Network effects- what on earth are they?

Earlier in the year, we were asked to look at network effects. Network effects, which are also known as Metcalfe’s Law, happen when higher sales of a product, or a service, increase its value and therefore make further sales. One of the simplest examples is the telephone network. There would be no point in owning the only telephone in the world, because you would have no one to talk to and the equipment would be useless. If a few hundred people had telephones connected to the same network, then they would start to become useful. Another example would be the internet, where thousands of people connect to the same network, creating a valuable business market. Direct network effects occur if the user’s act of adopting a good encourages other people to adopt that good, and so on, branching out. Indirect network effects arise if adoption is complementary because of its effect on a particular market. For example, users of hardware or software may gain when other users join them, not because of any direct benefit, but because it encourages the provision of more and better software, such as torrent sites like the popular Pirate Bay or a torrent such as Limewire.

One of the best examples of network effects in the media is the VHS. Once VHS video tapes gained the significantly greater market share than the old Betamax, the latter disappeared. However, DVDs have now come taken over, and VHS has sadly disappeared off the shelves. Recently though, we have seen Blu ray creep into our shops, probably coming to replace DVD’s just as DVD’s did the VHS. The rate technology is developing; it won’t be long after that until a brand new one is created.

Metcalfe’s law describes how more users increase the value of a network, which would explain the uprising of Facebook and the downfall of MySpace, as discussed in a previous blog entry. Twitter is now attempting to take the lead. When a new Twitter user talks to an existing user, it creates value to the old user, and if Twitter adds a new application, more people will join that application, making it more popular. This is network effects being put to use in our every day lives, and yet few know what network effects mean! I know before I took this class, I didn’t!

In conclusion, Network Effects are a useful tool in media society. They support media trends, and fuel business networks. Without them, business would probably crumple, as they are the hidden framework to our economy.

Second Life and virtual worlds

For an inside look on virtual worlds, we were asked to create a Second Life account online. Second Life is a place where people create human like figures called Avatars and use them to explore a computerised world where you can interact with other people from all over the world. It was created in 2003 by Linden Labs, and Jonathan Richards from The Times said that it “has become synonymous with what many believe will bring about the next wave of technology innovation: ‘the 3D internet’”. There have been many attempts at online virtual worlds, such as Coke Music (2002), Habbo Hotel (2000), and Virtual Magic Kingdom (2005), but ones such as Second Life and the popular World of Warcraft have set the standards much higher for graphics and online activities.

Many people flock to virtual worlds to get away from their everyday lives, like a holiday for the mind, but some tend to go too far. They can go so far that it would appear that a virtual world is their everyday setting, and reality is the holiday. While this seems like I am taking the extreme angle on this one, I have seen what a virtual world can do to a person’s social life if the user buries them self too deeply into it. Because anybody from around the world can access them, virtual worlds are full of new people- people who do not know a thing about you. The allure of creating a new identity attracts quite a few, especially those that are unhappy with their current identity in reality. My brother is quite addicted to World of Warcraft, and it has gotten so bad that he barely leaves the house anymore and often doesn’t acknowledge that a person has spoken to him because he’s too absorbed in the game. But, because he has so many friends just like him online, he doesn’t seem to feel the need to return to the real world, and believes that his loved ones just nag at him for no reason. So it seems that, quite ironically, the virtual worlds created to get a person more in touch with society and to venture out globally has in fact done the opposite and encouraged people to sit at home alone in a room, with no actual social contact.

I tried to understand what the fuss was about, so I created a Second Life account for class, and gave the account a test run. While at first it seemed fun tweaking the Avatars appearance, over an hour n a half later I grew frustrated. Why did there need to be so many options to change the angle of this Avatars eyebrow or nose etc? I set myself the challenge to attempt to make my Avatar appear as much like myself as possible, but I cannot deny that the desire to change a few things crossed my mind more than once. Out of all the people I asked, none had decided to make theirs like themselves, simply because no one is completely happy with the way they look, and we would all like a little control over how we appear to others. I could now relate to my brothers desire to create a new person, but I was still at a loss to what I should do in this new world. My class mates and I explored the Second Life world, but found very few people willing to have a normal conversation- one even asked my friend for online sex. This reminded me of the risks of creating a virtual world so open to the public- anyone could pretend to be any age or gender, and could easily lure in younger and more naive people, maybe even children. My cousin is only 9, and he goes on World of Warcraft often. Any member of the public could approach him and take advantage, maybe even try and meet up with him in real life. This is a worrying issue, and while these worlds may appear great fun and open up social gateways, we cannot forget that sexual predators are out there, and will take advantage of any device which allows them easier access to their prey.

