Inquiry Project Beta

Here is my first draft. At this point I’m a little uneasy about my introduction and conclusion. I’m terrible at those things. I’m actually very happy with my argument, though, and probably won’t change anything unless I receive feedback that I should. I’m a little under the word count, but I’d rather be under and have a good argument, than add words just to fill up space. Also, I’m not 100% sure if my citations are correct (for APA).

Honing my Tools

Gray, T. (2011, January 21). Pandora Pulls Back the Curtain on Its Magic Music Machine. Fast Company. Retrieved July 24, 2014, from http://www.fastcompany.com/1718527/pandora-pulls-back-curtain-its-magic-music-machine

Griffith, E. (2014, June 17). Bob Pittman doesn’t believe streaming will kill radio. But he’s built a massive streaming service, just in case. Fortune. Retrieved July 24, 2014, from http://fortune.com/2014/06/17/iheartradio-clear-channel-bob-pittman/

Inside Pandora Web Radio. (2006, December 20). O’Reilly Media. Retrieved July 24, 2014, from http://oreilly.com/digitalmedia/2006/08/17/inside-pandora-web-radio.html

Kay, A., & Goldberg, A. (1977, March 1). Personal Dynamic Media. The New Media Reader. Retrieved July 24, 2014, from http://www.newmediareader.com/book_samples/nmr-26-kay.pdf

Layton, J. (2006, May 23). How Pandora Radio Works. HowStuffWorks. Retrieved July 24, 2014, from http://computer.howstuffworks.com/internet/basics/pandora.htm

Licklider, J. (1960, March). IRE Transactions on Human Factors in Electronics. Man-Computer Symbiosis. Retrieved July 24, 2014, from http://groups.csail.mit.edu/medg/people/psz/Licklider.html

Nelson, T. (1974). Computer Lib/Dream Machines. The New Media Dreamer. Retrieved July 24, 2014, from http://www.newmediareader.com/book_samples/nmr-21-nelson.pdf

Pandora Announces Leadership Team Succession. (2014, March 18). Pandora. Retrieved July 24, 2014, from http://investor.pandora.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=227956&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1909735&highlight=

Some Assembly Required

Joseph Carl Robnett Licklider, or J.C.R. Licklider, has been called a “computer pioneer” for having an early vision of where computers would go long before they did. In his paper, “Man-Computer Symbiosis,” Licklider discusses the future relationships between man and technology. He explains, “Man-computer symbiosis is an expected development in cooperative interaction between men and electronic computers. It will involve very close coupling between the human and the electronic members of the partnership.” Today’s Internet radio companies, including Pandora, seem to have a degree of this “cooperative interaction” between the app and its listeners. Listeners can search for a song or artist through Pandora’s search bar, and it will create their very own stations. If a listener does not particularly enjoy a song, they have the ability to tell Pandora to play a different song through skipping or hitting “thumbs down.” Pandora even offers the option of telling it, “I’m tired of this track,” and it will discontinue to play that song for a few days/weeks. It seems almost obvious that man-computer symbiosis is present in this situation, but on closer look there exposes doubt.

Tyler Gray is co-author of the books The Sonic Boom: How Sound Transforms the Way We Think, Feel and Buy with Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, and The Hit Charade with Harper Collins. He has written for The New York Times, SPIN, Blender, Esquire, and currently writes for Fast Company as the Editorial Director. One of his articles at Fast Company is called, “Pandora Pulls Back the Curtain on its Magic Music Machine,” where he uncovers what’s going on behind the scenes at Pandora. He interviews Tim Westergren, founder and Chief Strategy Officer of Pandora, who explains what is called Pandora’s “Music Genome Project.” The project is being run by Pandora’s employees who hand-craft all of Pandora radio’s music channels. By listening and pairing similar songs, the project now offers an 850,000-plus song library from music broadcasted in the past century. When explaining Pandora’s success, Westergren admits, “Pandora’s secret sauce is people. Music lovers.”

How Stuff Works” is another insight on what Pandora is doing by Julia Layton. Layton is a contributing writer at HowStuffWorks company with a B.A. in English literature from Duke University, and a M.F.A. in creative writing from the University of Miami. She gives her own account of the Music Genome Project by explaining, “Pandora has no concept of genre, user connections or ratings. It doesn’t care what other people who like Gomez also like. When you create a radio station on Pandora, it uses a pretty radical approach to delivering your personalized selections: Having analyzed the musical structures present in the songs you like, it plays other songs that possess similar musical traits.” The Genome consists of 400 musical attributes. Layton explains that the employees at Pandora analyze each song that lands on one of Pandora’s stations and breaks them down into various components. By identifying these factors, they can then match them to similar songs.

