When we talked about Mickey and his copyright protection being removed, I didn't think too much of it because he is a huge icon but to me he's just a cartoon. I was in the middle on if it will be a good or bad thing when his copyright protection is removed but after seeing a South Park episode with Mickey in it I changed my mind. It will definitely be a bad thing for younger children because Mickey does not have to be all innocent and happy anymore, and he could be an overpowering Boss that controls the Jonas Brothers and sells sex to little girls! At least that was Mickey's role in the South Park episode, where he also swore and threatened to beat up the Jonas Brothers if they did not meet his demands. I found this portrayal of Mickey very funny, but if younger children saw this after a trip to Disney World they would be appalled.
This episode was very entertaining, therefore I believe other alterations of Mickey might make some profit. Mickey can literally play any role when his copyright protection is removed and I believe this alone will make money. Mickey stoned, Mickey drunk, Mickey in a gang, Mickey choosing political sides, Mickey as a hippy, all these new identities are hard to imagine now but when they come out on television, youtube, and maybe even advertisements who knows how much money this will bring it.
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
Micro #3
So initially when the class went up to the computer lab to play around with the cicada page that resembled Wikipedia, I had a difficult time editing it. Most of our classroom was battling to make changes on the page, and after I had made mine it didn't matter because it was edited again immediately after. I tried to edit the book titles for our class by including information about Amy Shuen and Tapscott and Williams but after I clicked to edit, it did not go through. I saw to my left the other groups doing the same thing, and I asked them if they were having a hard time too and they agreed. I just think that because a number of people were on the same page at the same time the edits were not going through.
A week later I went back on the page and had no problem editing. I did some sentence changing and rearranging in the same area that I had tried before and the editing when straight through. It was very easy for my edit to be posted because I doubt that anyone in our class was on the page at the same time. This tool was interesting to work with and it reminded me of other sites that tend to slow down or not function when too many users are trying to accomplish the same thing. It's cool to think that I have the power to change a website though. Before this class I had no idea that Wikipedia had this option, and it makes me feel like my knowledge is of some importance.
A week later I went back on the page and had no problem editing. I did some sentence changing and rearranging in the same area that I had tried before and the editing when straight through. It was very easy for my edit to be posted because I doubt that anyone in our class was on the page at the same time. This tool was interesting to work with and it reminded me of other sites that tend to slow down or not function when too many users are trying to accomplish the same thing. It's cool to think that I have the power to change a website though. Before this class I had no idea that Wikipedia had this option, and it makes me feel like my knowledge is of some importance.
Friday, November 13, 2009
Macro Assignment 1
In Amy Shuen’s Web 2.0: A Strategy Guide and William and Tapscott’s Wikinomics the issue of organizations and companies not having the brain power to keep up with societies expectations is a significant dilemma mentioned in both books. Big and small corporations do not have enough internal knowledge to satisfy customer demands. Time and creativity are limited within competitive businesses and just a few partners are not capable of keeping up with other competing organizations. As a result of growing customer demands, a collectivist approach has been considered as an effective solution. The purpose of this paper is to illustrate Shuen’s monetizing collaborating strategies and William and Tapscott’s more innovative approach.
Both authors agree that collaboration is crucial in the evolution of organizations and businesses, however, Shuen favors collaborative innovation for it’s opportunities to monetize. In Chapter 2 of Web 2.0, Shuen emphasizes that when social networks grow, the value of the network increases, therefore, willingness to pay to join the network will also increase, otherwise known as a direct network effect. The growth of social networking or online collaboration will bring in money just with the amount of participants that want to join. Before these social networks even share ideas for new business innovations Shuen is considering the money making possibilities.
Another way in which Shuen sees an opportunity to monetize a collaborative social network is by making the network original. If such a network separates itself from other networks by providing rare features that users cant find elsewhere, people will be more likely to contribute and pay for it’s services (p. 65, Shuen). Here we see again Shuen’s monetizing strategies stemming from collaborative networking.
