1) The World Wide Web was first conceived 1969.
2) The first website was built and put online 6 August 1991. It regarded the WWW project
3) In October 27 1994, Web gives birth to banner ads.
4) YouTube was launched in February 2005.
5) Google was first registered on September 15, 1997.
6) broadband Internet became available 2000-2001
7) Amazon was founded in 1994 however was launched in 1995.
8) When did Web 2.0 become frequently used in 2004
Wednesday, 6 February 2013
David Gauntlett Web 2.0
David Gauntlett believes that Web 2.0 does exist as he's sees a shift in the way the Internet has become more collaborative. This contrasts with other people's ideas that suggest that there has been no change between Web 1.0 when you had to pay for this collaborative. It also suggests that you go from a consumer to a prosumer. The term digital immigrants come to mind this would suggest the younger people
Friday, 1 February 2013
Catfish commentary
Catfish Commentary:
Nev Schulman a young man that lives in an apartment with two friends, one of which is his brother. Both friends are film makers - when they become interested in the friendship that is being built between Nev and Abby they begin to record the events. Nev then began to speak to the mother of Abby, Angela to confirm the artwork he was sending to Abby. Nev then began to communicate with the older sister Megan. This relationship grows as he still gets sent parcels of Abby's drawings. Nev begins to receive emails over the Web 2.0 tool Facebook about Megan. Nev sends a letter to the supposed house address of Megan. Nev the receives a song from Megan, that is meant to be her however when he searches for it on YouTube he finds the song and realises its not real, therefore he questions what he really knows about this family. Nev and his two friends decide to head down to Michigan in search of the truth, firstly they visit the farmhouse where he had been sending the postcards to Megan although when he gets there she is not there. He then heads to Angela's house where he meets Abby the daughter, whilst the mother tries to reach Megan via phone call, she says she got through to her and she will be down soon. Whilst all this is going on Nev knows the truth. He asked who the artist was and one of the children said there mum draws the portraits of Nev not Abby. Nev begins to text Megan and notices that Angela looks at her phone when he does so, the three lads assume that all the Facebook accounts are fake. Nev decides to approach the mother on the issue and she admits the whole thing that Megan does exist just that she was portraying her whilst she was in a rehab centre. She also admits to many other fake accounts and personalities. At the end of this movie the ending credits say that the rehab centre does not have a Megan in its care, this would suggest she doesn't exist and she lied again.
This highlights the major floor in the current Web 2.0 tools in this case it's Facebook, the fact that it is extremely easy to set up a fake account and pose as another person. Many people fall for this due to what they see a prof because of pictures names etc. although they beer really know who they are talking too.
Nev Schulman a young man that lives in an apartment with two friends, one of which is his brother. Both friends are film makers - when they become interested in the friendship that is being built between Nev and Abby they begin to record the events. Nev then began to speak to the mother of Abby, Angela to confirm the artwork he was sending to Abby. Nev then began to communicate with the older sister Megan. This relationship grows as he still gets sent parcels of Abby's drawings. Nev begins to receive emails over the Web 2.0 tool Facebook about Megan. Nev sends a letter to the supposed house address of Megan. Nev the receives a song from Megan, that is meant to be her however when he searches for it on YouTube he finds the song and realises its not real, therefore he questions what he really knows about this family. Nev and his two friends decide to head down to Michigan in search of the truth, firstly they visit the farmhouse where he had been sending the postcards to Megan although when he gets there she is not there. He then heads to Angela's house where he meets Abby the daughter, whilst the mother tries to reach Megan via phone call, she says she got through to her and she will be down soon. Whilst all this is going on Nev knows the truth. He asked who the artist was and one of the children said there mum draws the portraits of Nev not Abby. Nev begins to text Megan and notices that Angela looks at her phone when he does so, the three lads assume that all the Facebook accounts are fake. Nev decides to approach the mother on the issue and she admits the whole thing that Megan does exist just that she was portraying her whilst she was in a rehab centre. She also admits to many other fake accounts and personalities. At the end of this movie the ending credits say that the rehab centre does not have a Megan in its care, this would suggest she doesn't exist and she lied again.
This highlights the major floor in the current Web 2.0 tools in this case it's Facebook, the fact that it is extremely easy to set up a fake account and pose as another person. Many people fall for this due to what they see a prof because of pictures names etc. although they beer really know who they are talking too.
Wednesday, 30 January 2013
Obama 2012 Digital Fundraising Outperformed 2008
Barack Obama's campaign manager Jim Messina took to YouTube with an expletive laded post holiday message for supporters, however when the numbers where counted Obama's aided now $1 billion to have been raised for the 2012 campaign. This broke the 10 figure milestone, the reason for this is it brought in more small dollar fundraising through email, social media, mobile and its websites during the final months
It was said that his team raised $690 million digitally in 2012 this was a significant raise on the $500 million raised for the 2008 campaign.
Obama's twitter followers raised from 7 million to 23 million, he is the 5th most followed person on twitter.
Although the opposition had people following him who had more money, Obama's small donations won him the day (more of less). This links to the Chris Anderson's "Long Tail" theory.
