On my way to school each day, I usually listen to a 30 minute snippet of the Clark Howard Show. For those of you unaware of who Clark Howard is, he's a financial expert that deals with personal finance and essentially wants to be the source of knowledge for questions from his listeners. Some people like him, some people don't, but he's not the story behind this blog. Rather, I want to take something that he refers to all the time, which is what he calls "Customer No-Service".
For him, customer service representatives are the axis of evil. They are there simply to rip you off and not help you with your problem. This got me thinking about the trade-off in such a system. When you buy something or need help, technology is great, but what really makes or breaks the experience is the person on the other side of the phone or computer.
My personal example of this is with my iPhone. As I've said in a past blog, I'm a Mac user, and I've also been an iPhone user for about a year. Things started out really well with my phone. It worked great, 3G connections were fast, and calls were high quality, especially compared to my old phone, which didn't have capability for e-mail or the Internet.
However, over the past three months, technology in the phone has come back to bite itself. I'm sure most of you are aware of AT&T's struggles to keep iPhone service at such a high level. They can only install more infrastructure at a certain rate, and the number of users on their 3G network is outrunning their installation pace. As a result, speed on the phones is way down from where it was a year ago, despite the fact that I live in an area that is much less densely populated than I did when I bought it.
This brings me back to the technology-service trade-off. When I talk to AT&T, telling them that I'm consistently losing 3G coverage altogether, and I can no longer get coverage at home, their answer is that there's nothing they could do. When I bought the phone and service plan, I wasn't signing an agreement that they'd offer 3G coverage at a 100% coverage rate, even in areas that they covered at the time. I essentially paid for the technology at the cost of the capabilities of that technology.
That doesn't make sense, but that's not how we've created customer service for technology in this country. Selling products comes first, and even though the products may actually lose value and cause harm to their own technological infrastructure, adding a new user is more important than maintaining the current user. The economics behind that are questionable, but that's how manufacturers of new technology work here.
Something will have to change, or those companies will start to fail, as customers that theoretically cost less to keep than those being recruited from other places leave altogether.
Monday, March 29, 2010
Monday, March 22, 2010
Time and Technology
One thing I read about over and over again in our cases is the time it takes to develop technology and to do things the right way.
That has led me to a question: Does technology save us time or cost us time?
I think it really depends on what you do for a living. For those that are in non-technological managerial positions, I think the answer is that technology saves time on a daily basis. However, when it comes to the grand total of time spent, how much time does technology development, implementation, and use actually save us? More importantly, how much does technology development, implementation, and use actually cost us compared to the status quo?
I know I'm going to get a slanted answer in this class, and I'm even of the opinion personally that technology has been the main driver behind economic growth in the last 70 years. That's pretty much beyond question to me, but the answers are much more complicated than that.
For example, finding a qualified candidate to fill a position is much easier now than it used to be, and that's thanks to simple things such as employment websites and the availability of quick background checks on the qualifications of applicants. However, if you're hiring someone in their early-twenties, the odds are that they simply aren't as able to work face-to-face in groups as they used to be. Technology may make the cost of business cheaper, but what about those little things that we've lost over time, since technology has become the barrier between human interaction?
I know I sound like I'm 80 years old now, but it's just something to think about in a class where we push the advantages of technology so much. We talk about the drawbacks, but we always place the blame on something other than the technology, ignoring the fringe drawbacks of the effects of using such technology.
That has led me to a question: Does technology save us time or cost us time?
I think it really depends on what you do for a living. For those that are in non-technological managerial positions, I think the answer is that technology saves time on a daily basis. However, when it comes to the grand total of time spent, how much time does technology development, implementation, and use actually save us? More importantly, how much does technology development, implementation, and use actually cost us compared to the status quo?
I know I'm going to get a slanted answer in this class, and I'm even of the opinion personally that technology has been the main driver behind economic growth in the last 70 years. That's pretty much beyond question to me, but the answers are much more complicated than that.
For example, finding a qualified candidate to fill a position is much easier now than it used to be, and that's thanks to simple things such as employment websites and the availability of quick background checks on the qualifications of applicants. However, if you're hiring someone in their early-twenties, the odds are that they simply aren't as able to work face-to-face in groups as they used to be. Technology may make the cost of business cheaper, but what about those little things that we've lost over time, since technology has become the barrier between human interaction?
I know I sound like I'm 80 years old now, but it's just something to think about in a class where we push the advantages of technology so much. We talk about the drawbacks, but we always place the blame on something other than the technology, ignoring the fringe drawbacks of the effects of using such technology.
Monday, March 15, 2010
When Internet is Lost...
Over the last week, I've come to experience life before the Internet. I don't like it.