The traditional ideas of competition have been a force behind companies for decades. Big and small businesses are too focused on how they can beat out their competitors when they should focus on how they might be able to benefit from competitors. Businesses are too accustomed to protecting their ideas and money making strategies and miss the benefits of collaboration. Shuen agrees with this point when she says, “Even when industry leaders recognize a potential network partner or ecosystem player, they will sometimes turn down the opportunity in order to protect their own cash cows or maintain control of their walled garden,”(p.133). Her statement emphasizes that companies should let their guard down, collaborate, and make more money by sharing their “garden.” Businesses are actually losing money by not collaborating with other companies.
Tapscott and William’s agree with Shuen on the idea that companies, big or small, must consider collaboration. Wikinomics, is much less focused on the money making of collaboration and centers in on the growth of innovation. Companies solely relying on themselves cannot turn out inventive ideas fast enough to keep up with consumers. It is described best by Tapscott and William’s when they state:
“The pace of change and evolving demands of customers are such that firms can no
longer depend only on internal capabilities to meet external needs. Nor can they
depend only on tightly coupled relationships with a handful of business partners to
keep up with customer desires for speed, innovation, and control,”
(p.19, Tapscott and William).
Again, we see the need for collaboration because the more business partners available, the faster the production of new ideas. Tapscott and William stress the need for change within businesses from an exclusive staff to an all-welcoming, collaborative community.
Wikinomics does not just focus collaborative efforts within the workplace, but it also emphasizes its importance within society. With today’s technology we are able to connect with people across the globe, therefore the globalizing of ideas is in our hands. People now have the ability to feed off of each other, reformulating and expanding knowledge. Tapscott and William’s agree by commenting that the “future lies in collaborations across borders, cultures, companies, and disciplines,” (p.61) highlighting the importance of expanding knowledge. It is not only companies that must collaborate with foreign areas, but all people must consider globalizing their ideas.
Although Tapscott and William’s ideas of collaboration provide a solution for companies to keep up with new demands, it differs greatly from Shuen’s goals because it does not focus as much on monetizing. The primary focus of collaborative efforts is to jump start innovations. This is emphasized when Wikinomics reads, “the real advantage of global sourcing is not cost savings, but the endless possibilities for growth, innovation, and diversity”(p.62). The “fusion” of resources is predicted to launch products and services quicker with the ability to reach more people. Global collaboration is not about the opportunities of money making, but the accelerated production of ideas, services, or products.
Web 2.0 and Wikinomics both focus on the benefits stemming from collaborative efforts, but while Shuen is money hungry William and Tapscott are not. Collaborative success should not be based on how much money it can reel in but by the innovations and ideas it creates. The William and Tapscott approach is much more realistic in that they apply the need for globalizing ideas to culture and society and not just businesses. It is important with the internet access and capabilities that we have today to stretch our knowledge across continents with the hopes of expanding, connecting, and growing globally.
Wikinomics illustrates that people will collaborate within communities “because they want to and because they can,” not necessarily for economic gains (p.67). Participants within these communities will broaden their horizons, giving and taking information from other participants across the globe. Collaboration is a benefit in itself and many participants within communities see this advantage for what it’s worth. Nonmonetary gains can be just as rewarding in many ways that William and Tapscott recognize and Shuen fails to. As a society, if we only depend on monetary gains for success we will be cheating ourselves of a knowledge that was once unattainable. Today we have access to share our ideas with people we will never meet and countries we will never see, why not take advantage of this ability?
Both authors agree that collaboration is crucial in the evolution of organizations and businesses, however, Shuen favors collaborative innovation for it’s opportunities to monetize. In Chapter 2 of Web 2.0, Shuen emphasizes that when social networks grow, the value of the network increases, therefore, willingness to pay to join the network will also increase, otherwise known as a direct network effect. The growth of social networking or online collaboration will bring in money just with the amount of participants that want to join. Before these social networks even share ideas for new business innovations Shuen is considering the money making possibilities.
