Everything Is Broken: Technology and You

Maybe it's not us. Or the software guys, or the suits on the executive floor, or the board, or the regulators, or the Democrats, or the Republicans, or the schools, or the Chinese, or the Americans, or Facebook, or Google, or your parents, or my parents, or email, or selfies, or smartphones, or the culture, or humanity.

Maybe, given the choices we've made - and continue to make - this is the way we actually want it. JL

Quinn Norton comments in Medium:

NASA had a huge staff of geniuses to understand and care for their software. Your phone has you.

Oil vs Insurance: The Coming Financial Battle Over Climate Change?

One industry has a vested interest in encouraging greater fossil fuel use and
discouraging attempts to curtail it.

The other industry is responsible for cleaning up the resultant mess - and paying for it.

Talk about your diametrical opposites. They make from money from each others' distress. It would seem that something or someone has to give.

The question is not whether this will happen but who will go after the other one first. And when. JL

John Light comments in Bill Moyers & Co:

If an industry-wide interest group with deep pockets were to step up to take on the fossil fuel industry...

Cashless Customers Mint Money - For Others

And you thought it was all about you and your convenience.

Seems like a contradiction in terms, but cashless customers generate so much fee income for the companies that front them the credit or pay the fees for access that the process of vetting, accepting and verifying your payments may be worth more to some enterprises than the actual value of your purchases.

Which is part of the reason why the battle over access to your data has become so intense. Anyone who can
figure out how to shave a few cents off any transaction, say by reducing the cost of marketing to you has a
multiple of that cost drop right into their coffers.

It is almost totally computerized and the cost of fraud is minimal compared to the profit the system generates. So, no, they are not just being nice when they say 'never mind' after someone uses your card illegally.

This is the reason why banks, retailers, credit card and tech companies are duking it out for dominance in the cashless space. Talk about coining it...JL
 
Elizabeth Harris and David Gelles report in the New York Times:

Every time a customer pays with a credit or debit card, the retailer pays a fee to have the payment processed. Merchants in the United States spent $71.7 billion on these fees last year.

Will Everyone Please Quit Bitching About Passwords

It's amazing how many elements of technological life manage to survive the pronouncements of their demise.

Laptops, desktops, corded phones, all have witnessed numerous orations dedicated to the sad, but inevitable end of their useful lives.

And yet despite what 'everybody knows,' they continue to evince a stubborn refusal to disappear.

So it is with passwords. Eyeballs, finger prints, genomic markers, almost anything at the bleeding edge of scientific discovery is supposedly preferable as a means of securing access to the data at the heart of our personal technological use. And yet. We know passwords, we understand them, we are comfortable with them even given our inability to remember them or keep them secret for very long.

There's a lesson in that, somewhere. Maybe, instead of treating them with such disdain we should accord them the same evolutionary respect due rats, cockroaches and other life forms that have stood the test of time. JL

Kevin Drum comments in Mother Jones:

"It's the only piece of technology from 50 years ago we're still using today,"

Glockamole? Chipotle, Guns, Guac - and Gold

Institutions are being challenged more frequently to take sides. Whether the issue is health, sustainability, affordability, inequality or personal freedom.

Truth to tell, most enterprises would just as soon avoid the conversation. Not because their founders, managers or employees dont necessarily care - mostly - but because they'd like to keep their jobs and income and leave the other stuff to their personal time.

But they are not being given that option. So some are taking interesting stands. Chipotle, arguably the most iconic American food chain, especially popular among the X and Y generations has, in the past few months, spoken out on not one but two divisive social issues: the environment and guns.

It started by declaring that climate change might impact the supply of avocados, the crucial ingredient in guacamole, one of its signature offerings. Then, when a Texas group espousing 'open carry' powerful guns brought its weapons into a local Chipotle outlet, the company requested that gun owners refrain from packing their heat in any of its outlets nation-wide.