I live in an apartment complex/campus that doubles as an educational complex, so the information technology needs are a little different than most residences. Due to the increasing volume of users on the campus, the IT department has become overloaded, and the Internet essentially slowed to a crawl over the course of a few months. That came to a head last week, when the IT group decided to add another T1 line to the campus, though that required cutting off the Internet completely on the campus. That meant that my apartment couldn't reach the Internet, which is frustrating when you don't have any control over the decisions that are made to reach that point.
Since I don't work, I thought last week would be my chance to get ahead on the work of the semester, since I'm taking 7 classes. However, without Internet, I got no work done. I couldn't do my assignment for this class over the weekend, and I couldn't do any research for anything, other than reading in textbooks.
Why has the Internet become such an important part of my life? How come I was bored and useless for a week because the Internet in my home was out?
I love the things that the Internet can bring to the table. However, like the article we read for this week, it can be the best of times and the worst of times. Would we in society be able to function if the Internet went down worldwide? I don't think so. It just wouldn't be possible. What about if power went down everywhere? No traffic lights, no MARTA, no hot water.
Losing the Internet for a week isn't the worst thing in the world. I could go down to a coffee shop a mile from my apartment and do what I needed to do. Granted, I couldn't sit there for the amount of time required to do research for school, but I could go there long enough to check some e-mail from time and time and make sure the world wasn't falling apart around me without my notice, since I can't check CNN.com.
I'm here today, because the world wasn't falling apart, but I'll always regret my week without the Internet.
I live in an apartment complex/campus that doubles as an educational complex, so the information technology needs are a little different than most residences. Due to the increasing volume of users on the campus, the IT department has become overloaded, and the Internet essentially slowed to a crawl over the course of a few months. That came to a head last week, when the IT group decided to add another T1 line to the campus, though that required cutting off the Internet completely on the campus. That meant that my apartment couldn't reach the Internet, which is frustrating when you don't have any control over the decisions that are made to reach that point.
Since I don't work, I thought last week would be my chance to get ahead on the work of the semester, since I'm taking 7 classes. However, without Internet, I got no work done. I couldn't do my assignment for this class over the weekend, and I couldn't do any research for anything, other than reading in textbooks.
Why has the Internet become such an important part of my life? How come I was bored and useless for a week because the Internet in my home was out?
I love the things that the Internet can bring to the table. However, like the article we read for this week, it can be the best of times and the worst of times. Would we in society be able to function if the Internet went down worldwide? I don't think so. It just wouldn't be possible. What about if power went down everywhere? No traffic lights, no MARTA, no hot water.
Losing the Internet for a week isn't the worst thing in the world. I could go down to a coffee shop a mile from my apartment and do what I needed to do. Granted, I couldn't sit there for the amount of time required to do research for school, but I could go there long enough to check some e-mail from time and time and make sure the world wasn't falling apart around me without my notice, since I can't check CNN.com.
I'm here today, because the world wasn't falling apart, but I'll always regret my week without the Internet.
Monday, February 22, 2010
New Media as True Media
As you can tell by now, I generally blog about the technology that impacts my everyday life, which is almost exclusively personal tech. I had a fairly new experience with how technology impacts media over the weekend, and I found myself quite pleased with the progress that the mainstream media is making with technology.
I introduced you to my main blog about the Major League Baseball draft a couple weeks ago, and as it has been growing, the demand for real time information has grown. For those of you that don't know (I assume none of you do), the college baseball season opened up this past Friday. Georgia Tech hosted Missouri State at their on-campus stadium off of 5th Street. Knowing that I wanted to be there as part of my blogging coverage, I contacted the Media Relations group in the Athletics Department at Georgia Tech to see if they allowed bloggers to be credentialed in a similar way to newspapers and radio.
The reception I received was pleasantly surprising. Though they did not have space in the press box for me on opening weekend, they were going to leave me complimentary tickets so that I could cover the game in any way I could. The best surprise came when I picked up the tickets and found that I was three rows up right behind home plate, one of the best seats in the house.
I went to the three games, and with live Twitter coverage and daily game write-ups, I've been established as a real member of the sports media in the area, something I didn't expect, since I don't write for such mainstream outlets as newspapers, who have been losing business to blogs at an astounding rate. I now have found myself with free season tickets and a press pass, as well as invitations to other colleges in the area.
New media offers new ways to cover traditional events, and my latest encounter with that has left me feeling very encouraged with the way media is going. It may be awhile until true real-time information is always present, but things are moving in the right direction.
I introduced you to my main blog about the Major League Baseball draft a couple weeks ago, and as it has been growing, the demand for real time information has grown. For those of you that don't know (I assume none of you do), the college baseball season opened up this past Friday. Georgia Tech hosted Missouri State at their on-campus stadium off of 5th Street. Knowing that I wanted to be there as part of my blogging coverage, I contacted the Media Relations group in the Athletics Department at Georgia Tech to see if they allowed bloggers to be credentialed in a similar way to newspapers and radio.
