Ten years on, it’s worth remembering that even Steve Jobs hedged his bets; the truly transformational can scarcely be imagined, much less established by fiat.
For the annual live incarnation of his podcast The Talk Show, John Gruber is joined by Apple Senior Vice President of Marketing, Phil Schiller. (The Schiller segment starts at about 12 minutes in)
Marco Arment on both the unusualness and the unique appeal of this interview:
Apple doesn’t do this. Apple executives rarely speak publicly outside of Apple events, especially for live interviews. One of the highest-ranking executives of the world’s highest-profile company being subjected to questions, unprepared and unedited, in front of a live audience full of recording devices, is rarely worth the PR risk: the potential downside is much larger than the likely upside. Do well, and a bunch of existing fans will like you a bit more; do poorly, and it’s front-page news worldwide.
[…]
John asked real questions on challenging subjects, including gender diversity, my alleged software-quality decline, discoveryd problems, thinness trade-offs with battery life, the new MacBook, continuing to sell 16 GB iOS devices, and whether the Apple Watch should have shipped without WatchKit 1.0 apps since the native SDK was so imminent.
What is interesting, though, is the impact on platforms and ecosystems of a user-first approach. iOS has maintained a platform lead, just as Windows did, but unlike Windows said lead is not based on owning the ecosystem (and thus distribution); rather, iOS owns the best customers, i.e. the customers who are most willing to pay. This is hardly a revelation, but I think there is a larger lesson to be drawn: success no longer depends on platforms or ecosystems; rather, platforms and ecosystems themselves depend on access to desirable customers. By extension, the companies who own that access — who own the funnel, to use a marketing term — are the ones who gain outsized influence and, in the long run, outsized profits.
A somewhat weekly selection of interesting articles, thoughts, talks, statistics and more. (Mostly about, but not limited to, media and technology.)
A somewhat weekly selection of interesting articles, thoughts, talks, statistics and more. (Mostly about, but not limited to, media and technology.)
A somewhat weekly selection of interesting articles, thoughts, talks, statistics and more. (Mostly about, but not limited to, media and technology.)
Anyone with a sense of history ought to have been able to look at a phone the size of a brick and say ‘well, this could come down to the size of a pack of cards and cost $100, given time”, just as anyone should have been able to look at the Krieger electric landaulet above and see that it would get much better and much cheaper, just as trains and steamships had done. If you understood technology, that much was pretty easy. But if automobiles had only replaced existing horse-drawn carriages and carts then the market would have been much smaller. The hard part was to forecast Wal-Mart, and Los Angeles.
There’s a trend in Silicon Valley startups to create a software layer in industries that were traditionally pure human services. Uber and Lyft have created software layers in the taxi industry, 99designs Tasks in the visual design industry, Homejoy in the cleaning industry, and so on. These new software services employ armies of human workers, optimizing their output, productivity and quality while driving price down.

Pebble announced their new smartwatch Pebble Time on Kickstarter yesterday. They blew past their 500.000$ goal after only 17 minutes and raised 1 million in funding after half an hour, the fastest Kickstarter project to reach that number to date.
Properly speaking, it's not a project you can fund though, it’s a product you can preorder. From Pebble’s perspective, this makes sense for multiple reasons:
It’ll be interesting to see more incumbents trying to dip their toes into crowdfunding platforms to harness some of these perks.
The little boy robot in Steven Spielberg’s 2001 film “A.I. Artificial Intelligence” wants to be a real boy with all his little metal heart, while Skynet in the “Terminator” movies is obsessed with the genocide of humans. We automatically presume that the Monoliths in Stanley Kubrick and Arthur C. Clarke’s 1968 film, “2001: A Space Odyssey,” want to talk to the human protagonist Dave, and not to his spaceship’s A.I., HAL 9000.
I argue that we should abandon the conceit that a “true” Artificial Intelligence must care deeply about humanity — us specifically — as its focus and motivation. Perhaps what we really fear, even more than a Big Machine that wants to kill us, is one that sees us as irrelevant. Worse than being seen as an enemy is not being seen at all.
Great think piece by Benjamin Bratton, debunking the use of the Turing test as the quasi-standard benchmark for A.I. as an anthropocentric fallacy.