iEvil.
The iPhone and its peers;
How bright is our future when we have an object that will do everything?
Chris Herman
s3156578
“No more are human beings ‘born into’ their identities; as Jean-Paul Sartre famously put it: it is not enough to be a bourgeois, one must live one’s life as a bourgeois. Needing to become what one IS is the hallmark of modern living- and of this living alone- modernity replaces determination of social standing with compulsive and obligatory self determination.”
Zygmut Bauman
(Taken from Beck. 2002)
Never before have we had the opportunity and plethora of choice in terms of what we have on offer to us-facilities, appliances, vast arrays of services, advertised glamour, enforced desire and perceived convenience.
This paper aims to quietly consider how we value these objects and how they ‘improve’ our lives.
The raging blip on the radar is the iPhone. Sleek and shiny, relatively large compared to its contempories, buttonless and veiled in an amour of allusiveness and boutique snobbery it has quickly become not only the latest fashion accessory but the latest standard of mobile telecommunication.
But what is it that we apparently demand from such a device. What do we define as a mobile telephone? According to the Social status of the iphone, apparently nothing. It is in fact the embodiment of the device that has every conceivable function, it does everything, yet it does nothing. The iPhone is clearly not a phone and further explored herein, we take a greater understanding of the factors that contribute to consumers absorbing the ballooned costs of what is essentially a pretty piece of trend product that has a perceived excuse for the inflated price tag. Furthermore we look into the effects of mobile communications in general and issues of accessibility and the resulting effects this has on our relationships and interpersonal skills
What is its function? Does it do it well? If at all?
At what point in our consumerist history did our chubby middle fingers point and dictate that an object with a single well defined function is useless? Furthermore, what is wrong with the object that does its single defined function well? Our obsession with absorbing several products into one, moulding, redefining and redesigning the same objects over and over again replicating the same functions to streamline our daily routine and operations has somewhat of a history. When we consider the amount of objects throughout our home that could possibly be eliminated as their function is superseded by another multitasking gadget. Yet we buy more of these gadgets each time a newer version is released, because after all, were would we be without them? With sustainability in mind, the old one could most likely be repaired and would continue to suit its original determined use.
Communication and interpretation through a tool;
One must question what real value and benefit we gain from communicating through a tool such as a high tech mobile phone or more specifically, an iPhone, and on the other end of that communication, how is the interpretation through the tool received?
When attempting to place context and real meaning from the ability to always be contactable I find it hard to source an example of where this sits with us emotionally. Is it necessary to be so indulgent with our socialisation and communication or is it actually detrimental to our privileged and valuable relationships?
The fulfilment and excitement of interaction with another person is lost as the ability to interact via an electronic communication device in several ways is apparent. For example, the iPhone allows the user to continuously update social networks and digital groups and forums of people through wireless internet and connection to sites such as facebook, twitter, MySpace hotmail chat etc. All of these buzzing, beeping, obnoxious inbox alerts can surely only exacerbate our insecurities and inflate our own feeling of self importance; Of course we must be special,
“I have a webpage completely dedicated to me, just me, all the photos all the text is all about me for the whole world to check out just how amazing I am. I will upload a constant stream of witty one-liners, telling all of my friends exactly what I am doing every second of the day no matter where I am, or how inappropriate or rude it is to be absorbed in my telephone as opposed to my real life commitments and the real people around me. Because that’s how important I am” (author’s hypothetical interpretation).
Geez.
The question needs to be asked of the Apple Macintosh company; how meaningful is this form of communication?
Obviously it makes our lives much easier to access and infiltrate for the marketers, advertisers and web orientated firms of the world but is this really the way forward? With our heads down texting and our iPod earphones blaring?
What has made us so unsociable and lacking desire to communicate in public with our fellow man that we need instant and portable entertainment wherever it is that we may roam, iPod with music and movies etc. These forms of social snobbery, by shunning public interaction can surely not make these individuals better communicators in real time- how will their real relationships suffer?
Do we find relevance in the ‘perceived intellectual’? just because he or she is up to date, has access to current media live television channels in their pocket, and watched the news on their phone while driving to work (in which all three components in this scenario have in essence something wrong with them) does that mean he or she is well informed or just a sponge? Does this make us even more vulnerable to hype and sensationalism simply because of access?
Does Mac want everyone to be looking at their iphone and ignore everyone around them?
Cognitive, sexual and emotional.
Vulnerability leading to anxiety.
Compare the 2 forms. Body language forms a significant part of human interaction. Without it, interpretation of words, phrasing and colloquialism are misinterpreted, misconstrued or simply lost.
