Is Email Dead?

In regards to modern computer technology, email is a powerful tool. Since its beginnings in the 1960’s email has become a staple of internet communication. It provides numerous benefits in comparison to other forms of communication. However, on the contrary an argument exists that email as a form of effectively communicating is becoming redundant. The ever increasing amount of SPAM and constant barrage of security issues such as Trojans and Phishing has led many critics to label email as a dying trend. In addition to the security issues, other forms of web-based communications are further increasing in capabilities and popularity; thus limiting the value of email. Although its problems have tainted its reputation, the question still remains, is email dead?

When one considers if email is ‘dead’, one must understand the positive and negative aspects of it. Email is considered one of the best examples of ‘space-time compression as it brings distant locations into the reach of anyone (Lister 2003, p18). In addition email allows users a better form of communication in comparison to the letter or the postal service. Furthermore emails can be sent to multiple recipients, sent with attachments and be edited countless times.

That being said, email is not without its problems. As mentioned before, SPAM and security bugs have heavily played a part in the email is dead argument. Approximately 100 billion SPAM messages are sent via email each day. It should also be noted that approximately 85% of all email traffic is SPAM.

Although the positives appear to outweigh the negative aspects, one must consider how difficult and frustrating it can be for users to check an email account overloaded with SPAM. “I recently received an invitation to the 2004 international dance competition in Barcelona. I occasionally get emails from www.dancegrandprix.com, but why, I do not know. I have no affiliation with dance programs at my college, nor have I ever participated in any dance competition” (Nunes 2006, p?). In addition, one must also consider the cost of SPAM. Approximately $198 billion was spent trying to deal with SPAM.

When one considers the frustration and lack of productivity in regards to emails, one must consider that it is human nature to find alternatives. Effective alternatives include IM’s, social websites such as Myspace, Weblogs and even internet phone systems such as Skype. When considering and comparing email to these alternatives, it is easy to see why the question of email dying out exists. Each of these alternatives plays on emails faults. Although email transmission is instant, that does not mean the reply will be. It may take weeks to receive a reply via email. However IM responses are almost guaranteed instant, depending on how fast the other person can type.

Furthermore, email provides a very basic social setting in comparison to social websites or Weblogs; it simply cannot compete with adding friends or widgets or commenting on photos or using RSS feeds.

Although these alternatives have some points over email, it remains to be seen if they can displace email. “Thanks to the channels opened by email, loved ones seem to be within restorable reach” (Bakardjieva 2005, p129), this is the core of email, to keep in touch. But that core is simply what email is good for, keeping in touch. It provides little to no amusement or entertainment to today’s society. That being said, email still has its uses in the business world, however it is seemingly more apparent that email will be for business use only.

All of these positives, negatives and alternatives all lead back to the main question, is email dead? Both sides of the argument have compelling facts; however the answer is still not definite. It would appear that email is a part of an evolutionary phase. It can be deduced that email is a part of the ‘old’ internet, web ‘1.0’. The aforementioned alternatives can be labeled as being a part of ‘web 2.0’. In this regard, email is ‘dying’. As the users of the internet begin to move away from certain mediums, it is conceivable that email will die out. The alternatives have essentially provided email with its exit, by phasing or evolving email into obscurity. That being said, email will still hold some value. A good analogy to relate to email is the usage of Digital TV in regards to analogue (Lister 2003, p18). Digital TV delivers the same message as normal TV, with more features and extensions. The analogy is that email represents normal TV and the alternatives represent Digital TV.

Another point to consider is that email is like real mail in the sense that it cannot be replaced, it has become a ‘staples’ communication. There will always be a need for it; however there may not always be a desire for it.

It is uncanny to think that 12 years ago, people thought that: '…mass media will be redefined by systems for transmitting and receiving personalized information and entertainment' (Negroponte 1995 6-7 P27). It is amazing to think that this quote applies to the advent of email, and its alternatives/replacements. As the web and its components continue to evolve, one must consider the future of email. Previously it was the most important communication tool in regards to modern times. However in today’s society, it is simply another means of communicating. It would be unwise to think that email will disappear completely, however it is seemingly losing place in all aspects. Businesses and users alike are fed up with its SPAM issues, people are moving to other sources of social interaction and email has possibly reached as far as it can be evolved. The most likely case scenario for email is that it will simply be supplemented with other forms of internet communication. However it would appear that email is not dead, but dying.

References

Bakardjieva, Maria 2005, Internet Society: the internet in everyday life, Sage publications, London.

Burnett, Robert & P David Marshall 2003, Web theory: an introduction, Routledge, New York.(Negroponte reference).

Jones, Steven G 1998, Cybersocity 2.0, Sage Publications, USA.

Lister, Martin, et al 2003, New Media: A Critical introduction, Routledge, London.

Nunes, Mark 2006, Cyberspaces of everyday life, university of Minnesota press, Minneapolis.

