Orienting questions:
- What are "the new communication technologies?"
- What is the difference between an evolutionary change and a revolutionary
change?
- How is the development of the new communication technologies similar to that
of books, the telephone, phonograph, motion picture, radio and television?
Key terms:
evolution
revolution
media-myopia
digitalization
media fusion
It is apparent that any attempt to answer this chapter's title question must begin with some working definitions and mutually agreeable demarcations. So in the true spirit of new communication technologies, we conducted an on-line search of encyclopedias and dictionaries. Within nanoseconds we are able to bring forward (via America On-line's Mirriam- Webster Dictionary ) the following relevant information (analyzed and edited for our purposes):
The definition of evolution: " a process of continuous change from a lower, simpler, or worse to a higher, more complex, or better state .... a process of gradual and relatively peaceful social, political, and economic advance.." (Mirriam- Webster Dictionary, America On- line).
The definition of revolution: " ... a sudden, radical, or complete change... activity or movement designed to effect fundamental changes in the socioeconomic situation ... a fundamental change in the way of thinking about or visualizing something ... a changeover in use or preference esp. in technology ~the computer..." (Mirriam- Webster Dictionary, America On-line).
Well, there it is. By definition it would appear that the answer to our
chapter's query is .... its a revolution! As the latter definition denoted,
the computer is perfect example of a sudden, radical, or complete changeover in
use or preference in technology. But then again, the computer has been in a
process of continuous change from a lower, simpler, worse state to a higher,
more complex, or better state .
From its mechanical relay days in the late 1930's, to its ENIAC and
UNIVAC vacuum tube days in the early 1950's (when it was the size of a 200-seat
classroom, delivered an amazing, for that time, 5000 calculations per second,
and drew so much energy, it is said, that the lights of Philadelphia dimmed when
it was started) . Wherein, by 1985 one chip about the size of a dime delivered
calculations 200 times faster at an infinitely smaller cost, with the energy
consumption of a low watt light bulb. And, today we have portable laptop
computers with multi-megabyte hard drives that can connect to terabyte file
servers (which can hold the equivalent of 1 million floppy disks) that do
multi-millions of (mips) instructions per second.
It remains, however, that the computer is but one (although arguably the most prominent) of myriad of gizmos that can be subsumed under the rubric of new communication technologies. For along with "the computer" (and usually interconnected to it, or with it, in some form or fashion) there is an ever growing array of technological marvels markedly advancing the production, storage, dissemination and retrieval of information; Just to name a few: blue laser discs, CD-i, DVD, k-band & c-band satellites, ISDN, ATM's, interactive kiosks, JPEG, MPEG1, MPEG2, fiber optic cable, holograms & holostor's, DAT, HDTV, LCD's, PDA's, web sites and "zip" drives.
Again, how fast one perceives the growth and how marvelous one believes the impact of these technologies will determine whether or not it will be accorded revolutionary status.
Perhaps, a final arbiter to the debate can be found in the result of an
on-line search of Compton's Encyclopedia. We first entered the keywords "
communication evolution" and the result was: "no matching entries
found." We next added the "r" and searched "communication
revolution" and up popped "Communication: High-Technology
Revolution." In addition to providing support for the revolutionary
perspective, the article also provides an initial overview of technologies that
the remaining chapters of this book will explore:
High-Technology Revolution
---------
The new technology required for space exploration has had a major impact on
communication in offices and homes. This technology has enabled business people
to hold teleconferences with people in faraway cities. Computers and word
processors are found in many offices. Electronic mail speeds business messages
across continents, and electronic fund transfers give business managers great
flexibility in managing money.
The new technology has also entered homes. Many families now receive their
television through cable, a sophisticated wire system permitting many television
signals to be transmitted at the same time. Other families view television
programs bounced off a satellite high above the Earth. Videotape recorders
enable people to record television programs for later playback and to increase
the variety of materials they may view in their homes.
Computers continue to become an increasingly important aid to the communication
process. Large computers in central locations store enormous amounts of
information and permit other computers to use it if desired. By connecting their
television sets to telephones and personal computers, people can see information
from a library or other program source. Further linkages with cable, teletext,
and viewdata systems enable many more families to bring the knowledge of the
world into their homes.
