1. No category

Introduction
Hi, my name is Henry Lam. I was born in Manhattan. I was raised in rural New Jersey. My undergraduate
background is in Information Technology, specifically in Networking and Systems Administration. I lived
and worked in Los Angeles for six years. My experience is in audio and video production systems as well
as satellite and over-the-air broadcast and reception. I have worked with microwave transmission to
implement metropolitan wide mesh networking systems. My longest point-to-point 802.11a(WiFi) link is
over 4 miles.
I have driven cross country solo twice. On my return drive from California to New York, I solo hiked and
backcountry camped at various state and national parks. I am interested textile technology and trends of
adoption of mobile computing.
Johnny Mnemonic (1995)
Johnny Mnemonic is a data courier with a drive in his brain. He can normally carry a whopping 80GB, but
ends up with carrying a load of 320GB. This is huge compared to the 200 MB drives of that time. Then
again, it takes place in the future: 2021.
Strange Days (1995)
Full first-person sensory experience can be recorded and later played back by others through a wireless
device worn on top of the head. But the sale and distribution of the hardware device and the software
recordings are illegal.
A Scanner Darkly (2006)
Loose fitting full body garments disguise the identities of undercover officers while they are not
undercover. The suit constantly shifts among varying appearances of random people and disguises the
voice as well. This maintains the secrecy of the identity even from other peer officers.
Total Recall (2012)
People have phones embedded into their hands. When the hand is pressed against an appropriate
surface, the surface acts as a camera and display for the phone. Oddly enough, some people still use
handsets. Even stranger, even with a sophisticated embedded device such as this, people still wear
watches.
Elysium (2013)
There is prominent use of a hydraulic exosuit which is bolted onto the skeleton and controlled via a
cranial interface. Similar to Johnny Mnemonic, some characters have cerebral drive space which is used
to secure and transport sensitive data. One of the antagonists also uses a wrist/forearm computing
device.
Response to Jon Agar’s Constant Touch
Technology literacy. I feel that this concept should be one of the foundations of someone who would
consider themselves a technologist. If we were to describe the users and contributors of technology
using the analogy of an automobile, there are passengers, drivers, mechanics, and engineers. In regards
to our own field of Design and Technology, I find that within this analogy, many people are all too
comfortable being the “driver”, a driver who other than steering knows only how to accelerate,
decelerate, fill the gas, and turn the car on and off.
I haven't covered cellular encoding schemes and transmission methods since the early 2000's but I
found Jon Agar's introduction a fantastic refresher in terms of CDMA, TDMA, and FDMA. And as much as
I enjoy the 'nuts and bolts' topics, I'm sure others were gritting their teeth through it.
One of the interesting, although unfortunate, phenomena to see occur was the growth of cellular and
mobile telephony be guided by ideas of “NMT? We can do it better! Except we'll cater it to corporate
development”. To hear of the process of the establishment of the Nordic Mobile Telephone Group, and
to see other regions actively reject it as a model boggles my mind. Something that is expertly
collaborated upon, designed for efficiency, interoperability, and government integration, and caters to
the needs of the public and everyday society would seem like the ultimate infrastructure solution. Yet
even with its success, other governments and regions still opt for infrastructures that maximize
economic gain.
One of the most annoying phenomena that has emerged is the evolution of messaging shorthand. I have
no issue with people who do not use full words and punctuation in their communication, but I can't help
but wonder how this habit of using partially or intentionally misspelled words has left its mark on textual
communication. I can understand the necessity for brevity and speed in relaying a thought, but certainly
this style of writing must have diminished the overall mastery of communication of a society. I originally
felt this way back when it became prominent through instant messaging services, and this trend has
been reinforced by the popularity of SMS and other messaging applications on mobile phones. Perhaps
it is just the “old man” in me observing an undesired cultural shift brought about by the “youth”. I guess
time will tell what the consequences are. And although I admit is cute, I don't look forward to a future
full of emojis.
