"Technology"

[nslay]

Not that I'm a Luddite, but why do new TVs connect to the Internet to download updates, why do Blue Ray players boot an OS?  Why in God's earth do we need a cellphone app that can remotely control our DVR... Is this "technology"?  Are you kidding me?  This is blatant abuse of technology!  I have no problem with real technology: computers, GPS, medical treatments, hurricane models...things that do real good in the lives of people and society.  This other "technology" is doing nothing more than cluttering our lives with mediocre luxuries and abusing computers up the ass! People need to get angry about the use of our resources and our best minds!

[truste1]

It's a massive conspiracy to keep the public ignorant.

[iago]

It's all a bunch of crap -- but people like flashy toys.

I'm a bit of a luddite, though.

[nslay]

If its a conspiracy, its a conspiracy to drive the price up of basic appliances!  For instance, why does a cellphone need a camera and an OS complete with a suite of software that has no legitimate use for the majority of users!?  I believe in specialization, not the consolidation of everything!  There's a reason swiss army knives suck for more than opening a beer bottle!

[truste1]

I disagree with you. The ability to have access to several different things at your fingertips and in a small pocket-size apparatus is great. A camera on a phone is a great tool for quick picture for instance for use if you have a car accident or witness a crime. The iPhone's ability to serve many purposes from a central location is a cost-efficient model. For instance the average user could purchase a phone such as the iPhone and forego the cost of an additional MP3 player (no need to really store your entire music collection on your player), forego the cost of a camera, forego the cost of a netbook for instance. For business users there are several applications that cost less than the desktop-equivalent, for instance there is a credit card processing app for less than $50. I don't believe that every device should only serve one purpose, especially if it has the ability to serve multiple. Multitasking is a hallmark of our generation, and the future of technology will continue towards devices that promote the ability to multitask from one device.

And @Updates over the internet. What is wrong with that? Some devices need updates to solve serious bugs that prevent proper function or playback (I had that issue with an HDDVD Player). Internet updates allow for an instant fix, it cuts disc costs for the company, and eliminates the waste that comes with sending a disc for one use.

I agree that a lot of technology is not productive or maybe a good use of our talents, but I still think there is a place for entertainment innovations. Having a cell application to change your DVR remotely is no different than calling home to have somebody push "record" on the VCR. DVR's are awesome...and I don't watch TV.

[Rule]

There's a reason swiss army knives suck for more than opening a beer bottle!

I agree with your general point, but I have to take exception to this example. I had a great Apollo 11 Swiss Army knife, and I found it quite useful, because it consolidated a lot of (generally high quality) tools.

[Rule]

I disagree with you. The ability to have access to several different things at your fingertips and in a small pocket-size apparatus is great. A camera on a phone is a great tool for quick picture for instance for use if you have a car accident or witness a crime. The iPhone's ability to serve many purposes from a central location is a cost-efficient model. For instance the average user could purchase a phone such as the iPhone and forego the cost of an additional MP3 player (no need to really store your entire music collection on your player), forego the cost of a camera, forego the cost of a netbook for instance. For business users there are several applications that cost less than the desktop-equivalent, for instance there is a credit card processing app for less than $50. I don't believe that every device should only serve one purpose, especially if it has the ability to serve multiple. Multitasking is a hallmark of our generation, and the future of technology will continue towards devices that promote the ability to multitask from one device.

And @Updates over the internet. What is wrong with that? Some devices need updates to solve serious bugs that prevent proper function or playback (I had that issue with an HDDVD Player). Internet updates allow for an instant fix, it cuts disc costs for the company, and eliminates the waste that comes with sending a disc for one use.

I agree that a lot of technology is not productive or maybe a good use of our talents, but I still think there is a place for entertainment innovations. Having a cell application to change your DVR remotely is no different than calling home to have somebody push "record" on the VCR. DVR's are awesome...and I don't watch TV.

I don't think you get his point.  In buying an i-phone people aren't "foregoing" the cost of things like cameras.  They are paying for crappy versions of those things. What about those people who just want to buy a cell-phone and don't want to have to (implicitly) pay for all the other stuff?

[Armin]

These great minds will always provide what their country feels they need. Right now, their country feels the need for shallow entertainment.

[Armin]

I don't think you get his point.  In buying an i-phone people aren't "foregoing" the cost of things like cameras.  They are paying for crappy versions of those things. What about those people who just want to buy a cell-phone and don't want to have to (implicitly) pay for all the other stuff?

They can buy an ordinary cell-phone instead of an iPhone.

[nslay]

I don't think you get his point.  In buying an i-phone people aren't "foregoing" the cost of things like cameras.  They are paying for crappy versions of those things. What about those people who just want to buy a cell-phone and don't want to have to (implicitly) pay for all the other stuff?

They can buy an ordinary cell-phone instead of an iPhone.

Where?  They're all damned computers now-a-days! I used to have an old Nokia that resembled a real phone, but they don't make it anymore.  It had the most useful non-phone feature though.  A flash light!  Can't say I have ever needed or used the camera on my new phone... 

