Blog Archives
Technology’s Next Horizon is in the Desert
The 2014 Consumer Electronics Show has once again provided the world with plenty of technological goodies to flash in front of the public’s intrigued eyes. One of the most buzzed about prototypes is a television set that can gently bend toward the viewer.
Bigger question: How far behind is the smart phone/tablet that can gently bend?
Unfortunately, that question will remain frozen in the desert on a CES stage like famed Transformers director Michael Bay.
Sometimes, the mind fills with every thought except the one you need.
Anyways…There always seems to be a laundry list of impressive gadgets at the CES that demonstrate superb advancements in the arena of consumer technology. However, in what year will the public be treated to a lifestyle breakthrough. Perhaps this vision can only be seen by someone like the late Steve Jobs, but where is the iHome? Forget curved televisions for a moment and imagine an entire wall or walls that functions as a television, hanging art or a myriad of other things. When will light switches be turned on and off like the on/off swipe of an iPhone or iPad?
These may not garner the flashiest headlines, but it seems like they could be part of the most practical series of market-ready products for consumers. These types of conveniences may cast the widest net in terms of real, immediate and affordable demand. There were some similar products to this made by LG for appliances, according to “2014 CES: Must-see gadgets of the trade show” by Andrea Domanick of the Las Vegas Sun.
But will these types of products soon extend beyond basic appliances and to the structure/DNA of a home? In 2015, will consumers see another technological breakthrough for eyes only or will they experience a technological breakthrough meant for touching?
Either way, HGTV may need to soon hire its own Geek Squad for its home shows…
Trying to Hold onto Something
What do “The Goldbergs,” a CD player with headphones and telephone poles have in common?
They’re all connected: 20th century style.
Oddly enough, being connected used to be construed as a bad, complicated mess. Wires would hang from everywhere…and then pop up somewhere else. Recall the triumphant house lighting scene from “National Lampoon’s Christmas Vacation” when Ellen has to navigate her fingers through a clutter of over-plugged outlets? This maze of confusion led innovators and inventors to draw a blueprint, but without a pencil or pen.
In a single word: wireless.
This reality was new, cleaner and more efficient. Consequently, we discovered space in our lives we never knew existed or thought was even possible. Along this evolutionary track came cell phones that increasingly functioned as handheld computers with surreal power. Included in the capability to make phone calls internationally while situated in virtually any location (as long as Sprint is not your provider) is the capacity to share random events, thoughts, pictures and videos through a myriad of social media platforms.
The range of practicality ranges from necessary to fun, as most aspects in life should. But will this ultimately be a good conversion for society? While wireless technology certainly has its benefits, there are drawbacks as well. For instance, what if a satellite is down (“Gravity”) or what if there is too much signal traffic that prevents the completion of a simple phone call or necessary internet search? What if there is an emergency, but every phone or communication device is formatted to the digital grid and the grid is temporarily malfunctioning or is broken?
Think Time Warner Cable…or Sprint. But with a wider reach and dependability.
Marco Santana of the Des Moines Register wrote an article about wireless and landline phones that was printed in USA Today on March 31st of this year. “The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which twice a year tracks the percentage of households that still use landlines, reported in December that 35.8% of U.S. households have gone wireless-only, a 77.2% bump over late 2008.”
Landline phones and landline technologies seem and feel ancient, uncool and not applicable to 21st century endeavors. Except that, in emergencies or situations when a person wants to actually feel connected to something, he or she would probably find assurance in holding an off-white receiver with a stretchy cord dangling around like a cosine wave.
It feels as if we are all entering the digital era of no return. However, like most things, balance is a good thing. Will the future be purely digital or will it develop into a hybrid of the past and present/future? Will analog become a legitimate backup system?
Point of consideration: Retro is considered cool for a variety of reasons and can even be viewed as a pausing mechanism to modern practices. This goes for clothes, lingo, general behavior, music, movies, toys, communication devices, etc.
It’s strange: the more connected we get by transitioning to digital technologies actually makes us less connected in the literal sense. More of our lives continues to float upwards into the ever-expansive and mysterious cloud.
What’s next? Fishing without a pole and worm?
Rule #21: When Possible, Change the World
The United States of America is struggling. Among its many, many issues, the workforce is experiencing a paradigm shift. The world we live in today is collectively causing and forcing friction with the nation’s population by forcing 20th century norms and preconceived notions to crash, coincide and adapt to 21st century promise, mystery and reality. The debate of public vs. private extends beyond technology and is a dilemma that will long hang over our society like an overcast cloud for years to come.
“The Internship” is a buddy comedy starring Owen Wilson and Vince Vaughn who star together in a movie for the first time since their 2005 smash hit and cult classic, “Wedding Crashers.” The opening sequence will undoubtedly get you psyched out of your mind for the long-awaited comeback!
It’s a film about great watch salesmen, Billy (Vince) and Nick (Owen), who discover during a pitch at a fancy restaurant that their company had recently folded. The time had arrived for two stellar salesmen of the 20th century to slowly walk into the strange playground of the 21st century.
