Das Geosocial Universe – unendliche mobile Weiten

By ethority - social media intelligence team
In Februar 18, 2013

In einer Welt, in der Smartphones Kameras, Nannys, Nachschlagewerke, Messenger, Unterhaltung und sogar auch Telefone sind, ist es kein Wunder, dass sich die Nutzung von Online-Plattformen auf den mobilen Zugang verlagert hat. Im aktuellen Geosocial Universe von JESS3 schwebt die Supernova von beinahe sechs Milliarden mobilen Geräten, um die die Dienste durch das Web kreisen.

So sind Instagram und Foursquare als rein mobile Dienste in einer sehr engen Umlaufbahn um die Nova, und auch Facebook, Sina Weibo und Twitter, die zu je über 60% mobil genutzt werden, halten sich noch in sichtbarer Nähe der mobilen Perfektion auf. Google+ folgt mit Fifty-Fifty-Nutzung, Mailing-Dienste wie Yahoo oder Gmail hinken mit ca. 30% mobiler Nutzung hinterher. Skype hat zwar nach wie vor über 660 Millionen User, hängt mit seinen 4% aber deutlich am Rand des bewohnten Universums.

Wer sich in dieser Zeit nicht (auch) auf den mobilen Markt ausrichtet, läuft Gefahr, in das schwarze Loch des Vergessens zu rutschen – wie es zum Beispiel Bright Kite und Gowalla widerfahren ist. Bei einer so großen Auswahl an Plattformen (siehe Social Media Prisma) ist die mobile Verfügbarkeit ein entscheidender Punkt im Kampf um Userzahlen und –aktivität.

JESS3_GeosocialUniverse31

0 Comments

  1. Landru,thanks for spending time rendiag my ramblings, and thanks even more for the provacative but polite comment. I will try to give you a half-decent answer.First of all, some things must be made clearer: 1) I do not in any way deny the effectiveness of science. I am a user of technology, and deeply interested in several scientific fields, I read scientific publications and I do not ever secretly think that it’s ‘actually really rubbish’. I remember The Physics of Chocolate‘ and I actually wanted to try it myself Yet, if I am interested in understanding and evaluating critiques to science and technology is because I generally like not to take anything for granted, and always ask some extra question, even in the face of it works!‘ (yes, this is part of a philosophical training, the annoying ‘but why?’ question. 2) Philosophy is a much broader category than science, if nothing else for the reason that 2 scientists, no matter how different in interests, will always find common ground in a set of methodological assumptions. Philosophers don’t, since (one of) their job(s) is to question and rebuild the ontological and epistemological theories that underlie any kind of methodological assumption. Specifically, as someone already observed in a comment above, much care should be given in drawing a line between analytic and continental philosophy. I do not want to get into this controversy here, especially when it comes to judging their merit with the only criterion of how much impact does it have on actual real life‘ (both could be criticized and defended in this regard, but let me just say that the more naturalistic/logical/mathematical‘ approach of analytic philosophy does not in any way transparently correspond to a more direct efficaciousness and real-life‘ relevance ), but it is simply important to keep in mind that in their methods and mainly aims the two are often miles apart. 3) I am not the best exemplar of philosopher‘ to answer this question of yours, since my ideas are particular and many, many philosophers‘ would disagree with me.I am aware of the often polemic tone of my posts, but this is caused by one main point, the same point which constitutes: I do not want to proselytize, I do not want to convince anyone that MY ideas are good. I simply want to indicate that different kinds of training allow for different kinds of expertise. (For example, yes, I am irritated when i see a physicist discussing about international politics on a major newspaper, because his being a VIP physicist [the reason why he’s got access to such a newspaper] does not in any way make him an expert). Similarly, and this is my main point, I do not see why one should *start* from the assumption that philosophy is a bunch of crap. I understand the intuitive appeal of the phenomenic evidence of something which just ‘works’ that science can give (i.e. your GPS example) but the lack of this specific kind of ‘in your face’ evidence should not be enough to trash the whole of philosophy. You cannot ask: so if philosophy works, show me some new philosophy based PC, or some new philosophy based fridge. The two disciplines are different. Feyerabend was a quite eccentric guy, and many of his ideas and statements are considered extreme even in the philosophical community, he was an exceptional thinker in his own way, but let’s not make a paradigmatic example out of him (Fritz Zwicky was kind of an ass too, but we tend to respect his scientific intuitions nonetheless).Once again, philosophy is hard to define, but as an intellectual quest has indirectly produced major historical revolutions, the scientific one included. Philosophy does not offer a finite product, but redefines the limits of what we as human beings think and therefore produce. Another example: Ted Nelson was trained as a philosopher and as a sociologist, and yet, his theoretical work deeply influenced his technical one, both of which contributed to our own understanding of the Net. The circle that goes from theoretical thinking and material effect is continuous and constant throughout history, which is why separation is a negative stance. Philosophy, as I see it, is a meta-tool, one used to help other disciplines (other tools of human understanding of the world) to either clarify (or eventually criticize) their aims or to evaluate (or eventually criticize) their results. Useful, but a tool nonetheless. Philosophers as scientists are highly trained individuals, but none should be morally, intellectually or institutionally prioritized. That is what I criticized this kind of ‘two cultures’ wars. Let’s keep hostilities aside, and let’s try to study a bit of each other’s discipline, for the results can only be better. I do not want to claim the intellectual superiority of ‘philosophers’, just as much as I fight against any other kind of undeserved prestige that is often attributed to different ‘intellectuals’, scientists included. My own view being: yes to study philosophy can (if not necessarily *will*) make you a better scientist (and be careful here, since ‘scientist’ is a name that encompasses people from the physicist to the maritime biologist), just as studying ‘science’ (again, all of them) can make you a better philosopher.I have been too prolix as it often happens. I hope this reply is somewhat useful to you. If we keep cordial tones, I’d be very happy to keep discussing this issue further.Best regards

Leave A Comment