Bibliography

Humeid, Ahmad (2005) 360 East. [Online]. http://www.360east.com/?p=196 [28/05/2008]

Ingram, Mathew (2007) mathewingram.com/work http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2007/11/15/is-email-dead-no-but-its-not-well/ [28/05/2008]

Karp, Scott (2007) Publishing 2.0. [Online]. http://publishing2.com/2007/11/15/email-is-not-dead/ [28/05/2008]

Lorenz, Chad (2007) Slate [Online] http://www.slate.com/id/2177969/pagenum/all/ [28/05/2008]

Smith, Miles A (2007) CIO: Advice and Opinion. [Online]. http://advice.cio.com/miles_a_smith/is_email_dead [28/05/2008]

Internet Field Trip.

3D worlds and socializing on the internet.

Qualitative differences between IM and 3D chat?
i am a regular user of msn. that being said i have discovered pidgin through this class and am now giving up on msn. sorry msn. we can still be friends.
the difference between IM and 3D chat are obvious. that being said i cant really find anything that appeals to me about 3D chatting. i can understand how other people would enjoy it and its features. you can customize your avatar, explore new 'worlds', start new relationships. i can see how it is sort of parallel to the real world, however it is not only ridiculous but rather unfulfilling. wandering around during off times was like being at home alone. on a friday night.

Different Kinds Of Socializing.
it seems that 3D worlds are more in kin to meeting strangers. it is sort of cool to meet people from across the globe. that being said it seems that the only reason people want to meet them is to discuss some weird sexual fetish, sell them something or ask for bank details. as you can see i have not had very good experiences with 3D chat. the premise of it seems to be focused on dating as opposed to socializing. it seems that the only reason to socialize is to date/hook up/etc.
the result is a seedy virtual world of people who need some fresh air!
Differences with a 3D aspect.
the difference of the 3D aspect is you have a visual that you can interact with. its not so much about chatting and interacting with other people as much as its buying property or visiting shops or whatever.

Microsoft Wo/cel?

is king.

were there any problems?
i've never used mail merge before. it is quite confusing. the rest of the task was quite easy though.
what were your solutions?
use the help button. or simply backtrack until i found where i messed up.
did you find it simple of confusing?
it was rather easy apart from the mail merge task.
can you see how this software is useful to you?
yes. yes i can.

Excel

were there any problems?
no. i did accounting in high school. the only problem was remembering how boring numbers and grids were.
what were your solutions?
same as microsoft word. help button and backtracking.
did you find it simple of confusing?
simple. i've done it before.
can you see how this software is useful to you?
yes!

Wikipedia is [sic].

like walter benjamin.

• Is this an accurate article?
• Does it cover all the basic facts that you'd need to understand this topic?
• Does this article follow the wikipedia guidelines for useful articles?
• Is this article fair and balanced, or is it biased towards a particular side or argument?
• What changes would you make to this article to improve it and make it useful for the wider wikipedia community?
• Finally - What changes would you make to this article to improve it and make it useful for the wider wikipedia community?
  

Lasso

It can be considered accurate; but it doesn't list any historical references. that being said the history of the lasso could possibly not be very well documented.

the article covers basic facts to a degree, it covers the object, the uses etc however it does not cover the exact inventor. This may be due to the inventor/s simply not being known however.

the article follows the guidelines to a degree; it summarizes but it does not list a certifiable reference or have any citations.

the article is fair. its hard to be biased about a piece of rope. unless you are debating the inventor, what constitutes a lasso or if it even exists.

it could be improved if it had some relevant historical citations or background information added.


Cow Tipping

the article is rather dubious as cow tipping is only an alleged activity.

the article only provides minor details; but this may be because it is a minor topic.
it does however cite real legislation against the activity.

it does not. its only a 'stub' (its not listed as one, but its very basic)

it is fair, it acknowledges that the event is possible, however it also quotes that it is likely impossible.

its almost impossible to add to the article; it covers what is necessary.


----------------
Now playing: Emarosa - PretendReleaseTheClose
via FoxyTunes

Walter Benjamin is [sic]

1.
“Even the most perfect reproduction of a work of art is lacking in one element: its presence in time and space, its unique existence at the place where it happens to be. This unique existence of the work of art determined the history to which it was subject throughout the time of its existence. This includes the changes which it may have suffered in physical condition over the years as well as the various changes in its ownership. The traces of the first can be revealed only by chemical or physical analyses which it is impossible to perform on a reproduction; changes of ownership are subject to a tradition which must be traced from the situation of the original.”
--it appears to me that walter is trying to say that the physical presence of the art creates authenticity. for example, to cash a cheque you need to be able to physically certify to the teller that you have a cheque. by it being tangible, it leaves the impression that it is real. which is confusing if you consider a fake work of art?


2.
It seems that art and the process of creating art evolves. people who create art using digital means can still be skilled professionals; e.g. a graphic designer. however anyone can create art. a sketch on a napkin can be considered art. it seems that the term art is quite generic in the world of today? i guess it all comes down to recognition and praise/criticism?


3.
“From a photographic negative, for example, one can make any number of prints; to ask for the “authentic” print makes no sense.”
A photoshopped image is in the same relevancy of the negative; it is not the authentic image. on the contrary, the image might be made up of several originals to create an authentic image.


4.
“That which withers in the age of mechanical reproduction is the aura of the work of art”

In Benjamin’s terms digital media has no aura as it does not deteriorate, however the fact that it becomes outdated might imply deterioration. he states that a physical work of art has an aura because as time goes on it develops an aura; in the same sense wine becomes vintage.