Whatever technical advances may occur in the future, meaning will still exist
only in the minds of people. Technology is a means of helping people to share
ideas and feelings, but it will never replace the fundamental human need to
relate to others. (Compton's Encyclopedia, America On-line)
Interestingly, this article concludes by qualifying the fact that although changes in the technology ( no matter how revolutionary) are important, an overall perspective needs to be maintained. Even though one of the defining attributes of the new communication technologies is its interactive nature. It is, in the final analysis, human beings who initiate and create the interactivity. The technology only enables interaction. Thus, perhaps it is not so much a matter of the nature, capability and capacity of the communication technology as it is a matter of how people perceive its utility and function. And, then-- and more importantly-- how many people go on to permanently incorporate that technology into their life-style and regular media milieu.
Certainly, in most every respect, the communication media landscape is changing. Not many days go by without news of the mega-merger of a cable or computer company with a baby-bell and media conglomerate; as it is estimated that the interactive/ multimedia industry will be a 25 plus billion dollar business by the end of this decade. There are millions of kids playing Nintendo at home and using interactive discs at school. Twenty plus millions of people are using the Internet. As of the end of 1994, there were more than 122 million desktop personal computers in use worldwide. Yet, despite these concrete examples of multi-millions of people and multi-billions of dollars, it seems we are still waiting for the arrival of that new multi-mediated communication technology that is a distinct and wholly unique form of communication on par with its mass communication predecessors-newspapers, magazines, cinema, radio and TV. For purposes of clarity and precision, let us concentrate on "multimedia" as the designated communication technology for definitive examination regarding its evolutionary vs. revolutionary status. After all it does incorporate many of the technologies delineated by the students above. As defined in Multimedia: Gateway to the Next Millennium:
"Multimedia is the next step in the social and technological evolution
of publishing and sets the stage for even more profound means and
experiences of communications. Multimedia is, in the simplest terms, the digital
processing of binary-coded electronic signals....of voice or data, text or
images, music or video" (Rosan,1994).
Herein, it would appear that, at present, multimedia is evolving toward
revolutionary status. So now the question is not so much IF multimedia will
occasion a communication revolution, as WHEN. And, specifically, HOW MANY people
have to be using this technology before one can legitimately claim it has
arrived?
Interactive MultiMedia- Communication Revolution?
A rule of thumb used by the advertising industry to gauge the arrival of a medium for commercial purposes has been 33% market penetration. At this level of ownership of a communication technology is widespread enough to be viable vehicle for marketing. Moreover, at this level of adoption of the technology will begin to have a significant impact on the consumption patterns of other media.
The most recent communication technology to make its mark on the hearts & minds of consumers was, of course, the VCR. The VCR became available for home purchase in 1975, but it wasn't until 1979 that the penetration level reached 1% of all U.S. households. By the end of 1985, VCRs reached a critical mass with between 30-35% penetration of U.S. households. By mid- 1991, the penetration level had climbed to 70%+. Accordingly, what can we expect with respect to the rate of adoption for interactive multimedia. Indeed, as Newsweek observed in 1991, is interactive multimedia the next VCR?
IS THIS THE NEXT VCR?
A new combination of TV and PC says, 'Buy me!'
Roll over, Beethoven, and tell Tchaikovsky the news. So sang Chuck Berry three decades ago, announcing the onset of rock and roll. Now there's another revolution going on-but not just in music. This is the dawning of an entirely new medium. It's "interactive multimedia," a blend of computers and television. Whether or not the new technology is an immediate commercial hit, this development ranks with color television and stereo sound: it can change the way we have fun (Newsweek, July 8, 1991).
Other forecasts have been more direct. For example, LINTAS: USA (a major advertising agency) predicted in 1991 that by 1998 at least, 40% of all US households will have interactive TV. As of today it is but a few thousand households-- all in test. Nonetheless, it is was calculated by Dataquest Inc. that in 1994 worldwide shipments ofCD-ROM drives reached ~17.5 million --far exceeding the 9.7 million drives shipped in all previous years--and by the end of the year nearly 20 percent of all desktop PC's in the world had a CD-ROM. To what extent, cd-rom's "hockey-stick growth curve" will continue is another matter. We could run off any number of predictions regarding the adoption and diffusion of interactive multimedia, but, we are afraid that none of us would be any wiser. For forecasting the adoption of any new technology remains "an inexact science" at best and not much more accurate than a roll of the dice in most instances.
Indeed, if one wants to consider "interactive multimedia the next VCR," one should also keep in mind the fact that "the current success of the VCR was not anticipated...experts predicted that the videodisc player (as opposed to the VCR) would be the home video technology of choice in more American households in 1986." This insightful factoid is just one of many proffered by Bruce Klopenstein (of the Dept. of Radio-TV & Film at Bowling Green State University). Drawing from Klopenstein's extensive research on the track record of technological forecasting, at least FOUR KEY FACTS emerge regarding the prediction of HOW & HOW MANY PERSONS will be using multimedia in 2001:
Key Fact #1: "Anybody's guess is equally valid. "An analysis of more than 1500 technological predictions made from 1840- 1940 by a wide variety of forecasters found little difference in the accuracy of experts and nonexperts in forecasting a given field."
