Today I stumbled upon Naveen’s ingenious solution and “signal vs noise” approach towards notifications. Cutting back distractions, especially from our mobile phones, is something that we all need right now. Core medium of distractions on our mobile phones is the notifications channel. In short, that’s what Naveen did:
Turned off notifications on less-frequently (or never) used applications.
Made sure that all notifications, no matter where they come from, never ‘light’ up the [lock] screen; only appear when swiping into iOS’ Notifications Center. Increases battery life: the screen doesn’t have to wake up a hundred times a day.
Turned off all sounds for alerts: the only thing that rings is a phone call. Old-school.
This method is, I dare say, profoundly smart and simple. I tried it right the instant I read it only with two slight variations. I ‘banned,’ as stated in point #2, all notifications from popping up on the lock screen but missed Phone calls, iMessages/texts, and email from specific contacts (thanks to the VIP feature of the iOS Mail.app—love it.) Why? I don’t want to miss missed phone calls (oh, there’s funny logic here but I hope you get the point), texts, and important email. Sometimes these are important and, perhaps, necessary distractions.
Also, I still have sound alerts not only for current phone calls but also for texts, calendar reminders, iOS Reminders, and VIP email (as stated previously). Everything else is silenced. Oh, and it feels so good. The occasional phone call sound is still at large, and, although, I don’t want to miss any new texts I have no problem missing Facebook, Hangout, etc messages. Unfortunately, you can’t silence only VIP emails. Were it possible, I’d opt-in for that.
My only concern now is I’m not sure if I want to deactivate all banner-like notifications from the apps and keep the post-lock screen totally clean unless I swipe into the Notifications Center to check and catch up or I want this vague kind of “quick recap of what’s happened” by the moment I unlock my phone. Tweetbot seems to work fine with banners, Instagram on the other hand always loads ~5 consecutive banners which can become frustrating.
In a more theoretical media and technological context, this notifications organizing system thrives. That’s why I said it “profoundly smart and simple.” Because it transforms a device and a whole interactive technical environment from attention-seeking to, finally, become a calm, almost invisible piece of everyday hardware, which instead of being noisy it’s actually quite silent. Its most important contribution though, I think, is that it somehow re-writes your brain deleting all “Oh, I’m waiting at dinner, let me check my phone” obnoxious type of actions. There isn’t anymore this subconscious anxiety of “something might have happened in my lock screen and I just want to check.” It’s way more productive and relaxing.
If you’re using an iOS device, frequent at many services and apps, are overwhelmed by all the notifications, their demands for your attention for unimportant actions throughout the day, and seriously dislike battery drain I can only recommend Naveen’s notifications system.
And as Ben Horowitz would eloquently put it: “Dolla, dolla, bill y’all.”
Yahoo’s acquisition of Tumblr for $1.1B is the talk of the town lately. The biggest venture-backed tech sale to ever hit New York. And as I experienced twice the New York entrepreneurial and startup ecosystem, most recently two weeks ago through the World To NYC program (more on that on a later post) while not having fun with Google Glass, and one time last summer when I interned for Daily Secret, allow me to ponder on a short post about the importance of this exit. Not only about New York itself but, mainly, about every other startup ecosystem out there; the one I’m based currently in Vienna, and most importantly about the one back home in Greece; the one Athens.
Let’s forget for a moment all the cool profiles and features about David Karp; or how Tumblr evolved, why it, by most accounts, struggled to grow revenues (and the list goes on) and let’s focus on the business and the micro-economics side of things. (If it’s not ‘micro’ please do let me know and I’ll right the wrong.)
The $1.1B deal will net for Tumblr founder David Karp more than $250 million. Union Square Ventures of the great Fred Wilson will total a return of 5,000% which translates to $253M, mostly from a $400k seed investment back in 2007, while USV’s total investment is estimated at less than $5 million.
Boston-based Spark Capital of Bijan Sibat will net $231M — $77M of them going to Sibat himself (if I understood it correctly.) $231M translates to an astonishing 4,000% return.
