Apple’s newest gadget – the iPad, was unveiled on Jan. 27. The hype and hope surrounding this latest Apple product was infectious to say the least.
Everyone from tech-savvy fanatics to die-hard advocates of traditional print media were cheerleaders at the iPad’s introduction into the mediascape.
However, when Jay Rosen sat down with The Economist for tea, and to discuss the glorified potential of this newest technology, he seemed relatively immune to the buzz.
Rosen is a journalism professor at New York University (NYU). As well, he is a highly sought-after blogger and media critic whose opinion is not taken lightly.
As Rosen unpacked and subsequently debunked the hype and hope of iPad romanticism during his interview, it became very clear very quickly that perhaps too much greatness was expected of this medium.
This defeatist sentiment was only reiterated as Rosen offered his take on the burning question on the mind of every journalist and publisher: Will the iPad save the ailing print media industry that is desperate for a payday?
Interestingly, Rosen doesn’t seem to think so.
But why?
Well, according to Rosen, a significant amount of the iPad’s success “depends on the network of people who become the users.” Essentially, the user has to like it.
In regards to this, Rosen is unsure of how the tech-savvy masses, who have blossomed in their active role in modern social media, will react to the iPad’s old school ‘sit back, relax and enjoy the media’ feel.
Moreover, today, user-generated content ranks among the most popular content on the web. As well, along with user-generated content comes: user-generated filtering, user-generated organization, user-generated distribution and user-generated commentary. It is clear that internet users are making use of the power granted by social media.
Furthermore, the iPad is without a camera and videotaping capabilities, and only equipped with a barely workable keyboard. Thus, this ‘new’ technology is very unlike the Web 2.0 world we’ve grown accustomed to.
For this reason, Rosen believes that the iPad “is taking us back in web time to the read-only web.” He said that this newest tablet is “restoring people to the days when they were just the audience… when they were just the consumers of content.”
While the traditional print and publishing media are enthralled to “bring back the experience of sitting back with the media and enjoying the wonderful productions,” one must question whether this logic is outdated and if the media industry is out of touch with consumers.
Ultimately, Rosen is skeptical of whether the masses will respond positively to their demotion to merely a passive audience member.
What it comes down to is that the media is hoping the iPad, which has the capacity to charge users for content, will help the floundering traditional print media corporations - who have witnessed the internet take a sizable bite out of their profits.
However, with all the free content online, Rosen said that the media should concern itself with having the highest quality of content that is of value to its readers, rather than the presentation of that content - on e-readers, the Kindle, or the iPad.
According to Rosen, the media resorts to “magical thinking, deliverance by new devices, and business models” because “actually producing high quality content is a lot harder.”
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Great post, and I appreciate you highlighting what someone like Jay Rosen thinks of this new/old technology. I myself agree with how Rosen thinks this technology will be received - people want to be involved and make use of their power when consuming media. Like Trebor Scholz said on Web 2.0, there has been a rise in "prosumers" (producer/consumer integrated into one). Meanwhile, the iPad definitely represents the outdated "read only" style of consuming. When it comes down to it, the iPad is another repetitive technological device that doesn't really add anything to my life or allow me to do something I couldn't already do with another device. As for charging users for content, that's great, but it still won't stop anyone from illegal downloading online... that has to come from the user's own will.
ReplyDeleteI think the publishing industry's biggest problem is that it hasn't figured out how ot use online media to market physical copies of its products. This kind of rhetoric always occur when new technologies come out. The Kindle and iPad will not be the death of the book. As comm students, we know that the meaning of the medium changes. It isn't obliterated.
ReplyDeleteGoogle "Hitler's reaction to the ipad" on Youtube if you want a good laugh (A great example of user generated content!).
Great post. I also wrote a post about the iPad recently. In my opinion, as far as innovation is concerned, Apple has out done themselves. A recent article from Art Technica (http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2010/02/ipad-sdk-holds-hints-of-video-calls-handwriting-keyboard.ars) presented some facts about how the iPad’s SDK kit (which were unveiled after its release) showed that the device is equipped with camera hardwire, making it capable for video conferencing. It can also connect wirelessly to network printers and act as a “shared storage area”, just like an external hard-drive. With this being said, the iPad can not be treated as just a “read only” mode of consumption. It does offer more than any other multimedia device. With the SDK kit as evidence, the second generation models will provide all these features and more, including a connection “to external displays, supporting 1024x768 pixels via a VGA adapter, 480p and 576p with a component cable, and 480i and 576i with a composite cable”. All this means is that the iPad can sync up to an HDTV while the tablet itself can be used as a controller. Imagine the possibilities for Keynote; you will be able to download your power point presentation into your iPad and control your presentation via the device while it’s streaming on a TV. One of the most impressive applications I think after reading the article, is that the iPad is not just a keyboard, it is a writing tablet too. The iPad has the capacity to read your writing as you write on it like a notepad.
