Putting together jigsaw puzzles, playing cards, and watching home videos are seemingly holiday past-times of...the past. Enjoying time with family over turkey and cranberry sauce has more or less become a matter of survival for many. And smartphone app companies are taking advantage of our short attention spans and loss of interest in watching Uncle Harry chug eggnog and sing Christmas carols.Whether you're belted into a minivan for hours, stuck sitting between your great-uncles at the holiday supper table, or just not sure how to plan your attack for Black Friday, there are mobile apps to get you through it, sane and sound.
Here to keep you sane, entertained, and organized are the latest, must-have apps for the holidays.
Specially for Thanksgiving, the top five apps you just have to have: http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/22/tech/mobile/thanksgiving-apps/index.html. Coloring books keep rugrats out of the kitchen, while grandma cooks like a gourmet with the $50.00 Professional Chef app. See, kids are quiet and you get to eat the best stuffing of your life--all because of your smartphone or tablet! It's like the stuff of dreams.
For the entire holiday season: http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2011/11/holiday-survival-apps/all/1. With these, you can plan your holiday flight, create and share memories, handle cooking conversions with ease, and again, keep the kids, as the women in my family would say, "out of this damn kitchen!"
Now the question is: are these advances in smartphone technology going to bring us together or push us apart? Aren't the holidays about dogs and kids running everywhere, burning the the bird, and running head-first into Herberger's at 4 a.m. on Black Friday with no game plan at all? Isn't chaos what the Christmas season is all about? Or is this just my family?
Honestly, what did we do BEFORE we all had our own personal technology to keep us entertained? Technology is amazing, but it detracts from the whole point of the holidays. Some of these apps really are great tools, but does it bother anyone else that we need them to "survive" the holidays, rather than just enjoy this time of year without them? I will agree, however, that a 12 hour car ride might go by a little faster playing Angry Birds and Turkey Plucker than singing Jingle Bells and counting license plates.
Thursday, November 24, 2011
Thursday, November 10, 2011
The internet will give you cancer, too
OK, the internet won't give you cancer (or will it?), but one huge concern about the world wide web many experts and parents have is how much time kids are spending online. This has been an issue for developmental psychologists, doctors, parents, teachers and educators.
"Staring at the screen damages your eyes." "Online games will stunt your brain development." "It'll make you stupid." "It's a waste of time." "It's making our children fat and lazy." "Social networking decreases face to face social skills." "Tweeting and texting ruins language skills."
Some of these arguments sound a little ridiculous. Some are right on the money.
There are many concerns about children spending too much time online. Whether its 15-year-olds thinking they can insert "LOL's" into their English papers and receive full credit, or a decrease in how much face time parents and children have, experts are attributing these problems partly to time spent online.
In this article taken from Fox News, http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/03/29/does-online-time-hurt-kids-face-time/ , the concern that parents have with this issue is expressed as well as a popular method used to mediate this possible problem: monitoring internet use. Some however, as shown in this article also, feel that children need to be exposed to the technology of their time, fearing that by withholding social networking from them, we are holding kids back.
This site names this trend we are seeing in children: internet addiction http://childrenshospitalblog.org/internet-overload-are-we-spending-too-much-time-online/. The amount children spend online is revealed here, as well as links to the view points of a neurologist, a media expert, and a psychologist for their thoughts on the matter.
This is not a new issue, as shown here in an article from 2007, http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2007-09-27-parents-kids-online_N.htm; parents and experts have been struggling with this for years and as the problem increases, there seems to be less and less parents can do to monitor their child's online activity. With the innovations of smartphones and online game consoles, kids don't even have to be on a computer to be online anymore. Whether or not this is a good or bad thing, is something I can't answer. There are benefits to the internet, as well as negative effects. All of this is subjective, however.
"Staring at the screen damages your eyes." "Online games will stunt your brain development." "It'll make you stupid." "It's a waste of time." "It's making our children fat and lazy." "Social networking decreases face to face social skills." "Tweeting and texting ruins language skills."
Some of these arguments sound a little ridiculous. Some are right on the money.
There are many concerns about children spending too much time online. Whether its 15-year-olds thinking they can insert "LOL's" into their English papers and receive full credit, or a decrease in how much face time parents and children have, experts are attributing these problems partly to time spent online.
