Communication Technology and Change: iPhone - Report Example

Name: Unit: Course: Supervisor: Submission Date: Communication Technology and Change: iPhone Introduction Communication is creation, transfer and receiver of a message through a continuous channel. Communication involves both people and devices of gathering and disseminating information or media. Communication technology is the strategies adapted of gathering, transferring and analysis of messages, objects or images (Gómez Cruz, and Meyer, 2012). In communication, several changes and adaptation of different methods and technology of gathering and disseminating messages have been put into use over centuries. Change in any field has shown to face challenges as new methods or strategies replace the old ones. This essay looks into understand photography as the agency of a sequence of technologies, practice alignment, uses and meanings but not as an object, technology or representation. In this sense photographic object is only a success following a chain of assemblages, and the object of photographic constraints or enables other assemblages with its distribution and use. Hence, this task looks into understand socio-technical network as core to photography. This essay will highlight aspects that are related to image production regarding technological devices and their social meanings as well as numerous practices shaped or that shape those devices. The discussion will focus also on how different visual images have been shaped by production meanings and technologies relationships over the history. The essay uses different theories in discussing iPhones advent of new technology in photographing as well as reflecting on photographic before iPhone release. Institutional Theory How specific technologies get roots and are widely adopted, while others, alternative languish, equally plausible remains a troubling question to many researchers for a period of time (Utterback 1994). Therefore, following the outlaid explanation as new technologies; economic inherent functional advantages being dissatisfying to many scholars, emphasis has been given to bring forth institutional understanding of how new technologies gets widespread adoption (Garud and Rappa 1994; Hargadon and Douglas 2001). For example (Hargadon and Douglas 2001), traditional explanation highlighted regarding new technology adoption do not put into consideration social embeddedness process that a new technology goes through until it gets widely accepted. According to (Barley and Tolbert, 1997) to ensure that a new technology is adopted, institutional entrepreneurs do alter the script or schemas or understanding to their own advantage. Nevertheless, development of iPhone by Apple Inc had in mind different institutions such as businesses and users interests across all age groups and status that shaped its technological change and adaptation. Although, the first release of 3G iPhone faced criticism for having slow network connectivity speed which was published in the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times, but Time Magazine said iPhone 3G was the year 2007invention (Grossman 2007). Despite institutional entrepreneurs role being acknowledged in adoption of a new technology (Lawrence et al., 2002; Garud et al., 2002), it is not explained how they bring the change to their own interest (Hargadon and Douglas 2001). The institutional theory has therefore, faced fight in that it offers no sufficient non-isomorphic change explanations such as first instance practice or radically legitimization of new technology (leblebici et al., 1991; Barley and Tolbert 1997). Hence, different theories have been put forward particularly critical discourse analysis theory to fill the existing gaps in institutional theory (Fairclough 1992, 1995; Parker 1992). Discourse analysis is preferred because it offers significant theoretical framework that helps in exploring how the socially created objects and ideas that make up the social world are maintained and created. It helps in understanding how institutional theory transforms particular technologies embodied meaning using discursive strategies by producing new subject position, objects and concepts. This discussion looks particularly on iPhones development and its wide adaptation in the current world and its role in producing subsequent changes within institutional theory. In this research, the embodied meaning in a new technology is the main focus. The focus is on how the iPhone managed to pave its way through the evolving framework of institution following well executed and planned discursive practices (Phillips et al., 2004). Discourse analysis Discourse is an interconnected set of texts that are followed to bring an object to reality together with the processes related to reception, dissemination and production of texts (Chalaby 1996; Parker 1992). Therefore, discourse analysis involves the systematic and structured study of texts together with studying their consumption, dissemination and production carried to analyze the relationship between social reality production, agents and discourses (Van Dijk 1997). In discourse, the text that form it may take form like interpretable artifacts, videos, pictures, spoken words and written text (Grant et al 1998). Individual texts are not meaningful. Their meaning comes in depending on how they are linked with other texts, the way they bring together different discourses, to whom and how they