Key Fact #2: Anybody's guess is more likely wrong than right. An
investigation "of the accuracy of new product
forecasts by various companies found an average forecas error of 65% for new
product sales and 128% for new product profits."
Key Fact #3: Anybody's guess is probably going to overestimate the adoption rate of multimedia... "A comprehensive analysis of 165 forecasts from six subject areas found, for example, that nine of twelve forecasts for computer technological capabilities errored optimistically."
Key Fact #4: The more one's guess is based on a analysis of unmet consumer demands, the more reliable one's forecast will be.. Specifically, regarding "the evolution of computer technology ... forecasts which were market-driven (i.e. matched unmet user demands with technological potentials) were most reliable". (Klopenstein, 1989)
An anonymous sage once observed, "forecasting is hard , particularly the future." Indeed, predicting the future is a little "like trying to drive a car blindfolded, following the directions of someone looking out the back window." Despite our apparent inability to plot the sales curve, there are some safe predictions that can be made regarding the near future of interactive multimedia. The first concerns itself with the fact that for the next few years all interactive multimedia communication technologies will be subjected to the phenomenon we term media-myopia-- defined as a unique combination of shortsightedness when it comes to estimating the public's desire for any given technological advance AND rearsightedness when it comes to ascertaining its ultimate utility. The concept of "media -myopia" is derived from the clearest lesson to be learned from the history of media evolution, that being that at the outset, both in conception & application the content & aesthetic of each new medium is directly derived and/or crudely concocted from the existing media it is to replace. As Marshall McLuhan so aptly noted decades ago, "It is instructive to follow the embryonic stages of any new growth for during this period of development it is much misunderstood, whether it be printing or the motorcar or TV, Just because people are at first oblivious of its nature, the new form deals some revealing blows to the zombie-eyed spectators" (McLuhan, 1964).
An Abbreviated History of Media-Myopia
Books
In what many regard as the oldest mass media, the historical development of
books holds important lessons for our newest the media, interactive technology.
Every new medium takes some time to gain its own identity.
"Printing had its "horseless carriage" phase of being misconceived and misapplied during its first decades, when it was not uncommon for the purchaser of a printed book to take it to a scribe to have it copied and illustrated...the first centuries of printing from movable type were motivated more by the desire to see ancient and medieval books than by the need to read or write new ones. Until 1700 much more than 50% of all printed books were ancient or medieval" (McLuhan, 1964).
Just as the preponderance of the initial content of books was drawn from the existing classics of antiquity, it may very well be the case that the majority of initial multimediated programs will consist of nothing more than the digitalization of existing textbooks, workbooks, history and science lessons, or art appreciation courses (with a splash of soundbites and videoclips) which provide the "reader/user" not much more of an advantage or experience than the ability to turn pages (or connect facts) electronically.
The telephone
Perhaps no more pointed example of media-myopia can be evidenced than that of
the telephone. Who would of guessed that a medium that enables anyone to
converse with anyone, anywhere in the world, would result from an idealist's
work and intention to improve the lot of the deaf? "The invention of the
telephone was an incident in the larger effort of the past century to render
speech visible. Melville Bell, the father of Alexander Graham Bell, spent his
life devising a universal alphabet that he published in 1867 under the title
Visible Speech. Their struggle to perfect visible speech for the deaf led the
Bells to a study of the new electrical devices that yielded the telephone"
(McLuhan, 1964).
Moreover, the telephone's initial applications were designed for mass entertainment rather than intimate conversation. The first uses of the telephone included such broadcast-like episodes as: 1) a band playing the "Star Spangled Banner" in Boston while being listened to by an audience of 2000 in Providence, 2) a singer performing "The Marriage of Figaro" in Providence for an audience in Boston, and 3) 800 people in the Grand Union Hotel in Saratoga listening to a concert by telephone wire from Madison Square Garden (Barnouw, 1966, pp.7-8). As succinctly described by the words of The Wondrous Telephone:, a song published in 1876:
You stay at home and listen
To the lecture in the hall,
Or hear the strains of music
From a fashionable ball!
