The Fall and Rise of the Visual Internet

I’m pleased to announce that my role with the Center for the Digital Future at USC Annenberg has expanded, and I’m now the Chief Strategy Officer. This column is cross-posted from the Center’s website, and is the first of many regular pieces from me and my colleagues. And now, onto the column… 

Bennett and I have been friends since we were eight. Over a recent late-night dessert we compared notes about how thinly spread we each felt across work, family and life. Bennett then shared an insight from a counselor he sees: “Y’know how in Kung-Fu movies the hero stands in the center and all the villains gather into a circle around him and take turns attacking him one by one? Life isn’t like that.”

Neither is technology.

Technologies don’t take turns arriving in our lives. Instead, they’re locked in a Darwinian struggle to clutch and hold onto a niche in our lives. Sometimes it’s a head-to-head struggle, like VCR versus Betamax, where the differences are slight and one technology wins because of marketing and luck. Sometimes different trends slam into each other and that collision creates a new thing — like the way that mobile phones ate digital cameras, email, notebooks, calendars, music collections, powerful microprocessors, decent battery life, email and the web to become smart phones.

A new collision is gaining velocity with the emergence of digital assistants and heads-up display. Both new technologies are changing how users interact with information, particularly visual information. As these technologies give users new ways to behave, those behavior changes will pressurize the business models and financial health of digital media companies, particularly ad-supported companies.

Voice-Interfaces Reduce Visual Interaction

Even though newer Echo devices have screens and touch interfaces, the most compelling use case is eyes free and hands free for Amazon’s Alexa, Apple’s Siri in the HomePod, and the Google Assistant in Google Home.

For example, I often use my Echo device when I’m doing the dishes to catch up on the day’s events by asking, “Alexa, what’s in the news?” Or, if I’m about to wade deep into thought at my desk and don’t want to miss a conference call starting an hour later I’ll ask Alexa to “set a timer for 55 minutes.”

I’m a failure at voice-driven commerce because I have yet to ask Alexa to buy anything from Amazon, but I have used IFTTT (the “If This, Then That” service that connects different devices and services) to connect Alexa to my to-do list so that I can add something just by speaking, which spares me from dropping everything to grab my phone or (gasp!) a pen and paper.

Alexa’s answers are pleasantly clutter-free. If I use my desktop computer to search Amazon for the latest John Grisham novel, then along with a prominent link to Camino Island, Amazon serves up a results page with 24 distracting other things that I can buy, as well as hundreds of other links. With Alexa, I just get Camino Island. (With commodity products, unless you specify a brand Amazon will send you its generic house brand: CPG advertisers beware!)

Right now, most queries to smartphone-based digital assistants result in a list of results that I have to look at, switching my attention from ears to eyes, but as these rudimentary artificial intelligences get better my need to look at a screen will decline. Today, if I say, “Hey Siri, where’s a Peet’s coffee near me?” the AI will tell me the address and ask me if I want to call or get directions. If I choose “directions,” then I have to look at my phone. In a short amount of time, Siri will seamlessly transition to Apple Maps and speak turn-by-turn directions, so I won’t have to look away from the road.

The challenge the rise of voice interfaces poses for ad-supported digital companies is that those companies make their money from propinquity— from the background clutter that is near the thing I’m looking at or searching for but that isn’t the thing I’m looking at or searching for.

Google, Facebook, the New York Times, AOL (excuse me, “Oath”), Reddit, Tumblr, Bing, LinkedIn, and others make much of their money from banners, pop-up ads, search results and other things we see but often don’t consciously notice: that is, online display adverting.

Amazon’s Alexa can already read news stories aloud in a smooth, easy-to-follow voice. It won’t be long until all the digital assistants can do so, and can navigate from article to article, site to site without users having to look at anything.

We can listen to only one thing at a time, so there aren’t background ads for Siri, Alexa and their ilk. Moreover, despite decades of conditioning to accept interruptive ads in radio, it’ll be game over the moment Alexa or Siri or Google Assistant says, “I’ll answer your question, but first please listen to this message from our friends at GlaxoSmithKline.”

The most powerful ad blocker turns out to be a switch from eyes to ears as the primary sense for media interaction. As voice-interface digital assistants grow in popularity and capability, the volume of visual inventory for these businesses will erode.

This erosion follows the decline in visual inventory that already happened as users moved most of their computing time to the smaller screens of mobile devices with less visual geography and therefore less room for ads.

In a recent Recode Decode interview, marketing professor and L2 founder Scott Galloway observed, “advertising has become a tax that the poor and the technologically illiterate pay.”

Since wealthier people will have voice-activated digital assistants first, that means that the people more exposed to visual advertising will have less disposable income and will therefore be less desirable targets for many advertisers. This creates more pressure on the display-ad-based media economy.

On the other hand, remember the Kung Fu movie quip? There’s another technology making changes in the visual internet at the same time.

Smart Glasses Increase Visual Interaction

Smart glasses are, simply, computer screens that you wear over your eyes. In contrast with voice-interfaces that are already popular in phones and with speakers, smart glasses haven’t become a big hit because they’re expensive, battery life is limited, and many people get nervous around other people wearing cameras on their faces all the time. (Early Google Glass enthusiasts were sometimes dubbed “glassholes.”)

Some pundits think that just because Google Glass didn’t sweep the nation it means that all smart glasses are doomed to failure. But just as Apple’s failed Newton (1993) presaged the iPhone 14 years later (2007), Google Glass is merely an early prototype for a future technology hit.