O’Reilly Media is a company founded by Tim O-Reilly that offers explanations and interpretations on the latest technology trends. The company prides itself on being an active member in the technology community and spreading the knowledge of innovators. O’Reilly published a lengthy article focusing on Pandora named, “Inside Pandora Web Radio.” The article explains Tim Westergren’s vision for Pandora when it began back in January of 2000. “He became fascinated with the way directors described the music they were looking for, which led to his wondering what made people enjoy certain types of music. He asked himself, ‘If people haven’t found any music that they love since college, and artists are struggling to find an audience, is there a role for technology to help bridge the gap?'” Westergren has centered the Music Genome Project on the idea of using technology to connect people with music they will enjoy in a smart and efficient way.

Alan Kay and Adele Goldberg are authors who published “Personal Dynamic Media” in the mid-1970’s about the future of notebook computing. Goldberg is a computer scientist who has developed, programmed, and researched on numerous computer-oriented projects. Kay is also a computer scientist who is best known for his pioneering work in object-oriented programming and user interface design. “Personal Dynamic Media” reveals their predictions and aspirations for a future notebook-computer called the Dynabook. Kay and Goldberg had extensive expectations for this technology, in which they explained, “There should be no discernible pause between cause and effect. One of the metaphors we used when designing such a system was that of a musical instrument, such as a flute, which is owned by its user and responds instantly and consistently to its owner’s wishes. Imagine the absurdity of a one-second delay between blowing a note and hearing it!” Pandora, however, has not yet reached Kay and Goldberg’s hopes just yet. There are times when Pandora takes a moment or two to pause or play, and listeners are not baffled by such a situation.

“Computer Lib/Dream Machines” is a mid-1970’s book that discusses computers and their frustrating inaccessibility. The author, Ted Nelson, is a pioneer of information technology, philosopher, and sociologist, and uniquely coined the terms “hypertext” and “hypermedia” in the 1960’s. “Computer Lib/Dream Machines” is a two-sided book: Computer Lib teaches about computers and practically predicted the invention of personal computers, and Dream Machines explains the coming importance of computers in the society of future generations. Nelson begins “Computer Lib” with, “Unfortunately, due to ridiculous historical circumstances, computers have been made a mystery to most of the world. And this situation does not seem to be improving. You hear more and more about computers, but to most people it’s just one big blur.” This is significant to Pandora because we can only use it on computers. We have the ability to download the Pandora app on any smartphone, laptop, or tablet, and if we do not understand these gadgets then Pandora would become inaccessible.

Part of Pandora’s website, investor.pandora.com, published an article called “Pandora Announces Technology Leadership Team Succession” discussing their new “team of technologists” and the pursuit of changes in the company. Pandora refers to their employees as technologists because, according to new Chief Technology Officer Chris Martin, they have, “developed some of the most innovative music technology in the world.” The article continues, “Pandora created the most effective way for music and technology to enhance the lives of music fans and artists alike.” It’s important to recognize that Pandora doesn’t differentiate between their employees and the technology; the way Pandora works is hardly computerized and largely controlled by humans. Pandora is technology nonetheless, so it makes sense to call their employees “technologists.”

Erin Griffith is a writer with Fortune who wrote “Bob Pittman doesn’t believe streaming will kill radio. But he’s built a massive streaming service, just in case.” Griffith was previously employed with PandoDaily writing startups, and AdWeek as a reporter. Her work has appeared in Salon, Cosmopolitan, BBC, AARP magazine, Time Out New York, Bust, The Huffington Post, Long Shot, Got a Girl Crush zine, and Brooklyn Based. This article, with an extensively long title, discusses the future of all traditional and Internet radio companies. Griffith identifies the amount of registered users on all big name Internet radio brands, including Pandora’s 250 million users, and says, “If it were not for the fact that radio is so large, you’d say, ‘Wow these are big numbers’ […] But there are one billion FM radios in the US and only 160 million smartphones and 160 million PCs, so it’s still a subset of the FM marketplace.” According to Griffith and CEO of Clear Channel Internet radio Bob Pittman, the success of Internet radio will not put traditional radio out of business anytime soon. Pandora, and the music industry in general, will not see any surprising changes in the near future.