Starbucks has taken similar positions. Which means the two most popular chains among the younger demographic most eagerly sought after by merchants and advertisers have now taken controversial stands. So why alienate any customers? Couldnt an artful compromise or inoffensive diplomatic detente be achieved? Probably not, in this ideological environment. But what these businesses seem to be indicating is that among their customers, taking these stands is not controversial. It's nothing personal, just business. JL

Francis Wilkinson comments in the Associated Press:

The logic of political polarization is relentless. Once you commit yourself to exploiting political or cultural wedges, where does it lead?
To Chipotle, apparently.

Are Cloud Access Problems Creating Fog?

The problem with good ideas is that the digital world has made it too easy to copy them. Even the really smart guys in finance are discovering that all the other smart guys who went to the best schools, own the most powerful computers and wear the sharpest suits tend to chase the same investments, which makes it really hard to cash in.

So just as The Cloud seemed to be the most efficient answer to storing all that Big Data we are told we have to have  if we hope to survive, let alone prevail, we are discovering that there is a not so insignificant issue with getting access to it: bandwidth.

Now many people probably thought bandwidth was one of those technical matters that they paid geeksters to figure out. It was just held in a bandwidth storage bin somewhere and if you needed more of it, you demanded it, and someone in a cubical several floors below your office made sure it was delivered.

But whaddya know? Bandwidth isnt infinite. Which is why the US FCC and other regulatory agencies are averting their gaze and making soft mewing noises when the subject of  net neutrality comes up. All while corporate lobbyists are demanding the right to charge more to big customers so that they can deliver faster speeds, charge more for the privilege and call it something inspirational like The Defense of Co mmunications Freedom Act. But we digress, slightly.

On the more practical, 'how do we fix this' level, experts are beginning to think that alternatives may have to be considered, especially since we are wedded to our smart phones and casting similar, envious glances at our toasters, expresso machines and garage door openers. It's getting crowded at that on-ramp to the internet. JL

Christopher Mims comments in the Wall Street Journal:

The problem of how to get things done when we're dependent on the cloud is becoming all the more acute as more and more objects become "smart," or able to sense their environments, connect to the Internet, and even receive commands remotely

What Does Tech Savvy Work Even Mean These Days?

Who can imagine any product or service that is not tech savvy? Even the most traditional, earth-bound concept is probably sold via the web.

But given the difficulty marketers and merchandisers are having creating stuff that works across the multitude of platforms from which we now get our ability to function, it is apparent that tech savvy is not necessarily synonymous with successful - or even
useful.

When even outdoor advertising has a new tech component, the reach or frequency of any sale is
dependent on our still nascent ability to figure out how to reach the much larger but harder to identify global vs national audience of today.

The implication is that convergence across multiple, channels, continents and technologies means tech savvy will soon lose its specific isolated inference and become, simply, a sub-species of effective and efficient. JL
 
Maureen Morrison reports in Advertising Age:

Never forget utility. Resist tech-forward campaigns just for the sake of doing so if it has no brand relevance.

Vetting Value: How GE Trains Experienced Employees

Training! Wow. I remember reading about that. It was one of those things organizations used to provide. You know, like health care and pensions and full time jobs.

But in an era of shareholder value triumphant it became one of those concepts that could not directly be tied to returns with hurdle rates acceptable to attention deficit disorder driven capital.

Except, of course, in a few companies. And good ones, too. Many of them located in economies culturally outside of what is politely called the Anglo-Saxon model. Which is shorthhand for the US and UK. There are some outliers, however, one of them being GE. Formerly known as General Electric and still dedicated to the proposition that enterprises with good management can add value to almost anything.

GE has come in for its share of criticism and snarky asides over the past decade. Its stock price has not gone stratospheric, its processes seem positively dilatory, even stagnant in this era of here today, gone to Maui (golden parachute in hand). But for those seeking the best, brightest - plus experienced and well trained, it is one of a very small handful known to be a target-rich managerial environment.

The reason is that it still invests in training its employees. And this attitude was fostered, nourished and protected even under the hostile gaze of former CEO Jack Welch, aka 'Neutron Jack,' who ironically earned that moniker the old fashioned way, by acquiring the tangible assets and nuking the rest. But anyone who survived was considered a resource worthy of improvement. And, in an era where youth is equated with marketable skill sets, GE continues to invest in even its most experienced staff so as to improve its operational efficiency - and not coincidentally, to enhance its reputation as a font of intelligent decision making.