Smart glasses come in a spectrum that gets more immersive: augmented reality puts relevant information in your peripheral vision (Google Glass), mixed reality overlays information onto your location that you can manipulate (Microsoft’s HoloLens, with Pokemon Go as a phone-based version), and virtual reality absorbs you into a 360 degree environment that has little relationship to wherever your body happens to be (Facebook’s Oculus Rift, HTC Vive). The overarching category is “Heads-Up Display” or HUD.

What’s important about HUDs is that they increase the amount of digital information in the user’s visual field: not just the visual inventory for ads (like in this clip from the film, “Minority Report“), but for everything.

Wherever you’re reading this column — on a computer, tablet, phone or paper printout — please stop for a moment and pay attention to your peripheral vision. I’m sitting at my desk as I write this. To my left is a window leading to the sunny outdoors. On my desk to the right are a scanner and a coffee cup. Papers lie all over the desk below the monitor, and there are post-it reminders and pictures on the wall behind the monitor. It’s a typical work environment.

If I were wearing a HUD, then all of that peripheral territory would be fair game for digital information pasted over the real world. That might be a good thing: I could have a “focus” setting on my HUD that grays out everything in my visual field that isn’t part of the window where I’m typing or the scattered paper notes about what I’m writing. If I needed to search for a piece of information on Google I might call a virtual monitor into existence next to my actual monitor and run the search without having to hide the text I’m writing. This is the good news version.

In the bad news version, ads, helpful suggestions, notifications, reminders and much more colonize the majority of my visual field: I think about those moments when my smart phone seems to explode with notifications, and then I imagine expanding that chaos to everything I can see. In some instances this might be a maddening cacophony, but others might be more subtle, exposing me to messages in the background at a high but not-irritating frequency in order to make the product more salient. (“I’m thirsty: I’ll have a Coke. Wait, I don’t drink soft drinks… how’d that happen?”) This isn’t as creepy as it sounds, like the old Vance Packard “subliminal advertising” bugaboo, it’s just advertising. Salience results from repetition.

Regardless of what fills the digital visual field, an explosion of visual inventory will be a smorgasbord of yummies for ad-supported media companies.

But there’s a twist.

Filters and the Decline of Shared Reality

Just sitting at my desk as I work is an overly-simplistic use case for wearing a HUD: the real differences in all their complexity come into focus once I leave my office to wander the world.

With Heads-Up Display, every surface becomes a possible screen for interactive information. That’s the output. Since the primary input channel will still be my voice, there’s a disparity between the thin amount of input I give and the explosion of output I receive. This is the digital assistant and HUD collision I mentioned earlier.

Walking in a supermarket, the labels on different products might be different for me than for the person pushing his cart down the aisle a few yards away. The supermarket might generate individualized coupons in real time that would float over the products in question and beckon. If my HUD integrated with my digital assistant, then I might be able to say, “Hey Siri, what can I make for dinner?” and have Siri show me what’s in the fridge and the pantry so that I can buy whatever else I need.

Smart glasses won’t just stick information on top of the reality on the other side of the lenses, they will also filter that reality in different ways.

We can see how this will work by looking at the technologies we already use. For example, businesses will compete to put hyper-customized articles, videos, and ads in front of you, similar to how ads pop-up on your Facebook page today. But these articles and ads will be everywhere you look, rather than contained on your laptop of phone. This is algorithmic filtering based on your past behavior.

Likewise, your digital assistant will insert helpful information into your visual field (such as the name of the person you’re talking with that you can’t remember) that you either ask for or that it anticipates you might find useful. The Google app on many smart phones already does versions of this, like reminding you to leave for the airport so that you aren’t late for your flight.

Finally, you’ll be able to add your own filters by hand, changing people’s appearances or names in real-time. If you’ve given one of your smart phone callers an individual ring tone, changed the name of a contact to something else (“What a Babe” or “Don’t Answer Him,”), or watched a teenager put a dog nose or kitty ears on top of a photo in Snapchat, then you’ve already seen primitive versions of this in action.

An unintended consequence of this visual explosion is the decline of shared reality. We already spend much of our time avoiding the world around us in favor of the tastier, easier world inside our smart phones. But even if the latest meme coming out of Instagram is the funniest thing we’ve ever seen, the majority of what surrounds us is still analog, still the flesh and blood world untouched by digital information.

That changes with HUDs.

In the near future where HUDs are common, you and I might stand side by side on the same street corner looking at the same hodgepodge of people, cars, buildings and signs — but seeing different things because we have idiosyncratic, real-time filters. Each of us will be standing on the same corner but living inside what Eli Pariser calls “filter bubbles” that have ballooned out to surround our entire worlds.

Common knowledge at this point becomes rare because a big part of common knowledge is its social component. In the words of Michael Suk-Young Chwe from his book Rational Ritual, a society’s integration is the result of coordinated activities built on a set of shared information and messages.

For a society to function, Chwe writes, “Knowledge of the message is not enough; what is also required is knowledge of others’ knowledge, knowledge of others’ knowledge of others’ knowledge, and so on — that is, “common knowledge.”

It has been challenging enough in our shared analog reality to achieve things like consensus in politics or word-of-mouth awareness in business. As we each move into new, idiosyncratically personalized environments where we don’t know what other people know, we’ll need to work harder to hear other voices than our own, to connect with each other as friends, family members, customers and citizens.

That may be a tall order.

Delight and paradox in Jeff Rosenblum’s book ‘Friction’

I’m delighted to share my first byline with The Drum, which is a review of “Friction” by my friends Jeff Rosenblum and Jordan Berg.