In this article taken from Fox News, http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/03/29/does-online-time-hurt-kids-face-time/ , the concern that parents have with this issue is expressed as well as a popular method used to mediate this possible problem: monitoring internet use. Some however, as shown in this article also, feel that children need to be exposed to the technology of their time, fearing that by withholding social networking from them, we are holding kids back.
This site names this trend we are seeing in children: internet addiction http://childrenshospitalblog.org/internet-overload-are-we-spending-too-much-time-online/. The amount children spend online is revealed here, as well as links to the view points of a neurologist, a media expert, and a psychologist for their thoughts on the matter.
This is not a new issue, as shown here in an article from 2007, http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2007-09-27-parents-kids-online_N.htm; parents and experts have been struggling with this for years and as the problem increases, there seems to be less and less parents can do to monitor their child's online activity. With the innovations of smartphones and online game consoles, kids don't even have to be on a computer to be online anymore. Whether or not this is a good or bad thing, is something I can't answer. There are benefits to the internet, as well as negative effects. All of this is subjective, however.
Thursday, November 3, 2011
The iPod Turns 10!
Apple has revolutionized entertainment in many ways. One of the biggest ways that has affected nearly everyone I know is the iPod. Originally released in October of 2001, Apple recently celebrated the device's 10th birthday and gave tribute to how far it's come.
The original iPod, described at brick-sized and brick-heavy, due to it 5GB hard drive--a concept never before seen in portable MP3 devices--came onto the scene and blew the minds of millions of people. People were used to Sony Walkman and tape players. This new device allowed you to store music, take it from CD's, etc and store your entire music collection on one portable device. It has completely overhauled the way music is stored and sold in just a decade.
Steve Jobs said it best, probably knowing the exact impact the device would have, on October 23, 2001. He stated at a press conference: “With iPod, Apple has invented a whole new category of digital music player that lets you put your entire music collection in your pocket and listen to it wherever you go. With iPod, listening to music will never be the same again.”
This article, from Macworld digs deeper into the impact iPod has had on music. http://www.macworld.com/article/163179/2011/10/how_the_ipod_changed_the_world_of_music.html
As a former owner of a generation 2 original iPod (I lost it in a car accident. It was the only injury I suffered.), it's hard to believe that it's already been 10 years. I often forget how far technology has come in just my lifetime--even in just HALF of my lifetime.
As stated in this article, http://www.pcworld.com/article/242411/apples_ipod_turns_10.html,
the iPod has given way for Apple to create other handheld devices, including the iPhone and the iPad. In just ten years we have gone
From this....
To this....
The original iPod, described at brick-sized and brick-heavy, due to it 5GB hard drive--a concept never before seen in portable MP3 devices--came onto the scene and blew the minds of millions of people. People were used to Sony Walkman and tape players. This new device allowed you to store music, take it from CD's, etc and store your entire music collection on one portable device. It has completely overhauled the way music is stored and sold in just a decade.
Steve Jobs said it best, probably knowing the exact impact the device would have, on October 23, 2001. He stated at a press conference: “With iPod, Apple has invented a whole new category of digital music player that lets you put your entire music collection in your pocket and listen to it wherever you go. With iPod, listening to music will never be the same again.”
This article, from Macworld digs deeper into the impact iPod has had on music. http://www.macworld.com/article/163179/2011/10/how_the_ipod_changed_the_world_of_music.html
As a former owner of a generation 2 original iPod (I lost it in a car accident. It was the only injury I suffered.), it's hard to believe that it's already been 10 years. I often forget how far technology has come in just my lifetime--even in just HALF of my lifetime.
As stated in this article, http://www.pcworld.com/article/242411/apples_ipod_turns_10.html,
the iPod has given way for Apple to create other handheld devices, including the iPhone and the iPad. In just ten years we have gone
From this....
To this....
Thursday, October 20, 2011
"What's gonna happen to us?"
As many have found out, through commercials, internet ads and by word-of-mouth, smart phones and personal tablets are all the rage in technology. Why do we like these machines so much ? The answer is relatively simple: convenience. The majority wants to be able to social network, email, communicate and do all the things that a personal computer (PC) can do while being completely mobile. We want all the power of a PC in an easy-to-use, easy-to-transport packaging. If we can have the vast functions of a computer in a cell phone, why wouldn't we? And with thousands of useful and entertaining smart phone and tablet apps, everything we need is in our pocket. Some of the driving forces behind this trend that I have noticed include these apps, 4G technology and touchscreen technology. Everyone is after the "lastest and greatest."
