Peter Bihr

Archive
November, 2011 Monthly archive

The New York Times on the New Art of Flickr

The New Scientist touched on a fascinating concept: Pre-Social Networks that would foster serendipity by matching people based on their interests and their current (or even future) location.

Imagine heading to a café, and your phone recognizes where you are going and lets both you and someone at that café know that you have certain interests in common. It doesn’t matter if it’s a hobby, a former employer, a common friend, or even an ex girlfriend for that matter.

It’s the chance of massively increasing an element of serendipity that’s incredibly powerful.

There are huge potential implications here, with privacy only being a small chunk. We’re talking changing social dynamics, ways of meeting peers with less friction, less awkwardness. Mapping where people of certain interests hang out. Etc, etc, etc.

Thinking about it like that, maybe privacy isn’t just a small chunk of this after all.

And yet. All this by basically matching the data we already codified online: Facebook social graph, Twitter social graph, interests based on links we share, location by phone GPS and Foursquare checkins. Maybe throw a few extras for more richness, more flavor, like Last.fm music preferences and pull from Tripit which places you like to travel to, both being strong social connectors.

Not sure which of these data sets we’d actually want to match, and who we’d want to match them. It’s a strong, powerful notion, though, and one we’d better think about sooner than later.

Image by Thomas Hawk, some rights reserved (CC by-nc)

[permalink]

What happens if you use the wrong version of the jailbreak tool #n00b

Better.

Not really newsworthy, I know, but eventually I got around to jailbreaking my Kindle. Yes, it’s idiot proof, as I clearly proved by screwing it up the first time around with no damage at all. Like.

Now if only all gadget producers were cool with us users tinkering with their devices. Amazon at least doesn’t seem to mind that much.

[permalink]

Interested in the big trends that drive & shape the mobile sphere? Please take a few minutes to read this great presentation by Kyle Cameron. He knows what he’s talking about.

[permalink]

Earlier today I received a press release. It advertised the Quentiq, a Quantified Self / body tracking suite consisting of sensors, a web service, an iPhone app, and some kind of tracking gadget.

QUENTIQ Health Score – English from QUENTIQ on Vimeo.

Dramatic music aside, this is where this otherwise ambitious project is bound to fail:

QUENTIQ Health Score

Quentiq asks you to carry around this hideous little box with a lousy display and thumb through long lists of text interface.

When tracking day to day behavior, subtle & implicit data gathering is key. If you require your users to punch in a bunch of data points manually, you’ll never get there. No, I don’t think I’m over-simplifiying.

Take the Runkeeper app for Android for example. You hit the start button when you start running, and the stop button when you get back home. And that’s it. Runkeeper handles the rest and gives you this as an output:

Running Activity 4.44 km | RunKeeper

Or Massive Health‘s first app, The Eatery:

Screenshot: Massive Health Eatery

The ideal version of this would have you snap a photo of your meal and provide an analysis. In practice that’s not how it works – you actually still have to manually enter a whole bunch of data, which frustrates at least the users I know.

Anyway, that’s all just by way of reminding everybody building body tracking apps right now not to rely on active, explicit user input too much. You’ll make your users’ lives and your own much easier.

Quantified Self Europe & More Thoughts

Two more announcements.

First, this coming weekend I’ll be at Quantified Self Conference Europe. Ping me if you’re around.

Second, over at the Third Wave blog we just kicked off a series of blogposts about body tracking and the Quantified Self. For all the articles that will go online one by one over the next couple of weeks, follow this link.

[permalink]

Still life at Dumbo

Over at the New York Times, there was an article the other day: Out on the Town, Always Online. While curiously sparing out most attempts at digging for deeper explanations, it shows and discusses how people have become used to permanently be connected through their cellphones. (Note that I’m trying to avoid any generational reference.)

The Nagara Zoku

To any of us, the folks who are out and about and won’t hesitate to reply to a text message or a tweet during dinners, conversations or on subways, the article doesn’t really explain anything new. However, there are a few nuggets in there, and a few points certainly worth discussing. At the very least, it’s a discussion we’ve all had many times – I certainly did, with family and more offline friends alike.

That behavior, the never ending multi-tasking, of course has a name, too. The Japanese refer to it – to us – as the Nagara Zoku, the Multitasking Tribe.

And there’s a fair bit of potential social conflict in this where other tribes are involved.