are disseminated, their production method and their consumption and how they are received to make them meaningful. The analysis of these three levels regarding their interrelationship that emphasis on organizations of the social world makes the study of discourse and texts in relation to iPhones interesting and useful. Discourse is made up three forms of social entities; subject position, objects and concepts (Fairclough 1992). Concepts are social constructions which are core builders of idealism that form the situated frame of historical and cultural for social reality understanding. Objects are now the practical realm that discourse makes them sensible; objects besides being partially ideal they have some materialism reality aspect. However, subject differs from object and concept in that they are produced in a specific social space where different agents produce certain types of text in different ways. In other words they are identities that give room to agents to participate in a specific way within a discourse. Text production has two importances. First agents can have particular effects regarding constitution of images since they can inhabit position of the subject. Secondly, only certain agents that can constitute certain positions which are socially constructed. Hence, the ability of an agent to inhabit any of these positions poses particular effect on the discourse. In discourse analysis subject, objects and concepts positions offer a suitable framework in institutionalization processes examination. From this perspective, it is clear that discourses produces social constructions referred to institutions (Philips et al., 2004). Hence they are subject, object and concepts positions that are brought together and be institutionalized to give characteristics of a particular field of institution. Discourse and institution Events do not occur solely; institutional entrepreneurs instead discursively implicate and socially construct them in institutional change processes (Munir 2005). Going by (Philips et al., 2004) institutions are primarily constructed through texts production rather than use of direct actions. Actions are not readable by multiple individuals in multiple ways necessary if organizing ideas were to be transmitted across space and time. On the other side, texts can (Taylor and Van Every 1993). Text gives room for actions and thought to transcend a characteristics of social processes and they can cross diverse and separate local settings. For example throughout industrialized world, iPhone propagation did not come into being through direct observation of quality circles. IPhone is a stream of Smartphone whose designers and marketers is Apple Inc. Like many other companies, Apple Inc developed by following interpretation of text generated by a group of companies, academics and consultants describing their failures and successes (Vogelstein 2008). Therefore, iPhone industrialization was largely a process of textual. In photographing study using iPhone gives an opportunity to show how new technology is embedded to practices already existing, how to create new institutions and roles and modification of existing institutions to make new technology bring a meaning (Grossman 2007). The traditional mobile phone could not take photos. IPhones came in to fill this gap. IPhone and photography popularization IPhone photographing was taken first as commercial and professional activity. This mileage transformed use of phones not only as textual communication devices; but also as cameras and video taking realms with adequate storage capacity to meet social needs as it was with iPhone OS 2.0 which could connect to app-store and had geotagging for photos. To make sense of Apple Inc discursive efforts, iPhone was taken through different texts disseminated or created around photographing practice. Such included advertisement on newspapers, annual reports, trade journals, industry reports, company documents, leisure magazine and online advertisement. Books on photographic technology and photography including other historical periodicals account were consulted. In addition, industrial consultation was of paramount importance and several of them like AT & T and Motorola Rocker E1 design committee, were consulted just to ensure major information was gathered during phase of data collection. Coming up with iPhone was not an easy run; hence, Apple Inc challenged its competitors for coming up in line with iPhone production. Hence, the in-depth archival research revealed numerous little-unknown texts, strategies and facts that were a major player in shaping the upcoming field in making iPhone photography a popular activity. Consequent, Apple Inc was able to influence transition to technological artifacts, the iPhone (Grossman 2007), from a photographer’s technology point of view to social life for all age groups. The introduction of iPhone touch screen design in photographing Before Apple Inc introduced its landmark iPhone in 2005, photographing was relatively complex either by use of cameras such as roll film Kodak or digital cameras which were the most credited. Kodak required the use of roll-film which was purchased from Kodak stores and when out of stock one could not get it with ease or if filled no more photos could be collected. In addition, poorly collected photos consumed a space and were only a waste. Digital cameras filled the gaps created by Kodak roll-film cameras by providing a