A source, a message, a medium, a destination; communication, quite simply, is the act of conveying information through the art of exchange. The word itself stems from the Latin meaning “to share” — a gesture which has proliferated at unprecedented speeds, in unprecedented ways, throughout the digital era. In our eternal pursuit to “effectively” communicate our ideas, feelings, intentions, attitudes, expectations, perceptions, or commands — technology has drastically expanded the ways in which we can share and consume information, enabling us to convey more information in more ways than ever before. Fundamentally interwoven concepts such as space and time — content and context — are being dismantled in terms of their role in shaping human communication patterns. It’s in our capacity to disseminate information across these confines that has created an entirely new ecosystem for communication. Fueled by an ultra-competitive landscape and ever-expanding composition of technologies and services, the face of communication has changed more in the past ten years than perhaps all of human history. Throughout all this, it has been our fundamental desire to interact that has remained constant.
What matters to people?
Efficiency & Results
Ultimately, the success of most information technologies relies on it’s ability to deliver (to the user) desired results, efficiently. Let’s take Google for example; at the time of it’s inception there were already five competing search engines occupying the space. Many passed on the opportunity to invest under the pretense that the world didn’t need a sixth search engine — or had the notion that it didn’t fit into the conventional wisdom of what a website should do; keep users from migrating to another page. But Page and Brin saw opportunity in providing a better way for users to explore the wider web. Page noticed behind every web page their were hundreds or thousands of other pages linked to it — i.e “backlinks”. The genius was in recognizing that this kind of ranking algorithm could give searchers the kind of results that mattered. If you already know that for which you are searching, what is most important is how quickly you find “that”. This can be seen throughout all of Google’s search innovations over the years — knowing full well that their success as a “search” engine greatly depends on providing the most efficient way to “find”. In 2004, Google added “Suggest / Autocomplete” functionality to search — allowing you to begin your search before completing your thought. In 2010, Google added “Instant” functionality to search — allowing you to find what you are searching for before completing your thought. In 2012, Google added the “Knowledge Graph” algorithm to search — allowing users to find solutions to what they are looking for without having to navigate to other places in order to assemble the information for themselves (ironically circling back to that aforementioned “conventional wisdom”). In 2013 Google added “Hummingbird” semantics to search — allowing users to search without even having to think about the “right” words — rather Google can anticipate what you really mean based on the semantics of your words. All of these additions really just function in providing the fastest means to an end — the most efficient way to achieve a users’ desired result.
Let’s now apply these ideas to P2P communication.
I still remember my first mobile phone. I also still remember a time before my first mobile phone. This was a time where communication, in order to achieve the desired results, involved a well orchestrated and precisely executed strategy. You had to call between certain socially agreed upon hours. If you wanted to meet somewhere you had to be very specific with regards to the time and the place because once you left your home there was to be no more correspondence until you were actually physically capable. There was far less margin for error, where the repercussions for being 15 minutes late could easily be interpreted as being stood up. I remember a time when calling a friend’s home phone and getting a busy signal typically meant that they were using the Internet and the safest bet to reach them was via AOL Instant Messenger. It took nearly a year of appeals before my parents finally consented to a second telephone line.
Then one day I received my Nokia 3210. This particular model boasted a sleek antenna-less design and offered game-changing T9 predictive text technology. Still, at the time, only about half of my friends had cell phones of their own — and even fewer still had carrier plans that supported SMS. The real thrill came in the form of calls, voice, speaking, and pure unadulterated communication. Communication free from the prowess of a snoopy parent eavesdropping on the phone (or more often in my case, my father picking up the phone and punching in a phone number while we awkwardly waited for him to realize that someone was on the landline). Three-way calling was a thing, but few of my friends dared use this technology because it always inflated the monthly phone bill to an extent seldom going unnoticed. Yet these were the times and great they were. Mobility brought a certain unbeknownst communication freedom, removing formalities from social convention that only work to impede the realization of desired results derived through the act of communicating.