ReplyDeleteLooks like Jay Rosen is a bit behind on his tech updates.
On a side note, I do agree that e-book technology will not fully supplement print anytime soon. I do think that by making a deal with major publication companies, Apple’s iBook program will be a great way for people to access reading material, especially textbooks (which can cost a small fortune in print form).
Thanks for the comments! I think Jay Rosen is getting at the same issue we have discussed in previous lectures. Due to the mass amounts of free content online, it is essential for media companies to produce the highest quality of content to keep readers coming back for more.
ReplyDeleteAt the same time, I completely agree that the publishing industry has failed to come up with an action plan on how to effectively utilize the web to their advantage. Even years after knowing the growing power of the internet, and its potential to eventually take a sizable bite out of their profits, I think the media industry just never wanted to believe the day would actually come. On the other hand, however, I do not believe they foresaw the impressive popularity of user-generated content on the web.
As for the iPad, I read the article posted in the comment above and did a little more research myself. What I have concluded is that I’m still going to have to side with Jay Rosen on this one.
If you fast-forward through the posted video interview to the time of 3:30, you can see exactly what Jay Rosen originally stated about the iPad’s non-participatory nature.
Upon investigation of the previously-mentioned article posted on this comment board, I found myself a little confused so maybe someone else would also like to clarify this.
(The link to the article is here: http://bit.ly/9W3eQO)
Anyway, here is my interpretation:
1. All the article states that app software on the newly-released iPhone OS suggests that “some kind of camera hardware was at least considered during the design stage of the iPad”
(What I understand from this is that while the idea of camera hardware software on the iPad may have been originally pursued by Apple, in the end it was not. Thus, the final version of the iPad released by Apple does not have a camera)
2. Furthermore the article states, “There is certainly support for the idea that video conferencing could be a killer app for the iPad if it had some kind of front-facing camera.”
(Further proof that the iPad does not have a camera capable of video recording)
3. Most importantly however, the article states: “Apple may have considered adding camera hardware and later decided to scrap it for cost or ergonomic reasons. It may even plan to add camera hardware at a later date, or offer an add-on camera that connects via Bluetooth or the dock connector. Since the iPhone OS is also used on the iPhone, it may even point to video conferencing functionality being added to a future hardware revision as well.”
(Thus, camera capabilities for the iPad may be in the near future. However, they are not available on the iPad today.)
4. Furthermore, I found an article on the same site discussing the iPad’s lack of a camera. Check out that article here: http://bit.ly/9VqfuJ
Surely, Apple may have tried to make the device more participatory during its creation. Regardless, in the end, I believe they may have backed away from such participatory capabilities for users due to feasibility reasons - which I’m guessing are primarily financial.
All I can establish from this insight is that perhaps the next version of the iPad will have more social media and participatory abilities.
However, for now, the Apple’s site explicitly states: “[The display] makes [the iPad] perfect for web browsing, watching movies, or viewing photos.”
Any thoughts?
Due to Apple’s unpredictable nature, we wont know the final specs of the iPad until its final release. However, more and more evidence circulating the web is indicating that an included web cam will be Steve’s “one more thing”.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2010/02/apple-ipad-may-ship-with-webcam/
great post! I haven't really kept up to date with the whole release of the new ipad, but its convenient to get an overall update through this blog. After looking through the specific features offered by this new product it for sure is a backward movement in our fast paced technologically driven world.
ReplyDeleteMy question to myself and others would be why would Apple a leading innovator go backwards?
And there are a few different reasons that come to mind.
1) New technologies are being developed at a much quicker pace then ever before and maybe for the time being we have reached a saturation point. Everything is already out there, but these companies need to keep making money so they had to put out something.
2) large conglomerates have realized sales are driven by advertising and marketing. The must useless product if advertised well will be purchased. And Apple indeed did market this product very well so essentially they didnt need to worry if the product needed or not. As long as you instil the idea that you NEED this product it will be purchased.
But in the end, I do believe that not moving forward and developing those things to bring back the past is hindering our progress and not benefical.