Material Connexion
Lightweight transparent acoustic ceiling panel
composed of polycarbonate (PC). The
honeycomb core is sandwiched between two
finely perforated panels. The perforations each
have a diameter of 0.3 mm (0.012 in) and there
are 300,000 per square meter. The panels are a
standard 19 mm (0.75 in) thick (1 mm; 0.04 in
thick outer panels and a 17 mm; 0.67 in thick
core) and come in 1250 x 2500 mm (49.2 x 98.4
in) overall dimensions. They offer a B1 fire
rating according to DIN 4102. Applications
include ceilings, partitions, and in offices and
lobbies to improve sound absorption in front of
glass surfaces.
This material (6098-01) would work well as a supplement for translucent glass walls and partitions. I
think this material would also work well as a diffusion panel for light fixtures in suspension ceilings.
A variety of boards made of
polyethylenterephtalate (PETG), that are sound
absorbing due to a patented process
(microperforation). The boards are equipped with
up to 40,000 holes per m² (1.2 yd²) (Hole
diameter from 0.008–0.079 in; 0.2-2 mm).
Various hole matrixes in custom arrays are
possible. Generally, the process can be used for
all material thicknesses from 0.079–0.6 in (2–15
mm). The material is certified flame resistant
(DIN 4102; B1). The microperforated panels are
available in custom sizes or sizes up to 118 x 79
in (3 x 2 m). They are hot formable and can be
milled, drilled and glued. Applications include
interior fittings and furniture construction (fronts
of light furniture, room dividers and light walls
and ceilings).
The other material also used micro perforations, but had a rigid structure. This one (5018-03) is useful
for applying to surfaces via adhesive or thermoformed to fit. Although the material is listed as “stiff”, it
is still soft and pliable when cold. Although the sample at Material Connexion was an opaque orange
color, the micro perforation technique can be applied to transparent PETG boards.
Impact of Neo-Luddism and Leapfrogging on the Diffusion of Mobile
Technology
Henry J. Lam*
MFA Candidate, Design & Technology
Parsons, The New School for Design
Abstract
4 Leapfrogging
In the diffusion of technology, there is always a group which does
not readily adopt new technology. Quite often, the reasons for late
or non-adoption are socio-economic or ethical principles. Framed
within mobile cellular technology, this paper seeks to explore the
relationship between those who intentionally delay the adoption
of technology and those who attempt to cast aside or avoid the
integration of new technology.
Keywords: luddite, neo-luddism, leapfrogging, diffusion of
innovation, mobile technology
Leapfrogging is a concept that comes from the intentional delay
of the adoption of technology. The desired effect is the reduced
cost of maintaining the most up to date technology. In
leapfrogging, a society, nation, or person, can skip generations of
technological iterations. One of the best representations of the
effects of technological advancement from leapfrogging is mobile
cellular technology.
.
5 Conclusion
1 Introduction
When new technology is introduced to the public, it can be
commonly referred to as an innovation. The Diffusion of
Innovation Theory was introduced by Everett Rogers in 1962 and
through new editions, it is continually cited in regards to the
social classification and impact of technology within society.
Using Roger’s classification of the Laggard grouping, which
defines the group that is slow or resistant to the adoption or
technology, other anti-technology, no-technology, and lowtechnology paradigms can be explored.
2 Laggards
Rogers defined Laggards as the last portion of society to approach
or adopt a new technology. Under Roger’s curved model of
population distribution, the Laggard group is equal to the
combined size of early adopters and innovators. This size
represents a fair number of people worldwide and understanding
the differences within this group will allow us to understand how
mobile cellular technology may diffuse slightly differently than
other types of technology.
3 Neo Luddism
A Luddite can be interpreted as a person who is opposed to new
technology. The emergence of the Luddite came during the
Industrial Revolution, a time of great shift in terms of the use and
integration of technology towards society. The contemporary
movement of Luddism, Neo Luddism, ranges from academics
who feel that we as society should be more critical about the
adoption of certain new technologies, to violent activists, such as
Ted Kaczynski, who try to hinder the advancement of science and
technology by murdering scientists and engineers.