Another way in which Shuen sees an opportunity to monetize a collaborative social network is by making the network original. If such a network separates itself from other networks by providing rare features that users cant find elsewhere, people will be more likely to contribute and pay for it’s services (p. 65, Shuen). Here we see again Shuen’s monetizing strategies stemming from collaborative networking.
The traditional ideas of competition have been a force behind companies for decades. Big and small businesses are too focused on how they can beat out their competitors when they should focus on how they might be able to benefit from competitors. Businesses are too accustomed to protecting their ideas and money making strategies and miss the benefits of collaboration. Shuen agrees with this point when she says, “Even when industry leaders recognize a potential network partner or ecosystem player, they will sometimes turn down the opportunity in order to protect their own cash cows or maintain control of their walled garden,”(p.133). Her statement emphasizes that companies should let their guard down, collaborate, and make more money by sharing their “garden.” Businesses are actually losing money by not collaborating with other companies.
Tapscott and William’s agree with Shuen on the idea that companies, big or small, must consider collaboration. Wikinomics, is much less focused on the money making of collaboration and centers in on the growth of innovation. Companies solely relying on themselves cannot turn out inventive ideas fast enough to keep up with consumers. It is described best by Tapscott and William’s when they state:
“The pace of change and evolving demands of customers are such that firms can no
longer depend only on internal capabilities to meet external needs. Nor can they
depend only on tightly coupled relationships with a handful of business partners to
keep up with customer desires for speed, innovation, and control,”
(p.19, Tapscott and William).
Again, we see the need for collaboration because the more business partners available, the faster the production of new ideas. Tapscott and William stress the need for change within businesses from an exclusive staff to an all-welcoming, collaborative community.
Wikinomics does not just focus collaborative efforts within the workplace, but it also emphasizes its importance within society. With today’s technology we are able to connect with people across the globe, therefore the globalizing of ideas is in our hands. People now have the ability to feed off of each other, reformulating and expanding knowledge. Tapscott and William’s agree by commenting that the “future lies in collaborations across borders, cultures, companies, and disciplines,” (p.61) highlighting the importance of expanding knowledge. It is not only companies that must collaborate with foreign areas, but all people must consider globalizing their ideas.
Although Tapscott and William’s ideas of collaboration provide a solution for companies to keep up with new demands, it differs greatly from Shuen’s goals because it does not focus as much on monetizing. The primary focus of collaborative efforts is to jump start innovations. This is emphasized when Wikinomics reads, “the real advantage of global sourcing is not cost savings, but the endless possibilities for growth, innovation, and diversity”(p.62). The “fusion” of resources is predicted to launch products and services quicker with the ability to reach more people. Global collaboration is not about the opportunities of money making, but the accelerated production of ideas, services, or products.
Web 2.0 and Wikinomics both focus on the benefits stemming from collaborative efforts, but while Shuen is money hungry William and Tapscott are not. Collaborative success should not be based on how much money it can reel in but by the innovations and ideas it creates. The William and Tapscott approach is much more realistic in that they apply the need for globalizing ideas to culture and society and not just businesses. It is important with the internet access and capabilities that we have today to stretch our knowledge across continents with the hopes of expanding, connecting, and growing globally.
Wikinomics illustrates that people will collaborate within communities “because they want to and because they can,” not necessarily for economic gains (p.67). Participants within these communities will broaden their horizons, giving and taking information from other participants across the globe. Collaboration is a benefit in itself and many participants within communities see this advantage for what it’s worth. Nonmonetary gains can be just as rewarding in many ways that William and Tapscott recognize and Shuen fails to. As a society, if we only depend on monetary gains for success we will be cheating ourselves of a knowledge that was once unattainable. Today we have access to share our ideas with people we will never meet and countries we will never see, why not take advantage of this ability?
