The History of the iPhone

What would it have been like to hold the first iPhone in your hand?

In 2007, Steve Jobs, founder of the mega-successful Apple Brand, announced at a Macworld conference that he had created the intersection of a computer, cell phone, and touch screen technology. He knew the precipice of success that him and his team were standing on, however, I don't think anyone could have ever estimated the public response to this brand new iPhone.

The Macworld Convention was in January. In June, the first generation iPhone went on sale. In its first year, it sold six million. This absolutely secured its legacy, and changed the understanding of modern, accessible technology.

The first iPhone fit in the palm of one's hand. It cost $499 for 4 GB of storage. For reference, in 2020, I own a 64 GB iPhone. What was so groundbreaking was the Multitouch technology; no other smartphone had been capable of such a thing. Every other touch screen technology was too sensitive or not sensitive enough-- Multitouch was a break through, allowing the user to tap anywhere on the screen to get desired results, however not responding to literally every point of pressure put on the phone. Apple, of course, patented this technology, and launched their iPhone as the first of its kind.

The impact of the iPhone is nearly incalculable--however, if you want to boil it down to the numbers, here they are:  since 2009, Apple has sold 1.5 billion iPhones; there are 100 million iPhone users in America, making up 45% of the total iPhone users. That means that despite the competitive marketplace and constant push for development and growth in the gadget industry, Apple supporters make up nearly half of the market. This is, of course, because the iPhone is the catalyst for the Google phone, the Windows phone, Androids, and iPads.

Because most of the population owns a smart phone, the internet has become 24/7 -- this is directly a result of the iPhone. Our entire culture has changed because of it. The concept of Apps grew out of the use of iPhones. Jobs that exist only on social media owe their beginnings to the iPhone. The line between work and home is blurred, as well as the line between public and private. Nothing is the same. Our news, our pop culture, and our lives have been permanently shaped by the computer we carry around in our pocket. And we owe it all to Apple.

For more information on how the iPhone changed our lives, check out this article on CNN.

How Many Voices Are Never Heard?

Antiwar.com: an entire website devoted to defending Libertarianism, and I've never heard a word from it. While, yes, it's easy to attribute the lack of coverage to the far larger budgets and exposure that other news sites have, I believe that the reporting on antiwar.com is shut down because of the extreme opposing views. 

Antiwar.com is proudly libertarian, which is a political view not often featured on sites such as CNN or Fox; typically, what’s considered conservative and liberal is defined by the stories and agendas of major news sites. Antiwar messages aren’t beneficial to either cause, and so the stories are shut out. 

On the other hand, the site is proof that free speech enables people to come together to push a message forward under any specific agenda. The articles on Antiwar.com provide details of America’s involvement in the middle east that frame the war as an unconstitutional occupation. Whether this is true or not ultimately becomes a matter of opinion when the entire world can report on whatever they want. 

Antiwar.com provides freedom of opinion and speech to an entire portion of our population who isn’t represented in mainstream news cycles, even if it is a little nutty. 

Using Our Freedom of (Oscar) Speech: Celebrity Advocacy on the Oscar Stage

Oscar Sunday – synonymous with Hollywood’s elite, the film industry’s biggest night…or perhaps with #Oscarsowhite, or Times Up? Whatever you associate the Oscars with, there’s no question that every year, it’s a night of glamour and controversy, and it’s best when the two are served up together. This year, the Oscars celebrated an inclusive win—Parasite, a South Korean film, took home Best Picture, the first international film to do so in the nearly-100-year-long-history of the Academy. But what seems to be drawing the most attention is Best Actor Winner Joaquin Phoenix’s acceptance speech. 

            Phoenix won for his role in Todd Phillips’ Joker, the origin story of the infamous Gotham villain. Phoenix, who has been sweeping the awards season this spring, typically does a speech marked by humor and gratitude, instead Phoenix used his time to give voice to “the voiceless.” Phoenix is a vegan, and outspoken supporter of animal rights. He used his speech to address animal cruelty, associating it with gender inequality, racism, queer rights, and indigenous rights. In response, farmers were outraged. 