In understanding the dynamics of laggards, innovators and
producers of new technology can harmoniously exist along with
their slow-to-adopt brothers and sisters. It is important to
remember the harder and faster we push forward, the greater
potential for others to be left further and further behind. The
ubiquity of mobile cellular technology further creates a divide
between the have and have-nots.
References
BANNING, DORESA, 2001. Modern Day Luddites. University of
Nevada,Reno.http://www.jour.unr.edu/j705/RP.BANNING.LUD
DITE.HTML.
ECONOMIST.
2008.
The
Limits
of
http://www.economist.com/node/10650775.
Leapfrogging,
GLENDINNING, CHELLIS. 2012. Whipped into wireless.
http://www.ludditeluddite1812.blogspot.com/2012/10/xiiwhipped-into-wireless.html
HSU, CHIN- LUNG, LU, HSI-PENG, and HSU, HUEI-HSIA. 2007.
Adoption of the mobile Internet: An empirical study of
multimedia message service. Omega. Vol. 35, Issue 6., 715–
726.
KACZYNSKI, THEODORE J. 2010. Technological Slavery: The
Collected Works of Theodore J. Kaczynski, a.k.a. “The
Unabomber”
NAPOLI, PHILIP M. AND OBAR, JONATHAN A. 2013. Mobile
Leapfrogging and the Digital Divide Policy. New America
Foundation.http://oti.newamerica.net/sites/newamerica.net/files
/policydocs/MobileLeapfrogging_Final.pdf
ROGERS, EVERETT M. 2003. Diffusion of innovations
* email: lamh657@newschool.edu
Impact of Neo-Luddism and Leapfrogging on the Diffusion of Mobile
Technology
Henry J. Lam
MFA Candidate, Design & Technology
Parsons The New School for Design
Abstract
In the diffusion of technology, there is always a group which does
not readily adopt new technology. Quite often, the reasons for late
or non-adoption are socio-economic or ethical principles. Framed
within mobile cellular technology, this paper seeks to explore the
relationship between those who intentionally delay the adoption
of technology and those who attempt to cast aside or avoid the
integration of new technology.
Keywords: luddite, neo-luddism, disruptive innovation,
leapfrogging, diffusion of innovation, mobile technology
1 Introduction
When new technology is introduced to the public, it can be
commonly referred to as an innovation. The Diffusion of
Innovation Theory was introduced by Everett Rogers in 1962. The
newest fifth edition was published in 2003. It is continually cited
in regards to the social classification and impact of technology
within society. Using Roger’s classification of the Laggard
grouping as a reference point, which defines the group that is slow
or resistant to the adoption or technology, other anti and low
technology paradigms can be explored.
Rogers defined Laggards as the last portion of society to approach
or adopt a new technology. Under Roger’s curved model of
population distribution, the Laggard group is equal to the
combined size of early adopters and innovators. This size
represents a fair number of people worldwide and understanding
the differences within this group will allow us to understand how
mobile cellular technology may diffuse slightly differently than
other types of technology.
example of disruptive innovation is cellular phones which
replaced fixed land line telephones.
Leapfrogging is a concept that comes from the intentional delay
of the adoption of technology. The desired effect is the reduced
cost of maintaining the most up to date technology. In
leapfrogging, a society, nation, or person, can skip generations of
technological iterations. One of the best representations of the
effects of technological advancement from leapfrogging is mobile
cellular technology.
In understanding the dynamics of laggards, innovators and
producers of new technology can harmoniously exist along with
their slow-to-adopt brothers and sisters. It is important to
remember the harder and faster we push forward, the greater
potential for others to be left further and further behind. The
ubiquity of mobile cellular technology further creates a digital
divide between the “haves” and “have-nots”. In this case, looking
at the “haves” and “do-not-wants”, we try to carefully examine
the value structures that make up the no- and slow-tech segment
of society. Are potential innovators and technologists getting lost
in the how and not focusing on the why? Does proposed
technology pass the critical examination of neo-Luddites and truly
have a positive impact on society, humankind, and the world? If
the mobile phone technology can be first adopted by laggards and
Luddites, then the adoption by the rest of the population will
come with little to no effort.
