Page 24 – Dug Campbell

The Year Ahead

I’ve been thinking about how to evolve this blog over the next twelve months. It originally started out a few years back as a place for me to post more considered, long-form articles that went into some depth on topics that fascinated me.

That worked for a while – in the sense that I enjoyed writing and received complimentary feedback from various quarters. But as someone far more productive than me (in making quotable statements, if nothing else) once wrote, “The perfect is the enemy of the good“. The reality is that whilst the more detailed and comprehensive articles may attract decent levels of interest online, the extra effort required to polish up that final 20% slows down the frequency of posts.

But doesn’t quality beat quantity? Usually – but with one caveat. Regular practice inevitably improves quality and writing should be no different. At the same time, I’ve always found that the process of moving knowledge from head to screen using your own words is the most powerful learning technique there is.

So I took the decision to just relax a little more in each post and to just write more frequently – every day – more broadly about the topics that interested me. The logic’s pretty simple. Even if I turn out to be the only one out there that enjoys these topics, at least I’ll enjoy looking back over some of the posts in the years to come and see just how far some of the thinking has evolved.

This year, I’ll keep that approach going. I’m hoping to redesign the site in the near future to make things cleaner and easier to read, particularly on mobile platforms. And as for the topics themselves, I don’t think they’ll be of any surprise to those that have visited before.

The key theme will inevitably be Bitcoin and associated block chain technologies. But on top of that, the other areas under the spotlight this year will likely be data security, surveillance, drone technology, 3D printing, the internet of things, networks, startups, VC investment, AI, the coming singularity and last, but by no means least, how traditional forms of creativity can not only survive but thrive in a digital world.

I’m guessing that’ll keep me pretty busy for the next 364 days.

The 2014 End Of Year Soundtrack

It’s been a busy year. Over the course of the past twelve months, I’ve been fortunate enough to meet and speak with some of the most creative and intelligent people of my life to date. I’ve learned more about a vast range of subjects than at any other point of my life and as a result I now have more questions to resolve than ever before as the year draws to a close.

That, to me, is a good thing. It’s a sign of progress.

I’ve written before about how I dislike making predictions. So to wrap the year up, I thought I’d put a little marker down instead to remind myself of some of the songs and albums that have soundtracked my year. By no means comprehensive, this will if nothing else help to remind me of the people, places and ideas that have shaped my 2014.

Thanks for reading – I hope you have a great 2015!

The Interview and Film Distribution Models

I’ve intentionally avoided the big story over the past few weeks surrounding the decision by Sony (or was it the cinemas) in the US to pull the screenings of “The Interview”. From the start, there was a clear dissonance within the allegations that were freely flying around. It didn’t help that over the same time period, I was reading more about the activities of the NSA and GCHQ in a book on Edward Snowden. With some of that information playing on my mind, it seemed far more likely to me that someone other than the publicly accused perpetrators had to be guilty of hacking into Sony.

I suspect the full story will come out over the fullness of time. But I also think that we’ll look back in a year or so and view the whole sorry episode as being pretty valuable. Not in a ‘national security’ sort of way but as an indication of the evolution that is still to come within the traditional distribution model within the film business.

We all love the cinema. But we also love convenience and, increasingly in today’s world, I would argue that it is the latter that is proving to be a greater passion for most. And whilst the circumstances surrounding this film were undoubtedly unique, the numbers don’t lie – far more people paid to stream the film online during the first four days of its release than bought tickets to see it at the cinema. Is this the start of a sustained and ultimately successful attack on the ‘windowing’ business model whereby the content owner staggers the release by format type (against the wishes of customers) in order to maximise revenue?

It’s hardly a new approach (I wrote about windowing and the barrage of criticism following Taylor Swift’s withdrawal from Spotify previously) but it’s beyond doubt that there is significant demand out there for same day-releases. The question is whether the existing industry structure can build a model to satisfy this demand – or whether it will take disruptive companies such as Netflix to flex their power and focus their attentions further up the chain in order to start to making the films themselves.

The other thing that has come again to the fore over the past week is the fact that with a US-only film release, Sony managed to shoot themselves in the foot. Did this stop people outside of the US watching it? No, of course it didn’t. It just mean that people turned to torrents instead of paying for it. Again, I don’t blame Sony entirely for this given the unique circumstances which might have justified a cautious and limited release in their eyes. But it remains another example of a company failing to fully address the fact that the release of a digital product that is not global and released simultaneously across countries will be exploited.

