Digital Prosumption. The Android Case

Prosumption

Prosumption means to produce and consume at the same time, while the prosumer is the “actor” (a

special kind of consumer). The notions were launched by A. Toffler (The Third Wave, 1970) and Ph.

Kotler (The Prosumer Movement, 1983). We refer to processes that include physical and mental activity,

translated into psychological and sociological experiences. So, the prosumption is the value creation

resulting from the consumption of products and becomes consumer experience. According to A. Toffler,

prosumption is about the transition from passive consumption to active consumption. Corporations

promote prosumption by involving consumers in their activities. While, after D. Tapscott, the

prosumption phenomenon is at the intersection between production capacities and consumer vision. This

process has the advantages of knowing the consumer's needs and the partial elimination of bureaucratic

formal control (innovation platforms), the consumer becoming companies’ partner. It is about customized

products and organizing communities of consumers who exchange information and opinions about

products. The Prosumer is a better-informed consumer. (Tapscott, 1999, p.57-60)

The online prosumers are Internet users who communicate their views and comments, help

companies promote and co-create products, slogans, and advertising campaigns.

The factors facilitating the prosumption phenomena are: increased proportion of free time, resulted

from the automation and computerization of production; teleworking opportunities; permanent adult

education; changing work organization by focusing on creativity.

Generations Y and C representatives, characterized as “opposite of an old consumer era”, claim to

be the first prosumers, creators of a new market reality. Still, the main trait of these generations is the

positive attitude towards IT.

The prosumer profile was sketched by Lebiejko A. in Prosumer – A new Trend of Active

Consumption focusing on the example of banking services, based on a research conducted by Zawadzki

A. and Przewłocka J on Polish online prosumers for Gemius SA in 2008. Their results suggest that:

prosumption is a field dominated by men, 59%; of ages between 19-34 years, 56%; with high or

incomplete higher education, 45%. Furthermore, the results imply that prosumers are more likely to think

advertisement – especially online – is useful and entertaining. Also, most Polish prosumers – 82% - found

useful the input provided – reviews – by other consumers concerning online products and services, on

online shops (79%) price checking websites (56%), forums or professional websites (38%). Finally,

Lebiejko points out that most of them are actively looking for this information, and only 18% find the

reviews by chance. (Lebiejko, 2011)

When trying to define, and identify the prosumption phenomenon on the banking market, it could

be argued that while it gains access to new technology, the regular consumer is creating an advertisement

and becomes a kind of intermediary for the development of products or services. For example, becomes

cocreator, replacing bank teller and the opportunity to make an online payment through bank transfer on

its own, by participating in the creation banking product interface (personalization), and finally by

building active communities to share and change information about specific financial products and

services (crowdsourcing).

Finally, technology has contributed to a modern model of communication, facilitating the

consumer-company interaction and allowing the consumer to use his natural inclinations to comment.

Prosumption and the New Economy

Marc-Oliver Goyette claims that the New Economy (Internet) will progressively transform the

forms of production and consumption. However, M. Senecal ( La Société de l'information: Orders pour

l'an exam often indulge dynamiques sociales?, Critiques of la société de l'information, sous la direction et

d'Éric George Fabien Granjon , Paris, L’Harmattan, 2008, pp. 45-65) points out – that communication –

is equally a way of social emancipation and a way to intensify the alienation of individuals. (Goyette,

2013)

One hypothesis is that participation to the `New Economy` can be perceived as a form of

crowdsourcing (outsourcing a service to a community, stimulating competition). In this case, the

electronic frameworks are capitalist enterprises, with means of production, profits and property rights. In

this view, the Internet contributes more to the enrichment of enterprises, rather than satisfying the

intellectual and artistic needs of the user. As such, prosumers can be considered unpaid workers. On the

other hand, in Mcdonaldizated systems, the consumers don’t have to tip, wait a long time to get the order

or customize ingredients.