Interior Design

Pandora, or any form of Internet Radio, is typically seen as a technological advancement in the music industry. No longer are we chained to the voiceless listening of FM radio. We as listeners now have the ability to create our own stations and personalize them by skipping and “liking” certain songs. Technology has enabled us to stream the music we want, when we want, where we want.

The issue with this is the “technology” part. Is technology really the reason we listen to Pandora? We like Pandora because it plays similar songs based on the songs we already enjoy. When I create a Red Hot Chili Peppers Pandora station, I can hear all kinds of songs that are complementary to RHCP music that I am sure to like as well. My research has shown that technology is not responsible for this, though. People are. Pandora’s employees listen to every song that ends up on Pandora and breaks them down into nearly 400 different components. By identifying songs’ melody, lyrics, algorithms, and speed, Pandora’s employees can couple like songs based on these various factors. This is significant because the technology is really minimal; the only things that humans don’t do is play and skip the song while someone is listening. No one would assume that Internet Radio is so humanized!

I’ve formulated the thesis: Pandora is a form of technology, but it is not computerized.

Pandora is not computerized in that it is humanized. Humans have control over everything at Pandora. No song ends up on Pandora without it being heard by a Pandora employee; they are the ones to decide what music should be included on each station and why. Just because Pandora is not technological independent, though, does not mean it is not still a form of technology. We would not be able to access Pandora in a world without technology. Pandora also, like any other form of technology, has glitches and buffers. Pandora’s employees are not present when I hit the “thumbs down” button on a song and it finds another song to play: that is the technology. The technology is simply controlled by humans

Real Estate Search

Real_Estate_Market_Booming_in_Charleston_SC_Lowcountry_

After browsing around at my other options, I’ve decided to continue to use WordPress and create a second site on here for my Inquiry Project. I’ve become comfortable with WordPress and I don’t want to waste time on another site trying to figure out how to add links and media. I know how I want my finished display to look, and I have control over how to do that with WordPress’ setup. I feel that my final project, with links, pictures, and gifs, will look really good on WordPress so I’d like to stick around right here. 🙂

LOTR: The Fellowship of the Sources

Week two’s “Man-Computer Symbiosis” was the first place that I started to personally question everything about Pandora. Licklider’s explanation of symbiosis made me curious to find out the degree of symbiosis between Pandora as a form of technology and its human listeners. Licklider defines symbiosis as, “cooperative interaction between man and computers.” I wondered how much of a computer Pandora was. What I mean by this is, does the Pandora app create its music/comedy stations, and choose when to include an advertisement by itself? Or, are these actions empowered by humans? If humans were the ones to assemble these things, I would be compelled to conclude that there is no man-computer symbiosis.

“Pandora Pulls Back the Curtain on its Magic Music Machine” was the first source I found information on that way that Pandora is put together. Pandora’s employees (who have been called music analysts, musicologists, and technologists all by different sources) listen to every song that lands on one of Pandora’s music channels themselves. They break each song down into nearly 400 components. Tyler Gray says, “Professional players who pass job application tests require them to pick, for example, one of four jazz tunes and ‘describe the harmonic language,’ answer whether it’s ‘tonal or modal,’ and ‘outline the progression.'” The employees go through and recognize each song’s melody, lyrics, pitch, speed, and algorithms, and pair them with songs that have similar qualities. Tim Westergren, the owner of Pandora Internet Radio, explains in this article, “It’s true that the algorithms mathematically match songs, but the math, all it’s doing is translating what a human being is actually measuring…You need a human ear to discern.” This bit of information seemed to answer my question on symbiosis entirely. Everything that happens in Pandora, and every reason that Pandora is successful is accredited to human action. Pandora is basically human, and human employees interacting with human listeners is not “man-computer symbiosis.”

“How Pandora Radio Works” by Julia Layton is a similar sources on the process of composing Pandora’s stations. Layton explains, “Pandora has no concept of genre, user connections or ratings. It doesn’t care what other people who like Gomez also like. When you create a radio station on Pandora, it uses a pretty radical approach to delivering your personalized selections: Having analyzed the musical structures present in the songs you like, it plays other songs that possess similar musical traits.” She continues, “Pandora relies on a Music Genome that consists of 400 musical attributes covering the qualities of melody, harmony, rhythm, form, composition and lyrics…The Genome is based on an intricate analysis by actual humans (about 20 to 30 minutes per four-minute song) of the music of 10,000 artists from the past 100 years.” Here again, I am told that ‘actual humans’ are at work at Pandora. Pandora is not its own computer-like machine that listens to music and couples together similar songs. Humans do everything that reaches its audience. Once again, I feel that my question is answered about the degree of “man-computer symbiosis” going on.

