— Loved this Wired story about the disruption of higher education: The Stanford Education Experiment Could Change Higher Education Forever. The “he” above is Sebastian Thrun, Stanford professor and head of Google X, who founded KnowLabs (now known as Udacity) specifically to upend the current system of education. I even contemplated signing up for a computer science course myself, though I doubt I’d fare any better than the writer of this piece. Still. While the idea of the consolidation of higher education into the hands of ten super-influential institutions is somewhat alarming, it’s super interesting to see the activity in this space.
The problem with all these “future of” concept videos is, as Bret Victor so eloquently noted, that they’re simply not terribly imaginative. So we shouldn’t get in a tizz about Google’s Project Glass, and certainly not because it’s presenting us with a difficult, provocative idea of reality. In fact, what it does show us seems quite mundane. Perhaps this says more about my life than it should, but people saying “hang on a minute” while they check into a new location we’re at isn’t new. It’s just that those I meet don’t currently swish at their head (or however interaction is controlled via these glasses, unclear from the original film) but instead gaze into and paw at their current mobile device. (And yes, it is rude.) Still, I liked this quickly re-edited version of the film, which includes that much crucial feature so many of these concept films seem to forget… the revenue stream.
[via NY Times Bits Blog]
— Google CEO, Larry Page sounds off about innovation and patent-trolling in a rare interview with Bloomberg Businessweek’s Brad Stone. Doesn’t really share too much you didn’t already know, though I confess I enjoyed reading his barely veiled digs at competitors such as Yahoo (see above; ouch) and Facebook. On the latter, he says: “Our friends at Facebook have imported many, many, many Gmail addresses and exported zero addresses. And they claim that users don’t own that data, which is a totally specious claim. It’s completely unreasonable.” Our friends, indeed.
Lovely visualization of the wind flow around the United States, based on wind data from the National Digital Forecast Database. Or, as the blurb puts it: “An invisible, ancient source of energy surrounds us—energy that powered the first explorations of the world, and that may be a key to the future… This map shows you the delicate tracery of wind flowing over the U.S. right now.”
The project is by Martin Wattenberg, who co-leads Google’s “Big Data” group, though the only mention of the search company here is a mention to use the Chrome browser to guarantee the best effects. I also liked this public Twitter exchange between Wattenberg and Facebook designer, Nicholas Felton. The world of data viz transcends corporate barriers, it seems. Or, at least, its practitioners are gracious enough to give credit where it’s due. Not only that, but the brief conversation also sheds a subtle light on the creative process, moral of the story being: you might not know quite what will happen, but that’s absolutely no reason not to try.
Martin Wattenberg: New! The beauty of wind… Live interactive wind visualization: http://hint.fm/wind
Nicholas Felton: @wattenberg beautiful work… and stunned that it’s zoomable.
Martin Wattenberg: @feltron thanks! We were surprised that worked too :-)
Nicholas Felton: bravo!
Google celebrated the 126th birthday of architect Ludwig Mies van der Rohe with a tribute on its home page (featuring Crown Hall, a building he designed at the Illinois Institute of Technology). Guardian writer, Steve Rose takes a spin through the history books to ask a simple question: what would Mies have had to say about today’s design landscape? Quick, fun read.
—
As Scott Crawford commented on Twitter, “It’s “Why I left the company that starts with G” day.” This piece, by now-former Google engineer James Whittaker, is hugely interesting reading and important for those interested in cultivating a company culture based around innovation. Every company changes as it grows and matures (duh), yet even those as lauded for their smarts and forward thinking as Google have to watch the little details that eventually add up to a whole that might not be quite what anyone had in mind. Whittaker’s conclusion, in particular, describes a present that is both horribly true and hugely far from Google’s initially incredible service:
Perhaps Google is right. Perhaps the future lies in learning as much about people’s personal lives as possible. Perhaps Google is a better judge of when I should call my mom and that my life would be better if I shopped that Nordstrom sale. Perhaps if they nag me enough about all that open time on my calendar I’ll work out more often. Perhaps if they offer an ad for a divorce lawyer because I am writing an email about my 14 year old son breaking up with his girlfriend I’ll appreciate that ad enough to end my own marriage. Or perhaps I’ll figure all this stuff out on my own.
