Reblogged from my Tumblr page. Check the original post here.
Reblogged from my Tumblr page. Check the original post here.
Reblogged from my Tumblr page. Check the original post here.
Isn’t the Internet so much more than just a place to hang out with friends? Many of us grew up on the Internet using services like forums (BBS, IRC) and interacting with strangers. Now, it seems, so much of our online socializing is with our real-world friends, our contact list, our existing social graph. Wouldn’t it seem more appropriate to use the Internet for the exciting powers and connectivity it enables?
The first public Google Glass povsmartjewelries have shipped. It’s drumming up some real emotion about the social appropriateness of it being pervasive and mainstream. The issue is that it’s not just about the one wearing Glass — for him or her, it’s pure usefulness, once they get past the self-consciousness of their current awkward appearance — it’s about everyone else being always watched, from up close, from the point of view of a person with whom you’re interacting. Are we ready for this? Does it forever cross our comfort line, or will that, like so many other conventions during the Internet, mobile, and social era, slowly push that comfort line further?
We just don’t know; it’s great technology, but perhaps it’s not everyday technology.
Some preliminary early product thoughts:
“I will never live a day of my life from now on without it (or a competitor). It’s that significant… The success of this totally depends on price. Each audience I asked at the end of my presentations “who would buy this?” As the price got down to $200 literally every hand went up… Most of the privacy concerns I had before coming to Germany just didn’t show up.”
— FAKEGRIMLOCK (@FAKEGRIMLOCK) April 26, 2013
“Some will see this device as a fad, something that isn’t really “necessary” in today’s world, and others will see this as the beginning of an adventure for users, developers and Google, of course. I tend to lean towards the adventure side, as it’s not fully known what impact Glass will have on society, your day-to-day activities, or the future of technology and hardware.”
None other than Google Executive Chairman Eric Schmidt actually said:
Talking out loud to control the Google Glasses via voice recognition is “the weirdest thing… There are obviously places where Google Glasses are inappropriate”
His article You Lookin’ at Me? Reflections on Google Glass is a heavier read about the implications of wearing Glass in public. It makes us think more about how Glass may break the unwritten rules that govern socially appropriate behaviour.
It brings up the famous Milgram subway social psychology study from almost 40 years ago: “But Dr. Milgram was interested in exploring the web of unwritten rules that govern behavior underground, including the universally understood and seldom challenged first-come-first-served equity of subway seating.” It was a rare study on the delicate subway order.
“Milgram’s idea exposed the extremely strong emotions that lie beneath the surface,” he said. “You have all these strangers together. That study showed how much the rules are saving us from chaos.”
From Jan Chipchase’s previous research while at Nokia about actors wearing a Glass-like product in Tokyo:
[During experiments about social/tech interactions], our actors and actresses felt extremely self-conscious about wearing nonstandard glasses, and awkward about acting out the scenarios, particularly in contexts where there were others in close proximity. A number of the things we learned from this study surprised us.
What will induce an odd response to usage of Google Glass or other tech device interactions in the future?
Glass has four design principles for developers that focus on the Glass wearer’s user experience: “design for Glass,” “don’t get in the way,” “keep it timely,” and “avoid the unexpected.”
Two complementary principles will go some way toward accommodating the concerns of people in proximity and lower social barriers to adoption:
Proximate Transparency: Allow anyone in proximity to access the same feed that the wearer is recording or seeing and view it through a device of their choosing.
Remote Control: allow identifiable people in proximity to control Glass’s recording functionality and have access to the output of what was recorded.
What a great way to consider how we might accomodate the privacy concerns of people nearby: let Glass usage be transparent and let people collaborate on its created content.
One could argue that the form taken by Glass offers up a lazy futurist’s vision of what might be Glass has a certain inevitability about it.
In due course, the technologies to deliver Glass’s emerging functionality will truly disappear from view — this is a window of opportunity for discussion, debate and a reflection.
Yes, we are always being watched, but we’re starting to accept it. There can be value in that, like the surveillance coverage and user generated visuals around the Boston Marathon bombing. That led to a citizen-led detective hunt for the suspects, and you may disagree with how that happened, but isn’t it incredible that we live in that sort of era.
