Innovation: Deepseek, Google, OpenAI, and the EU. Legal Eagles Aloft
February 11, 2025
We have smart software, but the dinobaby continues to do what 80 year olds do: Write the old-fashioned human way. We did give up clay tablets for a quill pen. Works okay.
I have been thinking about the allegations that the Deepseek crowd ripped off US smart software companies. Someone with whom I am not familiar expressed the point of view that the allegation will be probed. With open source goodness whizzing around, I am not sure how would make a distinction between one allegedly open source system and another allegedly open source system will work. I am confident the lawyers will figure innovation out because clever mathematical tricks and software optimization are that group of professionals’ core competency.
The basement sale approach to smart software: Professional, organized, and rewarding. Thanks OpenAI. (No, I did not generate this image with the Deepseek tools. I wouldn’t do that to you, Sam AI-Man.)
And thinking of innovation this morning, I found the write up in the Times of India titled “Google Not Happy With This $4.5 Billion Fine, Here’s What the Company Said.” [Editor’s note: The url is a wonky one indeed. If the link does not resolve, please, don’t write me and complain. Copy the article headline and use Bing or Google to locate a valid source. Failing that, just navigate to the Times of India and hunt for the source document there.] Innovation is the focus of the article, and the annoyance — even indignation bubbling beneath the surface of the Google stance — may foreshadow a legal dust up between OpenAI and Deepseek.
So what’s happening?
The Times of India reports with some delicacy:
Google is set to appeal a record €4.3 billion ($4.5 billion) antitrust fine imposed by the European Union seven years ago, a report claimed. Alphabet-owned company has argued that the penalty unfairly punished the company for its innovation in the Android mobile operating system. The appeal, heard by the Court of Justice of the European Union in Luxembourg, comes two years after a lower tribunal upheld the European Commission’s decision, which found Google guilty of using Android to restrict competition. However, the company claimed that its actions benefited consumers and fostered innovation in the mobile market. This new appeal comes after the lower court reduced the fine to 4.1 billion euros ($4.27 billion).
Yes, Google’s business systems and methods foster innovation in the mobile market. The issue is that Google has been viewed an anti competitive by some legal eagles in the US government as behaving in a way that is anti competitive. I recall the chatter about US high technology companies snuffing innovation. Has Google done that with its approach to Android?
The write up reports:
In this case, the Commission failed to discharge its burden and its responsibility and, relying on multiple errors of law, punished Google for its superior merits, attractiveness and innovation.” Lamadrid justified Google’s agreements that require phone manufacturers to pre-install Google Search, the Chrome browser, and the Google Play app store on their Android devices, while also restricting them from adopting rival Android systems. Meanwhile, EU antitrust regulators argued that these conditions restricted competition.
Innovation seems to go hand in hand with pre-installing certain Google applications. The fact that Google allegedly restricts phone companies from “adopting rival Android systems” is a boost to innovation. Is this Google argument food for thought if Google and its Gemini unit decided to sue OpenAI for its smart software innovation.
One thing is clear. Google sees itself as fostering innovation, and it should not be punished for creating opportunities, employment, and benefits for those in the European Union. On the other hand, the Deepseek innovation is possibly improper because it delivered an innovation US high technology outfits did not deliver.
Adding some Chinese five-flavor spice to the recipe is the fact that the Deepseek innovation seems to be a fungible insight about US smart software embracing Google influenced open source methods. The thought that “innovation” will be determined in legal proceedings is interesting.
Is innovation crafted to preserve a dominant market share unfair? Is innovation which undermines US smart software companies improper? The perception of Google as an innovator, from my vantage, has dwindled. On the other hand, my perception of the Deepseek approach strikes me as unique. I have pointed out that the Deepseek innovation seems to deliver reasonably good results with a lower cost method. This is the Shein-Temu approach to competition. It works. Just ask Amazon.
Maybe the US will slap a huge find on Deepseek because the company innovated? The EU has decided to ring its cash register because Google allegedly inhibited innovation.
For technologists, the process of innovation is fraught with legal peril. Who benefits? I would suggest that the lawyers are at the head of the line for the upsides of this “innovation” issue.
Stephen E Arnold, February 11, 2025
What Does One Do When Innovation Falters? Do the Me-Too Bop
February 10, 2025
Another dinobaby commentary. No smart software required.