Here are the first few paragraphs:

Reading most business books is like watching the movie Groundhog Day, just without the funny bits. Such books bludgeon their readers with a single idea over many chapters. Sometimes it’s not a very good idea, and there’s no escape!

After a while I get: the premise, bored and out.

This is why I’ve concluded that most business books are really just HBR articles suffering from elephantiasis. (Google it.)

In contrast, one of the many things that make Jeff Rosenblum’s new book Friction: Passion Brands in the Age of Disruption — written with his friend and business partner Jordan Berg — an insightful pleasure to read is that the book gets more interesting the more you read.

Full disclosure before I forget: Jeff and Jordan are my personal friends and professional allies. I’ve known them for years, and I’ve been pleased to watch Questus, their agency, evolve from a scappy little shop into an award-winning creative powerhouse. Jeff and I talked about the masochistic pain of writing as he was using mental forceps to pull this book out of his brain. So I was already a Questus fan even before they sent me a copy of Friction.

After reading the book you’ll be a fan too.

Read the rest of the review on The Drum.

Then go buy the book on Amazon.

CES 2017 for Brands: a Skeptical Review

Most years at CES you can spot me leading tours, and most years after the show is over I sit down to ponder what I made of it all, what the pundits got right and what they missed.

While in past years I’ve given presentations on these things, this year I wrote it up for my friends at The Ascendant Network– private to their online group until today.

You can find the PDF here.

SHORT: Don’t Miss REDEF Original on Truth in Advertising

From the “too long for a tweet” department:

I just finished Adam Wray‘s powerful Fashion REDEFined original article “With Great Power: Seth Matlins on how Advertising can Shift Culture for the Better.”

It’s about Seth Matlins‘ efforts to change how advertisements featuring too-skinny and Photoshopped models body shame girls and women (men too, by the way).

Here’s a useful except from Matlins:

This practice, these ads, cause and contribute to an array of mental health issues, emotional health issues, and physical health issues that include stress, anxiety, depression, self-harm, self-hate. At the most extreme end they contribute to eating disorders, which in turn contribute to the death of more people than any other known mental illness, at least domestically. What we know from the data is that as kids grow up, the more of these ads they see, the less they like themselves.

What we know is 53% of 13-year-old girls are unhappy with their bodies. By the time they’re 17, 53% becomes 78%, so roughly a 50% increase. When they’re adults, 91% of women will not like themselves, will not like something about their bodies. Women on average have 13 thoughts of self-hate every single day. We know that these ads, and ads like these, have a causal and contributory effect because of pleas from the American Medical Association, the National Institute of Health, the Eating Disorder Coalition, and tens of thousands of doctors, mental and physical, educators, psychologists, health care providers, to say nothing of the governments of France, Israel, and Australia, who have urged advertisers to act on the links between what we consider deceptive and false ad practices and negative health consequences. And yet to date, by and large, and certainly at scale, nobody has.

I wish that the numbers in the second paragraph were stunning or surprising, but they aren’t. What they are, however, is infuriating.

My one critique of the article — and the reason for this short post — is that blame for this sort of body shaming doesn’t only lie with advertisers and marketers.

The entertainment industry also propagates unrealistic body images for females and males alike, and let’s not forget all the magazines and websites featuring photoshopped bodies on covers and internal pages.

It’s not just the ads.

As the father of a 15 year old girl and an 11 year old boy (a teen and a tween), I’m hyper-conscious of these images, but aside from trying (often vainly) to restrict their media access there’s only so much my wife and I can do.

So I celebrate Matlins’ efforts.

You don’t have to be a parent to find this article compelling, but if you ARE a parent, particularly to a teen girl, then this is required reading, folks.  It’ll be on the final.

Along these lines, high up on my “to read this summer” list is Nancy Jo Sales’ American Girls: Social Media and the Secret Lives of Teenagers, although I’ll confess that I’m a bit afraid to read it, as I think I’ll feel the way I felt after seeing Schindler’s List for the first time.

Don’t Call Them “Consumers”

What you call people matters.  It tells them what you really think about them.

Here’s an example: years ago my friend Jules shared how her Mom would call for her Dad in a never-changing escalation of urgency and decline of affection: “Sweetheart!” she’d trill, followed by, “Honey?” and then ending with “Bill!!” 

The equation worked this way:

“Sweetheart!” = “Hello, loving husband, it is I, your loving wife, checking in this happy morning.”

“Honey?” = “Where has that man taken himself off to, and is he perhaps forgetting that I’ve asked him to accomplish something this morning?”

“Bill!” = “Move it old man— I’ve got shit to do!!”

In three words Jules’ Mom went from an affectionate to a functional relationship with her husband.  Fortunately, relationships are dynamic and tend to move in both directions.

This matters for marketers and their attendants (agencies, media) because when you talk about those folks who either already buy your stuff or may one day buy your stuff as “consumers” then you have reduced your relationship with these people to a functional one in which their only job is to consume your stuff so that you can make money, then make new stuff, and then sell that stuff to the consumers also.

If you are an old-style marketer who is using one-way pipes like TV and print to firehose impressions at a somewhat resigned population, then you’re probably OK doing this because you’re just talking and not pretending to listen… sort of like Jules’ Dad.  (This may sound like I disapprove of such messaging, but I don’t: it’s honest and practical and sometimes the ads are entertaining.)

However, if you’re a marketer using social media to create so-called “friends” or if you’re content-curious and trying your hand as a publisher, then the moment you use the word “consumer” then you’ve proven that you are a liar.