We’re still grappling with our individual privacy in a social-world-gone-online, which is only a fabrication of the last 9-12 years! Remember when we banned cameraphones from locker rooms? The discomfort was recognized, reasonable guidelines went up, and social norms were easily swayed. What happens when Glass of the future will be hidden and covert: people will have it, and there’s nothing anyone else can do, and that’s why we should be worried.
Even now, the product is not fully recognized in the real world, which is why Robert Scoble doesn’t get much backlash about wearing it all the time.
We ought to talk about this openly. Otherwise, could it be “too late”?
In the meantime, I’m bullish on shared experiences on mobile and their inevitable evolution to an always-in-view experience. In terms of people around us, that’s something like my company’s current iPhone app Jiber, and I’d love to hear your thoughts on all this.
[Reprinted on the Jiber blog]
A couple weeks ago, I gave a presentation for an anthropology course called Anthropology and Digital Media at the University of British Columbia. It let me bring back all these thoughts I have about my university degree in anthropology, and how I’ve seen its value over the years. I figure it can be best distilled, for me personally, as 1) the process of examining a situation from a blend of science and culture, and crafting words to understand it holistically, and 2) the understanding of how innate and cultural human behaviours determine our reaction to new products.
Here’s the presentation I threw together (slides and bullets and all that mighty scary stuff) and a few thoughts. It’s called “How to make people happy with tech (get rid of the tech)”:
My shtick seems to have become “mobile + anthropology” which has spanned my higher education and career to date. I’ve been part of building products for mobile since back in the days when they were fully controlled by mobile carriers, and working with carriers was the best (and only) way to have an impact there. Mobile was, and still is, the future. And I’ve always approached product development from the perspective of human drivers of behaviour.
What is the Internet? It’s about people. Or, more specifically, about connecting people. Danny Hills’ TED Talk puts this in perspective:
Danny Hillis has a book. It’s a directory of everyone in the world who had an internet address in 1982, including the names, addresses and telephone numbers. And it was a very thin phonebook. That was the community. It was a tight community where everyone knew and trusted each other.
Hillis has been a fixture of the tech world (see his TED Talk from 1984 on DNA and its uses). He registered the third domain name in existence: think.com. But he only registered that one, thinking it wouldn’t be nice to take more than he needed…
The drivers of human behaviour can be analyzed by things like genetics, community, and culture, and these are exactly the holistic pillars of the study of anthropology. To make people happy with your tech development, you need to consider all of these things, these “primary” and “secondary” drivers: food and sex firstly, and then narcissism, design and skeuomorphism, intuition, sharing, and magic, etc.
But then… PUT THE TECH AWAY. “Use the Internet to get off the Internet,” someone once said. Let the tech enhance your life and experiences, and then put it away and live your life fuller and maybe more engrossed. Tech, and its rapid changing and superphones and always-on-connectivity, can cause anxiety (Martin Scrocese), awkwardness (never let me see you taking a glorious photo on an iPad), and separation from reality (thinking about that Strava KOM instead of enjoying the scenery and the joy of suffering).
Technology has also often been a compromise or a stop-gap. Still photography originated because we obviously didn’t have the means during the days of the daguerreotype etc to capture moving images and sound. Now as we figure out how to capture, publish, and consumer it more digestible ways (YouTube to Socialcam to Vine), will photography last? Cars, roads, and the combustion engine — will those magnificent and ubiquitous technological innovations disappear soon?
Will “pull knowledge” — actively seeking answers to your questions — be more and more replaced by contextual push information, so that what you want (based on your schedule, your location, and your interests) will be tailored to you at that very moment? Check out Google Now, Foursquare, and Tempo.
Now that the processing power in our pocket is about what you had on your desktop ten years ago, will the desktop become a relic of the stop-gapped past? And then, what’s next after mobile devices in our pocket? Well, just have a look at Google Glass, with all its scrutiny about privacy and privilege and dorkiness, yet it still pushes relevant information to your peripheral vision, and then it gets out of the way.