The hedgies and private equity sharks and tech innovation mills can still hire their Harvard MBAs and Stanford EEs and teach them a thing or two,but if you're looking for someone to actually manage something, you might  well pay heed below. JL

Raghu Krishnamoorthy comments in Harvard Business Review:

An entry-level program can afford to treat everyone equally since most of the participants need the same set of skills. While mid-career programs possess common elements, they must also reflect a personalized approach.

Epic Fails of the Startup World

You can learn more from your failures  than your successes, or so we are often told.

 But it turns out one of the things we are learning about failures, especially in the tech world, is that people who fail may have some totally awesome experience they can bring to their next scalable, millenially significant venture, but they also have a greater chance of failing again.

So what are we to make of this insight? Clearly this whole knowledge thing is a bit more complicated than we thought.

The 'fail fast, fail often' mantra frequently heard in tech circles as a way of placating investors, evidently has limits. And one of them may be that entrepreneurs are not more risk conscious or averse than anyone else, but they are a whole lot more self-confident that they will beat the odds than is the rest of humanity.

This could be endearing if it weren't so expensive. It has never been easier to raise venture funding, but it has never been harder to earn a decent return. Maybe that's one of those failures from which we'll eventually learn. JL

James Surowiecki reports in The New Yorker:

Though we may be seeing a “Cambrian explosion” of new companies, there’s a mass extinction going on, too.

I Second That Emotion: The Keys to Going Viral

We tend to think it is all about the data these days. But curiously, where the data tend to lead us when we are trying to figure out how to create an impression, is back to the realm of emotion and passion.

We want to have an impact, to pay attention or pay cash, to spur an action - to buy, or vote, or act, or react, or just care. But in order to do so, we find ourselves driven from the analytical to ephemeral.

This may be a good thing. Our suited, hyper-caffeinated selves havent exactly created Doctor Pangloss's best of all possible worlds. But whether good or bad, what those pesky data are telling us is that the key to generating the kind of response we want - that scalable impact - is created with from factors not yet corralled and branded with mathematical precision. JL

Natalie Kitroeff reports in the New York Times:

“People share things they have strong emotional reactions to, especially strong positive reactions,”

Disruption Discontinued: The End of the Southwest Effect?

For decades Southwest Airlines personified the notion of corporate disruption. It was the enterprise that thumbed its nose at convention, offered lower fares with more consistent service while appearing to have fun - and make a profit - doing so.

Of course, the hijinks and the attitude were also an effective smoke screen for the inconveniences customers had to endure to get those fares: no reserved seats, sometimes out-of-the-way airports, cramped quarters.

The airline also did a very effective jobs of managing intangibles that gave it a distinct, if unheralded advantage: it hedged its exposure to the energy market which allowed it to keep fuel costs in check at a time of rising prices; it only flew one kind of airplane which reduced maintenance and training expenses; and it initially flew only to and from southern US markets with better than average weather which limited delays.

But then a funny thing happened: all those tactical initiatives added up to a strategic advantage. From the industry upstart, the unruly adolescent, Southwest evolved to become The Man. It is rarely, if ever, the low cost alternative on most of its routes and industry consolidation has reduced the need for that old competitive edge. The downward pressure that Southwest's entrepreneurial efforts effected are no longer present. But rather than mourn their passing, it will be more interesting to see who or what emerges to create the next disruption. JL

Bill McGee reports in USA Today:

Implicit in the Southwest marketing paradigm has always been the acknowledgement that no-frills service — a lack of meals, inflight entertainment, airport lounges, even assigned seats — is offset by airfare savings. It seems consumers will need to revisit this.

Are Fraudulent Audience Metrics Killing Digital Advertising?

See, here's the tricky thing about digital: you can measure everything. Stuff that matters, stuff that's
irrelevant, stuff that's ridiculous. But it's all there.

Now some smart guys figured they could game this system, so click farms in Bangldesh - or Newark - cropped up to generate data. And other tricks of the trade emerged as the world convinced itself that the web had become the electronic equivalent of China in 1979: a vast, untapped market just waiting to be exploited by anyone with a slightly better mousetrap.