Whittaker, it should be noted, now works at Microsoft.
— Amidst all the excitement around Google’s potential introduction of “wearable computing”, or glasses that can stream real-time information, I was struck by this comment in New York Times reporter, Nick Bilton’s article, Google To Sell Heads-Up Display Glasses By Year’s End. Given Google’s previous inability to figure out revenue streams for its ideas, this seems like a risky if somewhat predictable strategy. Business model design is just as difficult as inventing stuff, and equally important.

No More Résumés, Say Some Firms is an interesting piece in the Journal looking at how companies are trying to implement more rigorous filtering systems for their hiring processes and avoid having to wade through countless impersonal CVs. Fred Wilson and his New York City-based VC firm, Union Square Ventures, reportedly ask for evidence of Web 2.0 savvy (hardly a leap for a company that funded the likes of Twitter and Foursquare) while others post challenges for would-be employees to answer. One startling stat: last year, Google hired 7,000 employees after receiving some two million CVs. A Google spokesman said they read every one. Gulp.
[Story via Erik Kiaer; T-shirt resume photos via SOCIALisBETTER on Flickr.]
—
Lots of chatter about Google’s promotion of its own social network in its search results, some informed, some totally over the top. In Google’s Social Search, The Tech Giant’s Disastrous Decision to Muck Up Its Search Engine Results, Slate’s Farhad Manjoo is clearly not in favor of the introduction: “Google just broke its search engine,” he writes, giving examples of some of the searches he executed in the name of research (including the one above) and adding:
I think of search engines as a gateway to the rest of the world, not as a repository for stuff about me. Going to Google for pictures of my son seems as strange as going to a bookstore to look for my diary.
Designers know all too well that users often vociferously resist change, feeling safer and more assured by the way things used to be and outraged that anyone should want to buck the understood system. And designers also know that users can quickly forget the way things used to be once they’re accustomed to a brave new world. But, of course, that relies on the designers and content developers having the right instincts all along. It’ll be interesting to monitor continued feedback of “Search, Plus Your World” over the next few months.
[Story via Dan Gillmor.]
A while ago, I linked to an interview in which Harvard Law professor Larry Lessig outlined some of the thinking that went into his latest book, Republic Lost. Now, here’s a slick talk (with eye-catching slides) Lessig gave at Google. It’s really well worth taking the time to watch the whole thing, for Lessig’s fantastically thoughtful analysis of where we are, how we got here, and how we might potentially extricate ourselves from the mire. I watched this a week or so ago, and I can’t stop thinking about his story of the pilot of the Exxon Valdez supertanker, which crashed in Alaska in 1989 and caused one of the world’s worst environmental disasters (starts 42:25). As Lessig points out, the ship’s captain, Joseph Hazlewood, had a well-documented problem with alcohol. But, shocking as it is that the man in charge of a supertanker was not legally allowed to drive a car (he had a DUI at the time), that’s not actually Lessig’s point. Instead, his is a starker, bleaker, much more searing conclusion, which cuts right to the heart of our collective passivity and acts as a resounding wake-up call. In his words:
Forget Hazlewood. Instead I want you to think about those around Captain Hazlewood, these other officers, people who could have picked up a phone while a drunk was driving a supertanker. I want you to think about those people who did nothing. All but one of those officers did nothing. What do we think about them? I ask this question because as I think about the problem this nation faces, increasingly I believe we are they. This nation faces critical problems requiring serious attention but we don’t have institutions capable of giving them this attention. They are distracted, unable to focus, and who is to blame for that? Who is responsible? I think it’s too easy to point to the Blagojeviches and hold them responsible, to point to the evil people and hold them responsible. It’s not the evil people, it’s the good people, it’s the decent people, the people who could have picked up a phone. It’s us. It’s we, the most privileged, because the most outrageous part here is that these corruptions were primed by the most privileged but permitted by the passivity of the most privileged as well.
Gulp. Well, it made me think.
— Google co-founder, Sergey Brin weighs in (in a post on Google+, natch) on the Stop Online Piracy Act, the controversial proposal that many Internet entrepreneurs believe will “undermine entrepreneurship, innovation, the creation of content and free expression online.” Read an open letter sent to Washington “to protect Internet innovation”, signed by Brin and other heavyweights, including Reid Hoffman, Jack Dorsey and Marc Andreesen.