Digital Divide

Today in the workshop we researched the term “Digital divide”. This use to mean the divide between those who have (regular) access to a computer and those who do not, though these days, with computer usage becoming so heavily relied upon, it has changed. Some say it now refers to the different levels of broadband access, or inequalities between people who have the ability to fully use IT and those who lack it. The term became more common in the middle of the 90’s, but was probably coined a few years earlier.

You may be wondering what, if any, impact this will have on the world. Well, it may help for you to think about a few things first: Many people, when they do not understand something, or need to find out something, head straight to the Internet for solutions. What do those who do not have the Internet do? Sure, they can look something up in a book, but then their resources are limited. The Internet is vast and varied, and is probably the best place to go to learn something new. So, we can assume that those who do not have access to the Internet are at an intellectual disadvantage, relating the digital divide to the knowledge divide. The most obvious example would be the techno-savvy Western civilization in comparison to 3rd World Countries, who have no mobile phone communications, no social networking sites, lack of fast broadband Internet connections, no advanced Internet applications and so on. This shows a digital divide on a global scale, as the differences in technology vary from country to country.

I said there could be an intellectual divide because of this, but there could also be impediment on economic levels, too. If a country lacks the technology to progress their speed and efficiency in work, and also to keep constant communications to widen their area of trade (such as the internet), then they will fall behind in comparison to other countries, and earn less money from global investments than those companies included in the changing global market.


Education within schools is not only made easier by Internet and computer access, but the necessary skills children need to learn while handling a computer should be taught while they are still at a young enough age to absorb them easily. Should a school not have computers, the children within it could be at a serious disadvantage later in life when they need computing skills for their jobs or home use. In the 1990’s, rich schools were much more likely to have regular computer access, and a few years later, more likely to have available Internet access. Coming from a public primary school, I didn’t have computers available to me until I was around 8 years old (1998), and I don’t think we ever used the Internet, so I would presume we didn’t have it. I know children a lot younger than that now who even own their own laptops. Once I got to upper school, this drastically changed, and we were expected to use computers often, but I had to learn quickly to catch up after my disadvantage compared with the other youngsters who obviously could use computers at an earlier stage than me, and also the Internet. I’m perfectly fine with computers and the Internet by now, but had I not gone to an upper school with such an enthusiasm for computing, I would likely have struggled harder to learn, as neither of my parents could teach me. Even now, I’m still helping my mum out with anything bigger than e-mail checking.

Apparently, governments are trying to bridge the digital divide by devising strategies and creating practical measures to increase computer access.
Even now, in western society, some people do not have the access they need. I have a friend in University who is at a disadvantage because she cannot use the Internet except at the library because she cannot afford to pay for the net on top of everything else. I lost my internet for a few days, and the effect it had on my work was unprecedented, forcing me to waste time going to the library, and then becoming uncomfortable being surrounded by people constantly coughing and making noise, distracting me from my work, and I was therefore rushing to leave. People cannot ignore this digital divide and say that it doesn’t occur in our society anymore, because for some reason or another, it actually does, and is a serious issue.

The internet is not killing our culture

Today we had to prepare a media debate on if the internet is killing our culture. From my point of view, we had a clear win with our argument, with some of the opposition conceding defeat. My argument is as follows:

The internet isn't killing our culture. It is part of keeping our culture alive, as our traditions and behaviour are recorded on the Internet via pictures, websites and blogs. Not only are the representations of a culture available to us, they are available to everyone, so that other cultures may learn about our own, widening their knowledge. There are even examples of people storing our culture on the internet, as many have scanned through or copied material from books that may no longer be in existance, or are in short supply, but now will be preserved forever on databases and websites for all to see.

The Internet widens our knowledge, and if we really desire, our intelligence. We can look up information on almost anything, but it's up to the individual if they retain the information and put it to use. We can even share our own knowledge, and teach others. A good example is students researching information- such as for this debate. I doubt anyone could have come up with a clear and structured argument without the information provided by the internet. One of my team mates even posted this debate up on Facebook, and recieved smart and valid responses which aided her in her research.

