Tuesday, May 31, 2016

On Gorillas, Small Kids, Accidents, and Blame


Why must there always be a villain?

Hundreds of parents have taken their eyes off their kids by a zoo pen; this time one happened to get away and fall in.

Dozens of trainers have interacted with a gorilla throughout it’s life without incident; this time it wasn’t clear if the animal was aggressive.

The people there- forced to make the choices and evaluate the situation- decided that there was danger and that a human life was more important than a gorilla’s.  They weren’t poachers or hunters; they were vets and animal keepers.  And they made a choice in an un-winable situation.

It was an accident.  An accident that the kid fell in.  An accident that the gorilla appeared hostile.  Maybe both. 

But in the end- no matter how it happened- it was a tragedy and the real compassion should be for everyone involved.  The parents who will always carry the guilt of that one time they took their attention away.  The kid who first hand saw an animal killed.  The staffer who’s life has been dedicated to animal care forced to take the shot.  And the dozens of bystanders who’s dreams may be haunted by what they saw that day.

Not every story has a villain.  Sometimes, tragedy just takes place.  We shouldn’t need to find blame, find someone or something that must be pointed at to carry the fault.  We shouldn’t need a villain.  

But we do.

Even if we have to make one up.

Thursday, May 26, 2016

The Flash Finale - Quick Thoughts (Spoilers!)

SPOILERS FOR THE FLASH SEASON 2 FINALE!!!

Okay, I have so many thoughts on this I might write up a detailed analysis of the season at some point.  But here's my top of mind thoughts...

1) This season's second half has been weak-sauce.  The first half was pretty good, leading up to the killer reveal of "Jay" as Zoom.  Then the mid-season break came and everything after that was more flop than not. 

All this led to a finale that was a real mixed bag of "what could have been."  In the first 15 minutes, they gave us 5 - 6 key moments; all of which could have been an entire episode!!  Why did we get half a season of crappy, mis-step filler when we could have had so many great shows??  Where was the episode where Wells-2 finally realizes the STAR Labs team is the "family" he's always been needing?  Where was the episode that sets-up Zoom's master plan?  Where was the episode where Wally discovers Barry's secret identity??  We got all that and more in 15 minutes; I'd have taken a show's worth of each with breathing room and real character development.

The Wells/ Sisco relationship is a perfect example.  They were GREAT together in this one- where has that been all second half??  Why not have let that build up to instead of just dropping it on us so quickly.

2) Zoom was horribly managed.  We started the season off with this near-perfect villain.  Menacing, evil, unstoppable- Zoom had it all.  And up to the reveal that he is- in fact "Jay"- it was fantastic!  Then it all falls apart.  Once out of the mask, Zoom's motivations become murky, his plan is unclear, and he seems incompetent compared to the first half.  What was with all of Checkov's Metas??  Never explained.  Why did he go from wanting to conquer worlds and be fast to "I'm going to start counting success in the number of bodies I drop?" and back again?   It doesn't hold up.

In the end, Zoom's master plan actually fits the Zoom we first met- I'm going to destroy the multi-verse so I can rule this one planet AND do it by proving I'm the fastest man alive.  Perfect!

It really- REALLY- felt like the first half of this season and the finale were written by one team of writers, and the second half was done by a group that didn't get to read what the others were doing.  It's so disjointed, the characters are so out of line  that it makes the whole season suffer from "what could have been."

And lastly.. the ending.

For two seasons we've been dealing with a Barry Allen racked and motivated by a guilt he cannot escape.  It's driven him, but also limited him.  This year, we got some real character development in the one bright spot episode of the second half.  Barry goes into the speedforce and seems to emerge with real character growth.  Confidence, purpose driven, at peace.

And then they undo it all in the final moments as Barry screws with the timeline for his own selfish, petulant reasons.  They unraveled all his advancement for the sake of a cliffhanger; one they didn't even need.  The show was already renewed.  The audience would be back.  They could have left us with a win and a happy ending but instead they went for the cheap trick.

I died a little.

I still like the show and I truly hope that next season is as much fun as the first and we all look back at #2 as the season that we dare not speak it's name.  But the writer's room better learn from this because they can do better.  I know it- I see the potential.  I just want that little bit more.


Linked - Apple’s Rumored Echo Competitor Could be a Next-Gen Apple TV

Linked - Apple’s Rumored Echo Competitor Could be a Next-Gen Apple TV

Gee, if only someone had predicted something like that...