I’m being social, just not with you

“I don’t think of what’s here and what’s not here as separate,” he said. “Like I’ll be out with my mom and if I look at my phone, she says I’m being anti-social. I say, ‘I’m being social, just not social with you.’ ”

For us, that’s normal. Hey, I’m not less engaged, but more so! Only, it’s not easily apparent for everyone outside, well, our heads. After all, as often as not reaching for our phones isn’t with social intent, but with the intent to cocoon, to tune out for a moment, or because we’re bored of the conversation.

Either one of which is legit, but we easily send the wrong signals.

Participate in the future before you build it

Most of this potential conflict is part of a change process. Protocols change, and quickly. Says Spencer Lazar, founder of mobile startup Spontaneously:

“I get away with it more than other people because of the industry I work in. I try to adopt behavior that will reflect the way the future will be. It’s important to participate in the future before you build it.”??

The future etiquette is here, it’s just not evenly distributed yet. We see that every day, and there’s a crass difference between having dinner with our families (“Can’t you put your phone away for a minute?”) and our peer group (“Have you checked in on Foursquare yet?”).

For me personally it’s a matter of great personal interest to watch how etiquette and behaviors change, and it has even become part of my job. What’s not to love about it?

The rule of the trajectory

Curiously, the New York Times article notes that evening plans for one of the featured couples are “vague”. If anything, planning social activities seems to have gotten much less of a pain compared to when I was a teenager – And I’m almost sure it’s not exclusively because I don’t feel as akward now as back then.

Where a few years ago, you’d need a more or less rigid schedule, now a trajectory is all you need. No more meet at Bar X at nine. Instead, we’ll leave at 9, join us when you’re free, you know how to find us, and we’ll take it from there. A state of flow instead of a rigid framework. It’s in flux, both in terms of activities and group members. And this makes it more open, more social, more participatory.

In other words, it’s altogether smoother, more elegant.

And I wouldn’t trade it for anything.

[permalink]

You do what’s good for your business. It’s a truism. It seems obvious. And maybe it is. But let’s look at that for a moment.

Revenue

What you want for your business is to earn money. More money than it spends, to be precise. So the intuitive choices are those that make your business earn more money. Simple, right?

It’s something that we hear often when talking about why a company makes a choice. Apple’s DRM? They had to do it to make the music labels come on board, otherwise they wouldn’t earn any money. Cutting down on onboard food on planes? Cutting costs, otherwise they wouldn’t make any money. Plainclothes ticket controllers on Berlin’s inner-city trains? Hey, if they weren’t around people wouldn’t pay for their travels.

It’s the business equivalent of what in politics is referred to as Realism. At the core, this doesn’t mean being more realistic, but the idea that states or state-like actors make a rational decision based on a (mostly) economic cost/value analysis. Peace is cheaper than war? Alright, let’s do it. Bombing that country is cheaper than building a defense? Alright then, let’s get to it.

In business terms, replace states by companies and – to some degree – even consumers: They all act perfectly rational, based on the information they have at disposal, and by applying (again, mostly) economic cost/value analyses.

But it’s not that simple.

Values

First of all, every player in this game has imperfect information. Imperfect information leads to imperfect decisions, no matter what. So that’s that.

More importantly, though, we also base decisions on non-rational factors, like emotions. (I don’t have any but the phoniest numbers, so I won’t even try to quote any – but I’d assume that non-rational factors are easily as strong as rational ones, maybe more so.)

Another factor that influences our decisions is: values. And that, I believe, holds true for companies as well as consumers.

So whenever someone points out to me that I shouldn’t be so naive as to demand a company to take a stand, or act in a way that might reduce their revenues, I kinda only shrug.

If it’s the wrong thing to do, don’t do it.

It’s that simple, it really is. If – and that’s a big IF – you evaluate your company’s success not exclusively in terms of a spreadsheet.

In my company we choose not to work with potential clients all the time: When we think they act outside our believe system, when we think they value things we cannot value. In other words, when we think that company is, for lack of a better word, evil.

If you believe in openness, try to be open. If you believe in transparency, be transparent wherever you can. If you believe in not locking users in, don’t lock them in. If you believe in collaboration on eye level, collaborate away.