I found the TechRadar story “In Surprise Move Microsoft Announces Deepseek R1 Is Coming to CoPilot+ PCs – Here’s How to Get It” an excellent example of bit tech innovation. The article states:
Microsoft has announced that, following the arrival of Deepseek R1 on Azure AI Foundry, you’ll soon be able to run an NPU-optimized version of Deepseek’s AI on your Copilot+ PC. This feature will roll out first to Qualcomm Snapdragon X machines, followed by Intel Core Ultra 200V laptops, and AMD AI chipsets.
Yep, me too, me too. The write up explains the ways in which one can use Deepseek, and I will leave taking that step to you. (On the other hand, navigate to Hugging Face and download it, or you could zip over to You.com and give it a try.)
The larger issue is not the speed with which Microsoft embraced the me too approach to innovation. For me, the decision illustrates the paucity of technical progress in one of the big technology giants. You know, Microsoft, the originator of Bob and the favorite software company of bad actors who advertise their malware on Telegram.
Several observations:
- It doesn’t matter how the Chinese start up nurtured by a venture capital firm got Deepseek to work. The Chinese outfit did it. Bang. The export controls and the myth of trillions of dollars to scale up disappeared. Poof.
- No US outfit — with or without US government support — was in the hockey rink when the Chinese team showed up and blasted a goal in the first few minutes of a global game. Buzz. 1 to zip. The question is, “Why not?” and “What’s happened since Microsoft triggered the crazy Code Red or whatever at the Google?” Answer: Burning money quickly.
- More pointedly, are the “innovations” in AI touted by Product Hunt and podcasters innovations? What if these are little more than wrappers with some snappy names? Answer: A reminder that technical training and some tactical kung fu can deliver a heck of a punch.
Net net: Deepseek was a tactical foray or probe. The data are in. Microsoft will install Chinese software in its global software empire. That’s interesting, and it underscores the problem of me to. Innovation takes more than raising prices and hiring a PR firm.
Stephen E Arnold, February 10, 2025
Microsoft and Bob Think for Bing
February 4, 2025
Bing is not Google, but Microsoft wants its search engine to dominate queries. Microsoft Bing has a small percentage of Internet searches and in a bid to gain more traction it has copied Google’s user interface (UI). Windows Latest spills the tea over the UI copying: “Microsoft Bing Is Trying To Spoof Google UI When People Search Google.com."
Google’s UI is very distinctive with its minimalist approach. The only item on the Google UI is the query box and menus along the top and bottom of the page. Microsoft Edge is Google’s Web browser and it is programed to use Bing. In a sneaky (and genius) move, when Edge users type Google into the Bing search box they are taken to UI that is strangely Google-esque. Microsoft is trying this new UI to lower the Bing bounce rate, users who leave.
Is it an effective tactic?
“But you might wonder how effective this idea would be. Well, if you’re a tech-savvy person, you’ll probably realize what’s going on, then scroll and open Google from the link. However, this move could keep people on Bing if they just want to use a search engine. Google is the number one search engine, and there’s a large number of users who are just looking for a search engine, but they think the search engine is Google. In their mind, the two are the same. That’s because Google has become a synonym for search engines, just like Chrome is for browsers. A lot of users don’t really care what search engine they’re using, so Microsoft’s new practice, which might appear stupid to some of you, is likely very effective.”
For unobservant users and/or those who don’t care, it will work. Microsoft is also tugging on heartstrings with another tactic:
“On top of it, there’s also an interesting message underneath the Google-like search box that says “every search brings you closer to a free donation. Choose from over 2 million nonprofits. This might also convince some people to keep using Bing.”
What a generous and genius tactic! We’re not sure this is the interface everyone sees, but we love the me too approach from monopolies and alleged monopolies.
Whitney Grace, February 4, 2025
AI Innovation: Writing Checks Is the Google Solution
January 30, 2025
A blog post from an authentic dinobaby. He’s old; he’s in the sticks; and he is deeply skeptical.
Wow. First, Jeff Dean gets the lateral arabesque. Then the Google shifts its smart software to the “I am a star” outfit Deep Mind in the UK. Now, the cuddly Google has, according to Analytics India, pulled a fast one on the wizards laboring at spelling advertising another surprise. “Google Invests $1 Bn in Anthropic” reports:
This new investment is separate from the company’s earlier reported funding round of nearly $2 billion earlier this month, led by Lightspeed Venture Partners, to bump the company’s valuation to about $60 billion. In 2023, Google had invested $300 million in Anthropic, acquiring a 10% stake in the company. In November last, Amazon led Anthropic’s $4 billion fundraising effort, raising its overall funding to $8 billion for the company.