Sequoia Capital from Silicon Valley, known for funding Apple among other Valley behemoths, will see a total return of 700% — $176M in just three years.
Tumblr employees also got a fair share of equity back in the day, thus we have: the first 10 employees will receive an average of $6.2 million in cash (I think here ‘belongs’ Marco Arment,) the first 30 will receive an average of $3.3 million (again, cash) and the rest of the 178 employees will each receive $371,000.
Now, if we pull Sequoia out of the equation because it’s based in Silicon Valley and keep Spark Capital in because it’s based in Boston and invests in East Coast, hence also New York, we have a total of $959,183,000.
C.R.E.A.M. (Cash Rules Everything Around Me)
$959,183,000 is a lot of money. Let me elaborate why it’s important for the New York ecosystem. Because this amount, diversified among investors, founders, and employees, will be recycled in the future into the New York tech startup ecosystem.
Tumblr employees will go to start their own companies (if they’ll succeed or fail is completely irrelevant for now), Karp himself can become an Angel with $250M, Fred Wilson through USV will have another $250M to invest. They will create new jobs, companies, they will generate new investments. The big picture is that this huge amount of money will be reinvested back into the next generation of New York City startups.
What about x-ecosystem?
If you read Tech and the City by Alessandro Piol and Maria Teresa Cometto, foreworded by Fred Wilson himself, the chronicles of the New York tech scene since its very proto-beginnings in the early ’90s (thanks for the gift, World to NYC!) you’ll understand that it took many years for New York to become what it is today — to actively challenge and be #2 in the US after Silicon Valley with just a fraction of lifetime.
Of course, Mayor Bloomberg helped a lot with many initiatives but the real work comes from people like Fred Wilson who invested, lost everything, and then re-invested in this ecosystem — and of course the founders themselves. Exit-success stories are needed to generate previously not available cash, distribute it among key players of the ecosystem, who will reinvest it in the next generation of entrepreneurs. This is how an ecosystem is truly born; everything else is pomposity and fanfares.
Don’t get me wrong: events, community building, co-working spaces, hackathons, you name it, are indeed important but not a) sustainable, and b) enough in and for the long-run. A round of few exits from true doers despite all the uncertainty and chaos that surrounds them are (or a couple very big success stories — the difference doesn’t matter) important for the longevity of a given ecosystem and true enablers of its potential. Athens, Vienna, take note.
Last week I was in New York for World to NYC and I happened to try Google Glass in the NY Tech Meetup. World to NYC is a program hosted by NYC EDC, New York City’s arm for economic development which invites founders from across the world to get to know the NYC startup ecosystem, companies, and investors.
I never had met Jonathan Gottfried previously. But I knew him online because of his work as a developer evangelist at Twilio. We accidentally met at a startup booth in the NY Tech Meetup after-party in NYU. I asked him about trying Glass out — he was kind enough to say yes (thanks, Jon!) We went outside the big meetup room and into the floor lobby in order to not get swarmed by other people eager to try out Glass. Turns out, we did.
Let me point out that this post is more of a long essay about Glass, its future as a product and what it means for our society, rather than a simple review. Since I wore it for about 5 to 10 minutes I’m not in a position to review it.
If you follow me over on Twitter or read this blog quite frequently you already know by now how much I love Glass and the promise it carries.
There’s a Glass narrative which stretches back to July 2012. In The Next Big Thing (November, 2012) I was writing:
The most profound and quick answer that comes to my mind is Google Glass. I love its potential. And for the nay-sayers: no, you don’t look stupid, on the other hand it’s pretty cool — you look like Vegeta and, please, oh please, just imagine the potential. Retina-embedded layers.
Google magically transformed and managed to inspire again. Project Glass has a gigantic potential, radically transforming our lives with entirely new paradigm shifts.
Google Glass is the next big step for Google. […] from a product and tech perspective it is one of the most truly exciting things out there. And it can easily integrate with Google’s data pool, hence capitalize it and push “personalization” to a whole new level. […] Google Glass will be everywhere with you.