It was said that his team raised $690 million digitally in 2012 this was a significant raise on the $500 million raised for the 2008 campaign.
Obama's twitter followers raised from 7 million to 23 million, he is the 5th most followed person on twitter.
Although the opposition had people following him who had more money, Obama's small donations won him the day (more of less). This links to the Chris Anderson's "Long Tail" theory.
Sunday, 27 January 2013
Theory 2: Wikinomics Tapscott + Williams 2006
Definition:
The theory and practice of mass collaboration using electronic communications.
1: Peering -
The free sharing of materials over the internet, this is good news for businesses as it cuts distribution costs to almost zero however its bad news for people who want to protect their materials. Therefore it will change change economics beyond recognition. A contemporary media example for peering is the "Cut for Bieber" story. This involved the die hard Justin Bieber fans who when they found out Justin Bieber was smoking they would create images cutting themselves with the title "Cut for Bieber". This began to spread as more and more people did it.
2: Free Creativity -
This is a natural and positive outcome of the free market, i means that its hard to regulate. This is achieved by the materials being protected however it allows for materials to be remixed. A perfect example of this would be YouTube, a internet site that allows people to be creativity whether that be drawing to music etc. It gives them the chance to show the world not just a small society there product.
3: Democratized -
The media is democratised by peering, free creativity and we media. A example of this is Wikipedia, a free encyclopedia, therefore anyone can use it when ever they want to. It operates by none specialist editing the information that can be changed by any one at any time.
4: Thinking Globally -
The internet allows people from all over the world to communicate as they would gong to a "coffee shop". An example of this would be such as the Liverpool website where people can talk about their views on the football. This would more than likely be used by Liverpool fans specifically.
5: Perfect Storm -
This describes the idea that business know realise that in order to succeed internationally they need to use Web 2.0 tools. An example of this is the closure of Blockbuster because it it used the Web 2.0 tools then they would of been ale to compete with such companies as Amazon.
The theory and practice of mass collaboration using electronic communications.
1: Peering -
The free sharing of materials over the internet, this is good news for businesses as it cuts distribution costs to almost zero however its bad news for people who want to protect their materials. Therefore it will change change economics beyond recognition. A contemporary media example for peering is the "Cut for Bieber" story. This involved the die hard Justin Bieber fans who when they found out Justin Bieber was smoking they would create images cutting themselves with the title "Cut for Bieber". This began to spread as more and more people did it.
2: Free Creativity -
This is a natural and positive outcome of the free market, i means that its hard to regulate. This is achieved by the materials being protected however it allows for materials to be remixed. A perfect example of this would be YouTube, a internet site that allows people to be creativity whether that be drawing to music etc. It gives them the chance to show the world not just a small society there product.
3: Democratized -
The media is democratised by peering, free creativity and we media. A example of this is Wikipedia, a free encyclopedia, therefore anyone can use it when ever they want to. It operates by none specialist editing the information that can be changed by any one at any time.
4: Thinking Globally -
The internet allows people from all over the world to communicate as they would gong to a "coffee shop". An example of this would be such as the Liverpool website where people can talk about their views on the football. This would more than likely be used by Liverpool fans specifically.
5: Perfect Storm -
This describes the idea that business know realise that in order to succeed internationally they need to use Web 2.0 tools. An example of this is the closure of Blockbuster because it it used the Web 2.0 tools then they would of been ale to compete with such companies as Amazon.
Wednesday, 23 January 2013
Russel Brand/Johnathan Ross phone call in
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cqt9rZR8pzk
In 2008 During the Russell Brand Show on BBC Radio 2, with Johnathan Ross as a guest they rang up Andrew Sach and got though to his voice mail where they then made several messages about his grand-daughter the first way talking about a false allegation of her sleeping with Russell Brand, this comment made by Johnathan Ross. The next two messages where meant to apologies however they made it worse. It resulted in the BBC getting fined by OFCOM £150,000, and Ross was suspended for 12 weeks without pay.
What, in your opinion, was the problem with this broadcast?
In my opinion, there where many problems with this broadcast, firstly being the fact that this wasn't alive broadcast it was pre-recorded meaning that the producers or regulators could of pulled it from circulation. However as we know this had knock on effects for both Johnathan Ross and the BBC being fined by the regulators OF-COM. Another problem is the blatant harassment of an elderly man - where they named a family member and gave away private details. This was obvious from watching the video clip.
Why was this particular case of blatant disregard of OFCOM regulations highlighted?
I see this as a direct blatant disregard of OFCOM regulations, as BBC Radio 2 is recognized and known for it toned down, mature conversations, enter the Russell Brand show where offensive language was used to harass an elderly man (whether they classed it as light hearted banter at the time). An example of this is when Johnathan Ross said that Russell f**ked your grand-daughter.
What was hoped to be gained by OFCOM punishing BBC/Ross?
Ofcom as a regulator need to act upon these incidents so that the same or other broadcaster don't make these mistakes again, or feel they can get away with it this is why Ofcom fined BBC £150,000. This stamps out the problem this is done by many regulators in any industry - serious punishments stop issues like this occurring in the future.
Was it right to punish Brand/Ross? Why?