The reception I received was pleasantly surprising. Though they did not have space in the press box for me on opening weekend, they were going to leave me complimentary tickets so that I could cover the game in any way I could. The best surprise came when I picked up the tickets and found that I was three rows up right behind home plate, one of the best seats in the house.
I went to the three games, and with live Twitter coverage and daily game write-ups, I've been established as a real member of the sports media in the area, something I didn't expect, since I don't write for such mainstream outlets as newspapers, who have been losing business to blogs at an astounding rate. I now have found myself with free season tickets and a press pass, as well as invitations to other colleges in the area.
New media offers new ways to cover traditional events, and my latest encounter with that has left me feeling very encouraged with the way media is going. It may be awhile until true real-time information is always present, but things are moving in the right direction.
Monday, February 15, 2010
What's Next?
I was recently on a Skype call with my brother in Minneapolis, and we were talking about what my parents would do to fill their days in retirement. My parents believe they'll have plenty to do to keep them busy, and if they feel like working, they'll volunteer for the Salvation Army, the non-profit organization in which they've spent their regular employment years.
My brother remarked that he would have no trouble filling his days with things other than work if he had the option. He could sit in front of the t.v., play around on the computer, and have fun with his iPhone all day. What was strange was that we realized that we have no idea what sort of technology or entertainment will even be available 40 years from now, at which time we'll both be around the age my parents will be when they retire.
So the logical question is to ask what's next. Looking back 40 years doesn't help much. Computers were in existence, of course, but 1970 wasn't exactly known for its high-tech accomplishments. Would they have foreseen me being able to sit in front of an amazing color screen and literally talk with my brother thousands of miles away without the aid of a telephone, and more importantly, without paying anything for it? I would think not. The idea of Skype was only science fiction at that point, and even Star Wars was a few years away from existence back then.
This takes me to the cheesy Bruce Willis movie Surrogates. According to the Wiki for the movie, "In 2017, people live in near-total isolation, rarely leaving the safety and comfort of their homes, thanks to remotely-controlled robotic bodies that serve as "surrogates," designed as better-looking versions of their human operators. Because people are safe all the time, and damage done to a surrogate is not felt by its owner, it is a peaceful world free from fear, pain, and crime."
Is this even possible in seven years? Probably not, and I think that's a funny way of thinking about the future, but what about 40 years out? Could we live in a virtual environment that's actually part-reality, combined with all the sensory effects of living life? I don't personally find much fun in that idea, but wouldn't it be interesting to think about?
I know this post has more questions than answers, but it's interesting to think about as we talk about cloud computing, where virtual is real. With the speed in which technology innovates these days, I really might be saying "Beam me up, Scotty" when I retire.
My brother remarked that he would have no trouble filling his days with things other than work if he had the option. He could sit in front of the t.v., play around on the computer, and have fun with his iPhone all day. What was strange was that we realized that we have no idea what sort of technology or entertainment will even be available 40 years from now, at which time we'll both be around the age my parents will be when they retire.
So the logical question is to ask what's next. Looking back 40 years doesn't help much. Computers were in existence, of course, but 1970 wasn't exactly known for its high-tech accomplishments. Would they have foreseen me being able to sit in front of an amazing color screen and literally talk with my brother thousands of miles away without the aid of a telephone, and more importantly, without paying anything for it? I would think not. The idea of Skype was only science fiction at that point, and even Star Wars was a few years away from existence back then.
This takes me to the cheesy Bruce Willis movie Surrogates. According to the Wiki for the movie, "In 2017, people live in near-total isolation, rarely leaving the safety and comfort of their homes, thanks to remotely-controlled robotic bodies that serve as "surrogates," designed as better-looking versions of their human operators. Because people are safe all the time, and damage done to a surrogate is not felt by its owner, it is a peaceful world free from fear, pain, and crime."
Is this even possible in seven years? Probably not, and I think that's a funny way of thinking about the future, but what about 40 years out? Could we live in a virtual environment that's actually part-reality, combined with all the sensory effects of living life? I don't personally find much fun in that idea, but wouldn't it be interesting to think about?
I know this post has more questions than answers, but it's interesting to think about as we talk about cloud computing, where virtual is real. With the speed in which technology innovates these days, I really might be saying "Beam me up, Scotty" when I retire.
Monday, February 8, 2010
Blogging and Social Media
I find the whole blogging experience to be a little strange. This blog is a little bit different from that, as I at least have some notion of who's reading it. However, that's almost never the case on my main blog, my Baseball draft blog. So I've been wondering about the effects of popularity in blogging and how much a writer loses control of their readers if a blog explodes in popularity.