2
Diffusion of Innovation Theory and
Laggards
Neo-Luddism is an undefined critical look at how technology
negatively impacts our lives and society. A Luddite can be
interpreted as a person who is opposed to new technology. The
emergence of Luddism and the Luddite came during the Industrial
Revolution, a time of great shift in terms of the use and
integration of technology towards society. The contemporary
movement of Luddism, Neo-Luddism, ranges from academics
who feel that we as society should be more critical about the
adoption of certain new technologies, to activists, such as Ted
Kaczynski, who try to hinder the advancement of science and
technology through violence.
Figure 1. Bell Curve - Adoption Categories and Distribution over
Time
Roger’s theory speaks mostly about the adoption of new
behaviors and ideas but does not necessarily provide a model for
the replacement or supplanting of existing technology. For that we
can reference Clayton Christiansen’s concept of disruptive
innovation. Christiansen describes a model of adoption that begins
with the bottom or lowest-end user of the market and illustrates
how the existing products or services are replaced as the
innovation moves up the market towards the high end. A strong
Rogers defined in his Diffusion of Innovation Theory how a
product or idea diffuses through a particular population within a
given social system. Adoption of a new idea, product, or behavior
within that system is shown by Rogers in terms of time, market
share, and segments of the population. This population of adopters
is broken into five categories: Innovators, Early Adopters, Early
Majority, Late Majority, and Laggards. Understanding the
characteristics of the first four categories will help illustrate the
contrast of the final group which is the focus, the Laggards.
The adoption process begins with a very small percentage of the
population, 2.5%. These visionaries are the imaginative
Innovators. Socially, they are marked by having the energy and
creativity to develop new ideas and gadgets. They are
venturesome and very willing to take risks. Little needs to be done
to appeal to this part of the population. This segment both
produces new technology and is the first to adopt a new
technology when it emerges.
Once benefits start to become apparent, the Early Adopters are the
next to step in. Early Adopters are seen as opinion leaders and
trend setters. They have the time and money to invest and quite
often are financially successful. They are well connected, well
informed, and socially respected. Others look to them to see if
something new will succeed or fail. This group makes up 13.5%
of the population.
the Early Majority and their relative lack of resources means there
will be uncertainty about an innovation. In order for the Late
Majority to feel safe about the adoption of an innovation it must
be cost effective.
Laggards are the last individuals in a system to adopt an
innovation. This group, which is the remaining 16%, is the latest
segment to adopt an innovation. They possess little to no opinion
leadership. Laggards are the most static in terms of social
networking, geographic movement, and financial standing. They
tend to be isolated from other adopter groups both in terms of
environmental settings and social ties. A Laggard will consistently
use the past as a point of reference for comparison. Decisions are
of often guided by existing products or ideas. Laggards can be
beyond cautious to the degree of suspicious of innovations and
change agents. Laggards can be highly resistant to change due to
financial limitations. There must be certainty of the absolute
success of an innovation before Laggards will adopt an innovation.
Due to the relative social isolation and lack of financial resources,
Laggards tend to lack the awareness of the introduction of an
innovation or may lack the knowledge base to understand or be
critical in the decision making process in adopting an innovation.
Because the other adopter categories are pro-innovation, the
perception of the Laggard class by others is somewhat negative.
The name “Laggard” itself has negative connotations.
3 Neo Luddism
Figure 2. S Curve – Rate of Adoption of Mobile Phones in
Finland
The next portion is the majority. The majority comprises of 68%
of the population. It is split evenly into two sections, the first of
which is the Early Majority. The Early Majority, which makes up
of 34% of the population within the system, are pragmatic and
comfortable with progressive ideas, but are not entirely willing to
adopt without proof of the benefits. The Early Majority rely upon
the Early Adopters for this proof, but are quick to pick it up once
a technology has a foothold within the Early Adopters. The Early
Majority wants ease of integration, maximum performance,
minimum disruption and a short learning curve. They want things
that are “plug and play” and usable “off the shelf”.