Crowdsourcing 2.0 was initially tackled by theorist J. Howe. He revealed from 2006 that more and

more companies turn to staff from outside their own structures, to produce and invent. And, since the

Internet promotes the collective intelligence, it boosts general knowledge. (Howe, 2006)

At the same time, Kleeman lists several forms of crowdsourcing: consumer involvement in

product development and configuration; consumer participation in the competitive tender bids; consumer

participation in permanent open lines; noting their participation and analyzing consumer products etc.

Consumers who use the Internet platforms are involved in the production of goods and services at a price

below market. (Kleeman, et. Al., 2008)

Netizens activities have a double meaning. On the one hand, they are satisfied with the production

of electronic content, on the other hand, their participation on the Internet produces added value for

companies. But, since in the West most workers are not engaged in the industrial sector makes separation

between work time and rest, or satisfying needs and passions, increasingly difficult. It is, among others,

the situation of the "autonomous workers" (who provide by themselves knowledge acquisition, training,

purchase of materials etc.). In this perspective, the concept of work should be reformulated.

Furthermore, C. Fuchs emphasizes the importance of knowledge, which already became a

merchandise and created the knowledge workers. They contribute to the accumulation of capital, either

directly (autonomous workers) or indirectly (by producing information goods or the market). (Fuchs,

2012)

2.0 platforms can be perceived as tools for valuing unpaid work. Google, YouTube, Facebook etc.

do not produce content. But, they provide spaces that connect content producers and consumers. Making

more profit out of the Internet users activities is crucial. Therefore, YouTube is placing their strength in

valuing audience. While, Facebook advertisers can target customers by individuals in groups, per various

criteria: location, level of education, depth of social contacts etc. And since it is believed that more and

more consumers produce Internet content by writing comments, opinions, recommendations etc. more

individuals participate in content creation. However, the relatively small scale of the phenomenon does

not allow – after C. Fuchs – a restructuration of the relations between producers and consumers. But, the

user involvement, as a producer of content and services, will expand in the sectors of culture and

communications. (ibid)

B. Cova and V. Cova, in Les figures du nouveau consommateur : une gènes from

gouvernementalité du consommateur , portray the prosumer as being a consumer actor. While sociology

was bent on configuring, representing and establishing consumer categories, the prosumer corresponds to

collaborative marketing. In the view of these marketing promoters, consumers will “take power”, since

the postmodern consumer is an anti-totalitarian individual. Also, this consumer is the co-producer of his

daily life. In addition, the Internet allows for the emergence of a smarter consumer, who is informed, free

in relation to distributors and brands. This consumer can obtain information about companies and

products without resorting to the company’s sources of information. Therefore, between the consumer

and the firm a constant dialogue is established. Thus, today's consumers are very different from the ones

in the 1950-1960 period, who didn’t pay that much attention to brands or to the careful selection of

products. (Cova & Cova, 2009)

Another interesting perspective on the modern consumer is of him as the creator of services for his

own need. The consumer-creator cooperates in this aspect with the sustainable consumer. In this case, the

customers participate in the creation of services because they gather an amount of self-provided resources

(intellectual, physical, affective), which are combined with those that companies add. Ph. Kotler since

1980 warned that future production and customer demand will act in cooperation. The consumer is

becoming more evident. Consumer creativity means, above all, his ability to generate an idea, a solution,

a product that is adapted to the new situations, with a utility and value. On the other hand, a current like

“Do it yourself” reject ultra-consumerism and encourages the production. (Kotler, 1986; Kreziak & Cova)

G. Ritzer, in The McDonaldization of Society, assumes that there is a McDonald's business model

and that it gradually expands into other geographical areas and in other fields than in food services.

McDonaldization shall be deemed as an expression of globalization and extends to areas such as SMS,

multicasting, iPhones, iPods, Facebook, YouTube. eBay, match.com, Wal-Mart, Body Shop, IKEA etc.