— Anatomy of an Idea is a wonderful, lyrical story by author Steven Johnson in which he details his research techniques and discovery process. Granted, Johnson is in a privileged position (not many people would read a quote by someone it transpires they are having lunch with that week) but I think this is a great description of a new research reality for many of us. In fact, one of the reasons I wanted to start this site was to have a handy compendium of the articles I have read, often with no specific research problem in mind, but which I know might be useful, somehow, some day. I also found his distinction of use of Twitter and Google super interesting—and again, one that mirrors my own: “The more subtle and complex the question, the more likely it’ll go to Twitter. But if it’s simply trying to find a citation or source, I’ll use Google.” As for the quote at top, well, I actually don’t think there’s any such thing as “correct” use of the Web, but serendipity is certainly online for the taking.
I recently finished two books on the birth and growth of the computer industry: Steven Levy’s classic Hackers, and Walter Isaacson’s biography of Steve Jobs. Both left me pondering the topic of stealing ideas. For it’s Jobs who once said so memorably:
Picasso had a saying—‘good artists copy, great artists steal’—and we have always been shameless about stealing great ideas.
Yet in Isaacson’s book, Jobs is also at his most vitriolic when talking about the brazen temerity of others daring to steal Apple’s ideas. To wit:
On Microsoft Windows:
They just ripped us off completely, because [Bill] Gates has no shame.”
On Google:
Our lawsuit is saying, “Google, you fucking ripped off the iPhone, wholesale ripped us off.” Grand theft. I will spend my last dying breath if I need to, and I will spend every penny of Apple’s $40 billion in the bank, to right this wrong. I’m going to destroy Android, because it’s a stolen product. I’m willing to go to thermonuclear war on this. They are scared to death, because they know they are guilty. Outside of Search, Google’s products—Android, Google Docs—are shit.
Now one might write off this contradiction as simply being characteristic of the late, mercurial CEO. But these days, stealing ideas seems to have become an accepted, encouraged part of culture. In a great piece about the digital creative meritocracy, Brain Pickings’ Maria Popova quotes Robert Levine, author of a new book on the topic, Free Ride.
In Silicon Valley, the information that wants to be free is almost always the information that belongs to someone else.
That’s what Jobs was saying. It’s perfectly ok for Apple to steal other people’s ideas. But anyone stealing from them should hang his or her head in shame for being such a low form of humanity.
This idea of stealing ideas is also touched upon in Hackers, which concludes with the fascinating story of Richard Stallman’s efforts to subvert work at Symbolics, a company he felt violated the hacker code of the free flow of information. His revenge: to reverse engineer every development Symbolics introduced and hand it, for free, to the company’s main rival, LMI.
For me, the whole topic raises a ton more questions than it supplies answers. For example, if anyone can steal an idea and reproduce it wholesale then does that imply that the idea wasn’t that great in the first place? When is building on someone else’s idea ok (standing on the shoulders of giants)? And when is it, you know, plain old, actual theft? Would love to hear your thoughts.
— In We Are. State Penn, Greg Matusky looks at the state of higher education through the lens of the Penn State scandal and calls for the bubble to burst. Also, for me, a pretty powerful argument for why journalism matters.
That one last thing that Google doesn’t do well is Platforms. We don’t understand platforms. We don’t “get” platforms… This has become painfully clear to me over the past six years. I was kind of hoping that competitive pressure from Microsoft and Amazon and more recently Facebook would make us wake up collectively and start doing universal services. Not in some sort of ad-hoc, half-assed way, but in more or less the same way Amazon did it: all at once, for real, no cheating, and treating it as our top priority from now on.
But no. No, it’s like our tenth or eleventh priority. Or fifteenth, I don’t know. It’s pretty low. There are a few teams who treat the idea very seriously, but most teams either don’t think about it all, ever, or only a small percentage of them think about it in a very small way.
"— Doblin talks a lot about the importance of platform-led innovation, and this incredible rant by Google engineer Steve Yegge shows how lots of other smart people think similarly. Bemoaning the search giant’s flawed approach to the social space while outlining the prescient, if brutal, approach of Amazon (Yegge’s previous employer) this is probably the most important piece about innovation you’ll read this year.