Well, that’s what we’re building with Jiber — helping you make the most meaningful connection with people you’re meeting in the real world. The vision is social interactions to create a collaborative (and fun) connection between people, and we’ve only just begun.
Tech is entering every market, and community is entering every tech. These are just more guidelines to approaching tech from an anthropological perspective.
My last thought was some inspiration to the anthropology students (in the classroom and out in the world). From the days of building early-Internet websites in college, I’ve always enjoyed building things for people. At the same time, programming (on a scale of intuitive language computation to complex systems I personally still don’t understand) will become a unavoidable part of the workload of the future, so I urged all these great students and critical thinkers to jump into learning to code. Don’t fear that it’s onerous. Check out:
And at least one has already signed up.
I’m now back from my first South by Southwest festival in Austin. There’s so much to digest but a few lasting thoughts to take home.
Lessons for other tech cities: This isn’t Silicon Valley. This is in the middle of Texas and the meeting ground of not just what’s in Silicon Valley but in every tech hub around (mostly) North America. The #VegasTech bash was a great reminder of a fledgling tech centre doing the right things to get on the map: investment from successful exits (Zappos) into startups and new infrastructure (the Downtown Project), startup spaces mixed with art and music (all the bands playing were from Vegas and remarkably or somehow connected to the entrepreneurs at the party), and contagious optimism and support. The rest — a tech university, government support, local venture capital — is just gravy.
Keep Austin weird: What an incredible town. Who’d think such a progressive town would be in the heart of Texas. There’s music on every corner, people dancing, pride for local dripping good food and BBQ, a top university, beautiful buildings and landscape, and a helluva dollop of personal style. And plenty of newfound secrets for the next visit, either SXSW or not: BBQ without the tourist lines, the special local music venues and bars and restaurants, and new places to explore and run.
SXSW exists on so many levels for different people, and it’s changing so quickly. SXSW happens in the conference center presentations, on the downtown streets, in hotels, and around small dinner tables and bars, but also in hot tubs, running trails, rolling buses, and surprisingly also far away from downtown.
And it’s changing so quickly, especially with new abilities to document it, keep aware of everything going on on-the-fly, and connect with people. Is our documentation taking away from living it? Are we suffering from FOMO by always scheming the next stop? Is there too much noise between startups, bands, and big brands?
Then SXSW Music comes to town. And Austin goes up ten levels. The streets are crammed and buzzing, and there’s a party and shows everywhere. Musicians set up ad-hoc concerts on the street and on top of trucks, trying to get noticed, and maybe even pulled into a venue by a bar owner. But it’s not just struggling artists trying to get attention; SXSW is covered by signed bands with major label backing trying like everyone else get exposure. These established acts are, like everyone else and like they probably did years ago, given five minutes to set up, soundcheck in front of a live audience, and then getting thrust out into the audience. Everyone is hustling is this brutal market, one that still, 15 years later, has not nailed a business model since Napster turned it all upside down. You’ll also find some of the biggest musicians around just rolling from venue to venue checking out for themselves what’s out there.
Some of my favorite acts:
Everything is tech and everyone an entrepreneur. Watching deadmau5 geek out with Richie Hawtin on a couple couches in front of a full crowd — everything is becoming tech. Seeing every artist hustle alongside startups — everyone is an entrepreneur.
It’s all about the people. SXSW is fundamentally about the people with whom you interact. I recall fiercely battling as goalie with the HootSuite ball hockey team, diving into a meaningful chat with Stephen Wolfram at 2am, running into longtime friends, encouraging remarkable musicians on their quest for exposure, and unexpectedly making some deep connections with people.
Reminder: what is the Internet? It’s about people. It’s about connecting people. More on that in my next post here.
Why aren’t we happy with airline ticket prices? Because airlines convolute the pricing so many ways that we don’t know what the seat is really worth:
“Why don’t we appreciate this heyday in bargain flying? … The second, and less obvious, reason why we don’t recognize the amazing fall in ticket prices is that average consumers don’t know what a plane ticket “should” cost. Some prices, we know, as if by heart… Essentially, Americans are expert shoppers, not mathematicians.”