The presented model “provides consumers, employees, and managers efficiency, calculability,

predictability, and control.” In his view: “unchained by the constraints of mcdonaldizated systems, but

using the technological advances facilitated by them, people would have the potential to become wiser,

more capable, more creative, more balanced than they are now.” McDonaldization is a phenomenon both

stimulating and constraining. Since consumption in the capitalist society can no longer be left to the

decision of consumers they must be driven to consume, possibly in large quantities. (Ritzer, 2011, p.34)

Furthermore, G. Ritzer believes that the Western world, according to M. Weber's theory, has

become increasingly rational, dominated by efficiency, predictability, computability and technologies that

control people. The rationalization model was bureaucracy. Formal rationality distinguishes the West

from the rest and selects the most optimal means to achieve a goal, by rules, regulations and larger social

structures. Bureaucracy is an effective structure, which places emphasis on quantification, predictability

and replaces human decision with rules etc. (ibid, p.39)

In addition, G. Ritzer points out that the bureaucracy suffers from the rationalization of rationality.

The ego is “tried” (R. Takaki), the spirit bowed, emotions are controlled. At the same time, the emphasis

on quantification can generate poor quality work. Also, bureaucrats fear of non-human technology.

McDonaldization, in turn, ensures higher profits and lower costs, stimulating or promoting the

technological post-industrial society, support for services, the general information society, and

information economy etc. Yet, McDonaldization in the post-industrial era is promoting superficiality,

dilution of feelings and emotions, loss of historicity, reproductive technologies (electronics) etc. (ibid,

p.318)

On a side note, web 1.0 is the internet before .com bubble burst from the 90s, while web 2.0 is the

Internet of this decade. The two are distinguished by the connection speed. Web 1.0 is an Internet system

controlled from top to bottom, designed centrally. It does not include Web sites that do use user generated

content. Web 2.0 is a bottom-up system, which is defined by user-generated content. Web 2.0 would be

based on the ideology of virtual libertarianism. “Like many other technologies, the Internet was designed

by some as a revolutionary development, even utopian, that would bring those involved significantly

greater liberty”. But “AOL and Microsoft, among others, sought to control the Internet through their

patented products and buy immovable online in much the same way that they happen in the material

world.” However, Facebook is making the Internet more human, ‘un-mcdonaldizated’. “It should not

shock us that the McDonaldization thesis requires certain amendments in this new context ... In any case,

the distinction between un-mcdonaldization on the surface and mcdonaldization underlying might be

useful, especially to analyze the Future Internet - Web 3.0 ... and the future of society in general. (ibid,

p.327)

Virtual communities and open-source

Open-source software, such as Android OS, often encourages consumers to organize in virtual

communities to support and improve the free software. The virtual communities are groups of people

interrelated through information and communication systems. The members exchange numerous symbols

and values. The communication model and adjacent content coagulate, maintain and give consistency to

the training environment. The community is characterized by cooperation and continuous exchange of

information. Virtual communities are epistemic, which structures a noosphere, purpose and referential of

its founding. At the level of this type of social solidarity stand the following components: identity (joining

such a community implies acceptance of a value system); cognitive component (between members there

are exchanges of information, knowledge, and tips); a component that depends on the interference logic

and confidence (what others say must be trusted); some acceptance of individual choices to "reason"

collectively (generalized opinion). (Stallman; Cucoș, 2010, p.120)

In addition, you can assign an adjacent intelligence to virtual communities, characterized by: a

connectivity or a space in permanent transformation (associations, links and paths); a semiotics (an open

representation system, images and signs); an axiology (a system of values that determines positive or

negative tropism); an energetics with the role to specify the force of emotions generated by appropriate

images. The social web must have a viable consistency and generate some social cohesion with formative

implications on the societal assembly. (Alava, 1999)

On the other hand, even though there are those who argue that the individuals in online

communities are deprived of concrete social relations, from the sociological perspective, these

communities can be defined in terms of physical characteristics (size, location, and borders) and software

support (protocols conversation). The simplest classification would be: after the place (local, national or

international), size (small, medium or large), in terms of employment (with a professional profile or not).