Figure 3. Luddites smashing looms
The other section of the majority, which again comprises of 34%
of the population within the system, is the Late Majority.
Following the Early Majority, the Late Majority is the next group
to adopt an innovation. This group exists after the half way mark,
so they can be considered to adopt after the average adopter in a
system. Similar to the early majority, the late majority also
consists of fairly large number, over one third of the system.
Adoption for the Late Majority often comes due to social pressure
from peers. Innovations are looked at with skepticism and caution,
and are not adopted until most within the system have already
adopted it. Societal norms have to support the adoption of the
innovation for the Late Majority to be convinced of its adoption.
The Late Majority also tends to be less financially well off than
Between 1811 and 1812, rural factory workers in England
destroyed textile machinery. Allegedly, under the leadership of
Ned Ludd, these machine-smashing workers called themselves
Luddites. The machines threatened to destroy their livelihood by
reducing the number of employed factory workers and skilled
laborers. What started as localized occurrences, soon began to
spread to other regions of England and grew into a movement.
The Luddites were well informed and almost militaristic. Textile
machinery and factories were only smashed or set on fire in the
case where the factory owners and manufacturers had mistreated,
exploited, or cheated their workers. The Luddites used violence
and vandalism as a way to pressure employers and saw violent
protest as a means to improve the working conditions. In the end,
the movement was quelled through military response and harsh
legislation.
From that point on, the term Luddite was commonly used for
individuals or people who are threatened by technology and
actively resist the advance of technology. They view technology
with distrust and fear the change that technology brings. Luddites
may feel safer living in the past. A Luddite may also be opposed
to scientific or technological progress. Similar to the term
“Laggard”, “Luddite” also carries with it negative connotations,
but in contrast to the term “Laggard”, “Luddite” may be used as a
derogatory remark. Of course, people who are comfortable with
their own technophobic tendencies may embrace the term with
pride as it represents critical thinking towards the adoption of
technology regardless of the pressures of mainstream society.
Modern day Luddites consist of many distinct groups around the
world but the focus will remain on a single group: Neo-Luddites.
Figure 5. Chellis Glendinning
Another notable figure is Chellis Glendinning. She asks the
question, “How does the new wireless technology define our
every thought and act?” Glendinning postulates that the human
psyche, for the purpose of survival, will mirror the surrounding
environment, and think and act in harmony with it. For a large
portion of human existence, this was wilderness and a naturebased community. What we see now is a world that mirrors our
disorders like dissociation and narcissism because we also reflect
an environment that is built beyond human scale and ecological
sustainability. It is an environment that is built towards the
fragmented shape of cyber-mechanization.
Figure 4. Kirkpatrick Sale
There are some notable individuals who are currently influential
in the Neo-Luddism movement. Kirkpatrick Sale, born 1937 and
author of Rebels Against The Future: The Luddites and Their War
on the Industrial Revolution, poses certain values of the NeoLuddism movement. Speaking as an original Luddite of the
1800’s, Sale that they would have said, “We want to cling to this
way; we don’t want a life in which we’re forced into factories,
forced onto machines we can’t control, and forced from the
village self-sufficiency into urban dependency and servitude.” In
regards to the Neo-Luddism, Sale said, “A modern Luddite is also
trying to hold to certain elements of the past to resurrect the
community. A modern Luddite would say that, of the array of
technology around, we should choose what we want and what we
don’t want.” According to Sale, Neo-Luddites are trying to regain
values such as communitarianism, non-materialism, an
understanding of nature, and a meshing with nature.
Another question that Glendinning asks is, “How does the
telecommunications industry feed the postmodern political
process?” She feels that in certain instances, the telephone was not
a neutral device, but one of centralization of power. This power
then affords fascist states the means to carry out state surveillance
that furthers the totalitarian control that is sought after by regimes.
Telecommunication technologies also serve the purposes of
economic systems. These technologies offer instantaneous contact
to nearly every location in the world which often serve post-state,
pan-corporate entities.
Lewis Mumford?