My Apple Wish List

AI ≠ Voice Interface

With all this drama over how Apple is lagging in "AI" I think it's worth taking a closer look at the real issues at play.  There's a big difference between "AI" or "bots" and voice interface.  And you don't have to be good at both.

Google has been placing it's bet on "AI" (which I'm using as shorthand for the various machine learning they employ; be it a bot or a knowledge graph, etc.) for a while.  Google Now could exist without any voice interactions.  The idea of serving up information when you need it "intuitively" is one construct that is not necessarily tied to a voice command.  That's the avenue that Google (and I think ultimately Amazon) want to chase- getting predictive in the information they serve you.  Because once they figure out what you want or need before you realize it, they can sell the opportunity to fill that need to the highest bidder.  That's their business models.  But it's a model that requires a lot of data collection and analyzing to work. 

Right now that requires big computing resources that only scale in the cloud; which is partly why Google and Amazon are leading there as well.  But eventually the cost of that compute will come way down and be manageable on-device.  As it does, Apple can move there while maintaining their privacy ethos.  And they'll still have the advantages of A) great hardware B) a privacy value and C) the experience of a developed market.  They won't be first, but they will be best and likely mainstream.  That's what the hyper-early adopting tech press doesn't ever remember.  MOST people want this stuff when it's matured.  Basic adoption curve.  But even if they don't, they can make those service available through the iOS platform in ways that make them accessible to user that want it.  They don't HAVE to play in that space; they just have to make it accessible.

Voice interface, on the other hand, doesn't require as much machine learning and can be achieved today without sacrificing privacy.  Apple can, and I believe will, move there quickly; but it will require giving up a little control. A well-made API would allow developers to script commands based on voice inputs.  The keys here are in parsing and preference.

Preference is the easy one if Apple is willing to bend.  For example, I use a 3rd party calendar app (Calendars 5 by Readdle and I love it).  So let's assume Apple makes a Siri API that Readdle builds to so that when I say "Siri, add a massage to my calendar at 4pm on Friday" it's able to go directly to the Readdle app.  The challenge is how does it recognize that preference?  One option- the "AI" option- is to use my phone's usage data to know intuitively that I use Calendars 5 and never open the stock app.  That's the harder way for Apple but (hopefully) seamless for the user.  But it requires data.  The other way is super simple if you'll give up the control- let me set a preference for "default" apps.  I need to be able to tell Siri in a settings panel that this is my calendar app, this is my Twitter app, this is my notes app, etc.  So that when I tell Siri to "make a note" she knows I mean an Evernote, not an Apple Note.  That's the easy, privacy-based solution.  I think that's where Apple will go.  Yes, it means letting us tinker with default apps and yes it means another settings menu; but it also means privacy integrity and that's the bigger Apple value.

Parsing is the real challenge.  Natural language is incredibly difficult.  Parsing idioms and context is incredibly advanced.  Even the Amazon Echo isn't good at it- if you don't get the "command line" correct, it will reject the direction.  And yet, natural language, more than AI, is what will drive adoption of the voice interface.  Even a causal user would have an easier time picking "default apps" with a good UI guide if it means they can say anything once it's set-up.  This is actually Apple's advantage- they're good at natural language- but translating that into an API is no small feat.  How do you get a partner to understand the 10+ different ways an English speaker might ask for the weather? ("How's the weather?, What's the weather?, What's it like outside? What's the temperature? etc, etc.).  Siri is quite good at giving you what you ask for an parsing those linguistic quirks.  Any API has to bridge that so that when I say "Check me in here" it knows that A) I mean Foursquare, not Yelp and B) That I just want to be checked-in; not with a picture or a rating or anything else.  (Beyond that, there are greater challenges.  How do you eventually handle duplicate service requests? (i.e., "Check me in here on Foursqure AND Yelp AND Facebook" for example).  It gets VERY complex but it can be done and it can be done on-device.)

Voice interface is about getting my device to do the same things it would if I was using my hands.  It's about navigation and action.  That's no more a privacy sacrifice than what I do with my phone today.  It's an input/ UI problem, not a data one.  Which is why I think Apple will quickly catch-up and in many ways lead.  They own the software that controls the hardware.  They're well positioned to solve interface challenges better than anyone.

But in the end, the key here is recognizing the difference between "AI" and voice interface.  I'm confident Apple does.  Not so sure about the average pundit.