[nslay]

Just to clarify, my original point is that "technology" today seems to be mediocre, often unnecessary, improvements and additions to existing technology.  If you think what they did to cellphones is disgusting, just flip through Skymall next time you're on airplane...  I don't think these things collectively simplify life, I think they collectively complicate life and this defeats the whole purpose of technology.  Consider, for example, Google Chrome.  The interface shears off most functionality most people don't use.  It's simple and its (almost) perfect.  By contrast, I feel like other web browsers are cluttered with crap I don't use or need.

[warz]

Ok, so don't buy this stuff. You don't like it, others do. What's new?

[Camel]

...why do new TVs connect to the Internet to download updates...

I'd have to agree, I think this is pretty silly. What exactly are they updating that justifies the (admittedly low) cost of the hardware to do this? Should I be concerned that someone is going to hack my TV so the screensaver is porn?

...why do Blue Ray players boot an OS?

Your blue ray player needs an OS because it has hardware, and an OS is defined as the part of the software that communicates with the hardware.

Why in God's earth do we need a cellphone app that can remotely control our DVR...

If they supported my phone, you could bet I'd have it installed.

[Hitmen]

And @Updates over the internet. What is wrong with that? Some devices need updates to solve serious bugs that prevent proper function or playback (I had that issue with an HDDVD Player). Internet updates allow for an instant fix, it cuts disc costs for the company, and eliminates the waste that comes with sending a disc for one use.

Back in the day, they had to work these bugs out *before* the products were shipped. It's the same thing that has happened to video games now with internets being everywhere: QA has gotten shittier and they pump the games out faster since they know they can just patch later.

[rabbit]

I, for one, enjoy random stuff.  For instance, my PSP can control my PS2 (not so good for games, but great for DVD playback) and can be programmed as a universal remote, use Skype, go on the web, play games and movies, and organize my events and such.  For technical reasons, I haven't used it in almost 2 years, but the principle is the same.  And if an obscure bug makes it through QA?  It happens.  Sometimes a bug will make it through, and then a year later someone finds it and figures out that if they do something a certain way, they can hijack your phone and make it call people (which can be done with any roaming, unpaired bluetooth phone!)  Web updates are FAR cheaper than a recall.

[truste1]

I agree that a lot of technology is not productive or maybe a good use of our talents, but I still think there is a place for entertainment innovations. Having a cell application to change your DVR remotely is no different than calling home to have somebody push "record" on the VCR. DVR's are awesome...and I don't watch TV.

I don't think you get his point.  In buying an i-phone people aren't "foregoing" the cost of things like cameras.  They are paying for crappy versions of those things. What about those people who just want to buy a cell-phone and don't want to have to (implicitly) pay for all the other stuff?
[/quote]

They have phones without cameras, they are not as widespread but they are still manufactured. Most likely the demand is for camera phones, that is why retailers stock them in larger quantities and manufactures produce more models. But cameraless phones are available. A few years ago a 3mp camera was an OK camera to have, and now that's on the phone. It's a progressive process.

I agree with your overall point that there are lots of ways we "waste" technology, but I don't think multitasking devices are one of them. I also thing remote-updates are a great thing because bugs always get by, and that's even more possible now with the increase in streaming media. (I love streaming Netflix->Xbox 360...soon enough it will go straight to the TV).

[c0Ld]

I enjoy having an "all-in-one device" in my Blackberry. I usually leave my iPod at home these days and am considering selling it and just buying a bigger SD card for my phone instead. If I want to perform a quick google search, it's at my finger tips. With a 3.2 megapixel camera I don't feel like I have to buy a disposable whenever I go on a trip. I can check my email, chat on AIM, etc from any location. Sometimes having a more complex device is a good thing and can be incredibly handy.

How far do you have to take it? What if every cell phone was ONLY a cell phone, and didn't even have the basic feature of a clock? Suddenly everyone needs to buy a watch.

Where?  They're all damned computers now-a-days! I used to have an old Nokia that resembled a real phone, but they don't make it anymore.  It had the most useful non-phone feature though.  A flash light!  Can't say I have ever needed or used the camera on my new phone...  

Ever seen the flash on the Blackberry Storm's camera? Damn thing is more then a flashlight, it could light up a football stadium. 

Consider, for example, Google Chrome.  The interface shears off most functionality most people don't use.  It's simple and its (almost) perfect.  By contrast, I feel like other web browsers are cluttered with crap I don't use or need.

I remember seeing a firefox plugin once to control winamp ... what the hell? Is it so difficult to press alt+tab to do that? A browser is hardly a cell phone, though.

[rabbit]

Chrome also includes a TOS which gives them legal ownership of your soul, so there's that tradeoff.

[Warrior]

I think you've just become fatigued with technology, it's evolving pretty rapidly, and the aim of technology is to make lives easier.

I don't think anything you pointed out was necessarily bad, but rather an example of an ecosystem of connected devices starting to come to fruition. Short term it may look gimmicky and maybe even useless, but I'm sure the Internet of 1999 also looked gimmicky and useless by today's standards (Blinking text, geocities, etc..) but on the backs of those small annoyances, came the internet of today.