How does this translate into the removed digital/ electronic format in which there is no face to face contact and increasingly no verbal communication at all?
With empty expressions and made up lazy abbreviations like “lol”, “brb” or even more abruptly often web introductions begin with “ asl” standing for ‘age, sex location’, we are docking our interaction, brutalizing it. Within each approach. Or at least the SENSE of value. Is the handshake a lost art? Traditionally the formal greeting of a handshake signified mutual respect and a cooperation of sides. Yet, how do we form these loyal bonds if perhaps we never actually need to meet the person face to face in order to carry out a relationship and communicate with them?
Are we fostering idiots with no etiquette or ability to communicate? Will face to face interaction step aside and let chat room etiquette stake his claim at the top of the hill?
For the day is close it seems when we will not be shamed or chastised for dumping our girlfriend or boyfriend on the phone, or via text message or via instant chat for that matter. As these forms of communication become not for convenience but simply the norm, there no longer exists barriers and social etiquette of use.
Are we ready for this emotionally?
In order to adjust, do our relationships need to change and respond to these new forms of instant communication and expected availability like facebook and sms?
When defining ‘real’ and ‘true’ relationships, do we merely judge on how often both parties communicate or do we judge on the actual quality of the communication?
The iPhone allows us a plethora of ways to keep in touch and constantly communicate with various forms of societies, forums and groups but does this give meaning to real friendships and relationships or do these alter the hierarchy, is this determined by access or compatibility with software and access to expensive technology?
Regarding the question of sustainability, we clearly cannot afford to maintain our level of spending and emissions on expensive long distance car and air travel to regularly visit far, remote or exotic places, so where is the solution?
In order to be sustainable is it really that we as consumers and as inhabitants of the planet need to adopt these relatively carbon free forms of communication as we move into an environment of carbon miles and taxes etc. How do we find validation in these to rival historical and traditional forms of communication that creates long lasting bonds and loyalty?
Our motives could also be questioned, perhaps it needs to be asked; Do we keep in touch simply for the sake of it? Does this knee jerk reaction of simply utilising the technology simply because it exits Facilitate excessiveness in behaviour. Does this further exacerbate possessiveness in instant communication?
I have a question for the people at Apple, Why does the ‘latest version’ of the iPhone look identical to the one it replaces yet has more space for file and data storage. Presuming that said storage is used for music, movies images etc; does it make telephone calls any easier? Is it easier for users with physical disabilities and impairments? I will presume that the answer is no. What is the obsession for throwaway design ethic? Repairs and replacements notwithstanding, why is this item so boldly and lavishly designed for obsolescence?
Construction and waste disposal, has this been revised? Re-use of parts from dismantled old stock or damaged previous models? Have toxic adhesives been eliminated from the manufacturing process? And finally who is making these new versions, are they being paid more? Have THIER conditions improved?
I believe that what needs to be maintained is a strong sense of grounding when it comes to objects such as these, tools like the Apple iPhone are objects of life NOT facilitators of life! We are not physically dependant on them, yet we behave like we are. Documentation of emotional attachment and experiences of loss have been documented by heavy users of mobile telephones in their absence. Can we get addicted to our mobile telephones?
We must now further consider the iPhone as an isolating object, rather than connecting, is it disconnecting?
Theoretically, worldwide communication was revolutionized by the improvement in electronic communication, yet how doesn’t physical location create a community?
What is the future of the object that does everything?
Improvements that make us lazier are not solely responsibility of the iPod-“Our improved laziness” (Boyd, 1968).it can be said for many of our everyday products, yet the fascination with the Iphone and its cotemporary products are concerning.
Our self- identification and philosophical connection not forgetting emotional attachment to our phones, has somehow come to identify the telephone as a security blanket or object of reassurance. By having a sexy sleek designer object as a form of communication, this in fact does not make us better communicators.
As I have explored though this document I believe in fact that it functions as a disconnection rather than connecting people in convenient ways.
Physical interaction and fulfilment from social interaction- increased social development, this is the area that Apple needs to focus on if they want to stay ahead of the game and convert this cynic into a potential customer.
References
Hamilton,C., & Denniss, R. (2005) Affluenza:when too much is never enough.
Melbourne: Allen & Unwin
Beck, U. & Beck-Gernsheim, E. (2002) Individualization: Institutionalized Individualism and its Social and Political Consequences.London: Sage
Boyd, R. (1968) Australia’s Home
Melbourne: Penguin Books Australia
[...] The iPhone as an isolating object; rather than connecting, is it … [...]