The iPad As Escape Pod

Media wants us to pay for content, and the iPad is engineered for that purpose. Everything about the gadget flows from that basic idea. Just follow the money.

I agree with much of this critique of the iPad by Jeff Jarvis:

The iPad is retrograde. It tries to turn us back into an audience again. That is why media companies and advertisers are embracing it so fervently, because they think it returns us all to their good old days when we just consumed, we didn’t create, when they controlled our media experience and business models and we came to them.

That seems clearly true. Media wants us to pay for content, and the iPad is engineered for that purpose. Everything about the gadget flows from that basic idea. Just follow the money.

But Jarvis assumes (as I often tend to) that people inherently dislike being an audience, that they are all chafing at their lack of input and control over the culture industries. It may be an erroneous assumption, one derived directly from the ideology of creativity that holds that there is an eager artist in all of us waiting to be released if only the System wasn't stymieing us all.

If anything, the System is forcing us to create and "share" more than ever before, and it can be exhausting. Our consumption has never been regarded as more productive, and our everyday lives have never been subjected to so much pressure to be interesting, broadcastable, repeatable, symbolically significant, trend-setting, and so on. This is what immaterial-labor theory (which I have a tendency to yammer on about) tries to articulate, how the boundary between work and leisure has been eroded and our everyday-life practices are being harvested as a form of work -- our friendships, our preferences, our leisure activities are all being expropriated and commercialized, made operative as marketing data. Being immersed in Web 2.0 functionality is basically all about harvesting our immaterial labor, quantifying our quality of life and making it into information that can be circulated as a kind of currency in "the attention economy."

The iPad, regardless of what other dark portents it harbors, seems positioned as a device that allows us to escape from productive consumption. It promises to let us just consume again, in a sealed-off environment. Being in front of a computer or on a laptop immerses us in many temptations, amny of which are work-related. It may be the conduit by which work reaches us, with emails, etc. So the iPad is supposed to be a haven from that -- a device that denies us the temptation of multitasking and "liberates" us to concentrate on entertaining ourselves with good-old professionally made culture-industry content.

Jarvis complains about this escape:

That’s what we keep hearing about the iPad as the justification for all its purposeful limitations: it’s meant for consumption, we’re told, not creation. We also hear, as in David Pogue’s review, that this is our grandma’s computer. That cant is inherently snobbish and insulting. It assumes grandma has nothing to say. But after 15 years of the web, we know she does. I’ve long said that the remote control, cable box, and VCR gave us control of the consumption of media; the internet gave us control of its creation. Pew says that a third of us create web content. But all of us comment on content, whether through email or across a Denny’s table. At one level or another, we all spread, react, remix, or create. Just not on the iPad.

But I don't think it is snobbish and insulting at all to imagine that people don't want to be on call at all times to be sharing their consumption habits or to be making them productive for someone else. I don't think the limitations built in the iPad make Apple saintly or make their flacks into truth-sayers. I still kind of think people who buy into the iPad hype are suckers -- but I am wondering if I should temper that. The question the iPad controversy evokes is whether one can enjoy what is available on the open internet without consenting to a kind of self-exploitation. Are there better ways to avoid immaterial laboring (if it is even something worth avoiding -- should we be seizing upon immaterial labor as a means for toppling the existing relations of production?) than retreating to Apple's hermetically sealed universe? What are they? The iPad is clearly a conservative, retrograde device in its implementation, but is it trying to roll back a revolution we have reason to reject? I don't think the iPad can give us our ability to concentrate back, but it should make us wonder why so many people seem to think that they should be paying a premium to have the ability restored to them.

So far J. J. Abrams and Rian Johnson resemble children at play, remaking the films they fell in love with. As an audience, however, we desire a fuller experience.

As recently as the lackluster episodes I-III of the Star Wars saga, the embossed gold logo followed by scrolling prologue text was cause for excitement. In the approach to the release of any of the then new prequel installments, the Twentieth Century Fox fanfare, followed by the Lucas Film logo, teased one's impulsive excitement at a glimpse into the next installment's narrative. Then sat in the movie theatre on the anticipated day of release, the sight and sound of the Twentieth Century Fox fanfare signalled the end of fevered anticipation. Whatever happened to those times? For some of us, is it a product of youth in which age now denies us the ability to lose ourselves within such adolescent pleasure? There's no answer to this question -- only the realisation that this sensation is missing and it has been since the summer of 2005. Star Wars is now a movie to tick off your to-watch list, no longer a spark in the dreary reality of the everyday. The magic has disappeared… Star Wars is spiritually dead.

Keep reading... Show less

This has been a remarkable year for shoegaze. If it were only for the re-raising of two central pillars of the initial scene it would still have been enough, but that wasn't even the half of it.

It hardly needs to be said that the last 12 months haven't been everyone's favorite, but it does deserve to be noted that 2017 has been a remarkable year for shoegaze. If it were only for the re-raising of two central pillars of the initial scene it would still have been enough, but that wasn't even the half of it. Other longtime dreamers either reappeared or kept up their recent hot streaks, and a number of relative newcomers established their place in what has become one of the more robust rock subgenre subcultures out there.

Keep reading... Show less

​'The Ferryman': Ephemeral Ideas, Eternal Tragedies

The current cast of The Ferryman in London's West End. Photo by Johan Persson. (Courtesy of The Corner Shop)

Staggeringly multi-layered, dangerously fast-paced and rich in characterizations, dialogue and context, Jez Butterworth's new hit about a family during the time of Ireland's the Troubles leaves the audience breathless, sweaty and tearful, in a nightmarish, dry-heaving haze.

"Vanishing. It's a powerful word, that"

Northern Ireland, Rural Derry, 1981, nighttime. The local ringleader of the Irish Republican Army gun-toting comrades ambushes a priest and tells him that the body of one Seamus Carney has been recovered. It is said that the man had spent a full ten years rotting in a bog. The IRA gunslinger, Muldoon, orders the priest to arrange for the Carney family not to utter a word of what had happened to the wretched man.

Keep reading... Show less

Aaron Sorkin's real-life twister about Molly Bloom, an Olympic skier turned high-stakes poker wrangler, is scorchingly fun but never takes its heroine as seriously as the men.

Chances are, we will never see a heartwarming Aaron Sorkin movie about somebody with a learning disability or severe handicap they had to overcome. This is for the best. The most caffeinated major American screenwriter, Sorkin only seems to find his voice when inhabiting a frantically energetic persona whose thoughts outrun their ability to verbalize and emote them. The start of his latest movie, Molly's Game, is so resolutely Sorkin-esque that it's almost a self-parody. Only this time, like most of his better work, it's based on a true story.

Keep reading... Show less

There's something characteristically English about the Royal Society, whereby strangers gather under the aegis of some shared interest to read, study, and form friendships and in which they are implicitly agreed to exist insulated and apart from political differences.

There is an amusing detail in The Curious World of Samuel Pepys and John Evelyn that is emblematic of the kind of intellectual passions that animated the educated elite of late 17th-century England. We learn that Henry Oldenburg, the first secretary of the Royal Society, had for many years carried on a bitter dispute with Robert Hooke, one of the great polymaths of the era whose name still appears to students of physics and biology. Was the root of their quarrel a personality clash, was it over money or property, over love, ego, values? Something simple and recognizable? The precise source of their conflict was none of the above exactly but is nevertheless revealing of a specific early modern English context: They were in dispute, Margaret Willes writes, "over the development of the balance-spring regulator watch mechanism."

Keep reading... Show less
Pop Ten
Mixed Media
PM Picks

© 1999-2017 All rights reserved.
Popmatters is wholly independently owned and operated.