            Instead of getting into Phoenix’s cultural politics, instead I want to address the notion of activist-driven award speeches. I know plenty of people who gather round to debrief award shows, and every year I hear the same phrase about any celebrity that spoke out: “They’re up there to accept an award. They should stick to what they’re good at, and not get political.” I fundamentally disagree. I believe that it can be annoying to watch a three-hour award show and get bombarded with political messages; however, I don’t think that celebrities are abusing their power. People have an absolute right to expression, and that doesn’t change, whether you’re an actor or a businessman, whether you have access to millions on live television, or you’re making YouTube videos that three people watch. Just because our celebrities are entertainers doesn’t mean they don’t have minds, or that they don’t have beliefs that they feel passionately about. If someone wants to start a conversation, let’s have a conversation. The only way to move forward is to speak up and speak out. 

For more information on this, check out this article. 

The Power and Poetry of the Law

 

As our class has spent the past few weeks studying the Founding Era of America, it’s been particularly fascinating to understand the Judicial system of America and how the Supreme Court serves the country. Specifically, a brief documentaryon the proceedings of the U.S. Supreme Court. 

At one point in the video, Justices Kennedy, Scalia, Stevens, and Ginsburg discussed the nature of the Constitution and it’s fundamental implications on their decisions. Particularly, a difference of opinion emerged as the Kennedy, Scalia, and Stevens remarked on the unchanging nature of the 200-year-old Constitution, while Ginsburg disagreed. Citing amendments such as the 19^th, which gave women the right to vote, Ginsburg challenged the notion that the Constitution was unchanging. As she put it, “We the people was composed of a very small part of the people.” The constitution by which we live now is one born out of the Suffrage movement and the Civil-Rights Era. 

The beauty of law and the Constitution is the simultaneous absoluteness of such a long-standing document, as well as the ability to interpret it and amend it. As Ginsburg was arguing, we should take pride in the fact that while our Constitution has secured the prosperity of the United States, we’ve also been able to adapt it to our evolving society. 

The Constitution is a living, breathing document—that much is proved by the Supreme Court, which receives thousands upon thousands of petitions. It’s proved by the people who ardently and passionately advocate for what they believe to be right in accordance with the constitution. And it’s a steadying guide when the going gets tough and the answers are unclear. 

It’s a document of the people, for the people, upheld by the people

What Does "Free Speech" Mean On Campus?

According the ACLU, what’s the constitutional response to racist, misogynistic, homophobic, transphobic speech? More of it—not less. 

I’m paraphrasing an article published by the ACLU on their website addressing the freedom of speech on college campuses. The line above that I’m referencing stuck out to me specifically. The article, which can be found at this link, says that more speech & debate is the solution to offensive or bigoted speech. 

I’ve done past research on free speech on college campuses, and I’ve found most frequently within our educational institutions, there is a very specific brand of censorship which ensures that ideas, speakers, campaigns, or films that feature offensive rhetoric are altogether banned from coming to campuses across the United States.

While sanctions such as these often masquerade as “wokeness,” the unfortunate result is an obvious limitation on free speech—and any limitation is a constitutional violation. The ACLU draws a reasonable conclusion: “Speech that deeply offends our morality or is hostile to our way of life warrants the same constitutional protection as other speech because the right of free speech is indivisible.” 

The inclusivity that campus groups protest for sake of is the very same inclusivity under the law that allows for controversial—and often labelled “hate”—speech. 

I found this article to be particularly interesting as a college student; moreover, I found it to be a fitting introduction to my blog posts this semester. The years I spend earning my undergraduate degree are foundational to my civic identity. I believe its incredibly important to be surrounded by people and ideas that are vastly different from my own. 

A campus that is censored is an echo-chamber; when everyone believes the same thing, there is no debate, no conflict, no resolution, and most significantly, there is no growth. And I have no intention graduating with the same ideas that I had when I began my time at High Point University.