They aren’t your friends.  You don’t care what the people on the other end of the communication think or how they feel.  They are just consumers, and you’re saying, “shut up and eat.”

Now, for the most part people don’t want to have relationships with brands.  They don’t want to be friends with brands.  They don’t care about the brand behind the products they buy and use except insofar as those brands save them valuable cognitive effort when shopping (so they can go back to playing with their phones) or save them money at checkout.

But that still doesn’t make them consumers.  At zero moments do people welcome marketers efforts to paint them into a corner where they are consumers.

So, if you’re a marketer reading this, then join me in vowing not to call the people who pay your bills “consumers.”  It’s just rude.

BUT WHAT DO I CALL THEM? I hear your plaintive cry.  Much ink has been spilled on this question. 

Marketers don’t want to call people “customers” because they reserve that label for the folks who have already bought something (not that they treat customers any better than consumers.)  This is bullshit but at least it’s logically consistent.

My friend Joe Jaffe and I got into a spat many years ago when we disagreed about whether to call the online version of these folks “users” or not (I thought yes; Joe thought it made them sound like addicts… and this was before Facebook made us all into genuine addicts).  Another friend, Grant McCracken, once suggested calling these people “amplifiers,” but I think this is too hopeful a term as most folks decline to amplify.

When you’re talking about folks who do or might buy your product in a social media or content marketing context, then I suggest using “audience,” since even though they don’t have much of a voice at least we credit audiences with having brains, opinions and feet with which they can vote.

If a marketer is talking about people who are actively doing something, then I suggest “participants,” because that label recognizes their efforts— whether positive or negative.

And if you’re fire hosing messages, then I suggest you talk about the collection of drenched bodies as people— since that’s what we all are.

Just don’t call them consumers.

[Cross-posted with iMedia Connection.]

Michael Wolff’s Just-Released Book is a Puzzler

The dust-jacket of Television is the New Television: the Unexpected Triumph of Old Media in the Digital Age describes Wolff as a man with unparalleled access to powerful figures in media and the book as something that will change the reader’s thinking. Moreover, it frames Wolff as an archly bitchy writer with enemies who would like nothing better than to see his vital organs recycled to serve the more deserving. 

None of this is the case.

The vast majority of Wolff’s writing is a sober and thoughtful (if limited and unsupported) account of the power dynamics in media at the moment.  It’s a useful snapshot of what’s happening right now, which reduced to tweet-length is “Print and digital media companies are all turning to video to create brand advertising-worthy products, but TV is hard to make on the cheap.”  This is not an insight that changes my thinking.

The book has mild flights of interesting speculation. For example, without sports digital media companies like Google or Facebook will never be able truly to compete with broadcast and cable companies, but the digital companies have neither the stomach to write the big checks nor the narrative skills to create the product the right way if they did.  However, I didn’t take a single note or make a single check mark in the margin as I was reading (rare for me). 

The occasional outbursts of temper — heralded on the back cover as one of the book’s guilty pleasures — are mean-spirited cheap shots rather than Oscar Wildean performances of acerbic wit.  Rather than a frightened editor red-lining a bad-manners manifesto to prevent riots, as I read the book I imagined a desperate editor pleading with Wolff to make it just a little bit more cruel, please, Michael, whereupon Wolff, with a fatigued eye roll, would throw in something nasty like adding a dash of salt to soup.

Nonetheless, if you work in the digital media industry, then you should read Wolff’s book immediately for two reasons.

First, old media people — who long for less-complicated days before the arrival of the internet with its staggering complexity (and, yes, these folks are still around and in positions of power) — will wave this book about with a dash of glee and a little Rumpelstiltskin dance.  The book panders to the vanity of television people in a way that should make the team at Merriam Webster update their definition of “sycophancy” with a new example.

Second, if you wait even a week the book will be less enjoyable because it will be dated.  Ben Jonson eulogized his pal Shakespeare by saying Shakespeare was not for an age but for all time.  Wolff’s book is of the moment— just the moment.  With each passing development — such as 1) when the government did not allow the merger of Comcast and Time Warner Cable or 2) Verizon’s acquisition of AOL, both of which happened as the book was already in press — the picture it paints of the media world becomes more stale.  This book will be on the remainder shelf soon, by which point it won’t be worth reading.

It’s a quick read, and one that pulls a bunch of things together neatly.  Anybody working at the collisions of video and the internet and advertising will find it handy. 

But it’s in the bubble, parochial and like that famous “View of the World from 9th Avenue ” New Yorker cover.  Wolff’s imagination of what is important lacks scope: the internet isn’t important in the history of our species because of what it does for media but because of how it empowers people to communicate with each other— even if what they talk about tends to be television. 

Speaking as a researcher, editor, and writer I have to end this note with frustration.  Wolff is a columnist, not a journalist.  He cites not a single source, gets not a single person on the record, and has not a single footnote directing the reader to where his many assertions can be supported.  Television is the New Television is a collection of long columns: occasionally insightful, informed by numberless conversations with figures in the community, and with a short half life.

[Cross-posted on Medium.]

I Want to be my own Big Brother: an App Daydream

“I never travel without my diary. One should always have something sensational to read in the train.” (Gwendolyn Fairfax in Wilde’s “The Importance of Being Earnest”)

I’m skeptical about how much corporations benefit from the data I generate.  If tracking my every movement worked, then Facebook would not keep trying to sell me the icky Peloton Cycle — “The only bike with LIVE and on-demand classes streamed to your home” — about which my lack of interest is complete.  To put it plainly, I’d rather have a prostate exam with no lube that ever get on an exercise bicycle to do a spin class anywhere, let alone one where I have to grunt and sweat alongside virtual neighbors. 

