“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…
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.
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).
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.