Open Source Software vs Closed Source Software

Feller, Fitzgerald, Hissam and Lakhani (2005, 18) suggest the term "open source software" refers to software products that are distributed, modified, and used by any user without payment to an author for such uses. Feller et al (2005, 18) outline that "products such as the GNU/Linux operating system, the Apache Web server, the Mozilla Web browser, the PHP programming language, and the OpenOffice productivity suite are all well-known examples of this kind of software". In addition to this, the Free Software Foundation lists hundreds of other free software in their Free Software Directory that is free for users to browse, download, use, modify, redistribute etc. The key characteristic of open source software is that anyone can edit and modify the software, however, this is usually done by teams of users in the community (Bruns 2008). The concept of open source software has various parallels with the advantageous characteristics of online communities and the key principles of produsage. Development and editing of the software is done in direct response to user needs, typically because it is being edited by the users themselves. Opensource.org sums up the key advantages of open source software perfectly.

"The basic idea behind open source is very simple: When programmers can read, redistribute, and modify the source code for a piece of software, the Software evolves. People improve it, people adapt it, people fix bugs. And this can happen at a speed that, if one is used to the slow pace of conventional software development, seems astonishing." (opensource.org in Bruns 2008).

This practice differs significantly to the somewhat traditional idea of "closed source software" where the source code remains confidential. Such closed source software examples include Windows, Office and Internet Explorer. These programs are developed by paid staff teams of a company and therefore are subject to hierarchical directions and restrictions. This more traditional idea of closed source software runs various parallels to the characteristics describing offline communities. This sort of software development is based on a business model and perhaps one of it's main objectives is to sell the software and make a profit. By doing this, obviously they are going to strive to produce something that is responsive to user needs in order to sell more, but perhaps they may not be quite so focused on, or have as much of an idea of, what exactly it is that the user needs compared with a group of community users that create open source software.

References:

Feller, J., B. Fitzgerald, S. Hissam and K. Lakhani. (2005). Perspectives on Free and Open Source Software. Retrieved May 10, 2008, from http://mitpress.mit.edu/books/chapters/0262562278.pdf

Example of Changing New Media Use

This is an excellent example of the way audiences are now consuming media differently. The actor is seen interacting with the Internet, mobile phone and MP3 player as he buys some concert tickets and organises to catch up with friends. By doing this, he would certainly be considered part of an online community. Comparatively, a couple of decades ago, the traditional way to purchase concert tickets and catch up with friends would have been vastly different.

New Audience Research

The new media audience is consuming and interacting with media in vastly different ways to what has previously been known. The increasing prevalence of online communities and the rise of the participatory culture means there are great changes in audience behaviour. Banks (2002, 189) suggests that “internet technologies and the users forming around them are in the process of constructing a very different ‘audience’, with different practices, expectations, materials, tools and technologies”. With these changes, however, must come changes in media audience research. Researchers are being left behind as traditional methods are no longer adequate to measure the change in behaviour of this new media audience. Livingstone (2005) suggests that "audience researchers are faced with a moving target as once-'new' media become familiar and ever-newer media emerge". Audience research needs to adapt their research techniques if the media industry is to successfully monitor and measure this new media audience.

"We do not know how to describe the audience for new media. 'Audience' fits the activities of listening and watching. New information and communication technologies open up more active and diverse modes of engagement with media - playing, surfing, searching, chatting and downloading." (Livingstone 2005, 44)

An interesting article addressing this idea is "Dude, Where's my Audience". They suggest that traditional media measurements and tracking aren't keeping up with new habits such as time-shifting programs and multi-tasking (sitting with one eye on the TV with another on the laptop in front of you). They suggest that because media measurements are failing to measure this, the new media audience is probably being vastly underestimated.

References:

Banks, J. (2002). "Gamers as Co-Creators: Enlisting the Virtual Audience - A Report From the Net Face," in M. Balnaves, T. O'Regan and J. Sternberg (eds) Mobilising the Audience, St Lucia: University of Queensland Press.

Livingstone, S. (2005). "Media Audiences, Interpreters and Users," in M. Gillespie (ed.) Media Audiences, Maidenhead: Open University Press.

TheAge.com. (2007). Dude, Where's My Audience? Retrieved April 15, 2008, from http://www.theage.com.au/news/web/dude-wheres-my-audience/2007/07/24/1185043119701.html?page=fullpage