Companies use my digital ramblings to try (and usually fail) to sell me things that might have interested me in passing but do so no longer.  The butterfly net of big data swooshes past me and captures who I was, not who I am now.

But golly I’d like to have access to that data.  I spend time (loads, too much) searching through three different email archives, Evernote, Facebook, old Tweets, pictures on my camera phone and journal entries trying to dope out variations to recurring questions about what I was thinking or doing, when I was doing it, where, and why I was bothering in the first place.  Sometimes I even look into my web browsing history across different browsers on different machines.

Little of this includes other information about where I was geographically, who I was talking with, and what was going on in the background as all this was happening.

Big companies and governments have access to this information… sometimes under the pretense of not linking all the bits and bobs of Brad-shaped data to my personally identifiable information (PII), except in the case of government where it’s all me all the time. 

My friend Renny Gleeson calls this a “data contrail,” with my activities carving a big slash through the world like a jet leaving a visible white cloudy line in its wake.

But why don’t I get access to my own information?  I’d like all my traces bound up in a tidy dashboard that I can see at my leisure… sort of like Apple’s Time Machine but for my whole life.  Data visualization please, stat!

In my daydreams, I think of this as an App, called “Diary” or maybe “iDiary,” that hooks up all my activities and makes them easily seen on my phone or tablet. 

Beyond just trying to catch the string of a passing thought, if I suddenly find myself thinking of pizza, then I’d like to know that I walked by 13 pizzerias, saw three ads for Domino’s, and that the episode of “The Most Popular Girls in School” my daughter showed me was sponsored by Pizza Hut.

Everything should be in my Diary: where do I drive?  Who do I talk with as I’m driving?  Include emails and notes, what I post and view on Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Google searches, where my GPS-enabled phone has been (with me along with it, presumably), what I watch on TV or Netflix, what sounds are happening in the background where I am (because if Arbitron knows, why shouldn’t I?), what am I listening to on Spotify, and what billboards are in my peripheral vision. 

The creepy thing isn’t my having access to this information, although it could quickly lead to Narcissism At Scale (oh look, a new acronym— NAS!), it’s that this information is already out there, just disorganized, owned by disparate competing corporations and governments, and it’s easily misinterpreted to my disadvantage.

At the minimum, the price of corporations tracking me and recording my movements and actions in laundry pen for the rest of time should their sharing what they have written down about me in a way that is easy to access and manage.

I want to be my own Big Brother.  

[Cross-posted on Medium.]

My 2014 in Books

I read a lot — magazines, two newspapers, email newsletters, and countless social-media-shared links I chase down digital rabbit holes. I’d never know anything, for example, without Jason Hirshhorn’s magnificent daily Media Redefined.

But I’m lost without books.  Actual books.  Whether paper or digital, if I’m not reading at least two books then I get grumpy and feel IQ points oozing out of my ears and down the shower drain.

So one year ago, inspired by my friend David Daniel who keeps a list of books he wants to read, I decided to keep a list of books I finished in 2014. Since it is now 12/31/14 and I’m not going to finish any of the three books I’m reading at the moment, what follows is my 2014 list with brief remarks added.

Note: with the exception of My Side of the Mountain I am not counting re-reads. Often, at night, or when I’m in need of a visit with an old friend, I dive back into a novel I’ve already read. My kids are the same way. Since I tell the two of them that this doesn’t count for their reading, I’m not counting it towards my own.

Looking back, there’s a lot of fiction in this list.  I need fiction like I need oxygen (except when I’m writing fiction), and most of the business writing I read comes in articles.  I wonder what the fiction/non-fiction balance will be next year?

So here’s the list:

Dashner, James.  The Maze Runner.  Finished 1/1/14.

I read a fair amount of YA or children’s books, usually in quest of reading matter for my kids, but in this case it was for a project a friend and I were contemplating. Not bad but not good enough for me to read any farther.

Sloan, Robin. Mr. Penumbra’s 24-Hour Bookstore. Finished 1/4/14.

A fun ride, albeit only pancake deep. I inhaled this over a day or so at the start of last year. A good yarn for any of the digerati who mourn the loss of bookstores and wonder about the future of book-length reading in a digital age.

Elberse, Anita. Blockbusters: Hit-Making, Risk-Taking & the Big Business of Entertainment. Finished 1/22/14.

Interesting and thoughtful, and powerfully presented. What I wanted, though, were more connections outside of entertainment to the rest of business and human endeavor. A missed opportunity.

Eggers, Dave.  The Circle. Finished 1/23/14.

A frustrating book… it annoyed but compelled me in a similar way to Aaron Sorkin’s just-finished HBO show “The Newsroom.” There’s a smugness to Eggers that grates, and I don’t think he understands how companies like Facebook and Google work.

Asaro, Catherine. The Spacetime Pool.  Finished 2/5/14.

Novella in Asaro’s fantastic “Saga of the Skolian Empire” series, which is great fun for people who like space opera with good physics and a bit of romance.

Aaronovitch, Ben. Broken Homes: a Rivers of London Novel. Finished 2/15/14.

#4 in Rivers of London. I saw #5 on the shelves at Foyle’s in London last week and am excited to read it when the e-book comes out in a few days. This series is delightful fantasy set in modern-day London, written by one of the many “Doctor Who” alumni who go on, like Douglas Adams, to write novels.