A third of my eight sources just reaffirmed what I have been concluding. “Inside Pandora Web Radio” restates, “The magic of Pandora derives from a simple principle: a song listeners enjoy should lead to other songs they’ll enjoy.” Pandora does just this with the help of humans. Human employees hand-make all of Pandora’s stations by putting together similar music, and then people can go listen to them.

Further into this article, however, Westergren asks, “If people haven’t found any music that they love since college, and artists are struggling to find an audience, is there a role for technology to help bridge the gap?” As I’m reading this to myself, I’m compelled to say ‘no, technology does not have a role’ because there is no man-computer symbiosis. But, then again, technology is the middle factor between two groups of humans: those as Pandora and those at home. Technology is a component of the whole process, and it could possibly be working to bridge the gap.

What got me next was Alan Kay and Adele Goldberg’s “Personal Dynamic Media.” Kay and Goldberg explain their aspirations for a futuristic computer notebook called the Dynabook. Their goals include, “There should be no discernible pause between cause and effect. One of the metaphors we used when designing such a system was that of a musical instrument, such as a flute, which is owned by its user and responds instantly and consistently to its owner’s wishes. Imagine the absurdity of a one-second delay between blowing a note and hearing it!” Music obviously made me think back to Pandora. I thought about these aspirations and decided that technology might not be where Kay and Goldberg had hoped just yet. It is not so absurd in today’s age if I hit ‘play’ on Pandora and my song takes a second or two to play. “Pandora,” I thought, “Has glitches and buffers like any other form of technology.” If I came to this conclusion then Pandora must not be merely or just humans. Pandora does have an element of technology; if it didn’t, how would we listen to it? I started to think to myself, “Okay, Pandora is technology, but it is not computerized. The technology is controlled by humans.”

Ted Nelson’s “Computer Lib/Dream Machines” talks about computers and how inaccessible they are. Nelson opens his argument with, “Unfortunately, due to ridiculous historical circumstances, computers have been made a mystery to most of the world. And this situation does not seem to be improving. You hear more and more about computers, but to most people it’s just one big blur.” Luckily, Pandora is not computerized and it is easy to understand. The only computerization is the app itself: the display of play/pause buttons, the process of searching and adding new stations to your profile, and the input of thumbs up or thumbs down to each song. This is all really simple because it is minimal, which brings me back to Kay and Goldberg’s Dynabook. They wished for the Dynabook to be accessible and easy to use by all. Although Pandora may still have a “discernible pause between cause and effect,” it has reached the goal of simplicity by keeping the computerization minimal.

I came to a source called “Pandora Announces Technology Leadership Team Succession” on Pandora’s website that challenged my previously stated conclusions. It caught my attention because they were calling its employees ‘technologists.’ My thought process has been that Pandora is less of technology and more of man, and now Pandora is not even acknowledging a difference between the two? They continued in the article, “Our team of engineers has developed some of the most innovative music technology in the world and changed the way we all consume music.” Okay, so now we’re on the subject of ‘music technology.’ I looked up the definition of technology and Webster’s dictionary states that technology is, “The practical application of knowledge especially in a particular area or a manner of accomplishing a task especially using technical processes, methods, or knowledge .” I believe the first definition combines all of my conclusions into one. If we define technology as “the practical application of knowledge especially in a particular area,” then Pandora is technology. People are applying their specific skills/knowledge in the music area to create Pandora. So it would be logical to conclude that Pandora is technology, and its employees can appropriately be called ‘technologists,’ without it being completely computerized.

Quick return to my first source: Since Pandora is a form of technology, there must be a degree of “man-computer symbiosis” involved between the technology and other people. It is not such a huge interaction where a listener can do things like tell the app to add more complementary songs, but there is a smaller degree of “cooperative interaction between man and computer” when a listener presses pause/skip/thumbs down. Pandora’s employees have no control over these actions when they occur.

