Are Apple and Microsoft Being Evil?

It seems as if computer giants Apple and Microsoft have begun experimenting with unavoidable software advertising, as Apple filed a patent application for technology that would plant advertising in its products and test to see whether users were paying attention.

Microsoft, meanwhile, has begun tinkering with the idea as well, announcing plans to release a product called Office Starter 2010 early next year that will include bare-bones versions of popular Office programs, but also include a tiny Microsoft ad in the screen's corner.

These invasive forms of advertising seem to be the next precursor of spyware and adware, but they beg the question of "Why would a user pay to be advertised something that they likely already have?" Unfortunately, today's advertisers and technology manufacturers have created a "Next Big Thing" culture that demands consumers buy the newest innovation, ignorant of the price and whether or not it actually offers any sort of improvement.

More often than not, these technologies offer a step backwards for the programs, as they ignore the adage of "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." For prove of that, just look at Microsoft's Windows Vista, which represented a gigantic step back from Windows XP. If the companies are right, though, people will buy the new software, fully cognizant of the fact that it includes these pesky and demanding ads, simply putting up with the demands in order to have the shiniest product.

Unfortunately, they may very well be right. Consumers have begun to define themselves as "Apple" or "PC" people, meaning that they place all of their trust in one of the companies, defending its decisions at any cost and ignoring the actual repercussions of them. Ultimately, though, they end up looking extremely similar in their battle to constantly one up each other, meaning that their competition is little more than manufactured entities to drum up interest in their newest products.

U2's YouTube stream could mean more to come

When one of the world's most influential bands joins up with one of its most important websites, the show is stunning and U2 did not fail to disappoint during their performance tonight, which was streamed live from the Rose Bowl via YouTube.

U2's current series of stadium concerts is expected to be one of the biggest tours the world has ever seen, as they are performing from a gargantuan stage, which the LA Times profiles here. Furthermore, Bono's dreams of ruling the world have reached unprecedented heights (check out this article if you don't believe me). The interesting element of last night's concert, though, was not U2. It was Internet superpower YouTube, which is slowly dipping its toe into the mostly unexplored waters of live streaming.

As Mashable's Pete Cashmore notes here, Justin TV and Ustream have pretty much dominated the field so far, but if YouTube chose to become involved, their resources would make for a pretty lopsided competition. Furthermore, the Google power behind YouTube has the wealth to take the sometimes shady world of live streaming and completely legitimize it.

This could be both good and bad for the Internet, as it would be providing better service and showing companies how to make a profit, but, at the same time, moving further away from the open source heritage of the Internet's past. If YouTube could find a way to continue live streaming, albeit more in the vein of the smaller sites that are doing so right now, it would be a major step in the online revolution that we are in the midst of right now. If it was a step towards monetizing the Internet, though, that step may be futile.

(If you can't tell, I have extremely complicated feelings on this matter as a journalism major. On one hand, I want companies and organizations to be able to make gobs of profit off of the Internet so they can take advantage of the abundance of opportunities that it allows. On the other hand, though, I am an Internet consumer and like being able to find what I want for free. This may be the topic of another post soon.)

Miley says goodbye

Miley Cyrus has decided that having a Twitter isn't worth it anymore and, in lieu of simply saying bye, the teenage superstar decided to instead go viral with this video:



Despite the obvious production value behind this clip, it does demonstrate something important about using the Internet: It no longer belongs to the technorati. Instead, stars are capable of turning to the Internet to further their own agenda, thereby spurning the view of the Internet as some kind of wild, wild west that belongs to the margin of society.

Someone like Cyrus can get fed up with the realities of the Internet and, instead of taking herself offline entirely, simply turn to a different element of the Web to make her point. By doing this, Cyrus is demonstrates both the strengths and the weaknesses of the Internet. She was able to delete her account entirely, simply wiping herself off of the map and effectively editing the past.

Those self-edits were, however, recorded for all posterity by the countless members of the media who were following the story. If Cyrus had been a more normal citizen, she would be able to self-edit herself even more easily than she was able to.

Cyrus, however, demonstrated the various uses of the Internet by producing an unfortunately not self-parodying rap video that comes off as more of a juvenile prank than something of actual value. The importance of it, though, resides in the idea that Cyrus was capable of deleting her Twitter and then creating an immediate, accessible response to the people who are concerned about why or who would attempt to criticize her.

Miley Cyrus is still a very small chip on the cultural mosaic, but her use of the Internet's various outlets demonstrates a valuable understanding of the modern media landscape.