I suspect the story’s far from over on this one. And who knows, I may even get round to watching the film one day.

Passive Consumption

Henry Blodget recently pointed out that people in the developed world have, over the past 150 years, managed to achieve a reduction in working time thanks to a variety of technological advancements. In short, whilst the normal time constraints (i.e. hours per day) have remained constant (unsurprisingly), people now manage to work 30 hours a week less on average.

So how has this mass of humanity responded to being granted such potential in the form of more free time for all? How have we combined our knowledge and ingenuity to utilise all of these technological developments?

We, er, watch more TV.

Number of Work Hours Per Week (1870 - 2000) by Max Roser — Number of Work Hours Per Week (1870 – 2000) by Max Roser

Recent figures show that the average human spends about 28 hours a week (4 hours a day) watching television.

An unpopular time of the year to be railing against the box in the corner of the room perhaps. But – really?

It’s always seemed to me that some technology encourages passive consumption and some technology accelerates active creation. In many ways, the creative output is of far less importance than the fact that the process itself is taking place. Whilst life requires the existence of both types of technology, the latter commands an importance that is of an order of magnitude greater than the former – irrespective of whether such creativity is deemed to be ‘successful’. And unfortunately for those that don’t understand such technology – or at the very least engage with both types at some level, no matter how basic – I find it hard to envisage a world where they will ever have access to the same opportunities. Like it or not, that to me seems to be the world that we are now increasingly living in.

Design Something They Didn’t Know They Needed

In the ‘good’ old days, a business would sell a new product based on its perception of what potential customers might want. A product or service would be designed, priced and shipped, and there would be precious little that you could do other than wait for the demand (or lack thereof) to be proved beyond any doubt as the money either subsequently piled in or the launch flopped.

It didn’t take long for businesses to start to refine their approach, eager as they were to develop more successful products using more efficient methods. Market research, focus groups and interviews with target customers were all introduced to help accelerate the time spent from initial product design to the launch of a product that (on paper at least) satisfied certain articulated demand.

With the emergence of software businesses, the delay between research and shipping a minimum viable product in order to capture valuable market feedback has contracted significantly. This can be a double-edged sword however, with significantly cheaper costs also bringing with it far lower barriers to entry for competitors. And this process is likely to only get faster with the growing use of 3D printing to produce rapid prototyping that will act as the first iteration of a product for potential customers.

But whilst the process is speeding up and more valuable customer feedback is increasingly being captured, there is also a far wider strategic risk that many businesses simply fail to consider. The problem is that any potential customer who is able to tell you what they need is just as able to pass on the same information to your competitors. So you face a very real risk of becoming engaged in a feature-war with competitors as you each continue to replicate the other’s features in the course of a competitive price war that continues to spiral downwards as both sides seek to capture market share.

The alternative is to come up with a product or service that is far more valuable, one that delights the customer. Achieve this and customers will be happy to pay a premium. Easier said than done, no doubt about it. And what makes it worse is that this just isn’t possible if you are relying alone on conversations that you set up with people that may turn out to be potential customers. As Henry Ford once commented when looking back on his successful car business, if he’d started by asking his customers what they wanted, they’d have said ‘a faster horse’. To succeed in what is likely to be a far more complicated task, you need to be far more empathetic to the lives and needs of your customers. By pursuing a ‘design thinking‘ mindset. the truly successful business looks at the bigger picture:

“Approaching a problem with a design thinking mindset, however, certainly takes into account what a customer says, but simply as one input among many. In this approach, observing the way people really live, developing a deep understanding of the real problems they have, and gaining an appreciation of the “hacks” they devise to overcome them can deliver an understanding of prospective customers’ needs that is more accurate than what any of those prospective customers could ever articulate on their own.” (Stratechery)

I find this approach fascinating because it makes clear that ‘design’ isn’t about the product simply looking amazing. Instead it’s all about building up that knowledge and understanding of those that you wish to convert into customers. To be successful, you can’t help but end up understanding more about the group’s motivations and needs on a far deeper level than even they’re likely to be conscious of themselves. And when you’re creating a product that aims to delight and command above-average loyalty, that seems to be a pretty sound investment to my mind.

Are You Advising Or Simply Restating Facts?

Part of the reason that I blog regularly is so that I have a place to record some of the many gems of wisdom that I stumble across randomly during the course of each day’s online travels.