[…] most importantly, Google Glass will be a landmark event in Google’s history. It will depict the transition between a web/software company, from producing stuff that “doesn’t exist,” to stuff that does actually exist […] This event enables Google to capitalize a lot more on its data: use it as a generator of products both of software and hardware nature. And hardware might be a hard problem to tackle, but even at the early stages of Google Glass, we see that Google can indeed tackle it.
From the aforementioned quotes I’ll note down the following: “gigantic potential,” “retina-embedded layers,” “landmark event,” and “paradigm shift.” These few words, I think, describe in an essence all what Glass stands for. And before I jump to abstract techno-utopian philosophical conclusions about the digital nature and future of our lives and society let me first describe how Glass works and feels like.
It is lightweight. Extremely lightweight. It never feels like you’re wearing something on top of your ears and nose. More importantly, it doesn’t block your normal optical vision. When Glass sleeps (hint: most of the time if you’re not using it) it’s like it’s not even there. It truly gets out of your way — and that’s remarkable for a physical thing that exists on top of your head and in front of your eyes.
Overall, its physical design is small; yet big. And by that I mean: it is small as a hardware device, especially considering its right part which includes the battery (which, I think, lasts for about a day) and the touch interface to navigate through menus and options by swiping up / down, left / right. However, it is still big in the sense of how smaller it can (will) be in future versions given the hardware progress we can naturally depend on Google making soon.
Jon Gottfried sporting Glass
“Ok, glass…” — this is how the future sounds like. Google, Take a picture, record a video, get directions to, send a message to. These are the basic voice commands for Glass right now. There are also “make a call,” “hang out” (you guessed it right — video calls through Google Plus’ Hangout service) and more. You can also use “ok, glass, google …” in very powerful ways, just like you’d do on the web.
The display feels more like a holographic video projection between two pieces of glass rather than a monitor. Its color quality is not perfect and a little bit below of what you’d normally expect but it’s still version #1. Naturally, there’s a lot of room for improvement in the future. I’m certain this will get better. Below there is a video I recorded with “ok, glass record a video.” Unfortunately Jon couldn’t find a couple of other photos I took and I can’t upload them. But basically this is the real deal; raw Glass HD video from the NY Tech Meetup.
Here’s also a summary of what Glass can do as of now:
Take, display photos
Record, play videos
Read and respond to email, texts, and Gtalk chats
Make and receive phone calls
Perform video chats with Google+ Hangouts
Turn-by-Turn Driving, Biking, and Walking directions
Personalized suggestions and information from Google Now based on your Google account history and activity
Google search
Download and run 3rd-party apps such as New York Times, Evernote, and more
Browse your recent activity history over a several day period
Glass wouldn’t be nearly as great without 3rd-party apps. Exactly like the iPhone and its App Store. Currently, there’s a limited selection of said apps which includes (but I’m not sure if it’s limited to) Glass Feed (post directly from your Glass to an RSS feed using IFTTT,) New York Times (breaking news notifications,) Glass Tweet (hacked by Jon,) Glassagram (an Instagram client,) a Reddit one, Evernote, Gmail and Path. You can find more about them in this proto-directory. I’m sure there are more to come since Google released an SDK. There are also some other cool upcoming features like 360-sphere photos, snapping photos with just a wink of your eye, and facial recognition. On a relevant note about facial recognition: how about making a facial recognition technology which works sans ‘facial?’ This extremely interesting paper from Duke University explains it all: InSight: Recognizing Humans without Face Recognition (pdf link) (which I recommend to at least adding it in your Instapaper/Pocket/bookmarks.) In a test of 15 people, it was able to recognize them 93 percent of the time. It’s not integrated directly into Glass yet: it’s a smartphone app that connects to the camera via Bluetooth and displays functions on top of Glass.
Aside apps, there is also this amazing design concept about Glass and how it can visualize questions, actions, and real-time environment data. Designer Jack Morgan writes:
Google Glass is years ahead of its time, but to me it just means that the future is already here, and it’s a future that’s made of Glass.