It’s interesting when online communities are faced with the dilemma of public goods. Also, the individual

must give up the personal benefit to constitute a public good. As such, anonymous users only foster

consumption. Furthermore, to clot, online communities require founders, moderators etc. Only “through

cooperation the status of a regular user can change to a member of the community.” (ibid)

Furthermore, Dumitrescu D. underlines the importance of trust in unstable environments with

informational asymmetry. In virtual communities, we should – as noted above – address both

organizational variables (structural, environmental and management) and human variables (behaviour and

motivation). You cannot make a clear distinction in matters of trust between the offline and online. On the

other hand, it is known that virtual environments are generally communities based on interest or practice.

But, knowledge and information remain the essential goods of online communities. Trust is essential for

the “knowledge market”, especially because it does not depend on contracts. It includes generalized trust,

specific trust, assurance, risk, reputation etc. Cooperation cannot take place without trust in online

communities (social uncertainties due to the existence or risk), relational trust matters infinitely.

Moreover, in 1995, theorist Charles Handy emphasized that the effectiveness of a virtual organization

depends on its leadership on trust, not on control. In the relational trust, skills play a secondary role.

(Dumitrescu, 2012, p.4; Handy, 1995)

Another interesting point of view is provided by the research on cyberspace, which should not be

confused with the real Internet (as a network). Cyberspace contains psycho-sociological aspects,

identities, and objects that exist in computer networks. The online environment enables corporations,

NGOs, other organizations, state institutions etc. new ways to reach the client since “Using

communication networks, human individuals clearly give cyberspace, besides its purely operative

component – oriented towards solving tasks – an emotional valence, which humanizes the cyberspace.”

On the other hand, cyberspace can be defined metaphorically (hypertext browsing), in terms of video

games (as an incomplete reality replica), as a 3D environment (in which we interact with synthetic

entities), as an amplified habitat (teleoperation) and as an arena of artistic creativity (recreation without

consequences). At the same time, cyberculture should not be ignored. As Cyberspace is also the land of a

culture based on digital media, cyberculture crops include primarily the online communities and a wide

range of specific cultural aspects, artistic and cultural movements associated, such as the cyberpunk

phenomenon or the trans- humanism movement. (Chitoașcă, 2004)

The Internet can be beneficial to people. For instance, email helps people receive support from

their social networks, and websites allow them to find information and support them when they are faced

with important decisions (medical, financial, family etc.). Since the power of relationship depends on

emotional intimacy, social network contact and availability of capital, the email appears as an instrument

of globalization, because it can maintain contact with distant friends or relatives, but also with those who

live in the geographic proximity. In fact, the Internet medium can even become an agent of socialization.

On the other hand, open-source communities, such as those created around Android, would not be

successful or even exist, without the contribution of highly motivated members who are willing to donate

their spare time and effort to the community. Thus, the question of motivating the community members,

while also supporting and directing their activities towards development, arises to the community

leadership.

In literature, several motivational models for participation in open-source projects have been

theorized. For instance, the motivational model of Campbell and Pritchard focuses on the idea that

motivations vary in relation to individuals and in combination with their skills and talents produce

behaviours relevant to the tasks. In addition, the motivation for work is a psychological force which

determines the direction of individual behaviour in the organization, the individual's level of effort and

level of perseverance in the face of obstacles. So, contributors’ performance is dependent on motivations

(they work better if they are motivated). (Campbell & Pritchard, 1976)

The psychological research focuses on the relationship between psychological needs and intrinsic

motivations. The joy of programming is an intrinsic motivator while being paid to help is an extrinsic

motivator. To contribute to development, to solve the shortcomings of a handset, to improve community

status or career opportunities are obviously different behaviors, being motivated extrinsically. The

participants can internalize some of these extrinsic motivations, and adjust them intrinsically, rather than

having them imposed from outside by others. These motivations can then be classified as extrinsic

internalized motivations, thus allowing a careful analysis of the differences between participation

motivations in open-source like projects. (Weinberg, 1998; Koestner, et. Al., 1999; Richard, et. Al., 2000)

Intrinsic motivations are correlated with the satisfaction of human needs for autonomy and

competence (developing software is often an obscure and complex undertake which requires creativity).

In such cases, self-regulation is done in two ways: either through introjection or through identification.