Today it’s the turn of Brad Feld’s post ‘Mentors 9/18: Clearly Separate Opinion From Fact‘ which is taken from his upcoming new book, ‘Startup Opportunities: Know When To Quit Your Day Job‘.

He points out that many people who advise others fail to fully appreciate the difference between facts, data and opinions. Whilst Brad is tackling the mentor/mentee relationship in his post, it’s clear that the same warning applies to anyone who advises others (the role of lawyers immediately sprang to mind here to me).

In short, advisors will often justify (unconsciously perhaps) their role in the relationship by stating that something is a fact when the statement is in reality simply their opinion. Of course, a statement might be based on data (truth) which you used to subsequently form your opinion. But an opinion is necessarily an extension of the facts. Your opinion is not factual in and of itself. But the person who listens to it has no way of knowing that they’re listening to an opinion rather than a fact.

The point is simply to be clear about the advice that you’re offering to the person that you’re helping – is it fact or is it opinion?

Both are valuable but conflating the latter with the former can have negative consequences for the person who is eagerly waiting to use what you say to help them make a decision. And the more transparent you are during this process, the more valuable your help is likely to be.

Festive Drones Take Off (When Will Santa Upgrade?)

It used to be the case that the focus around this time of the year was only ever on one type of flying machine, usually piloted by a rather rotund chap in a red suit who by all accounts manages to remain jolly despite working the night shift and dealing with strict deadlines and the mother of all rush hours.

But those days appear to be fading fast and it looks like Santa’s going to have to get used to a little more air traffic in the future. Increasing numbers of early adopters unwrapped parcels under the tree yesterday morning to discover new consumer drones before taking them out for a quick festive spin – often with not entirely unexpectedly disastrous results.

I’ll be posting a larger article on drones, their near-term potential and an analysis of some of the legislative hurdles and opportunities in the not-too-distant future. But until then, despite the fact that I’ve written about them before a number of times, I thought it was time to share another great drone video. Filmed in Edinburgh back in 2013, it’s a great example of what’s possible – already.

D’Andrea suggests that by developing this athletic playfulness in quadcopters, the result – in exactly the same way as the process of play serves to develop capabilities in young children – will be that the existing capabilities of machines more generally could be extended.

Enjoy.

Isaac Asimov: How Do People Get New Ideas?

Where do ideas come from? It’s a question that’s puzzled mankind throughout history. Ideas are the fuel of innovation, with creativity being a somewhat indefinable skill that has been lauded, misunderstood and yearned for in equal measure over the years.

Whether it’s evidenced by a natural ability to paint masterpieces or in the regular application of inventive thinking to solve problems, most people would agree that creativity is “a good thing”. As a result, it’s common to find people attempting to somehow replicate the conditions from which creativity once sprang forth, a form of eternal search by mankind for the secret recipe.

Recently, a previously-unpublished essay from 1959 by acclaimed science fiction writer Isaac Asimov surfaced in which he looked precisely at this issue. When one of the most prolific writers in human history opines on such matters as creativity, it’s probably worth paying attention.

Asimov points out that it’s very hard to reverse-engineer the process of creativity for a variety of reasons – partly because the process is usually mysterious even to the creator. He suggests that one way forward might be to look at two individuals who discovered the same idea themselves entirely independently and identify any similarities. He uses the example of Charles Darwin and Alfred Wallace who both came up with the theory of evolution independently. What attributes and experiences did they share?

Both Darwin and Wallace were extremely well-travelled, which meant that they had each been exposed to a wide range of plants and animals. In addition, both had been inspired by reading ‘An Essay On The Principle of Population’ by Thomas Malthus. Yet that was not sufficient to explain their simultaneous breakthrough. Others must inevitably have been in a similar position – but why had no-one else come up with the theory of evolution before them? Asimov suggests that they not only had a strong background in the field in which they were engaged but critically also that they had both chosen to apply the knowledge gleaned from the Malthus essay in a very specific way.

The critical ability that Asimov identifies is the rare ability to connect the dots in such a unique way. Logically, doing so is a difficult task – if it had been simple, other people would have discovered the theory of evolution in all probability before they even started thinking about it. And as a diffcult task, with no guarantee of success, the person who is willing to travel down such a path will inevitably be a confident, self-assured and eccentric individual – in the eyes of others at least. Most people, no matter how well travelled, how knowledgeable they might be about their subject, would hesitate before travelling in a direction viewed by others as unreasonable. For example, most would have considered it unreasonable to believe that the world was anything other than flat before Aristotle got involved.