I thought Google was quantumly supreme. I thought Google reinvented protein stuff. I thought Google could do podcasts and fix up a person’s Gmail. I obviously was wildly off the mark. Perhaps Google’s “leadership” has taken time from writing scripts for the Sundar & Prabhakar Comedy Tour and had an epiphany. Did the sketch go like this:
Prabhakar: Did you see the slide deck for my last talk about artificial intelligence?
Sundar: Yes, I thought it was so so. Your final slide was a hoot. Did you think it up?
Prabhakar: No, I think little. I asked Anthropic Claude for a snappy joke. It worked.
Sundar: Did Jeff Dean help? Did Dennis Hassabis contribute?
Prabhakar: No, just Claude Sonnet. He likes me, Sundar.
Sundar: The secret of life is honesty, fair dealing, and Code Yellow!
Prabhakar: I think Google intelligence may be a contradiction in terms. May I requisition another billion for Anthropic?
Sundar: Yes, we need to care about posterity. Otherwise, our posterity will be defined by a YouTube ad.
Prabhakar: We don’t want to take it in the posterity, do we?
Sundar: Well….
Anthropic allegedly will release a “virtual collaborator.” Google wants that, right Jeff and Dennis? Are there anti-trust concerns? Are there potential conflicts of interest? Are there fears about revenues?
Of course not.
Will someone turn off those darned flashing red and yellow lights! Innovation is tough with the sirens, the lights, the quantumly supremeness of Googleness.
Stephen E Arnold, January 30, 2025
AI Will Doom You to Poverty Unless You Do AI to Make Money
January 23, 2025
Prepared by a still-alive dinobaby.
I enjoy reading snippets of the AI doomsayers. Some spent too much time worrying about the power of Joe Stalin’s approach to governing. Others just watched the Terminator series instead of playing touch football. A few “invented” AI by cobbling together incremental improvements in statistical procedures lashed to ever-more-capable computing infrastructures. A couple of these folks know that Nostradamus became a brand and want to emulate that predictive master.
I read “Godfather of AI Explains How Scary AI Will Increase the Wealth Gap and Make Society Worse.” That is a snappy title. Whoever wrote it crafted the idea of an explainer to fear. Plus, the click bait explains that homelessness is for you too. Finally, it presents a trope popular among the elder care set. (Remember, please, that I am a dinobaby myself.) Prod a group of senior citizens to a dinner and you will hear, “Everything is broken.” Also, “I am glad I am old.” Then there is the ever popular, “Those tattoos! The check out clerks cannot make change! I don’t understand commercials!” I like to ask, “How many wars are going on now? Quick.”
Two robots plan a day trip to see the street people in Key West. Thanks, You.com. I asked for a cartoon; I get a photorealistic image. I asked for a coffee shop; I get weird carnival setting. Good enough. (That’s why I am not too worried.)
Is society worse than it ever was? Probably not. I have had an opportunity to visit a number of countries, go to college, work with intelligent (for the most part) people, and read books whilst sitting on the executive mailing tube. Human behavior has been consistent for a long time. Indigenous people did not go to Wegman’s or Whole Paycheck. Some herded animals toward a cliff. Other harvested the food and raw materials from the dead bison at the bottom of the cliff. There were no unskilled change makers at this food delivery location.
The write up says:
One of the major voices expressing these concerns is the ‘Godfather of AI’ himself Geoffrey Hinton, who is viewed as a leading figure in the deep learning community and has played a major role in the development of artificial neural networks. Hinton previously worked for Google on their deep learning AI research team ‘Google Brain’ before resigning in 2023 over what he expresses as the ‘risks’ of artificial intelligence technology.
My hunch is that like me the “worked at” Google was for a good reason — Money. Having departed from the land of volleyball and weird empty office buildings, Geoffrey Hinton is in the doom business. His vision is that there will be more poverty. There’s some poverty in Soweto and the other townships in South Africa. The slums of Rio are no Palm Springs. Rural China is interesting as well. Doesn’t everyone want to run a business from the area in front of a wooden structure adjacent an empty highway to nowhere? Sounds like there is some poverty around, doesn’t it?
The write up reports:
“We’re talking about having a huge increase in productivity. So there’s going to be more goods and services for everybody, so everybody ought to be better off, but actually it’s going to be the other way around. “It’s because we live in a capitalist society, and so what’s going to happen is this huge increase in productivity is going to make much more money for the big companies and the rich, and it’s going to increase the gap between the rich and the people who lose their jobs.”
