This blog started as a supplement for my Economics of Information course at MIT. However, it has expanded beyond that purpose and certainly should not be interpreted as official MIT views.
In light of this video's historical perspective and what we discussed in the first class, I stumbled upon this open letter written by Bill Gates in 1976. He apparently was concerned that people were stealing his software. Microsoft apparently figured out how to sell information effectively - but as we discussed in class, it still seems to be a tricky proposition.http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/14/Bill_Gates_Letter_to_Hobbyists.jpg
Great video. I wonder how much has changed in the year since it was posted!
Its interesting to wonder how much role the packaging--fancy graphics, trendy look, background music--effect our feelings about data. Many interesting statistics and ideas were held in this video, but I have the feeling my reaction would be totally different had all of the same facts been handed to me on a piece of paper in plain text. Is it part of this "convergence' trend to decide that information is only useful/desirable if it is well-packaged? Maybe that is a good thing--perhaps we are more likely to pay attention to fancily packaged information and thus glean more knowledge. On the other hand, perhaps this leads to less thought and more awe at shiny presentation means. Is our ability to distinguish and appreciate quality information enhanced or smothered by our expanding expectations of how it should be presented to us? Is the same force at work to lead consumers to be willing to pay a premium for the iTouch, as mentioned in a previous post?
Very interesting fact data is here.One thing that I want to make comment is the trend of advertising. I knew the digital advertising is growing as a gut feeling, but didn't know the traditional advertising is shrinking. Of course it does not necessarily mean that those two are the direct causes and effects after all. But I'm sure there might be some argument that makes it cause and effect.One thing odvious is budjet. Since most the advertisers have their marketing plan with a fixed budget, putting more money in digital media directly means putting less money in traditional media.But I think another important explnation factor is time. Advertising is all about catching (eye-catching, ear-catching, etc.) which take up some of time to everybody. So, as people take more time in digital media with computer, mobile, etc, it means less time left to play with other stuffs. I think that's the whole concept of the book "Real oppoent of Nike is not Adidas, but Nintendo." It's all about time.In digital era, I believe T/S(Time Share) is M/S(Market Share.)
Do you agree with an idea that application would substitute internet in 20 years later jus as internet is substituting old media, newspaper and TV. Sometimes, I think it is possible to happen while I'm losting in using Apple app.
I really understand that an amount of digital data transfered via cellular network is growing crazy since the birth of iphones and blackberrys. But I have a concern about capacity of cellular networks in US (not only US). US Mobile operators have deployed GSM, Edge, 3G systems in these 20 years but those are not enough to cope with the recent exponential increase in amount of data. Even now, the quality of data trasmission (and voice quality) is really really bad in US. Since radio resources (frequency bands) are limited resource and the next generation mobile system (LTE or Wi-MAX) is only about 3-4 times capacity of that of 3G, we have to think about additional mechanisms to collect or transmit emerging data. One possible way to cope with this is to fill area with micro cells. However, since we require enormous amount of micro cells to cover existing coverage area, US mobile operators who have severe financial standing may not afford to cope with them. President Obama kicked off campaign with infrastructure plan but I really hope that government lay more emphasis on infrastructure for cellular network since it will be the main lifeline of future human lives.
I agree with what Takaaki Sato said. "Cell" concept was huge, leading to today's mobile telecommunication. More people became to enjoy the connectivity at cheap price.But, the cellular network may not handle the explosion of data in coming years.As many people knows, state-of-the-art research in universty on telecommunication have not produced any breakthrough technology in last 10 years. MiMo, OFDM, coding.. every efficient method to increase the usage of limited bandwidth has reached their limit.Then, the only possible way is to use much more bandwidth. WCDMA used 5 Mhz, LTE will use 20 Mhz.. etc. The frequency resource is limited. But connectivity through mobility is also required. Then, How?..
I find it interesting simply that this information is presented as a youtube video. If you think about it, orders of magnitude more people will stumble across this video than if it was placed in a public service announcement-type add on TV. The way that important information is passed from place to place has changed drastically over the last few years as certain websites become more popular. As Obama showed, you may be better off with a facebook campaign than a live one in the years to come.
Cool backing music - any ideas who anyone ?