However, according to this article, http://money.cnn.com/2011/10/19/technology/intel_pc_sales/index.htm,PC's aren't going to go down without a fight. They're putting up a good one, too. As the article states, the company Intel, though seeing "slumping demand" for PC's in the United States and Canada, has seen great increases in demand world-wide. China has become number one in the personal computer market in the last quarter.
Though it seems PC's aren't necessarily suffering, they are in no way reaping the benefits that media tablets like the iPad are. And experts are guessing that the demand for these tablets is only going to continue to rise: http://www.itchannelplanet.com/trends/article.php/3908851/Media-Tablet-Sales-Worldwide-Expected-to-Jump-181-Percent-in-2011.htm.
Though this article seems like 'old news,' it shows that really, we've seen this trend already. Companies, like Apple, are continually producing products like these that make our lives supposedly easier. http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/14/us-apple-research-idUSTRE72D30020110314
It's going to get even bigger from there. Many wonder what this will mean for the personal computer industry, though it seems to be maintaining itself--how much longer can it do this? Will PC's become arbitrary? Doubtful, but it will be very interesting to see where this trend takes us as consumers, and where technology will go from this point on.
As an owner of a smartphone (a BlackBerry Torch), I feel like I will never have a reason to use anything other than it and my laptop--they seem portable enough. I wonder if I'll jump on the bandwagon of tablets...we'll see!
However, according to this article, http://money.cnn.com/2011/10/19/technology/intel_pc_sales/index.htm,PC's aren't going to go down without a fight. They're putting up a good one, too. As the article states, the company Intel, though seeing "slumping demand" for PC's in the United States and Canada, has seen great increases in demand world-wide. China has become number one in the personal computer market in the last quarter.
Though it seems PC's aren't necessarily suffering, they are in no way reaping the benefits that media tablets like the iPad are. And experts are guessing that the demand for these tablets is only going to continue to rise: http://www.itchannelplanet.com/trends/article.php/3908851/Media-Tablet-Sales-Worldwide-Expected-to-Jump-181-Percent-in-2011.htm.
Though this article seems like 'old news,' it shows that really, we've seen this trend already. Companies, like Apple, are continually producing products like these that make our lives supposedly easier. http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/14/us-apple-research-idUSTRE72D30020110314
It's going to get even bigger from there. Many wonder what this will mean for the personal computer industry, though it seems to be maintaining itself--how much longer can it do this? Will PC's become arbitrary? Doubtful, but it will be very interesting to see where this trend takes us as consumers, and where technology will go from this point on.
As an owner of a smartphone (a BlackBerry Torch), I feel like I will never have a reason to use anything other than it and my laptop--they seem portable enough. I wonder if I'll jump on the bandwagon of tablets...we'll see!
Thursday, October 6, 2011
What Will Happen to Apple?
Apple Inc. is an American multinational corporation founded by Steve Jobs, Steve Wozniak, and Ronald Wayne in Cupertino, California. The company established on April 1, 1976 and officially incorporated on January 3, 1977, designs, produces and sells consumer electronics, computer software, and personal computers. Apple’s revolutionary and best-known products include the Macintosh line of computers which was first released in 1984, the iPod in 2001, the iPhone in 2007, and the iPad in 2010. Apple software includes the Mac OS X operating system, iTunes, iLife, iWork, Aperture, Final Cut Studio, Safari web browser, and iOS, Apple’s mobile operating system.
As we all know, the creator of this revolutionary company, Steve Jobs, passed away this week. Now, many wonder if Apple Inc. will continue to be successful. In this article, Bill Stepp and Cecil Henderson discussed how Apple will sustain itself after the lost of the creative engineer. http://lorton.patch.com/articles/the-lorton-perspective-steve-jobs-and-the-future-of-apple
Many also wonder what's next in the line of Apple products. Production of the iPhone5 will continue as planned and will be released as previously announced, early next year. Really it seems that Apple will go on and continue the projects that were left behind by Jobs.
Much like how Disney mourned Walt Disney's death and fell behind in the markets, as Steve Case discusses in this interview with PBS News Hour, http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/remember/july-dec11/jobs2_10-06.html, many believe that the employees of Apple will obsess over the loss of their visionary and lose track of their goals. Case, suggests that they do not do this, but rather, remember Jobs and carry on--as the rest of the world should do as well.
Thursday, September 29, 2011
We're watching your every move
We all saw the Facebook statuses about how much everyone hated the recent Facebook changes. We all saw the public reaction on Twitter and other networking sites--the hashtag "#newfacebook" trended on Twitter for days after the switch.