Semmelhack, Peter. Social Machines: the Next Wave of Innovation; How to Develop Connected Products that Change Customers’ Lives. Finished 3/09/14.

A good introduction to the Internet of Things, more practical than visionary.

Craighead George, Jean.  My Side of the Mountain.  Finished 3/11/14.  

I read this when I was a kid, found it on my son’s shelf, and re-read it with lip-smacking pleasure.  I was looking in particular for a discussion of how you want a machete rather than an axe, which I remembered from a book I read decades ago, but didn’t find it in this terrific book. Anybody out there know what I’m talking about?

Thomas, Rob.  Veronica Mars: the Thousand-Dollar Tan Line.  Finished 4/3/14.

Loved the Veronica Mars movie that came out around the same time and couldn’t get enough of it, so I read the novel. Fun. Nailed the voice and sensibility of the series. I look forward to the next one, which comes out soon.

Grant, Adam. Give and Take: a Revolutionary Approach to Success. Finished 4/11/14.

One of the best business-y books I’ve read in the last few years, I tore through this after Dana Anderson praised it at the AAAA’s, and had the pleasure of trading notes with Adam Grant subsequently. I can’t say enough nice things about this book. It’s brilliant, and — perhaps more importantly and certainly a surprise coming from a social scientist — it’s beautifully written.

Greenwood, Kerry.  Cocaine Blues.  Phrynne Fisher #1.  Finished May sometime.

Between May and July I inhaled seven of these murder mysteries set in Victorian Australia.  Karen, a woman who practices Tae Kwon-do with my son back in Oregon, and I talk books, and she was flying through them. These are like McNuggets: I kept tearing through them at high speed until I hit a satiation point and stopped.  Formulaic and with a bit of the Ensign Mary Sue about them, I recommend these to historical mystery lovers who also like a recurring cast of characters. The Australian TV series based on these (streaming on either Netflix or Amazon Prime) isn’t bad, although not as good as the books. Things rarely are.  Just this note for all this series.

Greenwood, Kerry. Flying Too High. Phyrnne Fisher #2.  Finished May sometime.

Greenwood, Kerry.  Murder on the Ballarat Train.  Phrynne Fisher #3.  5/28/14.

Greenwood, Kerry. Death at Victoria Dock.  Phynne Fisher #4. Finished 6/13/14.

Greenwood, Kerry.  The Green Mill Murder. Phynne Fisher #5. Finished 6/16/14.

Gottschall, Jonathan. The Storytelling Animal: How Stories Make Us Human. Finished 6/20/14.

A friend — either Ari Popper of Sci Futures or Brian Seth Hurst of Story Tech — recommended this to me at CES.  Good popular science journalism, but I don’t have clear memories of it now, which is a bit of a ding.

Deaver, Jeffrey. The Skin Collector. Finished 6/24/14.

I read it because of my affection for The Bone Collector, but it wasn’t very good.

Miller, Derek B.  Norwegian by Night.  Finished 7/13/14.

My friend Rishad Tobaccowala recommended this to me when he found out I was moving to Norway for the school year.  It’s fantastic: an emotionally engaged and heart-stopping thriller starring an 80 year old Korean War Vet set in Oslo. I can’t believe this hasn’t been made into a movie yet. Clint Eastwood should direct and star.

McKeown, Greg.  Essentialism: The Disciplined Pursuit of Less.  Finished 7/13/14.

This book taught me a lot about how I sabotage my own productivity: I read it with passionate intensity in paper, and then bought a digital copy to bring with me to Norway. It’s on my “to re-read in January list,” which isn’t a long one.

Greenwood. Kerry.  Blood and Circuses. Phynne Fisher #6. Finished 7/18/14.

MacLeod, Hugh.  Ignore Everybody and 39 Other Keys to Creativity.  Finished 7/23/14.

I admire MacLeod and hadn’t gotten around to reading the book for no good reason. It’s short, sweet and smart. Don’t miss, particularly if you like his cartoons.

Greenwood. Kerry. Ruddy Gore.  Phynne Fisher #7. Finished 7/24/14.

Russ, Joanna.  The Adventures of Alyx.  Finished 8/14/13.

Back in college, my friend Keylan Qazzaz wrote her senior thesis about women in science fiction with a particular focus on this book. I picked it up a few years later, but never got around to reading it.  Then, as I was packing for Norway and grabbing books from the “I’ve been meaning to read this” pile (a big pile), I saw this.  Turns out, it’s a collection of short stories and novellas featuring a terrific protagonist who seems to have amnesia between each story.  More strong space opera.  A bit hard to find now, but quite good.

Shenk, Joshua Wolf.  Powers of Two: Finding the Essence of Innovation in Creative Pairs.  Finished 8/31/14.

I enjoyed the Atlantic excerpt of this book and decided to read the whole thing, which I did in short order.  It’s a powerful antidote to the “genius alone is his garrett” Romantic myth that still pervades western notions of creativity and genius. However, I’d have liked more on how groups collaborate, and think that his focus on the pair is unnecessarily limiting.  Still a worthwhile read, and in addition it lead me to Carse (see below).

Huizinga, Johan.  Homo Ludens: a study of the play element in culture. Finished 9/9/14.

Play is important to how I think about disruptive technologies (much more about this in 2015), and a few years ago my friend and partner Susan MacDermid mentioned this book from the 1930s.  It’s a tough read — continental philosophy that seems deliberately, almost hermetically sealed away against non-specialist readers — but worthwhile and interesting and useful for my thinking.