big capacity photo collection, being light in weight; however, one had to understand how to play around with different button installed and lightning balancing. Images would later be taken through computer photographic analysis and printed. In addition, operation of digital cameras was not just a simple formula for every layman so many people like the unlearned and children were left out to a greater degree in operating them. The advent of iPhone on 9th January, 2007 was an answer to gaps created by previous techniques. This time round Apple Inc ensured the ordinary phone was taken through a revolution. In his invention Jobs described iPhone to have three devices combined; an internet communicator breakthrough, revolutionary mobile phone and an iPod widescreen with touch controls (Grossman 2007). Since the genesis of mobile phones, iPhone made a u turn to both commercial photographers and social institution. IPhone Camera The 1st-generation 3G and iPhone have a 2.0-megapixel fixed-focus camera for digital photos on the back of the phone. It lacks flash, optical zoom and nor video recording support although iPhone 3G can do video recording using third party app present in app store. Photos geotagging was necessitated with introduction of iPhone OS 2.0. The camera in 3GS iPhone is 3.2-megapixel with auto macro upto 10cm, auto white balance and autofocus. The camera can capture VGA resolution (640x480) video at thirty frames per second. The video can be stored within the iPhone or uploaded directly to MobileMe, You Tube or other services. The iPhone 4 came with a 2592 x 1936 pixels (5.0-megapixel) camera able to video record at 720p resolution which was considered a high definition. In addition, it had sensor on the backside-illuminated that enable picture capturing in low light and had LED flash able to remain lit as video recording went on. This was the first iPhone that could do traditional photography at high dynamic range. In addition, iPhone 4 could record SD video and VGA photos using second front camera. Recordings saved could be sent to host computer or relayed as an attached email or MMS. The 4S’ camera iPhone is able to shoot 1080p video and 8-MP stills which are directly accessible from lock screen. In addition, while recording the built-in gyroscope in iPhone 4 stabilizes the image. IPhone 5 can multitask both video recording and photo taking as iPhone 4. However, when light is out of the frame; iPhone 5 camera show purple haze especially to photos taken through a source of bright light (Vogelstein 2008). IPhone made an historical mileage in the photographic field for both social life among families within homes and on vacation, church events among other social gathering and as well as academic research information gathering for example geographers collecting information from different landscapes, forensic data gathering among others. In addition, the invention and installation operating system with large memory and use of memory cards eased its use, reducing the need for bulky storage media and necessitated the need to delete unwanted text, pictures as well as recycling such storage if need be through flushing the system after using the details or keeping them for archival need solving Kodak camera challenges (Vogelstein 2008). A question is how was iPhone able to beat challenges which come with a new product and technology in the market? STINs theory gives some insights. Socio-Technical Interactions Networks Socio-Technical Interactions Networks (STINs) are emerging conceptual framework applied in information system, components configuration, system development, social interaction patterns comparatively analysis, organizing and identifying. STIN brings on board a stream of collective relationship resource flows, enforcement mechanisms, legal arrangements, document and messages, diverse resources (status, skill, and money), data equipment and people including organization (Kling 2003). STINs offers a reliable format for investigating people working together through technical and social processes that arise to build up the complex products and information systems. STIN comprises of heterogeneous elements of which their network relationship include political, economic and social interactions. IPhone’s usage flexibility, capacity of information storage and simplified technique of writing text made a faster move for the new technology in the current market. In addition, Steve jobs the inventor of iPhones having being in the first line in communication and technology invention of computers, phones and tablets got a good idea to capture the market (Vogelstein 2008). In addition, STINs offers a substantial ability to examine different people working together through technical and social processes which are interrelated to come up with a complex information products and systems. These processes make STINs to offer conceptual framework in which F/OSSD (Free/Open Source Software Development) processes and projects are examined. STINs have been developed from the inter-linkage of Actor Network Theory and Socio-Technical Systems (STS). Socio-Technical Systems STS perspective believes that in developing users systems world is a complex organization that involves engineers/technicians. Hence, people evolution, deployment and design issues should not be ignored in any way to ensure these systems are satisfactorily and non-problematic to use a fact which could lead to their failure. To