The public, overall, was in an uproar about how the new "creeper bar" that rests on top of your Facebook chat-available-friends list was an invasion of privacy and how you could see updates from people you didn't even know--like, friends of friends. This means that, yes, people we aren't friends with could end up seeing one of our updates. Susie Imnotfriendswith could see my photo comment on Bobby Imfriendswith's album instantly when it happened and without even looking at the album herself. Personally, I don't have anything to hide, and you can still approve who you're friends with--you also still have privacy settings. Realistically, if Susie Imnotfriendswith wanted, she could see my comment anyway. Honestly, I'm not worried. And Facebook executives aren't either. And they've released an explanation of the changes--it's not worth reading, however.
New changes have also given way for your Facebook pals to see what you read, listen to and watch, outside of Facebook, so be careful what you "link" to your profile or "like." The article linked here from the Washington Post explains these changes in greater detail. I recently unlinked my Twitter account from my Facebook.
Bottom line is...Facebook is changing. I think it's interesting that we still can't handle that fact. Does anyone ever remember the ORIGINAL Facebook? The never-ending scrolling? The hundreds of separate notifications....daily fortunes? Look how far we've---they've----come.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/facebook-changes-timeline-and-apps-spark-new-privacy-concerns/2011/09/26/gIQAl8JfzK_story.html
http://money.cnn.com/2011/09/29/technology/facebook_ticker_privacy/index.htm
The public, overall, was in an uproar about how the new "creeper bar" that rests on top of your Facebook chat-available-friends list was an invasion of privacy and how you could see updates from people you didn't even know--like, friends of friends. This means that, yes, people we aren't friends with could end up seeing one of our updates. Susie Imnotfriendswith could see my photo comment on Bobby Imfriendswith's album instantly when it happened and without even looking at the album herself. Personally, I don't have anything to hide, and you can still approve who you're friends with--you also still have privacy settings. Realistically, if Susie Imnotfriendswith wanted, she could see my comment anyway. Honestly, I'm not worried. And Facebook executives aren't either. And they've released an explanation of the changes--it's not worth reading, however.
New changes have also given way for your Facebook pals to see what you read, listen to and watch, outside of Facebook, so be careful what you "link" to your profile or "like." The article linked here from the Washington Post explains these changes in greater detail. I recently unlinked my Twitter account from my Facebook.
Bottom line is...Facebook is changing. I think it's interesting that we still can't handle that fact. Does anyone ever remember the ORIGINAL Facebook? The never-ending scrolling? The hundreds of separate notifications....daily fortunes? Look how far we've---they've----come.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/facebook-changes-timeline-and-apps-spark-new-privacy-concerns/2011/09/26/gIQAl8JfzK_story.html
http://money.cnn.com/2011/09/29/technology/facebook_ticker_privacy/index.htm
Thursday, September 15, 2011
Watch out! That Celebs's Dangerous
Don't worry, Heidi Klum won't pull a gun on you, but clicking on her name because you see it in an ad and "love her so much" might make you want to take that gun to your computer. We're talking about viruses, spam and other headaches that arise when shady internet users utilize celeb names to draw in their victims.
According to McAfee's Security Advice Center, who does a study listing "the most dangerous" online celebrities, super model and reality show host Heidi Klum is this year's most dangerous celeb on the internet. According to the article and McAfee's findings, searches for this superstar have a 10 percent chance of sending the searcher to a not-so-safe site, which in turn creates a big risk for the searcher and their computer. Through pictures and downloads brought up by unassuming search engines, thousands of computers every year are infected with spam--and not the friendly canned meat product.
Not only was I not aware that McAfee even did this kind of research, I was also unaware that this was a threat to me.
Other virus-spreading frontrunners include: Mila Kunis, Brad Pitt and Emma Stone.
What's the big deal about spam, you ask. I'll tell ya.
This is the definition of spam according to "The Spamhaus Project," an international nonprofit organization whose mission is to track the internet's spam operations and sources: 'An electronic message is "spam" if (A) the recipient's personal identity and context are irrelevant because the message is equally applicable to many other potential recipients; AND (B) the recipient has not verifiably granted deliberate, explicit, and still-revocable permission for it to be sent.'
In real words...spam can make a mess of your computer and can cost hundreds of dollars to clear from it.