For the protocol: We don’t get that kind of call often, the kind that makes us employ this most anti-intuitive of business tactics. Usually by the time someone finds us they more or less know what they’re looking for. But we’ve turned down potential clients, and we’d do it again. Does that mean we lose money? Of course. Does it mean we’re fluffy, naive hippies? I don’t think so, not at all.

Quite the contrary. I believe that adhering to your core values is good business sense.

It’s stated values and a long record of being relatively true to them that make me trust Google more than Apple, and certainly more than Facebook. It’s what makes me trust and choose one energy provider over another. It’s putting my money and my attention where my mouth is, and where my values are, both as a consumer and as a business owner. As vague as this is, in the context of a global consumer culture.

And it’s also, y’know, the right thing to do.

Note: I can’t even remember what conversation triggered this blog post originally. It comes up often enough. I didn’t write this because of today’s news from NYC, even though it seems eerily fitting in that context, too.

[permalink]

In the New York Times, Yale professor William Deresiewicz recently wrote an op ed about today’s youth culture. Titled “Generation Sell“, Prof. Deresiewicz compares this so-called Millenial Generation (roughly born between the late 70s and mid-90s) to youth counter cultures before – namely hippies and punks.

He sees the iconic Hipster style (did I just hear Halloween-or-Williamsburg?), and he sees it expressed not just in tight jeans and tattoos:

Perhaps a bit of each, but mainly, I think, something else. The millennial affect is the affect of the salesman. Consider the other side of the equation, the Millennials’ characteristic social form. Here’s what I see around me, in the city and the culture: food carts, 20-somethings selling wallets made from recycled plastic bags, boutique pickle companies, techie start-ups, Kickstarter, urban-farming supply stores and bottled water that wants to save the planet.

Today’s ideal social form is not the commune or the movement or even the individual creator as such; it’s the small business. Every artistic or moral aspiration — music, food, good works, what have you — is expressed in those terms.

So far, it feels like he’s on to something. I mean, just look around you. You’ll find plenty, plenty of small businesses that carry their owners signatures, and that are strangely appealing, almost sexy. These aren’t just your regular mom-and-pop stores. Dreams are being expressed, and a cash register might be part of that dream, or at least not detrimental.

Autonomy, adventure, imagination: entrepreneurship comprehends all this and more for us. The characteristic art form of our age may be the business plan.

I read that line, and thought: Yes! That’s a great hypothesis!

The next moment I thought: Wait a minute. That doesn’t sound right.

AND that, I think, is the real meaning of the Millennial affect — which is, like the entrepreneurial ideal, essentially everyone’s now. Today’s polite, pleasant personality is, above all, a commercial personality. It is the salesman’s smile and hearty handshake, because the customer is always right and you should always keep the customer happy. If you want to get ahead, said Benjamin Franklin, the original business guru, make yourself pleasing to others.

The self today is an entrepreneurial self, a self that’s packaged to be sold.

(…) The hipsters were born in the dot-com boom and flourished in the real estate bubble.

Prof Deresiewicz looks at the symptoms here – They run their own shops! They’re friendly! They’re relaxed! – and constructs this odd cause-and-effect relationship that seems totally off, or at least unsupported by anything than his opinion. (To be fair, the piece is an op ed.)

So here is my counter hypothesis, as unsupported by facts as Mr Deresiewicz’s, but the one I, y’know, trust more in:

If anything, the reason more and more people in this generation (that I squarely fit in, both by age and action) start their own businesses isn’t because they were socialized during the dotcom bubble and grew up idolizing Steve Jobs (as he indicates). Rather, this is the way for many of this generation – for many of us – to pursue their dreams and build the foundation for the lives we wish to live. Lives and dreams neither society in general nor the job market in particular would otherwise support.

This generation builds businesses to support their dreams because they know they can’t trust the traditional institutions to provide the stability they might search; they want to get their hands dirty and learn how things work and build things.

It’s both a vote of distrust and a vote of trust: Distrust in the system and trust in their own skills.

And that thing about a whole generation being more agreeable? First of all, I don’t buy that. But even if it were true, and all these people were more agreeable, than I’m pretty sure it’s not because the customer is always right or they worry about selling a fixie or an organic chai latte less than yesterday – but because if you’re your own boss, you’re more in charge of your fate, and thus more content.

It’s a generation that quite likely is fed up with the nihilistic attitudes that may have dominated parts of the 80s youth counter cultures. It’s a generation that takes control of their own lives – in pursuit of happiness.

[permalink]