Figure 6. Theodore Kazcinski, 1968
Kazcinski
Characteristics of disruptive businesses, at least in their initial
stages, can include: lower gross margins, smaller target markets,
and simpler products and services that may not appear as
attractive as existing solutions when compared against traditional
performance metrics. Because these lower tiers of the market
offer lower gross margins, they are unattractive to other firms
moving upward in the market, creating space at the bottom of the
market for new disruptive competitors to emerge.
“
In short, Clayton Christiansen’s theoretical model of Disruptive
Innovation states that by distinguishing between two points of
entry, Low-End and New Market, one can introduce a new service
or product by understanding and satisfying the needs of the low
end user as the primary entry. By using this technique, innovation
can be introduced from the laggard end first and achieve success
in the market.
5 Technology Leapfrogging
“
4 Disruptive Innovation
Figure 7. Low-End and New-Market Disruption
In 2011, 70.2 percent of individuals in “developed” countries
were using the Internet,whereas as 24.4 percent of those in
“developing” countries were connected, suggesting that
developing countries are lagging behind. This digital divide
represents the gap between people or societies that are empowered
by certain technologies and those people and societies that are left
behind without those technologies. This gap has drawn quite a lot
of policy attention and government agencies and private
companies have sought to reduce this gap for the sake of social
and economic benefits.
The rapid diffusion of mobile handheld devices presents a
possible solution to the digital divide. In many developing nations,
and in many lower-income demographic groups within more
developed nations, populations that have previously lacked
traditional PC-based Internet access are adopting Internet-enabled
mobile devices, as the cost of these devices is lower than the cost
of PCs. This process has raised the possibility of what technology
and development scholars call “technology leapfrogging,” in
which a population adopts a new technological innovation without
ever having adopted the preceding technology. This potential for
mobile leapfrogging has led many observers to contend that
mobile Internet access can act as a great leveler, closing gaps that
exist between haves and have-nots.
Clayton Christiansen says:
“
Companies pursue these “sustaining innovations” at the higher
tiers of their markets because this is what has historically helped
them succeed: by charging the highest prices to their most
demanding and sophisticated customers at the top of the market,
companies will achieve the greatest profitability.
However, by doing so, companies unwittingly open the door to
“disruptive innovations” at the bottom of the market. An
innovation that is disruptive allows a whole new population of
consumers at the bottom of a market access to a product or service
that was historically only accessible to consumers with a lot of
money or a lot of skill.
Technology leapfrogging refers to “the adoption of advanced or
state-of-the-art technology in an application area where immediate
prior technology has not been adopted.” Technology leapfrogging
is widely seen as a way to rapidly increase the pace of a country’s
economic development and thereby reduce the gap between
developed and developing nations. Information and
communication technologies have been a focal point of
technology leapfrogging initiatives and research over the past two
decades. The ongoing rapid diffusion of mobile devices represents
one of the most visible and significant contexts in which
technology leapfrogging is either already taking place or is a goal
being pursued.
“
6 Conclusion
Mediation
HSU, CHIN- LUNG, LU, HSI-PENG, and HSU, HUEI-HSIA. 2007.
Adoption of the mobile Internet: An empirical study of
multimedia message service. Omega. Vol. 35, Issue 6., 715–
726.
KACZYNSKI, THEODORE J. 2010. Technological Slavery: The
Collected Works of Theodore J. Kaczynski, a.k.a. “The
Unabomber”
KUPFER, DAVID. 1996. An Interview with Kirkpatrick Sale: Rebel
Against the Future. Culture Change: Issue #9
http://culturechange.org/issue9/kirkpatricksale.html
Understanding
NAPOLI, PHILIP M. AND OBAR, JONATHAN A. 2013. Mobile
Leapfrogging and the Digital Divide Policy. New America
Foundation.
http://www.newamerica.net/sites/newamerica.net/files/policydo
cs/MobileLeapfrogging_Final.pdf
ROGERS, EVERETT M. 1962. Diffusion of innovations
ROGERS, EVERETT M. 2003. Diffusion of innovations,Fifth Edition
Unify
References
APPLEYARD, BRYAN. 2014. The new Luddites: why former digital
prophets
are
turning
against
tech.