The fix is to get rid of capitalism. The alternative? Kumbaya or a better version of those fun dudes Marx. Lenin, and Mao. I stayed in the “last” fancy hotel the USSR built in Tallinn, Estonia. News flash: The hotels near LaGuardia are quite a bit more luxurious.
The godfather then evokes the robot that wanted to kill a rebel. You remember this character. He said, “I’ll be back.” Of course, you will. Hollywood does not do originals.
The write up says:
Hinton’s worries don’t just stop at the wealth imbalance caused by AI too, as he details his worries about where AI will stop following investment from big companies in an interview with CBC News: “There’s all the normal things that everybody knows about, but there’s another threat that’s rather different from those, which is if we produce things that are more intelligent than us, how do we know we can keep control?” This is a conundrum that has circulated the development of robots and AI for years and years, but it’s seeming to be an increasingly relevant proposition that we might have to tackle sooner rather than later.
Yep, doom. The fix is to become an AI wizard, work at a Google-type outfit, cash out, and predict doom. It is a solid career plan. Trust me.
Stephen E Arnold, January 23, 2025
AI Doom: Really Smart Software Is Coming So Start Being Afraid, People
January 20, 2025
Prepared by a still-alive dinobaby.
The essay “Prophecies of the Flood” gathers several comments about software that thinks and decides without any humans fiddling around. The “flood” metaphor evokes the streams of money about which money people fantasize. The word “flood” evokes the Hebrew Biblical idea’s presentation of a divinely initiated cataclysm intended to cleanse the Earth of widespread wickedness. Plus, one cannot overlook the image of small towns in North Carolina inundated in mud and debris from a very bad storm.
When the AI flood strikes as a form of divine retribution, will the modern arc be filled with humans? Nope. The survivors will be those smart agents infused with even smarter software. Tough luck, humanoids. Thanks, OpenAI, I knew you could deliver art that is good enough.
To sum up: A flood is bad news, people.
The essay states:
the researchers and engineers inside AI labs appear genuinely convinced they’re witnessing the emergence of something unprecedented. Their certainty alone wouldn’t matter – except that increasingly public benchmarks and demonstrations are beginning to hint at why they might believe we’re approaching a fundamental shift in AI capabilities. The water, as it were, seems to be rising faster than expected.
The signs of darkness, according to the essay, include:
- Rising water in the generally predictable technology stream in the park populated with ducks
- Agents that “do” something for the human user or another smart software system. To humans with MBAs, art history degrees, and programming skills honed at a boot camp, the smart software is magical. Merlin wears a gray T shirt, sneakers, and faded denims
- Nifty art output in the form of images and — gasp! — videos.
The essay concludes:
The flood of intelligence that may be coming isn’t inherently good or bad – but how we prepare for it, how we adapt to it, and most importantly, how we choose to use it, will determine whether it becomes a force for progress or disruption. The time to start having these conversations isn’t after the water starts rising – it’s now.
Let’s assume that I buy this analysis and agree with the notion “prepare now.” How realistic is it that the United Nations, a couple of super powers, or a motivated individual can have an impact? Gentle reader, doom sells. Examples include The Big Short: Inside the Doomsday Machine, The Shifts and Shocks: What We’ve Learned – and Have Still to Learn – from the Financial Crisis, and Too Big to Fail: How Wall Street and Washington Fought to Save the Financial System from Crisis – and Themselves, and others, many others.
Have these dissections of problems had a material effect on regulators, elected officials, or the people in the bank down the street from your residence? Answer: Nope.
Several observations:
- Technology doom works because innovations have positive and negative impacts. To make technology exciting, no one is exactly sure what the knock on effects will be. Therefore, doom is coming along with the good parts
- Taking a contrary point of view creates opportunities to engage with those who want to hear something different. Insecurity is a powerful sales tool.
- Sending messages about future impacts pulls clicks. Clicks are important.
Net net: The AI revolution is a trope. Never mind that after decades of researchers’ work, a revolution has arrived. Lionel Messi allegedly said, “It took me 17 years to become an overnight success.” (Mr. Messi is a highly regarded professional soccer player.)
Will the ill-defined technology kill humans? Answer: Who knows. Will humans using ill-defined technology like smart software kill humans? Answer: Absolutely. Can “anyone” or “anything” take an action to prevent AI technology from rippling through society. Answer: Nope.
Stephen E Arnold, January 20, 2025
Apple and Some Withering Fruit: Is the Orchard on Fire?