(Ryan & Deci, 2000)

On the other hand, internalized extrinsic motivations based on introjection are associated with ego

boost and self-esteem. For example, for this kind of motivation, in the open-source development

environment, we find individuals who are trying to improve their social status or occupational prospects

by contributing (an effort to increase the position of an individual to a reference group). Yet, internalized

extrinsic motivations based on identification regulation are a form of extrinsic motivation rather

determined by individuals. For instance, they identify with actions and personality traits they approve,

which in result leads to an identification that is accompanied by more autonomy. In our case, such

motivations are found in the use value behaviors, the desire to fix a programming error (bugs) or to solve

an important problem for the contributor. This motivation is regarded as dominant in open-source like

communities. (Lindenberg, 2001)

While, when the use value is externally motivated, due to personal gain for the individual, from a

psychological standpoint the use value is internalized, and turned into a value for the open-source

community. (Rossi, 2004)

In the case of internalized extrinsic motivations based on identification to values, often individuals

are compartmentalized and separated by values and beliefs and are characterized by a reduced

determination. Therefore, a contributor who strongly identifies with an open-source community may

choose to fulfill tasks that are not necessarily interesting for him because their realization brings value to

the community. (Ryan & Deci, 2002)

In addition, internalized extrinsic motivations based on introjection, like an ego boost, reduce the

intrinsic motivation of target activity. Sometimes, developers that are motivated by community status can

engage in activities that they do not necessarily like but still, do to increase or maintain their reputation in

the community. Programming, testing, and debugging software are highly respected activities in these

communities, but a contributor who is motivated by reputation concerns probably will not appreciate the

testing and software debugging. He is however convinced that these activities are necessary to gain status

in the community. (von Hippel & von Krogh, 2003)

In conclusion, contributors’ intrinsic motivations to participate in open-source projects are

negatively correlated with monetary remunerations. (ibid)

XDA-Developers.com – mobile development community

XDA-Developers.com (XDA) is an online community of users and developers interested in mobile

handsets. XDA was founded by “developers for developers”, and for years has been a valuable resource

for people who want to “get” the best out of their mobile devices by customizing the graphical user

interface (GUI) or even adding new functionalities. It was founded by two enthusiasts of mobile

technology, which was in early development at that time, Peter Poleman and ItsMe , in 2003. The XDA

name comes from a device, codenamed O2, manufactured by HTC, which was branded as the XDA's,

PDA's with “Xtra” functions.

Over the time, XDA has grown through the increasing number of registered users and mobile

devices it supports. For instance, by 2006, the community already numbered 100000 members, this

providing new challenges to the moderation team. To answer these concerns, in 2006, the community

hired Flar, the first administrator with a contract on XDA. In 2008, XDA had over 150000 members and

had already become an important resource for end users. In 2009, a new administrative reform took place

and support was offered for the first non-HTC devices, including the Android operating system. Thus, the

tradition to only support HTC devices with Windows Mobile OS was broken. In 2010, 7 years after the

creation XDA, the community had become a reference point on the Internet and XDA had become an

international site. There were already more than 500000 topics, over 7500000 posts and over 2800000

members with a daily average of 10000 members. “The key to XDA success was to continuously add new

devices and operating systems, which have extended and united the community, under one roof, where

people can collaborate and develop things for their smartphones.” (Chainfire in XDA, 2011) XDA grows

with 3000-3500 new users daily. In 2011 there were over 4000000 registered members and 20000 online

at any time with a record of 31000 users. By 2014, there were 56449444 members with an average of

35000 members online at any time, often over 50000 online with a record of 95000 online members.

There were 2300000 of topics and over 50000000 million posts.

Onwards, in 2016, there are 7614908 members, 2996169 topics, 66160054 replies and most users

online at the same time 135390. Per ALEXA, XDA is ranked in the top 525 most visited web domains in

the world. (ALEXA)

See Full Size >

While XDA is “home” for Android, Windows Mobile, WebOS, iOS, Firefox, Ubuntu, Bada – all

operating systems for mobile devices – Android is undoubtedly the dominant preference of XDA

members supporting the free software. There are forum sections dedicated to each Android device which

is or has been popular, from the HTC Dream to Samsung Galaxy S-S7, Note 1-7, Gear or VR, to LGs, or

Sonys etc.