New
Statesman
.http://www.newstatesman.com/scitech/2014/08/new-luddites-why-former-digital-prophets-areturning-against-tech
BANNING, DORESA, 2001. Modern Day Luddites. University of
Nevada,Reno.http://www.jour.unr.edu/j705/RP.BANNING.LUD
DITE.HTML.
ECONOMIST.
2008.
The
Limits
of
http://www.economist.com/node/10650775.
Leapfrogging,
CHELLIS.
2012.
I
am
a
Luddite.
GLENDINNING,
http://www.ludditeluddite1812.blogspot.com/2012/10/i-i-amluddite.html
GLENDINNING, CHELLIS. 2012. Whipped into wireless.
http://www.ludditeluddite1812.blogspot.com/2012/10/xiiwhipped-into-wireless.html
Proposal:
I am doing research on Luddites and technology adoption laggards. I am interested to see what are the
principles, ideologies, economic and social factors that correlate with the adoption of cellular mobile
technology. I want to establish a design manifesto or methodology that targets this group.
Hypothesis:
By looking at the socio-economic indicators, the ideological principles, and popular business and
innovation models, I want to create a unifying set of parameters to help designers, innovators, and
technology producers specifically target the slow-to-adopt or non-adopting group as the first and
primary group in innovation adoption, framed within cellular mobile technology. By approaching the
most resistant audience first, the rest will follow easily.
Audience:
Designers, Innovators, and Technology Producers of Cellular Platforms
Questions:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
Do you currently use a mobile phone?
When did you purchase or receive this phone?
How often do you purchase or receive a new phone?
Why did you switch to your current phone?
How much are you willing to spend on a new phone?
What is your age?
Do you have more than one active cellular device?
Do you have other small handheld computing devices (tablets, PDA’s,)?
Describe what a Luddite is:
Do you know anyone who has used the same phone for 3+ years?
Do you know anyone who has used the same phone for 5+ years?
Do you know anyone who has used the same phone for 7+ years?
Do you know anyone who does not use a mobile phone?
a. Why does that person or people not use a mobile phone?
b. What is your perception of this person regarding technology use?
Luddites and Laggards
Do you currently use a mobile phone?
o
Yes
o
No
Around when did you purchase or receive your current phone?
On average, how often do you purchase or receive a new phone?
o
More than once per year
o
Every year
o
Every two years
o
Every three years
o
Every four years
o
Every five or more years
Why did you switch to your current phone?
(Check all that apply)
o
Higher data rate capability
o
Faster CPU
o
Better video capabilities
o
More space
o
Broke the old phone
o
New contract, new phone
o
Different OS platform
o
New OS version
o
Smaller physical size
o
Bigger physical size
o
Better battery life
o
Other:
How much are you willing to spend on a new phone?
o
$0
o
$1 to $99
o
$100 to $249
o
$250 to $399
o
$400 to $599
o
$600+
What is your age?
o
17 and under
o
18 to 23
o
24 to 29
o
30 to 36
o
37 to 44
o
45 to 54
o
55 to 64
o
65 to 74
o
75 and over
Do you have more than one active cellular device?
o
Yes
o
No
Do you have other small handheld computing devices (tablets, PDA's) ?
o
Yes
o
No
Do you know anyone who has used the same phone for 3+ years?
o
Yes
o
No
Do you know anyone who has used the same phone for 5+ years?
o
Yes
o
No
Do you know anyone who has used the same phone for 7+ years?
o
Yes
o
No
Without looking it up, describe what you think a Luddite is:
What functionality of your cellular phone do you most commonly use?
o
Phone calls
o
SMS
o
Text chatting
o
Video chatting
o
Social Media
o
Camera
o
Videos
o
Music
o
Games
o
Reading
o
GPS
o
Email
o
Browse Internet
o
App usage
o
Other:
Do you know anyone who does not use a mobile phone?
o
Yes
o
No
Why does that person or people not use a mobile phone?
What is your perception of this person regarding technology use?