Ask any entrepreneur about their idea and at some point most will claim it will “change the world” in some way — such as making it easier to hook up.
But some truly want to change the world֫ — or at least help save it.
And not all are young, nor are they techies.
One of the most impressive I’ve heard about recently is Faris Rajak Kotahatuhaha, an Indonesian designer, and his two colleagues, Denny Lesmana Budi and Fiera Alifa.
Kotahatuhaha’s team set out to create a prototype for the “re-iceberg-isation” of parts of the Arctic by freezing seawater into hexagonal blocks of ice that nest together to form new ice floes.
Poking through 11+ years of posts I find information that’s as useful now as when it was written.
Golden Oldies is a collection of the most relevant and timeless posts during that time.
There’s not a lot on TV that I like, but I used to really enjoy Shark Tank. Past tense; haven’t watched in several years. Why? Two words: lifestyle products. With very few exceptions that’s what was being presented, whether an app, a product or a service. I understand that entrepreneurs create stuff that will get funded, and while I’m not saying they are bad investments or that the entrepreneurs don’t mean well, I am saying that I don’t care about them. They won’t change the world or even improve it. Uber and Lyft are good examples; they haven’t decreased traffic, as they claimed they would, in fact, they’ve increased it. Most in the “life style” category are focused on “personal care.” (Have you noticed that sometime in the recent past “personal growth” morphed into “personal care”?) More packaging in the landfills, more time on the screen, more focus on self — so not my mindset.
Innovation isn’t nearly as mind-boggling today when compared to what startups were doing in the late Seventies/early Eighties when I started working with them.
A recent Reuters report found that the majority of Silicon Valley startup founders that receive Series A funding come from the same pedigreed cohort: either they previously worked at a large, well-known tech firm, a well-connected smaller tech company, they previously created a successful startup, or they come from one of three universities—Stanford, Harvard, or MIT.
It’s been 15 years since I first wrote about the proclivity of managers to hire people like themselves and more over the years showing it leads to homophily and the negative impact that has on a company.
It seems it’s no different for investors.
They are funding people like themselves who were raised, educated and worked along paths similar to their own who they either know or are introduced to them by a friend.
“Like a lot of the investments [Instacart] that have come our way, a friend of a friend talked to us about it, and told us about it, and encouraged the founder and the CEO to come and chat with us. One thing led to another.” –Sequoia partner Mike Moritz
When you fund from a homogenous group, no matter where they are, creativity and innovation are watered down, because those groups tend to be insular and badly interbred talking mostly to each other.
If you’re fishing from a pond of rich white guys, you’re mostly going to get ideas that address the needs of rich white guys.
Poking through 11+ years of posts I find information that’s as useful now as when it was written.
Golden Oldies is a collection of the most relevant and timeless posts during that time.
Good, bad or silly, ideas for products are generated in response to a problem or need. It doesn’t matter if the problem/need only exists in the entrepreneur’s mind (think Jucerio), it’s still the driving force behind creating whatever. So what happens when there are no perceived problems? When the current whatever is treated as THE solution? Innovation takes a nosedive and monopolies thrive.
I’m not sure whether to laugh or cry when I see ads for stuff that responds to voice command, especially when it’s for stuff like changing the TV channel. I guess that using the remote takes either too much energy or too much intelligence to work it.
Everything today is about convenience, a trend I’ve been suspicious of, although I wasn’t sure why.
However, after reading an op-ed piece by Tim Wu, a law professor at Columbia and the author of “The Attention Merchants: The Epic Struggle to Get Inside Our Heads,” called The Tyranny of Convenience I’m starting to understand what about it makes me itch.
In the developed nations of the 21st century, convenience — that is, more efficient and easier ways of doing personal tasks — has emerged as perhaps the most powerful force shaping our individual lives and our economies.
Granted I’m known as a digital dinosaur, but there are some conveniences — washing machines, telephones, cars, email, and Skype chat, among them — I’m all for — although I see no reason they need to be smart .
However, I have no cell phone, avoid any app, service, etc., provided by Google, clean my own house, wash my own clothes, shop for my own food, and do my own cooking just as I’ve done since I was 18.
I search using startpage.com, no ads, no tracking and my life functions just fine without always being connected. I’m not on social media and don’t suffer from FOMA; I meet friends for meals and fun and we talk on the phone in-between.
I suppose that all sounds very inconvenient these days, but I’m never bored and enjoy the feelings of accomplishment that come with doing stuff yourself, as well as figuring out better ways to do it — it’s called ingenuity.