Here are some cool photos. Be sure to check out the whole concept on his blog.
This slideshow requires JavaScript.
All this is merely trivial, though, when it comes to talk about Glass’ context. Sure — more and better features, better display, more ‘social’ and personalization, more reddit cats right in front of your eyes, people of the internets. Features and upgrades like these will come down the road. Plus, more wearable computing devices by competitors. And, ultimately, that’s good for us.
But Glass is something much more than a new market/industry/vertical defining gadget. In the grand scheme of things, it’s one of our baby steps to see how machines see, to augment and make exponentially more usable our world. One step closer to see like, utilize our immediate environment, and harness data with the power of machines — right in front of our eyes. More importantly, Glass signifies the potential of embedding itself in our eyes. It’ll start as contact lenses, it’ll move to something smaller, maybe at some point we’ll be born with something like Glass right within your eyes. And who knows, maybe in x years time we’ll say to kids “I remember how it was to see naturally, how all this started with a big physical device on your head” and the kids will be “Big physical device? How old are ya?!”
This future might be indeed scary and way over the freaky line for some but… this is it. And it cannot change. This is where we’re heading to. Glass is not only a landmark event for and about Google but for us, as a society and culture, as well. Not Glass itself but its concept; the heavy promise it carries. Seeing like machines is only a small percentage of the totality of new things that will be introduced and start being the norm as more wearable computing devices emerge and we’ll collectively start using them.
In the words of Alan Kay, “The computer is a medium, and like the printed book during the middle ages, has the potential to modify the thought patterns of those who are literate.” Exactly the same applies for Glass. While the need to describe more about Glass’ context allows us to use the term ”paradigm shift,” I think it’s not ideal because this implies something minuscule. ”Paradigm shift” is, I think, similar to the way we describe how mobile phones were introduced in our lives back in the late ’90s and early aughts. It was a huge change but I’m not positive it will ever be as big as and more impactful than the wearable computing devices’ one. The potential is still here though, however Glass performs market-wise. And, frankly, I have no idea if it will be a market success. Many love it, many hate it, and many more don’t understand the changes it will bring. But it’s irrelevant. Here’s the catch: no matter its performance, it will bring changes. It will re-define things, concepts, lifestyles, relationships. Relationships not only between humans but also between humans and objects. Exactly like the iPad — i.e., even if it wasn’t a best-selling device it’d still define for years to come the tablet market.
Of course, we can go on talking about techno-utopias and the co-existence of humans and machines for hours. But let me dive deeper in our contemporary world, its status quo and the issues we’re facing and maybe I’ll get back to the ‘future’ in a while. Google Glass started from something very humble in Google’s [x]Lab whose director is Sergey Brin, quite possibly also the grandfather of Glass. The idea was to fix the problem of being always needy about and distracted by our phones. It’s a hyper-connected world we live in and for some their smartphones are sometimes more important, distracting, and time-consuming than their laptops.
We’ve seen that all this technology which surrounds us, has made us prone to distractions more than ever. For example, I don’t remember the last time when I hanged out with my friends and I didn’t check my iPhone — or even my friends not checking theirs, for that matter. Our contemporary culture is heavily based on attention-seeking actions, objects, and everything in between. Sometimes it can be overwhelming. Notifications coming hourly in our phones begging for an action; “Reply me,” “View me,” “Comment me,” “Like me,” and generally all sorts of demanding stuff. From games and their useless in-app purchases about cheaper boots for your RPG character, to whom retweeted your tweet, and who added you as a friend on that obscure social networking app you downloaded the other day and still haven’t deleted it. We can do better, that’s what Brin always takes for granted. And thus Glass was born.