Wouldn’t it be much easier to be a travelling runner?
Instead, we choose to travel around the world, by car, train, bus, and plane with our beloved bicycle. But it’s when we get to airplane travel, we encounter the wrath of airline policies on travelling with a bike.
And you will know they hate you then.
Airlines will charge between $0 and $200 per flight leg to bring your bike. This is preposterous, and these evil policies must die. Here in Canada we pay $70-100 on Air Canada and $70 on WestJet
Meanwhile, golfers seem to be loved by airlines — wealthy “lobbyists” perhaps — and as such rarely pay to bring their oversized golf bags.
Meanwhile, quantifiably, aren’t most cyclists fit and light, and so, even with the weight of their bike case, they’re lighter than many other passengers (via @amyakirkham)? And, unlike my recent endless three-hour wait on the airport tarmac to deal with an unhealthy passenger, most cyclists are healthy and probably won’t delay flights or aggravate flight attendants with health issues or needs.
How can we change this?
Consider choosing your flights and airlines based on their policy. Speak with your wallet. I’d love to see a comprehensive list of who charges what, but the reality is that it’s changing so quickly (in an upward trajectory) that it’d be obsolete soon.
Make a stink! I’ve had fun aggravating agents at check-in about their proposed bike charges. Normally, anything under $100 and I’ll comply. But with enough stubbornness, you can eventually get your bag through without a charge — not for the frequent use.
Make a stink using social media with your upcoming airlines.
And, share your thoughts and this post!
Delta and Lufthansa are the worst I’ve seen, charging $150-200 per leg.
Many overseas flights won’t charge — unclear why — but do take advantage. Check out Virgin, BA, KLM.
Other tricks to travelling with your bike:
And my two favourite tips:
Good luck, or let’s speak up. Perhaps an online petition via change.org/petition.
My neighbourhood of Gastown and the Vancouver Downtown Eastside is again in the hotseat.
As a new restaurant called Pigdin just opened up across the street from Pigeon Park, a busy gathering space in the poverty-sticken Downtown Eastside within the astronomically pricey Vancouver downtown, demonstrators have been often lingering out front with signs shouting things like, “Feed the hungry, eat the rich.”
These “anti-poverty activists” surely have every reason to demonstrate peacefully (if you can ignore claimed shining flashlights into patrons eyes). And yes, this neighbourhood has had long lasting debate about its population and support for those living there. Here, they are crying gentrification. Thankfully, the restaurant management has acted with remarkable constraint.
But there’s a problem. Gastown is becoming one of the hottest neighbourhoods in an increasingly expensive city. Here comes a financially backed restaurant to bring business (and perhaps taste and culinary attention) into the area. Just because you can’t afford to rent in the same place as you’ve always lived, doesn’t mean you have a right to stay.
If you’re hard working, middle or upper middle class family looking to buy in Vancouver, you’re probably getting on the highway driving away from the downtown core until you can afford something you like. Now, are these people protesting?
As for me, I’m looking forward to trying it out for dinner sometime soon.
That’s the argument. Embrace business and culture in your neighbourhood. Don’t cry gentrification. And let me have your best debate.
The makers of Maker’s Mark recently announced to their distributors that they are decreasing the alcohol content of their bourbon from 45% to 42%. It’s clear that the demand for bourbon is skyrocketing, and they believe that watering it down won’t be a noticeable taste difference. It looks more like a knock to their reputation, if you are trying to associate your product as a small-batch, handmade product. Matthew Yglesias in The Economics of Watering Down Maker’s Mark writes:
The issue there is simply that a three percentage point difference in alcohol content clearly will change the taste of a beverage. There’s just no way around it. If you can alter the formula that much without people caring, you’re just saying your customers aren’t really paying attention to the flavor of the drink.
Reblogged from my Tumblr page. Check the original post here.
REM – It’s the End of the World (great acoustic version). #Timely #122112. “World serves its own needs, listen to your heart bleed dummy with the rapture and the revered and the right, right…”