Wednesday, May 25, 2016

Just You Wait...

Nothing is more humorous to watch than when the Apple less-faithful start dog-piling on.  Tis the season right now- WWDC just a month or so away, an "S" cycle iPhone year, and the most recent product release the "SE."  There just hasn't been enough "innovation" to satiate the hungriest of fans and news hounds.

Meanwhile, Amazon's Echo is growing, Google I/O just wrapped up to mixed, albeit interesting, reviews.  There's innovation everywhere- except 1 Infinite Loop.

Just you wait.

Look, we all know that Apple is a blackbox of innovation.  They don't show us what they're working on- they show us what they've done.  Great for consumers; bad for tech writers and podcasters who are running out of ways to fill daily RSS feeds and 2 hour recording sessions.  But that's the Apple way- acquisitions go in, products come out.  Don't you mind how we did it.

That's not to say that the recent track record is flawless.  The Apple TV didn't live up to it's potential in my book.  And the Watch, has plenty of room to grow.  But to already be calling Apple out as "lagging" in areas like home voice-based AI is crazy.  The Echo isn't mainstream by any standard and Google hasn't even shipped a Home device yet.  It's an emerging market, but hardly a mature one.

Apple doesn't play in emerging markets.  They play in developing ones.  Which is why Samsung, Pebble, and Android Wear all shipped smart watches first and why Apple is totally dominating the category (with it's "lack-luster" device).

Just you wait.  Apple is going to play in this and every space in big ways.  But if you want to be the earliest of adopters, go play somewhere else.

"One definition of maturity is learning to delay pleasure for a better result." ~ Dave Ramsey

Facebook- and the media- are still missing the point.

Shocker.

Media bias has never been about a prescribed, mandate-driven problem.  No reasonable observer has seen this as "Facebook had policies that forced left-leaning trends."  

It's a classic straw-man fallacy.  Construct a false premise ("Facebook had a policy") and then prove it's falsehood.

The truth is actually worse.  Because if there had been a policy, it would have been easy to spot and easy to fix.  Instead, the truth is, the majority of editors didn't realize there was a bias because IT WAS THEIR OWN BIAS.

It took an editor with a minority opinion to speak out under anonymity to even bring it up.  Because the culture was so ingrained towards the bias that calling it out would have been laughable in the room.

Look, this is that fine line between "bias" and "conspiracy."  And the media- because it's biased- loves to move the conversation to the latter.

The real issue- biases and all aside- is that Facebook purported a section called "Trending" when it was actually curated.  It's a violation of user trust and THAT'S what we should be talking about. 


(The "bias" was proved by the fact that no one there saw their intervening in the "trends" as problematic.  THAT'S bias in action.)

Thursday, May 12, 2016

The Most Inefficient Thing in the World

I'm pretty sure it was a Scott Adams quote- or maybe even a Dogbert cartoon- that set for a mantra I have lived by for years.

"Nothing is less efficient that a group of people trying to write a sentence."

It was a commentary on Mission Statements and group writing in general.  But it's something I've applied to many aspects of creativity and design with great results.

Teams are important for consensus.  But consensus is always the result of compromise.  And when it comes to good design, the earlier you compromise, the worse result you get.

Instagram had a team of people work 9 months to create it's new app icon.  The original took one guy 45 minutes.



The overwhelming response- including mine- is that the new version is gaudy, poorly colored, and too minimalistic.  In short, too far from the brand.

This is the result of team design.  A result that's been met with compromise at every level.  I imagine hours of debate about the background gradients; hours of in-fights about the shape of the camera corners.  Until finally they all got tired of fighting and gave up and said "good enough."  Team design is never about getting the best results- it's about who can endure the debate long enough to win.  It's the design equivalent of "last one touching the car" contest.

And then, on the opposite end of the spectrum, is this.




This is one guy, Michael Flarup, in one night.  Doing amazing work that's both modern and true to the brand.  Maybe it's not your favorite or quite to your tastes, but it's better than what got done.

When it comes to design, teams are best at review; not creation.  As Henry Ford used to say, "If I'd have asked the people what they wanted they'd have said a faster horse."  Teams often don't know what they want, or politics kick in, or people become afraid to take risks in front of others.  The list goes on for so many reasons that teams aren't ideal at creating.

Keep that in mind the next time you try to design by committee.