Who was really going to bother looking into this, they figured, because the net was The Thing and everyone was making money.

Well, except the advertisers, that is. And even they werent sure because trying to determine what works and what doesnt is still something of an art, even with all that data. But the lingering recession and the financialization of the economy conspired to put a crimp in this plan. That and relentless self-interest, that is.

Because the people controlling the money dont like spending it on items that dont generate a handsome return. They demand answers and accountability, at least from those using their money (resentful as they may be of those ingrates who attempt to hold them to the same standard). Until digital advertising can demonstrate it is producing such returns, its growth will remain below expectations. Which is why fraud-free advertising may become a featured benefit, not a moral aspiration. JL
 
Dean Harris comments in Venture Beat:

Digital media represents an industry where buyers routinely do not get what they pay for.

The Compelling Reason Why Walmart Won't Oppose a Minimum Wage Increase

You are absolutely right. That is not a picture of Sam Walton, Walmart's founding deity.

That is an entrepreneurial predecessor of 'Ol Sam's named Henry Ford. And Henry's experience is proving to be instructive as Walmart contemplates the global economy.

Henry recognized - as most people in business seem to know - that if your workers - or people like your workers - could not afford your product you would be unlikely to sell a whole bunch of it or them, thereby making it difficult for you to achieve what we now call scale. So Henry  paid his workforce the then unheard-of wage of $5 a day which is what his analysis told him would enable them to go out a buy one of his infernal machines.

Walmart does not sell anything nearly as expensive as a car. But even so, its own workers and their friends and relatives are finding it difficult to come up with the scratch to afford toilet paper and lamps and pillows and hammers and t-shirts and oh yeah, food. Even really cheap, unhealthy food. So its profits and stock price have been hurt as sales fall due to the fact that wages, including the ones it pays, have not kept up with inflation or the cost of living.

So Walmart is reluctantly, even resentfully refusing to oppose an increase in the minimum wage because a bunch of that new income will find its way into Walmart's coffers. Rest assured they're not happy about this compromise. But necessity has a way of doing this sort of thing to you. JL

David Callahan comments in Policy Shop:

"Just because we don't oppose it, doesn't mean we support it,"

As Competition Intensifies, How to Differentiate The Cloud

When your margins are vast and your competition is limited you can make lots of money. And when newer, well-financed rivals appear you still have capacity to cut prices in order to buy or maintain market share.

But then what?

That is the question many tech overlords are asking as resistance to The Cloud proves increasingly futile so that differentiation of services and quality of outcomes becomes more important to sustaining competitive advantage.

Most of the players in this game appear to be emphasizing the core strengths in which they are already heavily invested: consulting if you're IBM, scale if you're Amazon. But as the following article explains, that only works so long as the market and the design of services available evolves less quickly than you're own capacity to anticipate demand. JL

Mohana Ravindranath reports in the Washington Post:

The idea is initially, you’re basically in land-grab mode.

Naming Names: Why the US Is Escalating Its Cyberespionage Fight with China

The US and China have for years been engaged in name-calling and taunting over cyber-espionage like a couple of playground bullies. Suddenly, the US ratcheted up the tension by going beyond the 2013 Mandiant report that named a Chinese People Liberation Army unit, actually indicting specific individuals, who, it says, it can prove stole documents online, some involving nuclear power plants.

So why now and why this? The Russians would appear to be a more obvious target given their actions in Ukraine and Syria, while none of the companies from whom secrets were apparently stolen are at the forefront of US technological design.

And that would appear to be precisely the point.

Russia is simply too hot right now. With 40,000 well-armed troops on the Ukrainian border and its leader finally making de-escalation noises, there would be little to gain by antagonizing the Bear.

China, however, appears to have crossed three red lines in its espionage activities: nuclear power, an industry in which the US retains some competitive advantages and the sabotage of which is every counter-terrorism expert's worst nightmare; technology, the current and probably future source of US economic well-being and, perhaps the most important, the President's personal pride. 