January 14, 2025
A dinobaby-crafted post. I confess. I used smart software to create the heart wrenching scene of a farmer facing a tough 2025.
Apple is a technology giant, a star in the universe of bytes. At the starter’s gun for 2025, Apple may have some work to do. For example, I read “Apple’s China Troubles Mount as Foreign Phone Sales Sink for 4th Month.” (For now, this is a trust outfit story, but a few months down the road the information may originate from the “real” news powerhouse Gannet. Imagine that.) The “trusted” outfit Reuters stated:
Apple, the dominant foreign smartphone maker in China, faces a slowing economy and competition from domestic rivals, such as Huawei…. Apple briefly fell out of China’s top five smartphone vendors in the second quarter of 2024 before recovering in the third quarter. The U.S. company’s smartphone sales in China still slipped 0.3% during the third quarter from a year earlier, while Huawei’s sales rose 42%, according to research firm IDC.
I think this means that Apple is losing share in what may have been a very juicy market. Can it get this fertile revenue field producing in-demand Fuji Apples to market? With a new US administration coming down the information highway, it is possible that the iPhone’s pop up fruit stand could be blown off the side of the main road.
An apple farmer grasps the problem fruit blight poses. Thanks, You.com you produced okay fruit blight when ChatGPT told me that an orchard with fruit blight was against is guidelines. Helpful, right?
Another issue Apple faces in a different orchard regards privacy. “Apple to Pay $95 Million to Settle Siri Privacy Lawsuit” reports:
Apple agreed to pay $95 million in cash to settle a proposed class action lawsuit claiming that its voice-activated Siri assistant violated users’ privacy…. Mobile device owners complained that Apple routinely recorded their private conversations after they activated Siri unintentionally, and disclosed these conversations to third parties such as advertisers.
Yeah, what about those privacy protections? What about those endless “Log in to your Facetime” when our devices don’t use Facetime. Hey, that is just Apple being so darned concerned about privacy. Will Apple pay or will it appeal? I won’t trouble you with my answer. Legal eagles love these fertile fields.
I don’t want to overlook the Apple AI. Yahoo recycled a story from Digital Intelligence called “The Good and Bad of Apple Intelligence after Using It on My iPhone for Months.” The Yahoo version of the story said:
I was excited to check out more Apple Intelligence features when I got the iOS 18.2 update on my iPhone 16 Pro. But aside from what I’ve already mentioned, the rest isn’t as exciting. I already hate AI art in general, so I wasn’t too thrilled about Image Playground. However, since it’s a new feature, I had to try it at least once. I tried to get Apple Intelligence to generate an AI image of me, in various scenarios, to perhaps share on social media. But every result I got did not look good to me, and I felt it had no actual resemblance to my image. It kept giving me odd-looking teeth in my smiles, hair that looked nothing like what I had, and other imperfections. I wasn’t expecting a perfect picture, but I was hoping I would get something that would be decent enough to share online — dozens of tries, and I wasn’t happy with any of them. I suppose my appearance doesn’t work with Apple’s AI art style? Whatever the reason is, my experience with it hasn’t been positive.
Yep, bad teeth. Perhaps the person has eaten too many apples?
Looking at these three allegedly accurate news stories what do I hypothesize about Apple in 2025:
- Apple will become increasingly desperate to generate revenue. Let’s face it the multi-thousand dollar Vision Pro headset and virtual Apple TV may fill the Chinese iPhone sales hole.
- Apple simply does what it wants to do with regard to privacy. From automatic iPhone reboots to smarmy talk about accidentally sucking down user data, the company cannot be trusted in 2025 in my opinion.
- Apple’s innovation is stalled. One of my colleagues told me Apple rolled out two dozen “new” products in 2025. I must confess that I cannot name one of them. The fruitarian seemed to be able to get my attention with “one more thing.” Today’s Apple has some discoloration.
Net net: The orchard needs a more skilled agrarian, fertilizer, and some luck with the business climate. Failing that, another bad crop may be ahead.
Stephen E Arnold, January 14, 2025
China Good, US Bad: Australia Reports the Unwelcome News
December 13, 2024
This write up was created by an actual 80-year-old dinobaby. If there is art, assume that smart software was involved. Just a tip.
I read “Critical Technology Tracker: Two Decades of Data Show Rewards of Long-Term Investment.” The write up was issued in September 2024, and I have no confidence that much has changed. I believe the US is the leader in marketing hyperbole output. Other countries are far behind, but some are closing the gaps. I will focus on the article, and I will leave it to you to read the full report available from the ASPI Australia Web site.