The phonograph
Reportedly, while attempting to develop a device that would increase the speed
of the Atlantic Cable, Thomas Edison, by happenstance, "invented" the
phonograph. Since, initially, he wasn't even trying to develop such a
device it's understandable that he did not know what to do with it, let alone
what to call it:
"....the phonograph was involved in many misconceptions, as one of its early names-gramophone- implies. It was conceived as a form of auditory writing (gramma-letters). It was also called "graphophone," with the needle in the role of a pen....Edison was delayed in his approach to the solution of its problems by considering it at first as a "telephone repeater." Hence the name phonograph (McLuhan, 1964).
It would be decades before the phonograph would take one the central role of the household music box, with its complement of albums & 45's. As it was originally envisioned, however, the phonograph was thought to hold more promise for medicine than for music:
"There were prophets who could foresee the great day when the phonograph would aid medicine by providing a medical means of discrimination between "the sob of hysteria and the sigh of melancholia...the ring of whooping cough and the hack of he consumptive. It will be an expert in insanity, distinguishing between the laugh of the maniac and drivel of the idiot...It will accomplish this feat in the anteroom, while the physician is busying himself with his last patient." In practice, however, the phonograph stayed with voices of the Signor Foghornis, the basso-tenores, robusto- profundos...." (McLuhan, 1964).
Motion pictures
It would take almost 15 years for motion pictures to find and develop its unique
aesthetic. That unique style and substance we now call the narrative film. As
with the phonograph, there was initial confusion as the what to call
"it" and how to use "it." The inventors (Edison and Dickson,
1889) called it the Kinetoscope . In later variations it was called the vitascope
and bioscope. These latter labels reflected the initial content of the
films, as a simple and straight-forward recording device of life at its most
routine. The first motion pictures provided nothing more one minute snippets of
"Feeding the ducks of Tampa Bay", "The Arrival of the Paris
Express", and "The Gondolas of Venice". As the media scholar,
Joseph Dominick, observed:
These early efforts in the Edison lab were not directed at projecting movies to large crowds. Still influenced by the success of his phonograph, Edison thought a similar device could make money by showing brief films to one person at a time for a penny a look. The Kinetoscope reflected this idea; it was much like a modern-day peep-show machine. Edison built a special studio to produce films for this new invention, and by 1894 Kinetoscope parlors were springing up in major cities. The long-range commercial potential of this invention was lost on Edison. He was dead set against developing motion-picture-projection equipment. He reasoned that the real money would be made by selling his peep-show machines. If a large number of people were shown the film at the same time, fewer machines would be needed. Edison argued that only ten projectors would be needed to show films to everyone in the entire country. His estimate was a little off (Dominick, 1983).
Radio
While noting that almost 60 years after its development the word
"wireless" is still used in Britain... McLuhan, again, observed that:
"The history of radio is instructive as an indicator of the bias and
blindness induced in any society by its pre-existent technology." His point
is vividly illustrated by media historians who have recorded such incidents as:
- "The initial reaction to the wireless radio early in this century when the U.S. Navy installed radio transmitters on ships of the Great White Fleet for its round-the-world voyage and then discarded them in favor of carrier pigeons....(Dizard, 1989).
- When AT&T finally decided at an executive meeting held in New York City on January 12 1922, that it would take up "public radiotelephone broadcasting," the decision was framed wholly in telephone terms. Lloyd Espenschied, who was present, described the original conception: "We, the telephone company, were to provide no programs. The public was to come in. Anyone who had a message for the world or wished to entertain was to come in and pay their money as they would upon coming into a telephone booth, address the world, and go out" (Barnouw, 1966).
And so it was that, "Many thought that radio would never amount to much.... radio was looked upon as a competitor to the telephone or telegraph industries. The fact that it was public, that everybody could receive it with the proper equipment, was looked upon as a drawback. No one could quite understand why anybody would want to send messages to a large group of anonymous individuals...." (Dominick, 1983).
Interactive - New Media
There is a clear parallel with the initial perception of radio and how many
today perceive multimedia. As Dominick observed, "For many people radio
seemed no more than a toy, a passing fad for hobbyists and those who tinkered
with electronics..." (Dominick, 1983). Why is this the case? Why is it that
in virtually every instance when a new medium has come along it is it is
misperceived, misapplied and misunderstood? McLuhan believed that, "Western
man has had, so far, no education or equipment for meeting any of the new media
on their own terms...The western interests of acquired knowledge and
conventional wisdom have always been bypassed and engulfed by new media..."
(McLuhan, 1964). This observed lack of overall media literacy might explain
the chronic state of media-myopia that has plagued the development and
application of every new medium that has come along. To date, no other
explanation has been proffered that would account for such long and continuous
record of misconceptions, faulty assumptions and incorrect forecasts concerning
every medium's introduction. It is a wonder that any new medium ever developed
at all, given the incessant inclination by the vested interests to perceive it
only in terms of their needs and the current state of affairs.