Powers, Tim.  Expiration Date.  Finished 9/20/14. 

Powers wrote my all-time favorite time travel story, The Anubis Gates, but I never managed to get into this one or it’s quasi-sequel (see below) even though I’ve had them for years.  Powers’ imagination is powerful and intricate, and it takes time to settle into the worlds he creates.  By the time I made it to page 50 I was hooked, and then I was sorry when it ended.  Don’t give up on this one too easily.

Wilson, Daniel H.  Robopocalypse.  Finished 10/10/14.

My friend Renny Gleeson recommended this, and it’s yummy sci-fi candy along the lines of the Terminator movie series only updated to include how the world works post-internet.  For paranoiacs worried about AI, this is either something to embrace or something to avoid for fear of never sleeping again.

Carse, James P.  Finite and Infinite Games: a vision of life as play and possibility. Finished 10/12/14.

As I mentioned, the Shenk book turned me onto Carse.  Like Huizinga, this is far from an easy book to read or understand, but it’s an important meditation on play.  It’s particularly important for Americans, I think, with our cultural tendency to bottom line everything and be more concerned with the final score than how the game was.

Gawande, Atul.  The Checklist Manifesto: How to Get Things Right. Finished 10/21/14.

Gawande is one of those people who does so much in a day to make the world a better place that he makes me feel like a loser, even though I’m sure that if I said this to him in person he’d charm me into feeling like a superhero until the next morning.  He’s a terrific writer, and in our information-overload era this book is both moving and useful for anybody who despairs of getting the important things done.

Mann, George.  The Affinity Bridge: A Newbury & Hobbes Investigation. Finished 10/28/14.

The Steampunk genre and movement appeals to me, but I keep holding back because it feels like it will turn into an addictive time-suck that will pull me far deeper than just reading the novels.  Suddenly, I’ll be going to maker fairs and dressing in lots of metal-studded leather.  I just don’t have that kind of time.  This is also why I rarely play video games and don’t drive a motorcycle.  Still, I ran across this book at Books, Inc. in Palo Alto and was so interested that I found myself reading it while walking down El Camino Real on my way to a dinner.  For Sherlock Holmes lovers as well as Steampunks, this is great fun.  I also read the sequel immediately thereafter (see next entry) and a cluster of free short stories on Mann’s website.  Like Ben Aaronovitch, Mann is a Doctor Who alum.  I’ll read more of this series eventually.

Mann, George.  The Osiris Ritual: A Newbury & Hobbes Investigation.  Finished 11/6/14.

Scalzi, John.  Lock In. Finished 11/16/14.

Fascinating notion about telepresence for quadriplegics (a reductive description, I admit) as background for a compelling near-future science fiction adventure story.  Scalzi’s voice is the closest to a 21st century Heinlein that I’ve found, particularly with the Old Man’s War series.

Bach, Rachel.  Fortune’s Pawn. (Paradox Book 1.) Finished 11/22/14.

IO9 compared this to Lois McMaster Bujold’s work, and since she is my favorite living science fiction writer I immediately bought the first one.  Bujold it ain’t, but it’s not-bad space opera.  One key difference (literature geek spoiler alert) is that while Bujold practices Austen-like free indirect discourse, Bach’s narrative is first person, which is harder to carry off if you’re not practicing the skaz a la Mark Twain in Huck Finn.  I really like how Bach’s protagonist is a kick-ass woman mercenary soldier, but I wish the writing was better.

Catmull, Ed.  Creativity, Inc. Overcoming the Unseen Forces That Stand in the Way of True Inspiration. Finished 11/29/14.

Rishad and Renny both put this on lists of influential books, and I loved every page both as a Pixar fan and as a consultant who watches businesses get in the way of their own success time and time again.  I managed creatives for many years, and wish I had this book on my desk when I started. Don’t miss. Like Adam Grant’s book, this one will stick with and help any business leader.

Powers, Tim.  Earthquake Weather. Finished 12/22/14.

See above note on Powers’ Expiration Date.  I was delighted to discover that Earthquake Weather was a quasi-sequel, because that made it easier to get over my usual 50 page learning curve with Powers.

Connelly, Michael.  The Burning Room: A Harry Bosch Novel. Finished 12/29/14.

My last completed book of 2014, which I finished on a plane this Monday.  Is there anybody who doesn’t love these books?  Connelly seems to be easing Bosh towards retirement or a dramatic death, and while I’m eager to see how it all ends I despair at the notion of a fictional Los Angeles without Harry Bosch solving crimes in it.

Looking forward to 2015: I’m currently reading four books that I hope to finish in January or February:

Daniel J. Levitin’s Thinking Straight in the Age of Information Overload.

Susan L. Smalley and Diana Winston’s Fully Present: The Science, Art, and Practice of Mindfulness.

(After I finish these two, I’m ambitious to dive into Daniel Goleman’s new Focus, which seems to be along similar lines to both of these.)

James H. Carrott and Brian David Johnson’s Vintage Tomorrows: A Historian And A Futurist Journey Through Steampunk Into The Future of Technology.

And although I haven’t read it, I picked up Lamentation, the sixth Matthew Shardlake novel by C.J. Sansom in London. If you want murder mysteries set in the same time as Hilary Mantel’s Thomas Cromwell books, don’t miss this excellent series. 

Any must-reads for the coming year?  Please share in comments below…

IOS 8 Correction: I was WRONG (but check Location settings anyway & here’s why)

Sunday morning after updating my iPad to IOS 8, I was horrified to see that just about all my apps were broadcasting my location 24/7/365, and I blamed the update thinking that Apple had toggled the settings from off to on. I wrote a post about it that you can find here, and I asked my network to share the post, which it kindly did.