I feel it was right to punish them because it was a despicable action that they carried out, although I think a major blame was that the producers still let the show air later on - because they should of known that this did not co-hear to the regulations that OFCOM have set out.
What do you think should have happened to Brand/Ross?
As we know Johnathan Ross was put out of work for 12 weeks without being paid, this I feel was a justifiable punishment, however Russell Brand carries this image with him, the idea of him is that it speaks what he feels and raises controversial issues. However I feel that he should of been out of work like Johnathan Ross was.
Does this case highlight the need to regulate the media?
I feel it does highlight the need to regulate the media, this is because if without these regulating bodies the media would be filled with these type of controversial issues. It results in the privacy of people and also stops lies being spread in the media such as ASA which covers adverts they often stop adverts that promote a image that is not true.
In 2008 During the Russell Brand Show on BBC Radio 2, with Johnathan Ross as a guest they rang up Andrew Sach and got though to his voice mail where they then made several messages about his grand-daughter the first way talking about a false allegation of her sleeping with Russell Brand, this comment made by Johnathan Ross. The next two messages where meant to apologies however they made it worse. It resulted in the BBC getting fined by OFCOM £150,000, and Ross was suspended for 12 weeks without pay.
What, in your opinion, was the problem with this broadcast?
In my opinion, there where many problems with this broadcast, firstly being the fact that this wasn't alive broadcast it was pre-recorded meaning that the producers or regulators could of pulled it from circulation. However as we know this had knock on effects for both Johnathan Ross and the BBC being fined by the regulators OF-COM. Another problem is the blatant harassment of an elderly man - where they named a family member and gave away private details. This was obvious from watching the video clip.
Why was this particular case of blatant disregard of OFCOM regulations highlighted?
I see this as a direct blatant disregard of OFCOM regulations, as BBC Radio 2 is recognized and known for it toned down, mature conversations, enter the Russell Brand show where offensive language was used to harass an elderly man (whether they classed it as light hearted banter at the time). An example of this is when Johnathan Ross said that Russell f**ked your grand-daughter.
What was hoped to be gained by OFCOM punishing BBC/Ross?
Ofcom as a regulator need to act upon these incidents so that the same or other broadcaster don't make these mistakes again, or feel they can get away with it this is why Ofcom fined BBC £150,000. This stamps out the problem this is done by many regulators in any industry - serious punishments stop issues like this occurring in the future.
Was it right to punish Brand/Ross? Why?
I feel it was right to punish them because it was a despicable action that they carried out, although I think a major blame was that the producers still let the show air later on - because they should of known that this did not co-hear to the regulations that OFCOM have set out.
What do you think should have happened to Brand/Ross?
As we know Johnathan Ross was put out of work for 12 weeks without being paid, this I feel was a justifiable punishment, however Russell Brand carries this image with him, the idea of him is that it speaks what he feels and raises controversial issues. However I feel that he should of been out of work like Johnathan Ross was.
Does this case highlight the need to regulate the media?
I feel it does highlight the need to regulate the media, this is because if without these regulating bodies the media would be filled with these type of controversial issues. It results in the privacy of people and also stops lies being spread in the media such as ASA which covers adverts they often stop adverts that promote a image that is not true.
Saturday, 19 January 2013
Blockbuster
"The biggest surprise about today's news about Blockbuster is that the admistrators believe the core of the business is still profitable"
Blocbuster have gone into adminstration for the same reason as HMV they are not m,aking a internet presence and therefore other places are making more DVD sales than they are. These places are such as Netflix or LoveFilm which stores thousands of movies ready to stream at hoime for only £5.99 per month. These two online presences are competing with one another, however it would seem apparent that Blockbuster cannot compete. Blockbuster face the closing of 1,440 stores in comparrison to the 807 Woolsworth stores that closed just four years ago.
This is for the simple fact that customers are finding easier, quicker and cheaper methods of getting the content they want.
Once again Chris Anderon's Long Tail Theory can be applied to this story as using these online methods of gicing to the consumers what they want, they are able to store the most unusual of film genre etc. In comparrison to Blockbuster only storing those movies that are seen to be guarteed alot of sales. Therefore they do not have the space to store the niche products that only small amounts of people buy. And the online presence is a cheaper, faster and easier method of consuming.
Blocbuster have gone into adminstration for the same reason as HMV they are not m,aking a internet presence and therefore other places are making more DVD sales than they are. These places are such as Netflix or LoveFilm which stores thousands of movies ready to stream at hoime for only £5.99 per month. These two online presences are competing with one another, however it would seem apparent that Blockbuster cannot compete. Blockbuster face the closing of 1,440 stores in comparrison to the 807 Woolsworth stores that closed just four years ago.
This is for the simple fact that customers are finding easier, quicker and cheaper methods of getting the content they want.
Once again Chris Anderon's Long Tail Theory can be applied to this story as using these online methods of gicing to the consumers what they want, they are able to store the most unusual of film genre etc. In comparrison to Blockbuster only storing those movies that are seen to be guarteed alot of sales. Therefore they do not have the space to store the niche products that only small amounts of people buy. And the online presence is a cheaper, faster and easier method of consuming.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)