The premise of the movie is that they are two individuals, who are not tech savvy, that apply for internships at technological giant Google.
Let the hilarity ensue.
Not only does the story contrast and expose generational differences between ’70s kids and Millennials, but it presents a pretty fantastic template for the immediate and far off future:
The competitive internship program.
“The Internship” has, without revealing any critical story or plot details, shown that a competitive internship program with a pool of 5-10 or even up to 100 people (depending on the company) could be the perfect test for employers to assess, judge and determine if an applicant or applicants are truly qualified for a job at their company. Individual and team exercises, plus voluntary employee interactions, would ultimately determine if an offer would be extended for employment.
Instead of relying so heavily on a résumé and a singular interview, an engaging competition of sorts could be the bridge between not only employers and hopeful applicants, but also the bridge between the 20th century and the increasingly interactive and connected 21st century.
Yes, it’s true that most companies do not have the free flowing cash for such an extravagant program like portrayed in “The Internship,” but it should be used as a template to varying degrees. It has been reported that companies are cutting back on training, which contributes to an applicant having to try to unrealistically meet 100% of the advertised skills for a job opening. Even with a great education, not everybody is perfectly fit for a job in most any industry on their first day. There is a learning curve. An important quality to consider is if the person applying is like a fine wine: great core knowledge with exciting flavors/skills that only get better with each passing day.
Competitive internship programs, for certain industries, could provide the public with one of the most critical qualities missing from most of today’s employers: an opportunity. Just to give people a chance to try, learn and shine.
That’s really what most people are yearning for these days.
Correction: That’s what most Americans are yearning for these days.
After all, the concept of opportunity was part of the foundation of the United States of America. It’s time for a 21st century reboot of that brilliant idea.
It could work.
The Wisdom of the Garage
Public vs. Private.
This is a fiercely debated and complex issue that has a myriad of avenues to explore and a variety of micro and macro points to consider for in-depth analysis. Today, the focus will be centered on the latest example of this classic, everlasting battle of ideology and basic societal structure.
Speaking of putting ourselves into the right mindset…
Regarding ObamaCare, the people do have a fever of frustration and the only prescription appears to be increasingly less government.
The federal government, under President Obama, has had between 2-3 years to put together a website for his signature achievement…in the 21st century…in the year 2013.
Now, healthcare is recommended to be dealt with over the phone by the government.
Can’t imagine any problems or scams there. In a related story, Nigerian princes are discovered to be very happy this week.
Aside from fact that the policy of the law is unequivocally flawed, bad, unworkable, unsustainable and unfair, let’s focus on the website. Consider that Facebook (“thefacebook” back then) was digitally built by a group of college students (granted, from Harvard) that took user’s information and compiled a personal profile for them that was capable of being viewed, updated, shared and commented on by his or her friends with seemingly no limit on activity.
It worked.
Why?
Put simply, the founders and builders of “thefacebook” had the market incentive to create the best product because of the competitive landscape in social networks. They had to be the best for survival’s sake. Therefore, the company had to recruit the best talent with the skill-set to continually innovate and improve their product for the public and, most importantly, their voluntary members. Money had to be allocated prudently and the business decisions required great intelligence and foresight.
In the private marketplace, you have to be the best or you will very likely fail and go out of business. For many, that is the bottom line and the daily reality.
Conversely, in government, there is no such marketplace. Money is provided, which is usually bloated beyond belief. Correction: The public’s/our money is provided to the government contractors and is bloated beyond belief. Even still, the transaction is done so through a maze of red tape and is absent any competitor, let alone several. The public sector is not conducive to consistently producing high quality and innovation influenced by a variety of critical market incentives, pressures and rewards.
“Our team is bringing in some of the best and brightest from both inside and outside government to scrub in with the team and help improve HealthCare.gov.” As reported yesterday by Washington Post columnist Ezra Klein, the aforementioned statement was a weekend notice from the Department of Health and Human Services.
The obvious question: Why weren’t the best and brightest brought in in the first place?
The obvious answer: The best and brightest don’t work in the government.
Silicon Valley is the hub of technological genius in the United States and even around the world. This is one of the places where the best and brightest work. Freedom to imagine is coupled with personal responsibility and monetary limitations, which creates the atmosphere for ingenuity and potentially terrific outcomes. Contemplate how many successful start-ups and society-altering companies were born in garages (Apple, HP) and small offices just outside San Francisco.
People in a garage with nothing more than a crazy, outlandish dream and a little business savvy have established a better and a more cognitive environment than the hundreds of millions of dollars the federal government doled out for the new healthcare.gov website that had years to be constructed.
If Apple or Google had premiered like this, there would be no Apple or Google today.
Actually, that’s not true.
Apple and Google never would have concocted, put together and premiered such an unworkable and fiscally unsustainable disaster for the public.
That’s the lesson from the best and the brightest.
Jimmy's Daily Planet 