As mobile phones continued to evolve, they brought new ways to convey information and new ways to exchange ideas. The proliferation of devices with software and screens capable of displaying text, images, and video allow us to choose among these different formats for communicating. “Smartphones” brought the connectivity of the internet and so too it’s intangible web of possibilities. The format changes range from the less bandwidth-intensive and lower quality requirements (text-based messaging) to more bandwidth-intensive and higher quality requirements (video calls, multimedia messaging). No longer do we engage in two-way personal communications exclusively or even predominantly through real-time voice conversations. And various formats are becoming even more expansive as data-driven Internet-enabled communications models (such as VoIP) are gaining traction.
We now live in a world where the tools to communicate have in some capacity become an extension of self. Consumers today have at their disposal multiple networked devices capable of two-way personal communications: mobile telephones, feature phones, and smartphones; landline telephones; desktops; laptops, netbooks, and tablets; gaming consoles; wearables; and integrated home networks. With a connected device, consumers can communicate from any place wireless service is available at any time.
As a byproduct of mobility, individuals are free to engage in real-time voice calls during an expanded portion of their time. Second, as a byproduct of format flexibility, the portion of time available to an individual to engage in communication in a socially acceptable fashion is expanded even further. No longer does one need to leave a room or wait until later to have a real-time call; more often, one can stay put and send a text, email, or post on a social network. Third, storage-enhanced communications further delinks initiation and response times—one can send a message without expecting an immediate response and a recipient can screen, prioritize, and choose when or if to respond. This is sometimes known as “asynchronous communication.” Often, this entails greater efficiency and convenience for all parties involved. But, of course, efficiency depends on individual actions. At a minimum, the ability to time-shift expands individual choice and flexibility. One fascinating example as to the residual effects of “asynchronous communication” as a means to effectively communicate is that of the ‘Missed Call Phenomenon’. In certain global markets, the missed call acts as a way of communicating pre-agreed messages for free. For example, a group of friends may agree that two missed calls in succession means “I am running late”. In Bangladesh, missed calls make up 70% of cellular network traffic at any given time. For me the missed called represents a call to action, “call me back” — much like that of the “Ping” once prevalent in days of BBM. My parents, from time to time, still like to call and leave a VM with the message “Hey. It’s Mom. Call me back.” — a rather redundant gesture as I already knew who it was, and I already knew I should return the call. That is not to say that the Voice Mail does not have it’s place, but it does show something very interesting in terms of efficiency and what counts as communication — what information with regards to ideas, feelings, intentions, attitudes, expectations, perceptions, or commands can be conveyed and how. If the communication process is complete once the receiver understands the sender’s message — looking at missed calls for it’s propensity to achieve desired results, in my scenario, it was enough to satisfy those demands and the formality of the Voice Mail was unneeded, inefficient. In this capacity today’s communication has a growing availability heuristic complex. How do we achieve results? First we must consider that which is available to us to garner attention. What “information shortcuts,” or “knowledge devices” can we use? Heuristics have been defined as learned knowledge or stored memory that facilitates a relatively intuitive judgment process requiring minimal cognitive demand. The missed call, the BBM Ping, a Facebook Poke, or a “YO” — if nothing all serve to communicate something. Just as internet slang (LOL, OMG, SMH) before it provided a novel way for us to communicate our thoughts (and bewilder our parents) — the world will always strive to optimize efficiency within the scope of the technologies available. At a certain functional mastery over a communication device, it becomes an exercise in removing formalities while yielding results. The argument could be made that this remains true in all contexts where “mastery” is pursued.
What does this mean for future generations — the digital natives and predisposed technologists who have never known a world without constant connectivity?
For starters, we need to re-evaluate what it means to communicate. Like most information technologies there is plenty of room to make things more efficient and streamline utility — and thus access to the desired results for the end-user. There is, and always will be, a unique relationship between human consumption patterns and the technologies available. People today want (and expect) maximum flexibility to choose within all dimensions—the time, the place, the device, the format, and the people with whom they interact—at any given time, as dictated by the needs of the specific situation, activity, and purpose. Inherently, Humans will always find a way to bend the perceived use of technologies to one more inline with their desired results. Those who understand how to exploit a basic communicational need and provide a space to make this behavior broadly socially acceptable, useable — stand to gain traction where others may have dismissed the idea. As Aristotle once communicated, “The aim of art is to represent not the outward appearance of things, but their inward significance.” — What is communication if not the artful expression of information?
Email me when Vince Crumrine publishes or recommends stories