So what does this truncated review of the history of media evolution
prognosticate for the purported up- coming communication revolution? The first
and foremost lesson to be learned is that we must realize that what we see (now)
is not what will get (later). Once more, as with most every examination of
history, one is reminded of that classic observation of George Santayana,
"that those who do not learn from history are sure to repeat it.
Accordingly, this very day one can document another case of media -myopia being
manifested by the film industry. Wherein, once again, at the outset, both in
conception & application the content & aesthetic of a new medium is
being derived and/or crudely concocted from an existing medium with which it
competes. And, the result, as evidenced so often in the past, is some
short-lived mutation that critics quickly recognize and consumers eventually
condemn. To wit:
Hollywood's New Game
(Newsweek magazine, May 29,1995)
... Hollywood has yet to come up with the proverbial "killer
app" for CD-ROM
entertainment....The reason Hollywood is missing the mark....is that a good
computer game has little in common with a good movie. The most important part of
watching a film is what's happening up on the screen. "in the interactive
industry, the important part of what's going on is going on the inside the
user's head...
Waiting For Spielberg
Hollywood meets Silicon Valley. Complications ensue
(Newsweek magazine, May 29,1995)
.... no one has figured out yet how to hit the cultural jackpot, the equivalent of Forrest Gump Interactive or even Beverly Hills CD-ROM. It goes like this: interactive entertainment is just like the film in its early days. And along came Eisenstein who created a grammar that allowed movies to mature. All we need is a genius- a digital messiah-who will do the same for interactive.
As so we await the author of the multimedia manifesto that will bring on the revolution through which all the information workers of the world will unite. Already, the technological catalyst of the revolution is in place-digitalization. For: "With digitalization all the media become translatable into each other--computer bits migrate merrily.... A movie, phone call, letter, or magazine article may be sent digitally via phone line, coaxial cable, fiberoptic cable, microwave, satellite, the broadcast air, or a physical storage medium such as tape or disk. If that's not revolution enough, with digitalization the content becomes totally plastic--any message, sound, or image may be edited from anything into anything else." (Brand, 1987). Akin to the energy generated by nuclear fusion, the communication power which can be generated by media fusion will be formidable. The ability to digitally mix all media on a common palette provides one with the ability to present and simultaneously illustrate any idea or concept with multiple windows of audio & visual, text & graphics. Multimedia offers one the unique opportunity to combine a unified field of media with an open field of experience.
Albeit, when evaluating the current offerings of interactive technologies in general, and multimedia in particular, the general consensus is that it is still coming down the entrance ramp of the super "I"- way. It is only the bandwagon that is well under way. Nonetheless, the acute lesson of media history is clear. And, it is:
"A new medium is never an addition to an old one, nor does it leave
the old one in peace. It never ceases to oppress the older media until it finds
new shapes and positions for them" (McLuhan, 1964).
Barnouw, E. (1966) A Tower In Babel (New York, Oxford Univ. Press) pp.7-8,106.
Brand, S. (1987),The Media Lab (Viking Press: New York), p.18.
Compton's Encyclopedia, America On-line, article was contributed by R.R. Allen, Professor of Communication Arts and Curriculum and Instruction, University of Wisconsin, Madison, and author of `Developing Communication Competence in Children."
Dizard, W.P. Jr. (1989) THE COMING OF THE INFORMATION AGE (New York, Longman) p.39.
Dominick, J.r. (1983) The Dynamics of Mass Communication (Menlo Park, Addison- Wesley) pp.142,109-10.
Klopenstein B. (1989). Forecasting New Communication Technology: Lessons From Home Video. Journal of American Society of Information Science, 40:1, pp.17-26.
McLuhan (1964) Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man (New York, McGraw-Hill) pp. 250,171, 268-9, 276, 281,195, 174.
Mirriam- Webster Dictionary , America On-line.
Newsweek (1991).IS THIS THE NEXT VCR? A new combination of TV and PC says, 'Buy me!' , July 8, p.50.
Newsweek (1995) Hollywood's New Game, by Katie Hafner and Jennifer Tanaka, May 29, pp.54-5.
Newsweek (1995) Waiting For Spielberg Hollywood meets Silicon Valley: Complications ensue, by Steven Levy, p.56.
Rosan, D. (1994). Multimedia and the Future, in Multimedia: Gateway to the Next Millennium, edited by Robert Aston and Joyce Schwarz (AP Professional, Cambridge, MA.) p. 230.