I’ve seen many “convenient” items come to market years after I came up with a similar approach to use for myself.
Americans say they prize competition, a proliferation of choices, the little guy. Yet our taste for convenience begets more convenience, through a combination of the economics of scale and the power of habit. The easier it is to use Amazon, the more powerful Amazon becomes — and thus the easier it becomes to use Amazon. Convenience and monopoly seem to be natural bedfellows (emphasis mine).
Professor WU (or someone) needs to do a follow-up article entitled, “How Convenience Killed Creativity and Strangled Entrepreneurship.
The world knows about tech’s love affair with, and misuse of, personal data. The continual ignoring, minimizing and excusing of hate speech, revenge porn, fake news, bullying, etc.
Then there is its totally irrational attitude/belief that people will be kind and good to each other online no matter what they are like in the real world.
Given the prevailing attitude, would a hot tech startup have a conscience?
So would a founder, a self-described “technology enthusiast,” create an AI app that went viral and then shut it down because of the way it was being used?
DeepNude was built on Pix2Pix, an open-source algorithm used for “image-to-image translation.” the app can create a naked image from any picture of a woman with just a couple of clicks. Revenge porn activists said the app was “absolutely terrifying.”
As to the above question, the answer is “yes.”
The DeepNude team was horrified, believing “the probability that people will misuse it is too high.”
“We don’t want to make money this way. Surely some copies of DeepNude will be shared on the web, but we don’t want to be the ones who sell it,” DeepNude wrote in a tweet. “The world is not yet ready for DeepNude.”
Pix2Pix was developed by a team of scientists, who now believe the industry needs to do better and not just release their work to the world at large.
“We have seen some wonderful uses of our work, by doctors, artists, cartographers, musicians, and more,” the MIT professor Phillip Isola, who helped create Pix2Pix, told Business Insider in an email. “We as a scientific community should engage in serious discussion on how best to move our field forward while putting reasonable safeguards in place to better ensure that we can benefit from the positive use-cases while mitigating abuse.”
One can only hope that the scientific community does, indeed, find a way to do good while avoiding the worst of the negative fallout from discoveries.
And hats off to the DeepNude team.
It’s really inspiring to see such a concrete example of doing the right thing, with no shilly-shallying or dancing around the decision.
But I do wonder what would have happened if either the developers or the scientists were beholden to investors.
Writing in the New York Times last month, Google CEO Sundar Pichai argued that it is “vital for companies to give people clear, individual choices around how their data is used.” Like all Times opinion pieces, his editorial included multiple Google tracking scripts served without the reader’s knowledge or consent. Had he wanted to, Mr. Pichai could have learned down to the second when a particular reader had read his assurance that Google “stayed focused on the products and features that make privacy a reality.”
Writing in a similar vein in the Washington Post this March, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg called for Congress to pass privacy laws modeled on the European General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). That editorial was served to readers with a similar bouquet of non-consensual tracking scripts that violated both the letter and spirit of the law Mr. Zuckerberg wants Congress to enact.
An Ovia spokeswoman said the company does not sell aggregate data for advertising purposes. But women who use Ovia must consent to its 6,000-word “terms of use,” which grant the company a “royalty-free, perpetual, and irrevocable license, throughout the universe” to “utilize and exploit” their de-identified personal information for scientific research and “external and internal marketing purposes.” Ovia may also “sell, lease or lend aggregated Personal Information to third parties,” the document adds.
Good grief. As any search will tell you “de-identified” is a joke, since it’s no big deal to put a name to so-called anonymous data.
By now you should know that tech talks privacy, but walks data collection.
That means it’s up to you to do what you can, starting with always adjusting all default privacy settings.
Poking through 13+ years of posts I find information that’s as useful now as when it was written.
Golden Oldies is a collection of the most relevant and timeless posts during that time.
This post and the quote from the FTC dates back to 2015. Nothing on the government side has changed; the Feds are still investigating and Congress is still talking. And as we saw in last weeks posts the company executives are more arrogant and their actions are much worse. One can only hope that the US government will follow in the footsteps of European countries and rein them in.
Entrepreneurs are notorious for ignoring security — black hat hackers are a myth — until something bad happens, which, sooner or later, always does.
They go their merry way, tying all manner of things to the internet, even contraceptives and cars, and inventing search engines like Shodan to find them, with nary a thought or worry about hacking.
Concerns are pooh-poohed by the digerati and those voicing them are considered Luddites, anti-progress or worse.
“Any device that is connected to the Internet is at risk of being hijacked,” said Ms. Ramirez, who added that the large number of Internet-connected devices would “increase the number of access points” for hackers.
