sufficient and reliable sources like Britannica. This was a huge step up for Wikipedia because it’s most appealing characteristic was its openness to the public and its FREE resources. So when you have two competitors in the same market, where one makes you pay, and the other one gives it to you for free, of course the majority of the population will choose the free source; regardless of its “32%” error rate. Later on page 54, he states that, " The fans of the site believed it to be refreshingly democratic and claimed that over time, accurate comprehensive articles would materialize…”

I liked this book for the most part. But I feel that Andrew Dalby is somewhat repetitive in his argument on how good, or bad Wikipedia was. Perhaps he will come up with something new in the second part of the reading, but I felt that alot of the book put emphasis on the eligibility of the writers and their freedom to edit pages at their liking. I was especially surprised to read later that Dalby himself is a Wikipedian; it is hard to determine the authors stance on exactly what he perceives Wikipedia to be.

Technopoly: The Surrender of a Culture to Technology (pg 92-199)

The second part of Neil Postman's Book, Technopoly: The Surrender of a Culture to Technology
starts with yet another radical perspective of how technology is ruining the human race. He starts with describing the 'aggressive' hands of the modern doctor, and how they have lost the gifted touch of the once respected profession. As a man born into this chaotic lifestyle over-driven with technology, I am curious as to what the heck Postman was talking about. I've had my fair share of hospital visits, ER walk-ins, and routine check ups; and I have never lost and respect for my doctor or the tools he uses. In fact, as Postman reassures us, patients (like myself) feel more at ease when doctors assure their judgment with x-rays, MRI's, or Cat scans. Postman claims that their procedures make the modern doctor look weak and even goes as far as calling him/her incompetent. Personally, I think to say this is not only ignorant, but also disrespectful. The fact of the matter is, is that today, people are living longer and healthier lives; and what is responsible for this longevity? Technology! What would the world look like if doctors relied on their eyes and ears for diagnoses? Let me provide an example...
I have a close friend whose mother was recently diagnosed with multiple myeloma. The disease first started with minor back pains that grew progressively worse. A doctor's negligence, much like that of Postman's war against the machines, dismissed the pain with prescription. Eventually, X-rays started to identify fractures in the back and weeks later; an MRI discovered the actual cause of the fractures was multiple myeloma. This case proves that doctors cannot be fully responsible for the identification of a certain pain, disease, or medical issue. The fact that we are living longer temps death's gruesome hands to find new ways of killing us, and I feel that technology is one of the weapons that can be used to fight this in inescapable fate.

Postman goes on with his theory to describe that the reason for this catastrophic lifestyle begins with humankind's sovereignty of technology, or rather our easy acceptance and trustworthiness of technology. He states that today, 'medicine is about the disease, not the patient. And what the patient knows is untrustworthy; what the machine knows is reliable.' To an extent, why is so wrong to make this claim? I mean, I'll admit that a machine knows a lot more about my body than I do about myself. How do I know my resting heart rate off the op of my head? How am I supposed to figure out the HDL and LDL cholesterol in my body? I don't know about deficiencies or surpluses in my body, and that is what I have a machine for. On page 102, Postman describes the situation quite well, “medical competence is not defined by the quantity and variety of machinery of machinery brought to bear on disease.”

Another interesting, yet highly debatable topic that Postman brings up is this idea of a symbol drain. He explains the technolopoly story as a “progress without limits, rights without responsibilities, and technology without cost.” (Pg 179) He explains (from chapter eight) that a world revolving around technology destroys morality. Then, Postman complains that there is no longer a symbol for American freedom; stating that eventually symbols will disappear and the disastrous mindset will remain. Furthermore, Postman labels those who resist the American technopoly as people “who refuse to accept efficiency as the preeminent goal of human relations.” (Pg 184) This again, is a cynic’s perspective of how terrible technology is and how detrimental it is to the human race.

What I can’t understand about postman’s argument is why he can’t just accept the way the world has evolved? Why can we be efficient? Why can’t we guiltlessly make things easier for us? These were the questions that were in my head as I was reading Postman’s ENTIRE book.

All for now…