Let me start from the beginning. I love baseball. Behind my wife and my faith, baseball is next. It has always been near the top, mainly because it was the first passion I ever knew as a kid. Having found it impossible to play the game at the pro level, as I was 6'1'' and only 140 pounds coming out of high school, I decided the next best thing would be the stay close to the game on the other side of the ball, the men who are responsible for finding the talent. These men are called "scouts," and I'm part of that fraternity. It's been a long time coming, but my draft blog is now increasingly popular, and I've become an expert of sorts, and I'm drawing traffic at about 40,000 visits a month, and it's still four months until the draft itself.
I don't say this to brag. I say this to make a point. I don't know who reads my blog anymore. At the beginning, there were a few core people who made up my readership, maybe 20-30 people that I knew by name. However, by joining Twitter, making a Facebook fan page for my blog, and by using other baseball blogs as promotions for mine, I've essentially lost control of who my readership is. I don't know them at all. This worries me in a way. In other ways it's exciting. I'm in the middle of transitioning to a blog network where I'll be making ad revenue money and I'm also going to be producing a pair of written products expected to gross a fairly large amount of revenue for someone that's officially considered a full-time student.
To the part that worries me, I don't think I'll ever know who my readers are ever again. I might have an IP address and a username, but I don't know who they are. They could be hackers, spammers, trolls (if you're a member of blogs, you might be familiar with this term), or simply an average fan. I'll never know. That's worrying, both for the business side of things, as it's hard to know my customer, and for the personal side of things, where I don't have the luxury of hiding behind a screen name or anonymity, and everyone else gets to.
I've been thinking about this subject a lot lately. The more success you find, the more you're unaware of your circumstances. We've already read about that in class, about how IT can help with these sorts of things, but I guess I'm not sure where to start. The raw information is somewhat available, but I'm not sure how to capture the audience I want to capture, while also meeting their needs through my blog and products. It's so strange that something in class has such direct meaning so soon for me, but this does.
Who are my readers?
Monday, February 1, 2010
Personal Tech
Growing up, my house was full of technology. We were an early AOL user, and I don't even remember not having a computer in the house. However, despite this fact, I never really came to view technology as something that was a big part of my life. I understood the value of the internet and the information it had, but I never really thought I'd do anything with computers or technology.
When I got to college, much of that changed. I got my first real personal computer, a Dell laptop, and I was able to do with it whatever I wanted. Being in an environment that is so tech-friendly, I soon realized how much technology had to offer. I got an iPod. I played around with C++ and web design. I joined the 21st century.
Most recently, I've really felt the impacts of technology in my life. Having gotten married last June, my wife and I went through the process of moving into a new place, consolidating our possessions and upgrading what we wanted to upgrade. As a result, we joined the Mac universe and I bought an iPhone. Put that together with an AirPort Express unit, and we have a wireless household. I can use my netbook (another new acquisition) in the living room to play iTunes through speakers in another room or print wirelessly or share files. I even got a subscription to MacWorld.
The possibilities from such devices working hand in hand are infinite. Beyond just reaching the internet with a wireless connection, the possibilities of wireless include an entire household built upon wireless living. A TV connection through routing, watching movies stored online through Netflix, and even controlling most of my house's electronics through my iPhone are all current possibilities I've yet to tap into. But the potential is there.
My challenge for myself this year is to make our place more connected through routing. I'm tired of everything not working together. With my iMac, iPhone, netbook and speakers, I want to make entertainment options unlimited and unpredictable. After the initial cost of investing in those items, the operating cost is so minimal that it's silly that people don't do this more often.
Wireless entertainment is the way to go.
When I got to college, much of that changed. I got my first real personal computer, a Dell laptop, and I was able to do with it whatever I wanted. Being in an environment that is so tech-friendly, I soon realized how much technology had to offer. I got an iPod. I played around with C++ and web design. I joined the 21st century.
Most recently, I've really felt the impacts of technology in my life. Having gotten married last June, my wife and I went through the process of moving into a new place, consolidating our possessions and upgrading what we wanted to upgrade. As a result, we joined the Mac universe and I bought an iPhone. Put that together with an AirPort Express unit, and we have a wireless household. I can use my netbook (another new acquisition) in the living room to play iTunes through speakers in another room or print wirelessly or share files. I even got a subscription to MacWorld.
The possibilities from such devices working hand in hand are infinite. Beyond just reaching the internet with a wireless connection, the possibilities of wireless include an entire household built upon wireless living. A TV connection through routing, watching movies stored online through Netflix, and even controlling most of my house's electronics through my iPhone are all current possibilities I've yet to tap into. But the potential is there.
My challenge for myself this year is to make our place more connected through routing. I'm tired of everything not working together. With my iMac, iPhone, netbook and speakers, I want to make entertainment options unlimited and unpredictable. After the initial cost of investing in those items, the operating cost is so minimal that it's silly that people don't do this more often.
Wireless entertainment is the way to go.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)