achieve this (Scacchi 2004), STS recommends user involvement in information systems deployments and design. Hence this approach put into consideration to have all stakeholders in system development involved such as processes (design and system usage),products (documentation, systems etc), engage people’s interest and balance them (end-users, developers) (Schuler,1993). In iPhone development, Steve Jobs brought in together Sir Jonathan Ive and 1000 people working in apple Inc to privately digest and do idea down breaking to bring IPhone into reality. (Vogelstein 2008). However, failure to involve end user could be accounted for criticism brought forth on the first 3GB release iPhone being slow in internet connectivity (Grossman 2007). Actor-Network Theory On the other hand, ANT puts into considerations to modes in which technical design alternatives or scientific disputes become closed and rationalized, ways of making decisions, how methods and tools are adopted and ideas accepted. ANT does not look into why people should be involved in system development like the STS. Rather, ANT looks to investigate what people do during their work, artifacts resources and tools they consume, use or produce along the way. Moreover, ANT looks to incorporate people’s roles and resources to bring about system development processes and scientific research. In iPhone development, ANT was actually employed. Steve Jobs looked into how people used computer complete with mouse, keyboard and a CPU each as a segment and made a progress by developing tablet computer. In turn, he conceived this idea implemented onto a mobile phone. In its first release, iPhone 4GB had only three combined devices breakthrough internet communicator, revolutionary mobile phone and an iPod widescreen with touch controls. This phone had iPhone interface, internet abilities and media however it could not connect to other cellular network for internet access or phone functions. This led to poor market sales of the 3GB and 8GB models. This indicates that photographers could not send the photos on through the internet (Vogelstein 2008). Applying the STS theory, Steve jobs realized the need for the users and discontinued iPhone 3GB by replacing it with 4GB with the missing devices in the first products and with updated software. Conclusion In conclusion, a success of a new technology calls for critical employment and analysis of different theories such as institutional, critical discursive, STINs, ANT and STS as was employed in iPhone production by Apple Inc. As a result iPhone has conquered the challenges in communication and information change particularly in photographing with iPhone 4 design being highly preferred. References Barley, S, R, and Tolbert, P, S, (1997), Institutionalization and Structuration: studying the links between action and institution, Organizational Studies 18:93-117 Farclough, N, (1992), Discourse and social change, Cambridge: Polity Press Fairclough, N, (1995), Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical Study of Language. London: Longman. Garud, R, and Rappa, (1994), A socio-cognitive model of technology evolution; Organization Science 5(3):344-362 Grant, D, Keenoy, T, and Oawick, C, (eds) (1998), Discourse and Organization, London: sage Gómez Cruz, E, and Meyer, E, T, (2012), Creation and Control in the Photographic Process: IPhones and the Emerging Fifth Moment of Photography, Photographies 5.2 (2012): 203-21. Grossman, L, (31st October, 2007), Invention of the Year: The iPhone Hardy, C, and Philips, N, (1999), No joking matter: Discursive struggle in the Canadian refugee system. Organization Studies 20(1):1-24 Hargadon, A, and Douglas, Y, (2001), When innovations meet institutions: Edison and the design of the electric light. Administrative Science Quarterly 46:476-501 Kling, R, McKim, G, and King, A, (2003), A bit more to IT: Scholarly communication forums as Socio-Technical Networks. Journal of the American Society for information science and technology, 54(1):46-67 Lawrence, T, B, Philips, N and Hardy, C, (2002), Institutional effects of inter-organizational collaboration: the emergence of proto-institutions. Academy of Management Journal 45:281-290. Leblebici, H, Salancik, G,Copay, A, and King, T, (1991), institutional change and the transformation of inter-organizational fields: an organizational history of the U.S. radio broadcasting industry. Administrative Science quarterly 36: 333-363. Munir, K, A, (2005), The social construction of events: a study of institutional change in the photographic field; Organization Studies 26(1):93-112. Mumby, D,T, and Clair, R,P, (1997), Organizational Discourse in Discourse as Social Interaction Van Dijk T.A. (ed), 181-205, London; sage Parker, I, (1992), Discourse Dynamics: Critical Analysis for Social and Individual Psychology, London: Routledge Scacchi, W, (2005), Socio-Technical Interaction Networks in Free/Open Source Software development processe. In Acuna S., T, and Juristo, N, (eds). Software Process Modeling pp1-27, New York: Business Media Inc Suchman, L, (1996), Supporting Articulation Work: In Kling R, (Ed), Computerization and Controversy: Value Conflicts and Social Choices, 2nd ed, San Diego CA: Academic Press Utterback, J, (1994), Mastering the Dynamics of Innovation, Boston, MA: Harvard University Press Vogelstein F, (9th January, 2008), The untold story: how the iPhone blew up the wireless industry, Conde: Nast publications pp 4 Read More