As we all know, technology evolves throughout time. It may get smaller, faster, and/or smarter. My final source, with the extensively long title, “Bob Pittman Doesn’t Believe Streaming Will Kill Radio. But He’s Built a Massive Streaming Service, Just in Case” discusses the future of Internet radio. Erin Griffith identifies the amount of registered users on all big name Internet radio companies, including Pandora’s 250 million, and says, “If it were not for the fact that radio is so large, you’d say, ‘Wow these are big numbers’ […] But there are one billion FM radios in the US and only 160 million smartphones and 160 million PCs, so it’s still a subset of the FM marketplace.” Many people, including myself, would be inclined to say that the ways of streaming music, such as on Pandora, would take over the market in the future. Bob Pittman doesn’t see it happening in his lifetime. Pittman explains, “Satellite didn’t kill FM. AM didn’t kill FM. (Streaming music) is one more choice and one more device you can listen to the radio on.” If this is the case, then Pandora’s future may not be so different. People will still be Pandora’s “secret sauce,” as Tim Westergren likes to say, and the same level of man-computer symbiosis will be occurring. The formation of music itself will likely continue to be controlled by humans in the future, and the formation of radio will, too.

Friday’s Connections

I’m literally laughing because my nugget and my concept experience came to two different conclusions. In my nugget from Kay and Goldberg’s article, I discussed how Pandora is a form of technology (whereas I previously argued that it isn’t) and it buffers and has glitches just like any other type of technology might. In my “future thoughts” post and Thursday’s reflection, though, I came to the conclusion that Pandora isn’t computerized… I obviously need to revisit my thoughts, but (for now) I think it makes sense to say that Pandora is a form of technology, it’s just controlled by people rather than a computer. Overall I thought our concept experience this week was really helpful because I got to discover new insight on my overall thoughts about Pandora, and I definitely changed my argument after I reflected on the activity.

The KahnQuest’s “future thoughts” were similar to mine because she didn’t see Wikipedia changing too much in 10 years the same way I didn’t see Pandora changing too much. She described how Wikipedia today is pretty much “free information by all, for all” and that motto probably won’t change. In regards to Pandora, I discussed how Pandora is a commodity for the public as well and it’s not going in any direction that the people don’t like. Her reflection was also similar to mine because she changed her direction a bit. Her thesis is now going to focus more on how Wikipedia offers free knowledge and collaboration, and I changed my focus towards how Pandora is technology, though not computerized.

I found Cabouniv200’s post to be really interesting. She talked about how Facebook may have already reached its prime and I hadn’t thought about how some of our topics might not be around anymore in 10 years. Maybe Facebook will end up like Myspace? In her reflection, she decided that she wants to talk about how Facebook keeps people connected. This is sort of similar to mine because I want to look at the relationships between Pandora and technology, and connections between Pandora and its listeners. Overall I think her thesis is going in a pretty neat direction.

Sara’s “future thoughts” really caught my attention because I’m interested in her topic as well and agreed with all of her predictions. It would be really neat, and helpful, if we had to answer some sort of trivia before we used social media or other sites that don’t necessarily augment our intellect. Perhaps advertisements on Pandora could become brain games and quizzes that needed to be answered correctly before listening to music. But as Sara mentioned, people are lazy and might criticize this type of advancement. This relates to my future thoughts because I concluded that Pandora would not do anything that the public didn’t favor, and something like this (although beneficial to us all) will probably not happen.

Future Thoughts

What would Internet radio look like in 10 years? Hmmm…

Future radio and cell phones
Well, Pandora is used on gadgets like laptops, tablets, and smart phones. Granted 10 years is not a long time, but I’m sure there will some changes with these things, and therefore how we use Pandora will be different in that sense. Perhaps there will be holographic images coming from our phones, and we’ll see the musicians of songs performing, or more simply we’ll see colors that relate to the moods of songs (we see blue during a sad song, for instance). These are not too realistic of assumptions, but any changes with these technologies will alter our experience with Pandora.

The app itself will surely change its fashion between now and 2024. The look of everything will eventually become outdated, and they might change their company color, the location of the pause/play buttons, or use different symbols than a thumbs up and thumbs down. The app already offers biographies of the artists and lyrics to each of the songs, so I’m not sure what else they could add in that sense (they actually provide a lot of information and I don’t find myself wishing that they gave me more). The owner of Pandora, though, has received requests for the listener to be able move specific songs from one station to another. People apparently would like to add music to stations the same way they can delete music with the thumbs down button. I imagine that Pandora will add this feature in the next 10 years.

In the future, Pandora may also offer new things to listen to other than music and comedy. Perhaps they will provide the option to hear stories and audiobooks (for fun and/or academics). We could possibly watch movies, where Pandora includes the picture on the screen; they already provide 1 minute visual clips during advertisements, so this seems pretty plausible. I image this would cost more money, though, so Pandora might be limited to do this if the public is not willing to start paying for more expensive memberships.