It is fairly easy, though, for one to argue that there’s no actual difference with Glass since everything simply changes location and medium (from your phone to Glass) and as a result comes even closer to your eyes. In fact, in front them. This approach may seem valid in the beginning, but by thinking about it a little more it is clear that it, in fact, is unsound. Glass doesn’t simply take an existing experience and replace it. It creates a new one, entirely different without the problems of the old one. For starters, when you don’t need Glass, it disappears automatically. It doesn’t get in your way, it doesn’t seek attention — Glass patiently waits for you and your commands. To fulfill them.
Core attribute of this new experience is its futuristic flare. Things don’t show up when they want but when you want them to. This is vastly different compared to the nature of mobile phones and their notification systems whether it’s iOS or Android. And when there’s nothing to show, there’s nothing to see, ergo you’re offline while always being online. Maybe our first digital hallucination — being out of the Matrix while, essentially, being inside it. Machines do know our human nature. After all, they’re the reflections ouf our dreams, hopes, virtues and vices, fears, ambitions, and most importantly, our own selves.
Everyday we’re getting closer to the machines and the machines get closer to us. They know us — we taught them how — they can predict us, they can understand us. Someday we almost won’t be able to tell the difference between us and them, unless for our own Voight-Kampff test, and all this starts right now with Glass. In essence, Glass has captured all our futuristic dreams, wishes, and aspirations spanning across generations and has started the revolution. Machines found a way on us; soon enough they’ll found a way inside us, and I for one, welcome it. It’s only a matter of time.
~
In 1967 George R. Price went to London after reading Hamilton’s little known papers about the selfish gene theory and discovering that he was already familiar with the equations; that they were the equations of computers. He was able to show that the equations explained murder, warfare, suicide, goodness, spite, since these behaviors could help the genes. John Von Neumann, after all, had invented self-reproducing machines, but Price was able to show that the self-reproducing machines were already in existence, that humans were the machines.
“And all watched over by machines of loving grace” is now more true than ever. Beautiful machines.
—
Upd: Today, just after publishing this very post I attended a guest lecture by Computer Science pioneer and legend Don Knuth here in Vienna University of Technology. It’s the first of the Gödel Lectures Series organized by our Computer Science faculty. I feel very fortunate to have met one of the greats. I asked him about machines and humans and this is his answer:
Computer Science is wonderful but it doesn’t answer everything. We, as humans, have some limitations and we should be humble and embrace them. Some spiritual things will never get an answer — that’s another whole different realm that science cannot provide an adequate answer for. And, if in fact, “we’re watched over by machines of loving grace” — if Game of Life is somehow applied in our reality and our universe — and our universe is a computer simulation, which means we’re simply mathematical representations and everything is deterministic and, as a result, we lose our free will, then there’s nothing we can do about it and we cannot answer it, thus we shouldn’t bother thinking about it. I’m grateful for the machines.
Our world is a startup. Take a break, lean back, zoom out and see the bigger picture.
By 2016 88% of the world’s population will live in emerging markets. 2/3 of global GDP growth will occur in emerging markets, QZ reports. Whatever you do for a living, whatever you study right now in school, think about those two sentences for a second. Friendly reminder: it’s already 2013 — and emerging markets are no longer emerging.
Now do the following simile. We, the West and the so-called developed countries are the world’s IBMs, Microsofts, Googles. Multinational behemoths. We are rich, we’re doing pretty good but our growth rate is small. For the sake of the argument I set aside the current financial crisis in Europe and the 2008 one from which the US only now recovers from. Or Apple’s plummeting stock.
Emerging markets are the startups of our world. Fueled by huge growth, ready to disrupt the behemoths and their industries. Ready to challenge the status quo. And due to their astonishing growth rate they’ll soon have billions of ‘users’ — 88% of the world’s population by 2016. Daunting.
You know how the game is played. Small eats big.
The world is not what it was 5 years ago. Our contemporary landscape is changing fast — faster than ever. We can’t live our lives, build businesses, innovate, tackle big problems, or even write public policies dictated by ideas of the old world; of obscene restrictions, regulations, irrational and unrealistic world-views, and country-focused outlooks.
If you still aren’t thinking globally by default, then I’m afraid, you’ve lost the game.