Solitary Mobility vs. Mobile Sociality

Alex de Carvalho compares mobile phones and iPods in a question that reaches into the power of mobility: solitary or social? “… most people chose to carry their mobile phone in their pocket and not an iPod / mp3 player…

Alex de Carvalho: Solitary Mobility vs. Mobile Sociality

Found this while reading Alex’s site. Alex got this via Michael Heilemann, Binary Bonsai. Read what Alex’s insight is on this exchange. Link: Alex de Carvalho: Solitary Mobility vs. Mobile Sociality. Christian Lindholm created a stir while presenting N…

we agree on ipods but disagree on cell phones using voice. I tend to find people using their cellphones while out and about but not alone, as being anti-social to everybody else nearby.

good article though. I have referenced it. Makes one think.

Dave, thanks for your comment and post.

There’s no fundamental disagreement and it’s certainly true that a cell phone can be an antisocial nuisance: while you’re socializing with someone on the phone, you’re effectively shutting out the people you are with. Indeed, it can be particularly disconcerting to see someone walking (or driving) while apparently talking to himself, when in fact they’re using a small bluetooth headset. I believe there are even bluetooth earpieces and the ear implant may not be far away
Likewise, the iPod may be a “social object”, for instance when used with external speakers or plugged into an amplifier. Also, with iPod photo, you are being social when you show images to your friends.

Overall, though, the mobile phone’s multiple ability to connect with others, through voice, text, bluetooth, infrared, internet (wap/3G), etc., makes it more of a “social machine”, compared to an mp3 player, which arguably was designed for “solitary mobility”.

With bigger hard drives and embedded audio functionalities, new phone models may become an alternative to a standalone mp3 player and rumors have long circulated on whether Apple will enter the mobile handset game …

This comment is cross-posted from Dave’s blog entry at
http://thezone.blogs.com/root/2005/08/alex_de_carvalh.html

Totally agree about ipod vs cell phone. Just not that either is that social.

Also, last night I noticed an ipod phenomenon. It generated a very interesting discussion on the music that each person had on their ipod. People are now swapping ipods for a week.

Also the itrip is changeing the social. My son communicates with me by playing his itrip in the car. We end up expanding my listening to his music.

I wonder if the exchange of ring tones will happen. My friend has a son who composes music purely for ring tones.

This becomes like musical haiku.

What catches my attention about Dave’s comment is the different demographic that he points to instinctively. His son wouldn’t be at Reboot. So the question might have very different results in a different demographic. What if that same question were put to a high school assembly or a group of college students?

My bet is that they would have both devices in their pocket or napsnack. Not likely that one of those would be a high end smartphone, though. More likely the iPod would be in their ear and a small low profile feature phone would be in their pocket.

Everyone remembers the music of their youth and continues to favor it through their life times. The iPod or any music conveyence is far more important to a teenager or young adult than to those older. Music is your voice before you’ve discovered your own. And it’s a critical component of social interaction for younger people. It’s the emotional glue that connects many firsts and events in our lives.

There’s also a discovery process taking place as a teenager and young adult when we’re experimenting with identity and sociality. Many are learning what their favorite music is, making them more likely to ask, “what are you listenting to?” That is, an iPod would be more social for a 15 year old than a 30 year old. The iPod swapping Dave mentions is one example.

Both Mobile Jones and Dave Tilley have made lots of great comments, which I second. Indeed, that is the main point of my posting, where I argue that with the convergence of mp3 and mobile, you no longer have to make a cellphone / mp3 players tradeoff. Music is very important, no argument there.

Music brings people together and it’s telling that Dave’s son communicates with him by sharing his music. The iTrip but also external speakers and just plugging your iPod into an amp makes this possible (dual headset jacks are also available).

And yes, Mobile Jones, high-schoolers will probably have both an iPod and a cellphone in their pocket. Remember, I talk about usage context … and that the device you choose to take with you (mp3 player, mobile phone, or both) depends on what you’ll be doing after you walk out the door.

Both Mobile Jones and Dave Tilley point to a specific type of usage which is about face to face socialization using the object (iPod) as the common interest, rather than socialization with someone at a distance through some kind of a wireless (voice, internet, bluetooth, etc.) connection.

I would call this a difference between mobile sociality, explained in this post, and “social currency” (see Douglas Rushkoff at the now defunct The Feature). Social currency is about socializing by trading baseball cards … or nowadays, swapping iPods.

I’ll post on usage of devices (iPod, mobiles and other) as “social currency” this week when I get a chance.

Social currency is an arguement against the solitary mobility position. If the response to the question “What are you listening to?” is social currency, then an iPod isn’t a solitary mobility experience. If an iPoder says, “hey! check out this song.” and that’s social currency, then how is an iPod solitary? The same is true for Dave’s example.

I do believe that network connectivity is important. What I don’t know is which network will ultimately enable social media. Will it be 3G, Wi-Fi, Wi-Max, DVB-H, Media Flo or some combination of these? Probably a combination, but which one is more difficult to predict.

There are complicating factors for mobiles and music like DRM, and cost of 3G OTA downloading or worse streaming. DRM prevents one from moving content between the devices owned or from doing so without being tracked by licenses. Streaming prevents one from having a copy for future playback at all. So, the intention of recent implementations of mobile music is to prevent social currency from being exchanged. And yes, that’s a bad thing.

http://www.mobilejones.com/archives/781/

I agree with you and Rushkoff that social media is the target versus a pure content play. Hopefully, the operator’s build out of the infrastructure for their doomed pure content plays will lead to reduced transaction costs for the social media between mobiles in the future.

PS. Thanks for your comment at mobilejones.com

Great stuff, I’m with ya. Let’s get operators to move beyond their “walled gardens” mentality, their high pricing for 3G packet communications charges and their lack of transparency in billing.

DRM is another big hairy issue not easily dealt with.