My point is, it's merely one of many evolutionary phases that technology will go through, and ultimately the goal is to enrich lives and ease burdens.

[Explicit]

Along with what Warrior said, we're just taking a minor detour in terms of technological development, but I can definitely agree with how it's deterring actual progress. The minds that are put to use developing these slight conveniences could be doing much, much greater things.

[nslay]

There's a difference between technology and gimmick.  You see gimmicks on TV commercials for only $19.95 (5 payments of course) complete with free $50 value bonus pack!  Those rarely make it on store shelves.  Real non-gimmicky technology, on the other hand, has a lasting impression on society.  Their benefit and use  is easily understood.  For example, I doubt anybody ever once thought GPS was gimmicky.  But a cell phone app that can remotely control your DVR?  Is that really useful?  Is it really that hard to set the DVR to record your shows when you're at home?  When it comes to GPS, sure anyone can read a map, but it makes a huge difference when someone/thing talks you through the drive.  It allows you to focus on driving instead of looking for road signs or addresses.  This is an obvious net improvement over reading a map.

[iago]

I'd have to agree, I think this is pretty silly. What exactly are they updating that justifies the (admittedly low) cost of the hardware to do this? Should I be concerned that someone is going to hack my TV so the screensaver is porn?

Concerned? I'm more concerned that they WON'T!

[nslay]

...why do new TVs connect to the Internet to download updates...

I'd have to agree, I think this is pretty silly. What exactly are they updating that justifies the (admittedly low) cost of the hardware to do this? Should I be concerned that someone is going to hack my TV so the screensaver is porn?

Concerned? I asked "Why?"  Should a TV need to update itself?  What about my living room lamp?  I think it has a bug...developers messed up while developing the lamp's firmware
Does software really belong on a TV?  Does the TV really need Internet access?  I mean, the TV has a simple purpose...is that really needed?

...why do Blue Ray players boot an OS?

Your blue ray player needs an OS because it has hardware, and an OS is defined as the part of the software that communicates with the hardware.

As opposed to all the previous house-hold appliances that didn't/don't have an OS?  Are you kidding me?  Should I look forward to booting my toaster in the future? Anyways, Blue-Ray players have an OS because they need to run the JVM to play the Blue-Ray menus.  Java was originally developed for embedded devices...but it seems really silly to wait tens of seconds for my movie player to boot.

Why in God's earth do we need a cellphone app that can remotely control our DVR...

If they supported my phone, you could bet I'd have it installed.

How pathetic.  It's already very easy to set it to record things when you're at home.

[rabbit]

Most toasters and blenders and microwaves have been running basic MIPS based OSes for years.  Sheesh.

[dark_drake]

Most toasters and blenders and microwaves have been running basic MIPS based OSes for years.  Sheesh.

Yes, but I don't have to hook my toaster up to the internet to keep it from burning my toast. 

[MyndFyre]

What about my living room lamp?  I think it has a bug...developers messed up while developing the lamp's firmware

What about a lamp that automatically conserves energy by adjusting its output based on the ambient lighting of the room as well as whether there are people inside?  Would that lamp use software?  Using software would enable it to be able to vary its behavior more readily than a hardware-connected component.

Does software really belong on a TV?  Does the TV really need Internet access?  I mean, the TV has a simple purpose...is that really needed?

TVs aren't as simple anymore.  Consider that technologies like HDMI require all devices in the chain to be secure; consider also that the codecs used by TVs are far more sophisticated.  As we've switched to digital compression rather than analog, and as the standards of video have changed, TVs have to adapt.  It is expensive to manufacture, test, and change a hardware decompression module; it would be even worse if a critical problem was identified in the standard and hardware was responsible for all the work.

As opposed to all the previous house-hold appliances that didn't/don't have an OS?  Are you kidding me?  Should I look forward to booting my toaster in the future? Anyways, Blue-Ray players have an OS because they need to run the JVM to play the Blue-Ray menus.  Java was originally developed for embedded devices...but it seems really silly to wait tens of seconds for my movie player to boot.

Blu-ray is more than simply a movie transfer medium; it's an interactive medium.  The fact that they allow for the JVM to run menus and stuff should be a GREAT advantage and help diminish cost.  Long boot times, I would agree, are unacceptable; but that will undoubtedly improve as flash memory becomes cheaper.

How pathetic.  It's already very easy to set it to record things when you're at home.

It's sometimes equally easy to forget to record things.  Surprisingly, not everyone has your (apparent) attention to detail.  As a colleague noted to me yesterday, half of the world's population are below the mean intelligence.  (Yes I know that it's not exact).

[Sidoh]

As a colleague noted to me yesterday, half of the world's population are below the mean intelligence.  (Yes I know that it's not exact).

Haha.  Just say median and you'll be fully correct!

[dark_drake]

As a colleague noted to me yesterday, half of the world's population are below the mean intelligence.  (Yes I know that it's not exact).

Haha.  Just say median and you'll be fully correct!

Yes, but it just doesn't sound as malicious.