Interesting when you think about the millions of baby monitors, fitness trackers, glucose monitors, thermostats and dozens of other common items available and the hundreds being dreamed up daily by both startups and enterprise.
She also confronted tech’s (led by Google and Facebook) self-serving attitude towards collecting and keeping huge amounts of personal data that was (supposedly) the basis of future innovation.
“I question the notion that we must put sensitive consumer data at risk on the off chance a company might someday discover a valuable use for the information.”
At least someone in a responsible position has finally voiced these concerns — but whether or not she can do anything against tech’s growing political clout/money/lobbying power remains to be seen.
Remember Juicero? The company that, in three years (2014-2017), burned through $120 million of venture funds building a $700 juicer requiring a special juice packet for each glass.
Following in that product’s footsteps, robotics company Vincross is planning to apply some of their consumer product knowledge to create a new product that is the equivalent of the Jucerio, except it will probably cost more.
The HEXA Plant is designed to look like a six-legged spider and can help anyone keep up with their plants even if they don’t have time to keep up with them. (…) Not only will the planter carry itself into the sunlight when needed – but it will find shade if the plant gets too hot. (…) The robotic planter is designed to stomp around or throw ‘tantrums’ when it is out of water…
The original HEXA robot sells for $949, so it’s unlikely the planter will cost less.
Here’s the robot, use your imagination to turn it into a plant pot.
And start saving, so you can finally have a plant that doesn’t die.
A Friday series exploring Startups and the people who make them go. Read allIf the Shoe Fits posts here.
Jack Ma is the founder of Chinese e-commerce giant Alibaba. He recently extolled the virtues on social media of working long hours, calling it a blessing..
Ma took to social media recently to voice his support of an intense work culture known as “996,” which refers to working from 9 a.m. to 9 p.m., six days a week. That all-consuming, life-force-sucking schedule is reportedly common among the country’s big technology companies and startups and Ma is okay with that.
And you thought the US was bad.
US startups have always been famous (infamous?) for working 80+ hour weeks and pulling multiple all-nighters conferred even more bragging rights.
More bragging rights, no matter the size of your company.
Sometime in the last 20 years, with the rise of giant tech companies, unicorns, unicorn wannabes, and other new(ish) companies, long hours got baked into startup culture and continued long after the company qualifies as a “startup.”
But even the Chinese government disagrees with Ma’s 996.
“The mandatory enforcement of 996 overtime culture not only reflects the arrogance of business managers, but also is unfair and impractical.”
Working excessive hours damages/destroys family, friendships, productivity, creativity, and a host of other things, but the first thing to suffer is sleep.
Besides the damage that lack of sleep does in the present, the long-term damage, while different, is as dangerous as football.
Considering how the tech world worships health, longevity and the possibility of extending their lives well past 100 they may want to rethink those long hours.
Not because I say so, but they might want to listen to Matthew Walker, professor of neuroscience and psychology at the University of California, Berkeley, and the author of the book “Why We Sleep.”
“Robber baron” is a derogatory metaphor of social criticism originally applied to certain late 19th-century American businessmen who were accused of using unscrupulous methods to get rich, or expand their wealth.
It’s a great description of many, not all, of the tech titans you hear/read about daily.
The most familiar names are Mark Zuckerberg, Larry Page, Sergy Brin, and Jeff Bezos, but there are many others, as well as all the aspirational robber baron founders looking for their own brass ring.
Today’s barons build their empires on your metaphorical back, i.e., your personal data, but the result is the same.
What drives them? Money? Power?
Why can’t they see what they are doing? How can they not?
“The current effort to curb unethical behavior “ignores the innate tendency for the individual to engage in self-deception” (p. 224), an error which substantially negates any systematic efforts at the organization level.
This paper was intended to bring the psychological processes of the individual decision-maker to the forefront by examining the self-deception that is inherent in the beliefs about one’s own (un)ethical behavior. Individuals deceive themselves that they are ethical people and the continuation of this belief allows for the perpetuity of unethical behavior. We hope that by examining the interplay of the want/should selves through a temporal lens, we shed light on these false beliefs and break their defeating cycle.”
Self-deception.
That helps explain all the men who, after being called out for their words and actions, claim they didn’t do anything wrong.
While the research provides a reason, it certainly doesn’t alter the negative results of the behavior.
Entrepreneurs face difficulties that are hard for most people to imagine, let alone understand. You can find anonymous help and connections that do understand at 7 cups of tea.
Crises never end.
$10 really does make a difference and you’ll never miss it,
