In a time when one can purchase pretty much anything from
the Internet, ranging from seemingly useless knick-knacks to ridiculous luxury
products, you have to wonder, who comes up with this stuff? In 2004, even
before the Apple IPhone was released and “Smart” products were everywhere, the
average Canadian family was spending approximately $1000 a year (and
increasing) from their recreation budget on “home entertainment systems,
computer equipment and photographic equipment... even taking inflation into
account” (Statistics Canada, 2006, para. 3). According to Statista (2018),
Apple’s net income has raised from $2 billion in 2006 to $48 billion in 2017,
further proving that consumers all over the world are recreationally spending
thousands more per year so they can make payments with their watches and talk
to their kitchen appliances. Truly, the advances made in recent technological
developments, such as drone technology, have paved the way for new and better ways
of life, and yet along with each life-changing invention comes a string of less
significant or influential products that serve to entertain the fickle demands
of the consumer market, I will use Apple’s latest wireless headphones as an
example. Such consistent development in a wide range of fields ensures that
there is always something new to be had, something better to buy. In this
presentation I will further discuss the relationships between business
competitors and how they affect the creation of new technologies, with a focus
on the Apple company product line. I will also examine certain political
patterns that influence technological development and the use of technology
within society using Langdon Winner’s reading, which contemplates the political
qualities of artifacts. Lastly, I will review the benefits and disadvantages of
society’s current system of determining whether a technology is worthy of
existence or not, and propose a question with the intention of provoking deep
consideration of how society as a whole adapts to the ever-changing technology
market.
Competition among companies involved in the business of
technological engineering is high, and developers wrestle to be the first to
release cutting edge technology. Apple sits at the top of the food chain in its
field as an “entertainment company” (Jaffey, M. & Tuckwell, K., 2016, p.
161), and is notorious for releasing new and upgraded products on a regular
basis. Competing producers such as Samsung “have to be concerned about the
technological advances Apple is making” (Jaffey, M. & Tuckwell, K. 2016, p.
137). This perpetual race amongst developers and large-scale tech companies is
a symptom of a media driven economy, considering that Apple is the largest
company in the world based on their market value in 2017 of $752 billion U.S.,
with Microsoft slightly behind them in second place with a market value of
$507.5 billion U.S. (Statista, 2018). Clearly, there is a huge demand for
affordable and versatile high-tech entertainment equipment. Langdon Winner
refers to the “social determination of technology” (1980, p. 21), advising that
“what matters is not technology itself, but the social or economic system in
which it is embedded” (p. 20). Current societal priorities lie amongst
convenience, efficiency and luxury, and hence advancements in technology are
influenced by these factors. Apple’s tremendous success is the result of their
awareness to that demand, and their efficiency in creating and innovating unique
products to satisfy the ever-changing technology market in fashion.
Much like the IPhone, many technologies before it, including
the factory system and the automobile were “described as democratizing,
liberating forces” (Winner, 1980, p. 20). In fact, Apple completely changed the industry by distributing “sophisticated technology in[to] the hands of the
masses” (Lazonick, W., Mazzucato, M., & Tulum, O. 2013). People very much
enjoy the freedom that a smart phone offers, as well as other benefits
including safety, social connection and the overall accessibility of information.
Followers of Apple know that their products also link to each other. The
IPhone, for example, could communicate with other digital accessories such as
speakers, portable photo developers or the AppleTV product, all which increase
the efficiency of previous technologies but do not solve any of societies
problems. It is feasible to argue that all of Apple’s products, as well as
other popular tech gadgets “settl[e] an issue in the affairs of a particular
community” (Winner, 1980, p. 22) however “in a world in which human beings make
and maintain artificial systems nothing is ‘required’ in an absolute sense” (p.
38). Developers sell products for the sake of profit, claim and discovery.
Although a technology’s intended purpose may deem it useless
or unnecessary, many products prove to serve several additional functions and
satisfy unintended demands, such as IPhone applications, which offer bottomless
potential for creation. App creativity and usage ranges from being able to
identify what song is playing in a room to being alerted to an incoming
tsunami. Portable speakers can also be used in the education and/or recreation
of people who are visually impaired. The same idea goes for unforeseen
consequences, or cases of people using technology for crime. With constant new
developments, society needs to address waste pollution from the copious amounts
of packaging and materials etc. as new and improved versions of technologies
enter the market and older generations become obsolete. Also education facilities
and law enforcement workers need to stay tuned to potential dangers introduced
by new and unknown technologies.
Society in general has been very accepting of the influx of
technology into every day life. Offices, restaurants and even hospitals have
embraced different technological advancements to benefit their process, as
every new product introduces an entire range of options for use. New
developments have changed the way people do business, communicate socially and
even learn/educate. Since children naturally adapt at a faster pace than
adults, “in many households, it is the children who are the tech experts”
(Jaffey, M. & Tuckwell, K. 2016). It is common for parents who are
comfortable with technology to use digital devices and media in raising and
educating their children, which is a controversial concept to those who are
sceptical of technology or “anti-technology” (Winner, 1980, p. 27). Such people
desire a community that is more organic than is currently being provided for
them amidst society’s addiction to technology. Many people reject technology by
boycotting companies like Facebook or protesting developments, such as the
Kinder Morgan Pipeline expansion that has been halted due to protest
activities. The situation is similar to the “mechanical tomato harvester”
(Winner, 1980, p. 26) that skyrocketed the profit and efficiency of tomato
farms, but knocked 85% of human tomato harvesters out of business over a span
of 10 years (1980, p. 26). I’d like to highlight Winner’s focus on the “deeply entrenched
patterns… that bear the unmistakable stamp of political and economic power” (1980, p. 26) as
we consider that despite the profit growth in the industry with new developments
and the “efficiencies that mechanization brings” (1980, p. 24), “the benefits
[were] by no means equally divided in the agriculture economy” (1980, p. 26).
On that note, laws have adapted to protect individuals, businesses and
communities from the unforeseen consequences of new technologies, including
issues regarding privacy, harassment or theft.
Winner defines “technologies” as “ways of building order in
our world” (1980, p. 28). He claims that “technological change expresses a
panoply of human motives” (Winner, 1980, p. 24) and to determine the necessity,
desirability or harmfulness of a product one would judge it by its “contributions
to efficiency and productivity and [its] positive and negative environmental
side effects” (1980, p. 19). In its current state, society is open and curious
towards new technologies, and adopting new products is a regular and welcomed
occurrence. This trend in consumer behaviour has caused a very powerful
economic cycle of development and consumerism, which in turn fosters a society
reliant on not only technology itself, but the production industry as well.
The Question:
Are people too comfortable accepting new, invasive technologies? Should consumers be suspicious of products that infiltrate and change their every day lives/process?
References:
Jaffey, M. & Tuckwell, K. (2016). Think marketing.
Second Edition.
Don
Mills, ON. Pearson Canada Inc.
Lazonick, W., Mazzucato, M., & Tulum, O. (2013). In the
Apple Business Model: value capture and dysfunctional economic and social
consequences. Accounting forum. December, 37(4):249-267.
Statista. (2018). Apple’s net income in the company’s fiscal
years from 2005 to 2017 (in billion U.S. dollars). Retrieved from:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/267728/apples-net-income-since-2005/
Statistics Canada. (2006). How much do consumers spend on
recreation? Retrieved from:
https://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/11-402-x/2006/3955/ceb3955_002-eng.htm
Winner, L., (1980). Do artifacts have
politics?
Daedalus, 109
(1) 121-136