President Obama has been openly mocked for the weakness of his foreign policy in Syria, Ukraine and almost everywhere else. His once notably unconcerned demeanor has shown cracks, suggesting that those jibes have hit home. Even his supporters retain some pride in the notion of the US as the liberator of Europe in two world wars. So getting tough with a country who many of his constituents also believe is stealing US jobs and intellectual property is an easy win. Commentators who note the irony of the US charges in the wake of Edward Snowden's NSA revelations may be missing the point: the US is well aware of the perceived disparity and doesnt care. It is sending a message to the rest of the world that it has the capability to identify transgressors with the unspoken threat that it could do more - and it is reassuring domestic voters that it is not going to be pushed around. Pretty clever. If it works. JL

Lorenzo Franceschi-Bicchierai comments in Mashable:

The U.S. government has long accused the Chinese government of spying on American companies to steal intellectual property, but the indictment is a milestone in what has until now been a rhetorical fight.

Is the Internet of Things for Real? And If So, Is That Good?

Comin' at you, just as you were beginning to think you kinda got big data, the next epochal, life-changing innovation: the internet of things!

Or so we are told. But what's a little unsettling is that before we've even had a chance to think about the benefits of our refrigerator and pool heater collaborating, there are already whispers. And not the nice, envious kind. More like the heeheehee, can't wait to watch this train wreck kind.

So, what's up with that? What happened to the period of breathless hype and adulation to which all new developments are constitutionally entitled?

Ok, sure, there are going to be some security bugs to be worked out, and yeah, some unanticipated complications will probably emerge, but hey, that's part of the fun. Serendipity R Us.

But maybe, just maybe, the issue is that given how all this technological development hasnt made the world a better place for the vast majority, we're just a little, ya know, wobbly on the 'it's all good' stuff these days. JL

Klint Finley comments in Wired:

The threat of building a world that may be too complex for our own good.

The Apple-Google Smartphone Patent Settlement: End of the Beginning?

What does it signify, beyond the fact that both companies got tired of nine figure legal fees, that two of tech's - and the business world's - most relentless antagonists finally agreed to move on?

Well, it is the end of an era that many thought had actually ended when Steve Jobs died. The us-against-the-world attitude is no longer a sufficiently profitable proposition to make either the pursuit of one's enemies or the extra-legal defiance of authority worthwhile.

That's a significant proposition, even if the Apple-Samsung case continues to wend its way through the courts, albeit in a battered and probably soon to be settled fashion. The conservative judicial establishment, usually willing to do business' bidding, has determined that there is greater benefit to be had from a less rather than more restrictive patent system and from the innovations that flow from it.
 
This also suggests a recognition that the rewards of sharing far exceed the futility of attempting to prove who did what first, especially when it comes to the technology du jour, the mobile phone. Things are moving too far and too fast for the legal system to keep up: Samsung may not even care if Apple eventually wins and Apple may not benefit if it does.

All of which implies that we need to more optimally explore the benefits of collaboration while keeping an eye out for whatever it is we want to fight about next. JL


Tim Worstall comments in Forbes:

We need the system to protect strong and original ideas, to allow some but not all derivative ideas and not to protect ideas that aren’t original. Our patent system gets a lot of stick currently because it’s not entirely clear that it manages to do all of these tasks.

The United States of Metrics

What are we trying to prove, exactly? Or maybe inexactly. We have become besotted with metrics, lathering ourselves with numbers, drowning in measurements.

Is there a purpose to all this or are we, collectively, like a kid with a new toy: unable to stop playing because we are just so delighted with our latest distraction?

This is, to a great degree, an extension of our fascination with technology generally and the power of smart phones specifically. We have access to features of whose wondrous capabilities we are justifiably in awe. The potential inherent in taking that mishmash ofinformation, reducing it to data and then attempting to apply it is impossible to resist. And bravo to us for trying.

But the question remains: are we giving sufficient (some might say any...) thought to either the meaning or to the  implications of all this.

Meaning requires interpretation. Interpretation requires context and context requires knowledge, experience and at its apogee, wisdom. All of which extend outwards to sources and uses. The debate about what we are giving up - socially, intellectually, morally - to acquire the raw material for our new constructs has only just begun. The implications are that we are, as yet, either incapable or unwilling to manage the data and the process by which it is obtained. Until we do so the usefulness of the exercise is questionable because thebroader applications and the results they generate, if any, will be similarly uncertain.