Here’s the short version of today’s correction: I was wrong. Apple did not toggle the settings from off to on.

I apologize for my mistake, to the folks who shared my mistake because I asked them to do so, and I thank Jules Polonetsky of the Future of Privacy Forum for setting me straight in a Facebook exchange (hat tip to Jackie Stone for bringing his information to my attention).

Further, I ask everybody who shared the initial post please to share this one, too.

But for heaven’s sake please still go to Settings > Privacy > Location Services and check your settings and pay attention when your i-device warns you about that some app that has little to do with where you are is tracking your location 24/7/365.

That’s the short version– if you’ve had enough or if you are now bored with this topic, then please click away and remember: I was wrong, and I apologize.

For those of you still interested…

The longer version: prompted by Jules Polonetsky, I took screenshots of the Location Services settings on my iPhone 5 before I upgraded to IOS 8. Here’s what the top of the loooong screen looked like:

LocationSettings

Sure enough, the settings were the same after the update. Again, I was wrong.

However, this does beg the question of why all the apps in my iPad were toggled to “on” in the first place? The reason is that prior to IOS 8 Apple, following an industry standard practice, made it frictionless and automatic to add apps without really thinking about whether you want to let the app know where you are at all times. Now, IOS 8 warns you… and it was the warning about Google that sent me down this rabbit hole in the first place.

As Jules Polonetsky pointed out via Facebook, Apple has created an improvement to the original settings where some apps (but not all) can now broadcast location “Never,” “Always” or “While Using” the app.

The burden, though, is still on the user to opt out of location sharing, rather than the other way around. This is a widespread problem with digital privacy in the U.S., where opt-out is the standard rather than the opt-in practiced more widely elsewhere in the world.

So check those settings, please.

Here’s what my iPad settings looked like immediately after the update to IOS 8:

iPadPrivacySettingsWhy would Cozi, the family calendar we use — and for which I pay $5/month to be advertising free — need my location at all times? I never decided to grant Cozi that permission: I simply clicked “OK” when I needed to install the app.

Apple’s new warning about location sharing makes all this ever so slightly less insidious, but it’s still creepy.

That’s why I think the Apple blog post I quoted on Sunday is disingenuous. Here’s the relevant snippet again:

Our business model is very straightforward: We sell great products. We don’t build a profile based on your email content or web browsing habits to sell to advertisers. We don’t “monetize” the information you store on your iPhone or in iCloud. And we don’t read your email or your messages to get information to market to you. Our software and services are designed to make our devices better. Plain and simple.

While it may be true that Apple’s revenue model is different than Google’s (which the blog post is describing in detail but not naming), the post doesn’t mention location because Apple does track your location in order to serve iAds to your phone or iPad.

Moreover, just because Apple doesn’t monetize the data stream I throw off over the course of a day’s movements that doesn’t mean that the apps I have downloaded aren’t doing so. They are, and so Apple is providing a platform for that stalky monetization even if they aren’t doing it themselves.

The U.S. is still waiting for it’s Baby Jessica moment when it comes to digital privacy.

Thanks for reading this all the way to the end. If you’re still interested in adjusting your i-device to protect your privacy, Zach Whittaker over at ZDNet has some suggestions here.

 

IOS 8 Warning: Look at your Privacy Settings

Tuesday Update: I was wrong about Apple changing settings: see full Correction and explanation here.

 

Apple hates Google.  It REALLY hates Google.

I have evidence.

A few days ago I updated my iPad to IOS8. Today, as I was looking at email, a warning flashed across the device that roughly said: “Google is sharing your location in the background: do you want this to continue?” Under the warning was a Cancel button and a Settings button.

I clicked and discovered that it wasn’t only GOOGLE that was sharing my location: the IOS 8 update defaults so that EVERYTHING shares your location… even apps that don’t have anything to do with maps or geography.

Put plainly: if you don’t go in and change this, oh iPhone and iPad enthusiast (I’m one of you!), then you are naked in front of the whole world… a cybernetic version of the “standing in front of the classroom without any clothes on” nightmare, but one that is grim reality.

To fix this, go to Settings > Privacy > Location Services.  There, you can change the default to whatever you want.  HOWEVER, don’t ignore “System Services” at the bottom, which takes you to a bunch of other Apple-specific location-aware settings that you might also want to disable… in particular the “Location-based iAds” setting that will turn your i-device into a Minority-Report-like “Hello, John Anderton… do you want a Lexus?” i-rritating voice in your pocket.

What upsets me about this is that Apple could have made this more transparent: it could have said, “We’ve changed your location settings” in a window that you have to press after updating to IOS 8.

Instead, it defaulted in the background, buried this in a mass of documentation, and then had the nerve to issue a blog post ostensibly by Tim Cook claiming:

A few years ago, users of Internet services began to realize that when an online service is free, you’re not the customer. You’re the product. But at Apple, we believe a great customer experience shouldn’t come at the expense of your privacy.

Our business model is very straightforward: We sell great products. We don’t build a profile based on your email content or web browsing habits to sell to advertisers. We don’t “monetize” the information you store on your iPhone or in iCloud. And we don’t read your email or your messages to get information to market to you. Our software and services are designed to make our devices better. Plain and simple.

Notice how the post doesn’t mention location?

You don’t have to change the settings, but you should know what Apple is broadcasting about where you are.