Monday, November 2, 2009
So my Avatars name is Dixie Lexenstar, which is pretty funny. My blonde haired chihuahua is named Dixie so I think that encouraged the deciding factor on the name.
The main difficulties I had were dealing with the password confirmation for some reason. I solved this by logging off and then back on again,slight confusion. I did personalize my avatar, although there were only a few options. So I have short blonde hair, and I'm a typical female, not a zelda wizard guy.
This technology is interesting because it gives users a body, a world, and a life to interact with people that the users might not even meet.It's a benefit to have a virtual network, something differing from the usual social network. It may be worthwhile getting into.It seems as though its full of creativity and may introduce users to new people and groups.
It's easy to connect with people on Second Life. When you go to a place there are always others walking around and its simple to walk up to them and say something. It does not feel as though i'm talking to a void because i can physically see the other networkers.
Drawbacks of having an Avatar are that its hard to get used to and to move around. It is very similar to getting accustomed to a video game. I also don't like how some things the user has to pay for. Everything on Second Life should be free! Not everyone has an Avatar because I don't think it has reached its peak popularity. Users will increase once more and more people discover the program.
I honestly don't think I'm going to use Second Life after this class because I get frustrated with video games easily so I'm probably going to give up on my Avatar at some point. Sorry Dixie.
The main difficulties I had were dealing with the password confirmation for some reason. I solved this by logging off and then back on again,slight confusion. I did personalize my avatar, although there were only a few options. So I have short blonde hair, and I'm a typical female, not a zelda wizard guy.
This technology is interesting because it gives users a body, a world, and a life to interact with people that the users might not even meet.It's a benefit to have a virtual network, something differing from the usual social network. It may be worthwhile getting into.It seems as though its full of creativity and may introduce users to new people and groups.
It's easy to connect with people on Second Life. When you go to a place there are always others walking around and its simple to walk up to them and say something. It does not feel as though i'm talking to a void because i can physically see the other networkers.
Drawbacks of having an Avatar are that its hard to get used to and to move around. It is very similar to getting accustomed to a video game. I also don't like how some things the user has to pay for. Everything on Second Life should be free! Not everyone has an Avatar because I don't think it has reached its peak popularity. Users will increase once more and more people discover the program.
I honestly don't think I'm going to use Second Life after this class because I get frustrated with video games easily so I'm probably going to give up on my Avatar at some point. Sorry Dixie.
Micro 1
So the service that I'm using is blogger, i figured its a little more advanced than cicada. I haven't really experimented much with these social networks in my lifetime. My first social network was Myspace, and my cousin introduced me to it. I had no friends for about 6 months until my friends figured it out for themselves. Then I moved on in life and joined Facebook. I've been an addict ever since. Now i have blogger...I hope I visit this thing just as much as my facebook.
Setting up this thing was easier than Myspace and Facebook. All it asks for is some basic information. It doesn't require an invitation, just a simple email and password, very basic
There are definitely opportunities for social networking, but it's a matter of getting out there and friending others. Extending your connections to people other than family and close friends, creating a larger circle of communications. As of now, I do feel like I'm talking to a void,but its early in my blogger adventure!
With my past of social networking, I do think I will use this after class. I got hooked onto Myspace, and I enjoy using Facebook now, maybe Blogger will be my next favorite social network.
Setting up this thing was easier than Myspace and Facebook. All it asks for is some basic information. It doesn't require an invitation, just a simple email and password, very basic
There are definitely opportunities for social networking, but it's a matter of getting out there and friending others. Extending your connections to people other than family and close friends, creating a larger circle of communications. As of now, I do feel like I'm talking to a void,but its early in my blogger adventure!
With my past of social networking, I do think I will use this after class. I got hooked onto Myspace, and I enjoy using Facebook now, maybe Blogger will be my next favorite social network.
Monday, September 14, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