In XDA, each development project is a customized version of the operating system a device came

with. Some projects are open-source, while some others are modifications to the factory firmware.

Furthermore, in this community, in 2009 open-source project CyanogenMod (CM) starts. CM is an

operating system for handsets, based on the Android operating system, under the leadership of Steve

Kondik. CM is the most successful project in this area, being the first provider of enhancements for

Android enthusiasts worldwide. CyanogenMod is today CyanogenMod Inc. – a company – which

managed to collect more than $10 million from investors. It has had partnerships with various

manufacturers such as Oppo or OnePlus. CM site is preferred by most users of customized versions of the

Android operating system, supporting many devices. Data from 2014 show that there were over 12

million active installations of CM, of which 6800000 are official versions of the CM and the rest are

customized versions of CM. Among the devices with most installations stand out: Samsung Galaxy S3

(device with 30 million+ global sales) with over 1000000, Samsung Galaxy S2 and Samsung Galaxy S

with 989330 to 769143. There are other similar projects open-source projects, like AOKP, Slimroms or

Paranoid Android.

Generally, customizations of Android OS are aimed at usability, speed optimization, and resource

consumption, protecting users' privacy and personal data and achieving total control of the device (root

rights).

On the other hand, customizations extend to the aesthetic zone as well. Developers and even

simple end-users, from the beginning, put great value on how good the graphical user interface looks.

Thus, we find several thousand Themes (themes - aesthetic changes) for different versions of Android on

the XDA.

A third direction worth mentioning is Android applications development. Many developers started

application projects on XDA site, some of the best known in the community being: Koush with Rom

Manager; Chainfire with SuperSU, TringleAway, AutoRoot; Coolbho3000 with SetCpu etc. Under

applications and games for Android section on XDA, many junior developers are launching, offering test

and evaluation products, 20000 sites and projects, and over 650000 responses, in 2014.

Simultaneously, XDA functions as a true community, one can socialize and make friendships, or

find diverse professional opportunities etc.

XDA is involved in Android developers’ education, through the XDA-University project. There

also is the XDA TV channel on YouTube where staff reports on the latest gadgets and technologies in the

mobile world. XDA is always in contact with its members being a very active community on Twitter or

Google+.

Therefore, we argue that the XDA community is the mirror of Android enthusiasts, genuine

prosumers.

Operational concepts

The Android prosumer falls through his manifestations in the concept of the consumer and producer.

He buys Android devices, applications, and services, while prosumers also sell products – especially

software. Often they offer online reviews – for example on the XDA community forum – for products

they purchase, along with searching for information about Android `products`, in the same environment.

Some of them even contribute to the original Android source code by offering patches for bugs they find,

which are later peer reviewed by Google engineers. Prosumers trust in the validity of the information

available on the community discussion boards and respect the community leaders.

Selecting the instruments for data collection

The objectives of our research determined us to choose from the specific methods the following

instruments: a) the custom questionnaire on a single theme to highlight the prosumption phenomenon on

Android virtual communities, using closed questions to facilitate self-administration; b) statistical

observation based on data extracted from the questionnaire on consumption types, prosumer categories,

motivation, confidence in management and community satisfaction etc.; c) content analysis to identify

projects developed within the XDA community.

Establishing the population and sample

The population is represented by Android consumers, surfers, fans of open-source and the online

sociability that is expressed on XDA community forum. The sample was established finding the

approximate number of registered members at XDA community forum. Our objective was to have a

sample of 60+ Android users. Furthermore, a pre-test questionnaire of 10 subjects was used to find

possible issues with our questionnaire. After the questionnaire validation, the data collection phase was

conducted, by promoting the online questionnaire on XDA, and with help of the community manager we

managed to get enough users to attend. The data that was collected was placed in long series (variables),

likely for correlation between them. After which, the data were statistically analyzed using SPSS.