Culture was already suffering before the internet came along. Is the death of the crappy sitcoms, bad Hollywoood movies and such, bad? I say power to the normal enthusiastic people creating amateur videos like the furby in the microwave. There’s going to be at least one person who learned a valuable lesson from it. If it's what people want to watch, why should we see it as a negative? I know I thought it was hilarious.

I found a person on a blog say "If the internet ever kills the video star, it’s only because he knocked off the radio star first." It's natural media evolution, this era's particular trend, and if it doesn't work out, things will change- though not necessarily to the way it was before the net.

This supposed cultural panic happens every time new technology comes out, an example being Sousa on the Menace of the Phonograph, where he claims "I foresee a marked deterioration in American music, and musical taste, an interruption in the musical development of the country", showing the rising panic in a new form of technology all the way back to 1906. We handled that new technology just fine, and even developed it- this cultural panic is mostly something to be ignored by those of us who are more able to adapt to new cultural changes, leaving those who are unable to stew in their own superfluous hysteria.

Another in the group used the analogy of the development of the farming industry to aid the example of technological development. She said that farmers use to have horses and ploughs doing all the work, taking a long time to achieve little. These days, the farmers have mechanical help such as JCB's, and get everything done at a better quality, and much faster. Her point was that this is a development just like anything else, and it would be an unfair step backwards should we take that technology off the farmers and force them back into hard labour for no reason. This is the same for the internet- would we take the internet off of people, just because some few may not agree with it, and force the masses back into slower, and much more difficult research, for no good reason?

Elitists spewing either stylized, biased, or commercial culture from a big black tower without possibility of revolt and no voice of dispute, is far more damaging than a democratized internet. The internet introduces a level playing field where we can all have a voice and shape the future culture to the way we want it.

The compulsive need to Facebook

On the first workshop a question was raised: What do you first look at online? I'm not entirely sure why everyones answers startled me, as they almost perfectly reflected my own. Facebook. Only a couple out of around 20 students said otherwise, though this seemed to be down to a conscientious objection rather than ignorance. I agree with Danah Boyd in her "Why Youth Heart Social Newtworking Sites" article -whether for or against, every teen has something to say about the popular networking sites.

Personally, although Facebook isn't the only window I open when first browsing, it is the most anticipated. Has anyone added me? Has that friend uploaded the photos of last night's party? Did that guy comment me back? Much time can be wasted pouring over event invites and conversations, keeping me up to date with my own little world and the people in it. Even the most trivial update of my friends television viewing habits are an opportunity to get going a conversation out of boredom, or the want to develop a closer relationship with the person by talking to them more often.

Can teens go on network sites too much? Of course, and by now the teenage population is bordering on obsessive when it comes to "poking" and marrying your best friend according to your info box. It has such a strong hold on teenage society, that it has become a joke in some respects, and has opened a gap for ribbing and parodying of its usage. An example is in a TeamFourStar's DragonBall Z Abridged episode on YouTube, where the quite serious character "Piccolo" randomly signs into MySpace because he's so lonely and bored training out in wastelands alone.

"Damnit I'm lonely. Might as well check MySpace" "No new comments"

"No friend requests. Damn it. Well at least I have you Tom- you're always there for me."

For anyone who watched Dragonball Z as a kid can see the humour behind such a stoic, friendless character social networking, when he lives in an empty wasteland and hates technology. The "Tom" line throws out a tid bit any MySpace user can appreciate, as we have all seen the countless profiles with the one friend: Tom. Unlike the character "Piccolo", one good reason a teen may have few friends on MySpace is because of it's rival: Facebook. With more applications and better ways to create events and tag photos, Facebook overtook MySpace in the social networking race, and gained more and more teens. I myself did the switch from MySpace to Facebook. Why? Was MySpace now inferior? To me, not really, but my friends seemed to believe it was "cooler", and of course, without friends to talk to anymore, MySpace had become an empty shell for me and therefore useless to its original purpose. Danah Boyd touches briefly on this, showing that teens are often on these sites because all their friends are there, and they're popular, making the social networking site profiles the Vans and Converse of the internet- if you don't have it, you're just not cool enough.