At Home with Facebook. Leshu Torchin, on the new HTC First advert. Wednesday, in Souciant.
God, that's horrifying. Along the same vein, I've been seeing a lot of this ad around these parts. Pretty sure that it's supposed to be inspiring, or elicit some immediate sense of nostalgia or something, but what it actually does is perfectly summarize my thoughts and feelings on a world that increasingly experiences itself, and bestows value upon those experiences, through pointless gadgetry. Far from making me want to go out and have a date with my iPhone, it makes me want to leave all of my possessions behind and just experience something through my body. Which, coincidentally, is exactly what I'm doing for the rest of this week and into the next. See you later, Internet.
So the thing about the iPhone ad is it shows people living life with an iPhone. This is probably elitist of me, but for 99% of the population, an iPhone is a better camera than they know what to do with anyway... so the fact that it's with them all the time where they can go snappy snappy? I'm fine with that. Granted - people take more stupid pictures than they would otherwise, and Instagram is its own special problem... but simply taking pictures isn't the issue. Taking pictures requires you to assess your outside surroundings, no matter how superficially. They make you into the upload and the world into the download. The Facebook phone, on the other hand, is a distraction portal. It is designed to go the other way.
Agreed. Having a phone with a camera just means I will have a camera on my person when I stumble onto something interesting and want to remember it in a week. I already have a small number of friends who will eschew actual socialising in order to tell facebook that they are socialising. It's not that it's wrong to upload a photo to facebook of where you are, the problem is these people will not participate in conversation for several minutes when they do this, I'm not sure if they're checking their newsfeed or waiting for people to respond but somehow it seems like they're saying "I'm talking to people" when they're actually not.
Be sure to come back to check up on movie reviews. Maybe I should develop a home app. Instead of Facebook updates it could just insult the user. Or better yet, backhanded compliments. "you sure are brave to wear that sweater, Steve." Technology doesn't have enough hate involved. It's not balanced. People need an equal mix of positive and negative or we end up with all of the shit we got today. Technology spends most of its time trying to make your life better. Our goal should be to actively make the user life worse.
I wanted to make an app that tracked all the time spent playing useless games on an iPhone. And then as you amassed more and more time, you'd hit milestones and get certain badges: "Congratulations! In the two hours spent on these games, you could have BAKED A DELICIOUS CAKE." (followed by a snappy graphic of a cake surrounded by stars.) "EXCELLENT! You've spent two whole days on Zynga games! In this time you could have TAKEN A WEEKEND VACATION AT THE BEACH." "WOW! In the nine and a half months total you've spent playing these games, you could have GESTATED A BABY." And the kicker: "YOU WIN! In the 10,000 HOURS spent on your iPhone, you could have MASTERED THE GUITAR." If I could actually code, I'd do this. Or at least think of doing it, but then get sidetracked playing Scramble With Friends.
There is a big difference between an ad that shuns experience and one that wishes to capture a relic of one. But I do get where you are coming from. Just experience it, no need to always document it. See you later pal. Have fun whatever you are doing!
There is a divide and it will widen until satire becomes reality. Using this product should be a scarlet letter of idiocy.This HTC advertisement boasts something so sinister, it is difficult to articulate: It delights in an integration of platforms, corporations, the world and the self. And it sells this truly dystopic vision in a horrifying, solipsistic fantasy that is barely dressed as anything else. In effect, it is selling a nightmare, and it doesn’t even seek to hide that fact.
Well said. What is horrifying about this is that HTC obviously came to the conclusion, one would suspect through test-marketing the ad, that consumers would agree with the premise. Museums are boring and an image of a friends hairdo is more satisfying than seeing antiquities. It's a marketed disdain for learning and it is going to work.
People who buy Facebook phones do not go to museums. Best guess? People who buy Facebook phones are those whose mommies and daddies won't pay for their iPhone. The HTC First comes in at $100 with a 2-year and is all about drinking from a hose of kool-aid that most sensible people wouldn't point at somebody else. As far as test-marketing, the point is reach. Offensive ads work just as well. That horrific Tibetan Tim Hutton Groupon commercial? Got the job done. We should talk about idiocracy. It's a layer of satire most people don't get, including you, apparently.
It's a layer of satire most people don't get, including you, apparently.
Can you elaborate on what it is I don't get?
