Topic one Week 2

A)With Windows Vista replacing XP and Office 2007 replacing Office 2003, (and so on), what is ‘upgrade culture’ all about?

The 'upgrade culture' of society seems to have taken over from what is really important, such as what society needs to survive (resources- food, water, fuel), resulting as a generation gripped by the next best thing.
Many businesses will argue their products are more beneficial and better than their previous version, and it seems to work. People these days won't settle for second best, even if that means paying more for a new mobile phone with all the gadgets, that you have know idea how to use or are not remotely interested in using. The same goes for new versions of Windows and Office, your needs may only consist of Microsoft word and the internet, instead you buy the upgraded version to keep up with your peers because it has lots of other programs and photoshops on it that are seen as essential future equipment. And nine out of ten times people don't even need them.
I think that businesses can see upgrades (often objects or programs similar to what you already own but with an added feature) as way of exploiting consumerism and encouraging profit.



B)According to Lister et al., some commentators stress the ‘newness’ of new media, but others (such as Kevin Robins) can be seen to be saying that nothing fundamental has changed, because new media technology is another product of capitalism, and therefore will fit into and serve a pre-existing capitalist society and culture, rather than transform it in any fundamental sense. Any thoughts? Can we critique this position?


"Robins’ main argument was that such media industries have traditionally figured in imagined national communities, and because this imagined community is so forceful, it closes off new possibilities in our understanding of transnational media." I think that his argument against the newness of technology is quite a pessimistic view of a growing society. However, i think because developed countries have constant growth and new media technology's are developed frequently people may take things for granted and as simply as something else to use or buy.
On the other hand there is strength in Lister et al argument, with the money and technology spent on developing "New Media" whilst in time it will be blend in to a capitalist society it may be also serve to benefit society in such a way people recognize it.


C)Are new media a source of ‘progress’ in the sense that they enhance things we do in spheres of social activity – business, education, shopping, democracy etc? Could we say that such a proposition involves an ‘ideology of progress’?

Yes I definitely think new media is a source of progress. They have served to enhance the everyday activities in society life. People can work faster and more efficiency through the use of this new media, businesses benefit by being able to communicate with their public's, and get their messages across far easier and more effectively than the use of tradition methods. Internet, part of this new media, helps people to further their education quicker and easier but also allows people to get on with their daily lives, such as work but educate themselves at night. I personally believe that the internet plays a huge role in helping me at university, as not only can I communicate with my peers and lecturers almost instantly, the internet provides me with the material and information needed for my course. Of course someone could argue you could gain this information from just using books but sure the internet even saves me time and money by telling me where i find these books and whether they'll be any good to me anyway.
Its definitely an ideology of process for society.