Article Blog 3: Apple's iPad (January 31, 2010)

This past week Apple and its CEO, Steve Jobs, introduced to the world its latest invention, the iPad. In the article, “The Apple iPad: First Impressions,” (see link: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/28/technology/personaltech/28pogue-email.html) David Pogue explains what actually the iPad does and whether or not it can live up to the hype. First, Pogue explains how, at the moment, like most other Apple products, the iPad will receive negative reviews until it actually goes on sale in April. In reality, the iPad is essentially a combination of a laptop and a larger iPod Touch. The iPad presents a revolutionary web browsing experience and also serves as an e-book. People question the touch screen software in relation to actual editing and writing programs, but Pogue writes, “Overall, the iPad seems like a dream screen for reading and watching.” After all, the iPad could prove to be the next best thing for e-book users. Pogue concludes by saying to critics, “My main message to fanboys is this: it's too early to draw any conclusions. Apple hasn't given the thing to any reviewers yet, there are no iPad-only apps yet (there will be), the e-bookstore hasn't gone online yet, and so on. So hyperventilating is not yet the appropriate reaction.”

Time will only tell whether or not the iPad proves to be a popular trend. With Apple’s iPods and iPhones becoming so popular, the iPad could possibly have an impact on society, especially with e-book readers. For those who read books online, the iPad could easily be seen as an improvement. In the article, “Publishers Embrace iPad, but Revolution Unlikely,” (see link: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE60R0GS20100128?type=technologyNews) Christine Kearney explains how this device could “reinvent the way books are read and entice readers to easily shop for and read books online.” With this invention, e-books could quite possibly be brought more into the mainstream. Kearney shows that publishers are extremely excited about this new technology, saying that it could reinvent the way people read and the amount of readers will, as a result, expand. “Several publishing houses said Apple's new iBook store, and its established worldwide customer base through popular devices such as iPods and applications like iTunes, meant they expected to immediately expand their readership.” Another way this will transform the reading world is that people will have the ability to have hundreds of books on hand in a single device at any given time. No longer will readers have to search through thousands of pages for information. Instead, the iPad will help them work more efficiently. Although there are doubts on whether or not the iPad will be the killer to the Kindle, another e-book invention, Apple has a way of convincing the mass public into buying their technology. In closing, only time will tell whether the iPad will be popular to the masses and an impact on society.

Article Blog 2: Video Replay in Soccer (January 24, 2010)

In the article, “Fifa May Implement Video Replay Technology, Says Sepp Blatter,” (see link: http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2010/jan/24/video-replay-technology-sepp-blatter) the British newspaper, The Guardian, writes that in the midst of all this commotion surrounding the recent match between France and Ireland that ended as Thierry Henry’s controversial handball set up the game winning goal in their World Cup qualifying playoff last November, Fifa president, Sepp Blatter, is beginning to believe that video replay in soccer may benefit the fairness of the game. This is ironic considering “Blatter has previously spoken out against the use of cameras, saying it would disrupt the flow of the game.” As more and more controversial calls continue in major soccer matches, Blatter is beginning to realize the importance of incorporating goal-line cameras after this summer’s World Cup.

One reading this article may be asking what exactly Fifa incorporating video replay along the goal-line has to do with technology and society. It is important to realize that soccer is the world’s most popular sport and that many would like to see improvements made to the game’s fairness. Corry Cropper writes in his article, “FIFA and Video Replay… NOT,” (see link: http://www.thesportsacademic.com/2009/11/fifa-and-video-replay-not.html) that while Fifa officials insist on adding extra officials behind each goal, it will still cause disruptions in the flow of the game as would consulting video replay, which is a major concern for Blatter. Before Blatter acknowledged that incorporating technology in soccer may be best, most Fifa officials opposed the idea. At that time, Cropper wrote in opposition of the extra official behind the goal and in favor of technology by saying, “What's worse, instead of simply consulting a video screen (or a replay official), the referee will consult with the sideline official and now one positioned behind the goal and waste time discussing what they saw without the help of slow motion or multiple angles. This conference process may actually be slower and more disruptive than straight video replay.” Like many soccer fans, Cropper wants to see the games called in a fair way. Soccer matches too often end in controversial calls that could be assisted with technology. The millions of fans would, as a result, be more accepting towards game-changing calls. For example, fans of the Irish national team would have paid large sums of money to have technology, especially goal-line video replay, a part of the game last November as they missed out on a chance to receive a bid to the 2010 World Cup after they lost on a controversial handball. Seeing technology become a part of soccer may not actually disrupt the game. In reality, it will benefit the fairness and equality of the game, but most importantly, the fans will be more satisfied by knowing that a controversial call can be justified through the use of technology.

Article Blog 1: Google vs. China

In the article, “Google’s Defiance in China Gaining Support,” (see link: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/technology/googles-defiance-in-china-gaining-support/article1430253/) Omar El Akkad explains the reasons behind why the Internet corporation would decide to leave China. As many people know, China is governed by Communism in which the government represses its citizens, especially when Internet freedom comes into play. By Google threatening to leave China, they are putting morals before business by supporting human rights. Akkad writes, “For years, the Web giant’s willingness to censor content in order to access the Chinese market has stood in stark contrast to its unofficial motto: “Don’t be evil.” But after publicly alleging a cyber-attack on its operations, rebuking Beijing for its repression of Internet freedom and threatening to leave China altogether – a move unheard of for a major corporation – Google has forced other technology firms, American politicians and even the U.S. government to support its cause.” This shows that Google could accompany human rights activists in China by discontinuing its Google.cn website and ultimately bring about change in China with regards to the rights of Chinese citizens.

In my opinion, by Google threatening to discontinue service in China based on moral issues, it goes much farther than making a financial profit. The owner’s of Google are standing up for human rights. After the Chinese government used the Internet to spy and convict Chinese human rights activists with Google accounts, Google began trying to stop censoring news and information in China. This shows that Google is in support of the most basic human freedoms and rights, even if they may lose revenue. For example, in another article, “Google and China go to War,” (see link: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/points-east/google-and-china-go-to-war/article1429897/) Mark MacKinnon wrote, “Both sides have plenty to lose, with Google admitting it may have to withdraw from the potentially lucrative Chinese market – the world’s largest, with more than 300 million Internet users – and the Chinese government likely to lose international respectability over allegations that it participate in or tolerated the hacking of Gmail accounts belonging to Chinese human rights activists and others.” It is true that Google has the potential of losing revenue by discontinuing Google.cn, but isn’t human rights of greater concern? Most importantly, if Google withdraws from China, not only will it benefit society and human rights, but the Chinese government loses its prestige through these actions in the minds of its own people. The only problem that arises from this situation is that by Google withdrawing from China, it could quite possibly make it easier for the Chinese government to rule their people’s views by controlling the type of information being reported to the public. Overall, this issue will positively affect society because Google is making a stand on moral principles at the expense of corporate profit. It is ironic that in a capitalist society like that in America, Google is standing up for the individual rights of the Chinese people. In closing, the concern for Google is losing the world’s largest customer base. Although supporting human rights may not be the most profitable decision, it certainly is the most ethical.