I think the effect this issue (which has recently come to my attention) has on media and internet communities is really obvious. This can happen to you, to anyone. Just by clicking on a photo of your favorite celebrity so you can post it to your photo blog, you could give your computer a virus.
The CNN article:
http://www.cnn.com/2011/09/15/tech/most-dangerous-celebrities/index.html
McAfee's list of Dangerous Celebs:
http://home.mcafee.com/advicecenter/most-dangerous-celebrities?ctst=1The definition of (the non-edible) spam:
http://www.spamhaus.org/definition.html
According to McAfee's Security Advice Center, who does a study listing "the most dangerous" online celebrities, super model and reality show host Heidi Klum is this year's most dangerous celeb on the internet. According to the article and McAfee's findings, searches for this superstar have a 10 percent chance of sending the searcher to a not-so-safe site, which in turn creates a big risk for the searcher and their computer. Through pictures and downloads brought up by unassuming search engines, thousands of computers every year are infected with spam--and not the friendly canned meat product.
Not only was I not aware that McAfee even did this kind of research, I was also unaware that this was a threat to me.
Other virus-spreading frontrunners include: Mila Kunis, Brad Pitt and Emma Stone.
What's the big deal about spam, you ask. I'll tell ya.
This is the definition of spam according to "The Spamhaus Project," an international nonprofit organization whose mission is to track the internet's spam operations and sources: 'An electronic message is "spam" if (A) the recipient's personal identity and context are irrelevant because the message is equally applicable to many other potential recipients; AND (B) the recipient has not verifiably granted deliberate, explicit, and still-revocable permission for it to be sent.'
In real words...spam can make a mess of your computer and can cost hundreds of dollars to clear from it.
I think the effect this issue (which has recently come to my attention) has on media and internet communities is really obvious. This can happen to you, to anyone. Just by clicking on a photo of your favorite celebrity so you can post it to your photo blog, you could give your computer a virus.
The CNN article:
http://www.cnn.com/2011/09/15/tech/most-dangerous-celebrities/index.html
McAfee's list of Dangerous Celebs:
http://home.mcafee.com/advicecenter/most-dangerous-celebrities?ctst=1The definition of (the non-edible) spam:
http://www.spamhaus.org/definition.html
Thursday, September 8, 2011
Yahoo's callin' it quits
The value of Yahoo has plummeted from $47 billion (it's selling price in 2008) to $17 billion (it's selling price as of now).What does this tell people like you and me?
Yahoo is not longer an technological innovator, that's what it tells us. This former super power, once a contender alongside Google, is failing and has been giving away things like their search option through a partnership with Microsoft's Bing. Throughout the years, the multiple features that have made Yahoo usable to the public, are declining in usability and necessity.
Yahoo is in desperate need of someone to bail it out of the hole that it's in. With little improvement in past years, due to the super power that is Facebook (among others), there is seemingly no other option.
This is such a weird realization for me. Yahoo has been around for as long as I can remember. The effect that this "bail out" will have is not really determined, but it's safe to say that the sixth time is probably not going to be the charm for this organization.
http://money.cnn.com/2011/09/07/technology/thebuzz/index.htm?hpt=te_bn8
http://cnnmoneytech.tumblr.com/post/9899051363/a-brief-history-of-yahoo
http://postcards.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2011/09/08/carol-bartz-fired-yahoo/?iid=Popular
Yahoo is not longer an technological innovator, that's what it tells us. This former super power, once a contender alongside Google, is failing and has been giving away things like their search option through a partnership with Microsoft's Bing. Throughout the years, the multiple features that have made Yahoo usable to the public, are declining in usability and necessity.
Yahoo is in desperate need of someone to bail it out of the hole that it's in. With little improvement in past years, due to the super power that is Facebook (among others), there is seemingly no other option.
This is such a weird realization for me. Yahoo has been around for as long as I can remember. The effect that this "bail out" will have is not really determined, but it's safe to say that the sixth time is probably not going to be the charm for this organization.
http://money.cnn.com/2011/09/07/technology/thebuzz/index.htm?hpt=te_bn8
http://cnnmoneytech.tumblr.com/post/9899051363/a-brief-history-of-yahoo
http://postcards.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2011/09/08/carol-bartz-fired-yahoo/?iid=Popular
Thursday, September 1, 2011
The Stats: Social Media is "Good"
According to Pew Research Center's Internet and American Life Project, 5 percent of Americans used social media sites in February of 2005. Currently, in the year 2011, 65 percent of American's are using these sites, Facebook and Twitter being among some of the most popular. That's only 6 years.