Measures generated during times of great change tend not to have long term impacts. And the perfect - or  our search for it - tends to be the enemy of the good. This suggests that we should continue to experiment - and nurture our sense of wonder - but not lose sight of the fact that we may not yet have the answers we seek. JL
 
Bruce Feiler comments in the New York Times:

As the greatest numbers person of the 20th century, Albert Einstein, warned, “Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted.”

The Wisdom of (Small) Crowds

It was inevitable given the number of 'economies' we inhabit simultaneously that two or more of them would come into conflict eventually.

Not so much open warfare - even of the intellectual kind (though that can be among the most vicious) - but more like that of intense internal contradiction.

The two that seem especially ripe at this moment are the Knowledge Economy and the Sharing Economy. The conflict, as the following article explains, is that our belief in the wisdom of crowds and, by extension, of the wisdom inherent in such large groups, may, in fact, be misleading.

Now, not following the crowd has long been seen as evidence of positives: independence of mind and the like, but our reliance on technology, the confusing signals the global economy may or may not be sending us and our own resultant insecurities are driving us towards greater reliance on others. Social media and especially sm-based marketing is based on this. Urbanization is its societal manifestation. But even within our desire to know and to share, neither of which is bad or flawed, must be an understanding that interpretation based on experience and wisdom can not simply be outsourced, however comfortable that makes us feel. JL

Drake Bennett reports in Business Week:

In big crowds, the stuff that everyone knows dominates the group decision, even if the thing that everyone knows is wrong.

The Zero Marginal Cost Society: Is Capitalism Driving Itself Out of Business?

Vladimir Ilyich Lenin claimed that capitalists would sell his comrades and him the rope with which they would hang them.

It was meant as a jibe at the perceived greed and cluelessness of those hated enemies.As fate and economics would have it, of course, 'ol VI was off by almost a century and an entire philosophical construct, but irony being what it is, he may have been more wrong about the particulars than about  the final outcome.

In the relentless drive for productivity, efficiency and concentration on core competencies, capitalism's latter day handmaiden, technology, may be doing the job far more effectively than mobs of heroic workers and soldiers ever could have imagined - and at a handsome profit.

The issue is a sort of John. D. Rockefeller variation on a theme by Ned Ludd: at what point does capitalism disintermediate itself out of existence? The question is fanciful, of course, because we have seen the evidence of relentless self-interest at work, but the fact remains that the economy's capacity to catch up with innovation has been disappointing of late. Since investment in research, development and government services is out of favor, we can only imagine where history will take us. Mutual benefit to the barricades. JL

Scott Olster comments in Fortune:

The private market's drive for productivity has brought us closer to a world in which the marginal cost to produce just about everything will inch closer and closer to zero.

Bar Code Bait: Knockoffs Proliferate Among Ecommerce Inventories

There is a reason why the worlds 'inventory' and 'invent' have the same root. The ancient Romans grasped the connection between finding and a list of things found. Which is why caveat emptor - let the buyer beware - is one of the latin phrases that has stood the test
of time.

Which is not to say that all online purchases are fraudulent or even ripe for it, just that, well, the financial pressure to secure investment, impress securities analysts, generate enough interest to generate satisfactory returns and deliver a liquidity event can lead to inventory optimization strategies focused more on margins than on customer satisfaction.

And yes, the market may eventually sink those enterprises that too frequently fail to deliver as promised. But in a market based on
convenience, how many people really want the hassle of complaining? And how many of them will it take to initiate change?

All of which comes to our attention because as ecommerce matures, its tax advantages are removed, price comparisons erode and it is forced to compete on less dominant grounds - like delivery, just to name one - the cost of policing the system becomes overwhelming and the risk to the franchise harder to govern. JL

Serena Ng and Greg Bensinger report in the Wall Street Journal:

On Amazon, Purchases Might Not Come From the Seller You Choose, Opening the Door to Knockoffs