THE THING ABOUT IDIOCRACY The key to Idiocracy is in the first 2 minutes and the last 2 minutes. The rest of it is fluff. Enjoyable fluff, but fluff nonetheless. We start with a preamble demonstrating how "the stupids" will take over the world by outbreeding "the smarts" thereby leading to a dystopian hellscape of Starbuck's strip clubs and the Kick Me In The Balls Channel. We finish by demonstrating how Not Sure establishes a new dynasty of hope and stability by applying common sense and breeding. Keep in mind - nothing Not Sure does is special in any way. It's just less stupid than everyone else. It's a one-eyed man in the land of the blind situation and Not Sure is rewarded beyond his wildest imagination. The lesson, really, is that you don't have to be clever - you just have to be cleverer than everybody else. Idiocracy is, at its very core, an apologia for elitism. It says "the idiots don't know the way the world works, but us in the know? we do." It further suggests to everyone watching that they're the smart ones. They're the clever, downtrodden people who will die out because the NASCAR viewers of the world, the Sarah Palin supporters, will out-breed them. In effect, it says "it's okay that you view those idiots as 'other.' You're one of the good ones." You'll note that in the future, Brawndo is still made. Carl's Jr. still has marketing. Starbuck's functions. And the programming on the Kick Me In The Balls channel operates without a hitch. All the bread and circuses necessary to keep the Idiocracy functioning function without a problem - the one victory of the idiots is in watering the plants with water, not Brawndo. Brawndo, however, persists. *Nestle still exists.* CBS stopped airing The Twilight Zone in 1964. They replaced it with Green Acres, Gilligan's Island, Petticoat Junction and the Beverly HIllbillies. CBS went from a last-place network to a first-place network by pandering to the idiots. That doesn't make them idiots, that makes them clever, despite the fact that it says the opposite about the American public. The underlying theme of Idiocracy is that elitism is so pervasive that it infests government, the military and all things people touch upon - except marketing and advertising. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
This reminded me of a post-housing bubble NPR interview where the journalist was interviewing a few Wall Street suits at a local watering hole. In short, the journalist was aghast to find that these guys that had made a killing during the bubble weren't the least bit remorseful about what was happening to their fellow Americans across the country. Even more upsetting to the interviewer, the Wall Streeter's attributed their position to being smarter than the rest. I thought Idiocracy was an awful movie, mainly because it could have been 30 minutes long. But, I do find the notion of 'elitist guilt' fascinating, especially when it comes to commercialism. That's one interesting aspect that Idiocracy touches on (although my memory of the movie is pretty faded): you might only be 'giving the people what they want' or you might be 'socially engineering', and the difference depends on whether or not you are making money on it. Hell, that's why Capitalism is so noble and Communism is so perverse, right? :)
It touches on a darker issue with this whole "facebook phone" thing - namely, that 90% of the people with smartphones don't need smartphones. Ubiquitous computing is pretty awesome, but it won't be used by the majority of people capable of it. For most people, a phone is a Feely portal, giving you distraction everywhere you go. Which isn't to say we didn't have distraction everywhere we went before, just that now it's refined and honed and personalized. I've got an offline topo maps app on my phone, as well as a calibratable RTA. I'm using my pocket computer for the shit that matters to me. I think the elitist angle is where you presume that those who aren't using the technology the same way you are are somehow inferior - much of the population can't figure out a Tom Tom, let alone waypoints. Nobody makes you play the ponies. Granted, they spend a lot of effort making you think that it's imperative, and a lot more effort hiding the fact that the game is rigged and that the house always wins. But if you're going to invest your life's savings, know that a fool and his money are soon parted and that there's no one who cares so much about your retirement as you. Forget that at your peril. Dunno. Life has always been about the agile preying on the slow. It's only through the development of a social conscience that we mitigate the blowback somewhat. I'm not a caveat emptor kinda guy most of the time, but any scam on earth starts with the suggestion that the mark is somehow privileged above others and follows with an invitation to malfeasance.
I agree with that. Still, it's often amazing what people can do when they have the technology opened up to them and the motivation is there, and Facebook has a strong interest in limiting those possibilities. Personally, I'm not so much afraid of 80% of folks using this kind of phone, but I am afraid of the creep of legislation and industry practice that serves their experience at the expense of what mine could be. I don't care if Facebook or Google is the Internet to most, but I do care if it becomes the internet for me as a matter of standardization. Inconvenient possibilities are what we need. But, I think Facebook Home will be short-lived. It's very tough to keep giving kids what they want. IMHO this is a constant burden for anyone that studies history and has a conscience. I'd argue that the 'good guys' need to be able to play both sides, depending on the current state of things. Personally, I think a material definition of wealth has confused the shit out of things since the end of feudalism slapped a big question mark on every free man. If you haven't, I highly suggest reading Cory Doctorow's Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom. In addition to being a pretty good read, it lays out the idea for Whuffie, which is basically a sentiment-based karma type of economy. I'm aware it's not 100% Doctorow's idea, but he presents it in a way that IMO starts to make some sense in this day and age. If I could build anything right now, it would be Whuffie.For most people, a phone is a Feely portal, giving you distraction everywhere you go. Which isn't to say we didn't have distraction everywhere we went before, just that now it's refined and honed and personalized.
Dunno. Life has always been about the agile preying on the slow. It's only through the development of a social conscience that we mitigate the blowback somewhat. I'm not a caveat emptor kinda guy most of the time, but any scam on earth starts with the suggestion that the mark is somehow privileged above others and follows with an invitation to malfeasance.
I bought a Roomba from Cory Doctorow. I made him autograph it. I oughtta grab a picture. Once I realized that the reductio ad absurdum of the Republican Party was feudalism it all made more sense. The balance point between individualism and collectivism is one I suspect society will fight until the end of time; it will always be a battle between our baser natures and our social consciences.
I imagine Cory Doctorow looking at his Roomba with disgust. It's not so much that it consistently misses the hairballs around the barstools, but that a semi-sentient hockey puck has made him question the utility of his living space in a manner that was not of his choosing. Sure, but IMHO the resolution by which we can measure our material valuation is at least an order of magnitude higher than our ability to measure our social one. In fact, there's an industry that provides services that distort the latter by the former.The balance point between individualism and collectivism is one I suspect society will fight until the end of time; it will always be a battle between our baser natures and our social consciences.
I think that reading becomes more difficult when it is view in the context of Mike Judges larger work.
I can not get your reading to reconcile with office space. (it also has a winning through idiocy element and a rejection of using stupidity to win) but to me the key line in the movie "I don't think I would do anything" as an answer to to the question what would you do if money was no object. I see both films as a little more Zen or Taoist than elitist. But of course one learns more about the critic than the object when reading criticism.