A creative breakthrough in Asimov’s view requires also the overlap of a strong background in the field in question and is far more likely to be achievable in isolation. By its nature, creating something new inevitably involves repeated failure. And failure is far more willingly embraced by those who are unshackled from the self-awareness that comes from being observed by others. Creative people also tend to work continually on problems (consciously or not) around the clock, a process that is hard to fit into the more restrictive formal and planned structure of collaboration.

Yet he’s not entirely negative about a group’s potential to create ideas. Given the right circumstances, creativity can and will thrive when a group of individuals can use the contributions of each to develop ideas that no individual could have contributed on his own. But special consideration must be taken to the dynamic of the personalities within the group. Being creative in public is difficult. It is crucial that each group member must be sympathetic to the suggestions of others in the group. Without exception, everyone must be willing to both sound foolish and to listen to others’ foolishness. Anyone without this attitude must be removed from the group immediately as, irrespective of any brilliant ideas that they may bring, the harm that they inevitably cause to others who modify their behaviour in response will always far exceed their value to the group.

Asimov suggest keeping such creative groups small, with no more than five people involved. His view is that bigger groups will invariably introduce damaging tension as individuals are forced to wait for longer before talking whilst more people contribute. These ‘ideas sessions’ must be lighthearted in order to encourage others to join in the “folly of creativeness”, with an informal setting far more productive than a conference room. Finally, the sessions should be co-ordinated by someone who has the ability to ask questions which cause people to consider their existing experiences in a new light so that they can see them in a new light.

Asimov’s advice is old but valuable. Personally, I find it hard to believe that humans will ever truly uncover that ‘secret sauce’ behind creativity that unlocks the talent behind the imagination, ingenuity and inspiration that produces what we view as cultural highlights today. Those cultural standards may (and must) of course evolve over time. But to the extent that any output of creative thinking can be objectively assessed, there’s no doubt that the advance of technology will come into play. After all what is the indexation of all existing human knowledge across a global network if not a way to trial all possible permutations between our collected knowledge at increasing speeds? And I wouldn’t be surprised if Asimov was thinking something along those lines some 50+ years ago.

PS Yes, I know today is Christmas Day. I’d like to claim that I was organised enough in advance that this was pre-written but I did actually spend this evening reading and writing this post. There’s only so many times you can watch ‘Morecambe & Wise’ re-runs, after all.

Glenn Greenwald: Why Privacy Matters

As we approach the end of 2014, a year in which privacy, surveillance and data protection continue to be ever-present themes below the surface of every Bitcoin conference and talk that I’ve been to, I’m finally now getting around to reading ‘The Snowden Files: The Inside Story of the World’s Most Wanted Man‘.

As we all know, regardless of your views, it’s an astonishing story. I’ll be sharing my thoughts on various aspects of the story more fully on this blog in the future – but in the meantime, here’s a recent TED talk given by Glenn Greenwald, one of the key journalists that broke the Snowden story eighteen months or so ago. If you’ve ever struggled with any variation of the “only people with something to hide crave privacy from surveillance” line of thinking, you’ll find it useful I think.

Greenwald quotes Rosa Luxembourg: “He who does not move does not notice his chains”.

How true.

Aaron Swartz: The Internet’s Own Boy

Travelling today so just a quick post. I finally got around to watching the documentary about Aaron Swartz that was released earlier this year after a successful Kickstarter campaign. It’s a great, if tragic, story and thoroughly recommended if you have even a passing interest in technology, Open Access, Reddit, RSS, Creative Commons, hacktivism or any other of the myriad of other interests that he somehow managed to pack into his 26 years.

I was following the case being brought against him at the time and vividly remember reading the blog posts by Harvard Law Professor Larry Lessig (‘Prosecutor As Bully‘) and Cory Doctorow at the time as the news broke that he’d died. Almost two years after his death, attitudes towards freedom of information and surveillance have changed drastically in a post-Snowden era. The rest of us are simply left wondering where his ferocious intellect might have directed in today’s world.

It’s worth watching. Please do. As one review puts it, ‘it feels like the beginning of a conversation about Swartz and his legacy and not the final word“. There remain many unanswered questions.