Within this 65 percent, "young women are leading the way," CNN reports in their article from August 26. A recent Pew survey discovered that 69 percent of women who are online are using social media on a regular basis, versus 60 percent of men.
Why?
According to Gina Chen via the Nieman Journalism Lab, women want to connect and build relationships, which results in their increased use of social media.
Chen says, "What do I do with my girlfriends? I sit around and chat, talk about life, build relationships. What does my husband do with his guy friends? They play golf or tennis or poker or volleyball. What is social media all about? Virtually sitting around and chatting, talking about life and building relationships." http://www.niemanlab.org/2009/10/women-use-social-media-more-than-men-whats-news-orgs-response/
I think these statistics are interesting, along with the feelings people show towards social media. When asked to describe their experiences in social media, social-media users eloquently responded with words like, "good" and a few other variances from that, including "fun" and "OK". For people that spend hours on Facebook and Twitter, communicating with others and spilling their thoughts, opinions and problems all over walls and feeds of friends, coworkers, and family, don't you think we could come up with something a little better than "good?"
http://www.cnn.com/2011/TECH/social.media/08/26/women.social.networks/index.html
http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2011/Social-Networking-Sites.aspx
http://pewinternet.org/Reports/2011/Social-Networking-Sites/~/media/Infographics/Report%20Infographics/2011/22%20-%20SNS%20Update/Wordle%20-%20SNS%20Responses.jpg
Within this 65 percent, "young women are leading the way," CNN reports in their article from August 26. A recent Pew survey discovered that 69 percent of women who are online are using social media on a regular basis, versus 60 percent of men.
Why?
According to Gina Chen via the Nieman Journalism Lab, women want to connect and build relationships, which results in their increased use of social media.
Chen says, "What do I do with my girlfriends? I sit around and chat, talk about life, build relationships. What does my husband do with his guy friends? They play golf or tennis or poker or volleyball. What is social media all about? Virtually sitting around and chatting, talking about life and building relationships." http://www.niemanlab.org/2009/10/women-use-social-media-more-than-men-whats-news-orgs-response/
I think these statistics are interesting, along with the feelings people show towards social media. When asked to describe their experiences in social media, social-media users eloquently responded with words like, "good" and a few other variances from that, including "fun" and "OK". For people that spend hours on Facebook and Twitter, communicating with others and spilling their thoughts, opinions and problems all over walls and feeds of friends, coworkers, and family, don't you think we could come up with something a little better than "good?"
http://www.cnn.com/2011/TECH/social.media/08/26/women.social.networks/index.html
http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2011/Social-Networking-Sites.aspx
http://pewinternet.org/Reports/2011/Social-Networking-Sites/~/media/Infographics/Report%20Infographics/2011/22%20-%20SNS%20Update/Wordle%20-%20SNS%20Responses.jpg
Thursday, August 25, 2011
#twitterstakinovertheworld?
“Twitter is defying the traditional model," according to Andrew Lipsman, director of industry analysis at comScore.
Defying it in the fact that it has created a social community all interacting with 140 characters or less. Twitter is a microblog, but in no way is tailored to the tween generation. Where Facebook user ages, I've noticed on my own account, vary incredibly from tweens to senior citizens, Twitter maintains it's audience of mid-20's to middle-aged people from all walks of life and has also become a great way to promote businesses or products, much like Facebook.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/25/tweet-social-media-merriam-webster-dictionary_n_937180.htmlTo many, this is strange. Twitter essentially is texting. It's just...your texts are on the internet for all your followers to see. This form of "new new media" is changing the web one "tweet" at a time according to several experts and is even making its way into the "real" world....
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/25/tweet-social-media-merriam-webster-dictionary_n_937180.htmlNew new media is defined as an internet site or community that anyone can contribute to...it's oldest form being blogging. With a consumer need for speed on the internet becoming the most important factor to many internet junkies (like myself), the fast pace and ease at which users can post on Twitter makes the site one of the most powerful forces on the internet in my opinion. Instantly, links, news headlines, photos, personal updates and conversations can be shared via computer or phone and even through other websites (linking accounts like Twitter and Facebook together has also become a trend).
With 175+ million users and its own place in the good ol' Miriam Webster's big book of words, it's hard to just call tweets "pointless."
http://www.zephoria.org/thoughts/archives/2009/08/16/twitter_pointle.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)