Overall, I don’t think Pandora, or any form of radio, is going to change so drastically that we won’t even be able to recognize it. How ever technology changes in the future is going to affect Pandora, the face of Pandora will surely change, and I assume Pandora will add more flexibility and listening options. Whatever the changes, they will depend on the public and what people want. If movies aren’t successful, they’ll get rid of it. If people don’t want to pay for books, they won’t offer that either. Pandora is a commodity used for entertainment, and it’s not going to go in any direction that doesn’t please the public.

EDIT

The main thing I’m thinking about for my inquiry project is how Pandora works, by itself and with its listeners. I realize that’s pretty vague. I’m mostly interested in the fact that humans are the ones that put together the music stations themselves (because most people, including myself, think of Internet radio as technology), and I want to find a concrete answer (if possible) to how much of Pandora’s business/progress is actually related to technology. I’m actually surprised that, when I wrote my “future thoughts” post, I didn’t predict that Pandora would become a technology-only app. I didn’t even think about how Pandora’s owners could create technology to build stations the way humans do now, and there would be no need for people in the future. I suppose this relates to the prospectus of my inquiry project because I don’t see technology to be a huge factor. I thought about technology in the sense of where Pandora is being used from and the look of Pandora’s website/app, but music and the ‘science’ behind composing channels is so humanized that there no way this could change in 10 years. This reveals to myself that, in my inquiry project, I need to focus on this fact. Pandora Internet radio, and even music itself, won’t be computerized now or later.

Nugget #5: Personal Dynamic Media

“There should be no discernible pause between cause and effect. One of the metaphors we used when designing such a system was that of a musical instrument, such as a flute, which is owned by its user and responds instantly and consistently to its owner’s wishes. Imagine the absurdity of a one-second delay between blowing a note and hearing it!”

Well if this nugget isn’t perfectly fitting…
fitting
I really enjoyed Kay and Goldberg’s aspirations of the future of technology. I’m not sure, however, that the absurdity of a one-second delay between blowing a note on a flute and hearing it remains true with Pandora. Technology has glitches and buffers, and when I want a song to play on Pandora it may take a second or two. Kay and Goldberg’s ambitions for the Dynabook (in that sense) may not yet have been reached.

PleaseStandBy

Nonetheless, Pandora responds consistently to the listener’s wishes. I hit skip, the song eventually skips. I hit pause, the songs eventually pauses.

In my previous blog posts, though, I’ve been stating that Pandora is hardly technology because how it works & what it does is completely dependent on human efforts. But when Pandora has these glitches or doesn’t follow my commands correctly, it is the technology that is doing this (if not the machinery that Pandora is working through). So in reality Pandora doesn’t just use technology, as I’ve concluded previously, it really is a form of technology. The way it is put together is a man-made creation, but I think I’ve been wrong to say that it is not technology altogether. In other words, Pandora is not fully reliant on technology, or could not continue to work and be successful without human means, but it is a technological advancement still.

In that sense, then, music has come a long way and Kay and Goldberg’s predictions about the future of technology are accurate. We now have small and portable devices that we can control and communicate back and forth with, most of which include the capacity to store information and (if Kay and Goldberg knew the terminology at the time) apps. In conclusion, Pandora is one of these advancements that came with the progression of technology. We interact with Pandora on devices that Kay and Goldberg envisioned – it stores information (songs, stations), and we communicate with this technology to make it do what we want (play music).

EDIT

Linaibrahim’s nugget related to mine in that her nugget was about the music aspect of Dynabook as well. It’s funny that from the same passage, I found connections to Pandora when I was reading it and she found connections to hip hop and Complex. Any digital form of music, or any form of technology really, can be relevant in some way to Kay and Goldberg’s aspirations for the Dynabook.

Cabouniv200’s nugget was interesting because I didn’t know that Facebook was created specifically with college students in mind. I wonder if all technology has a specific audience targeted when they create it? Or if the inventors of the first notebook computer also had children in mind like Kay and Goldberg? Even if this is so, as Canouniv200 stated, Facebook is now used by a variety of different people, the same way that notebook computers are not typically used by children. Perhaps Pandora had an original audience in mind as well, but I’m sure its users exceed that target today.

Lastly, I enjoyed Sara’s post and the way she sort of summed up Kay and Goldberg’s ambitions in her nugget. Where she related the passage to her Chromebook, though, I thought of the iPad. I personally feel that Apple products are very close to the Dynabook in many aspects. Anyway, I always like her topic about the effects of technology and how we need to use it in moderation.