The main point of this report by the Australian Strategic Policy Institute is that the US has not invested in long-term research. I am not sure how much of this statement is a surprise to those who have watched as US patents have become idea recyclers, the deterioration of US education, and the fascinating quest for big money.
The cited summary of the research reports:
The US led in 60 of 64 technologies in the five years from 2003 to 2007, but in the most recent five year period, it was leading in just seven.
I want to point out that playing online games and doom scrolling are not fundamental technologies. The US has a firm grip on the downstream effects of applied technology. The fundamentals are simply not there. AI which seems to be everywhere is little more than word probability which is not a fundamental; it is an application of methods.
The cited article points out:
The chart is easy to read. The red line heading up is China. The blue line going down is the US.
In what areas are China’s researchers making headway other than its ability to terminate some US imports quickly? Here’s what the cited article reports:
China has made its new gains in quantum sensors, high-performance computing, gravitational sensors, space launch and advanced integrated circuit design and fabrication (semiconductor chip making). The US leads in quantum computing, vaccines and medical countermeasures, nuclear medicine and radiotherapy, small satellites, atomic clocks, genetic engineering and natural language processing.
The list, one can argue, is arbitrary and easily countered by US researchers. There are patents, start ups, big financial winners, and many fine research institutions. With AI poised to become really smart in a few years, why worry?
I am not worried because I am old. The people who need to worry are the parents of children who cannot read and comprehend, who do not study and master mathematics, who do not show much interest in basic science, and are indifferent to the concept of work ethic.
Australia is worried. It is making an attempt to choke off the perceived corrosive effects of the US social media juggernaut for those under 16 years of age. It is monitoring China’s activities in the Pacific. It is making an effort to enhance its military capabilities.
Is America worried? I would characterize the attitude here in rural Kentucky as the mascot of Mad Magazine’s catchphrase, “What, me worry?”
Stephen E Arnold, December 13, 2024
Pragmatism or the Normalization of Good Enough
November 14, 2024
Sorry to disappoint you, but this blog post is written by a dumb humanoid. The art? We used MidJourney.
I recall that some teacher told me that the Mona Lisa painter fooled around more with his paintings than he did with his assistants. True or false? I don’t know. I do know that when I wandered into the Louvre in late 2024, there were people emulating sardines. These individuals wanted a glimpse of good old Mona.
Is Hamster Kombat the 2024 incarnation of the Mona Lisa? I think this image is part of the Telegram eGame’s advertising. Nice art. Definitely a keeper for the swipers of the future.
I read “Methodology Is Bullsh&t: Principles for Product Velocity.” The main idea, in my opinion, is do stuff fast and adapt. I think this is similar to the go-go mentality of whatever genius said, “Go fast. Break things.” This version of the Truth says:
All else being equal, there’s usually a trade-off between speed and quality. For the most part, doing something faster usually requires a bit of compromise. There’s a corner getting cut somewhere. But all else need not be equal. We can often eliminate requirements … and just do less stuff. With sufficiently limited scope, it’s usually feasible to build something quickly and to a high standard of quality. Most companies assign requirements, assert a deadline, and treat quality as an output. We tend to do the opposite. Given a standard of quality, what can we ship in 60 days? Recent escapades notwithstanding, Elon Musk has a similar thought process here. Before anything else, an engineer should make the requirements less dumb.
Would the approach work for the Mona Lisa dude or for Albert Einstein? I think Al fumbled along for years, asking people to help with certain mathy issues, and worrying about how he saw a moving train relative to one parked at the station.
I think the idea in the essay is the 2024 view of a practical way to get a product or service before prospects. The benefits of redefining “fast” in terms of a specification trimmed to the MVP or minimum viable product makes sense to TikTok scrollers and venture partners trying to find a pony to ride at a crowded kids’ party.
One of the touchstones in the essay, in my opinion, is this statements:
Our customers are engineers, so we generally expect that our engineers can handle product, design, and all the rest. We don’t need to have a whole committee weighing in. We just make things and see whether people like them.
I urge you to read the complete original essay.
Several observations:
- Some people like the Mona List dude are engaged in a process of discovery, not shipping something good enough. Discovery takes some people time, lots of time. What happens during this process is part of the process of expanding an information base.
- The go-go approach has interesting consequences; for example, based on the anecdotal and flawed survey data, young users of social media evidence a number of interesting behaviors. The idea of “let ‘er rip” appears to have some impact on young people. Perhaps you have one hand experience with this problem? I know people whose children have manifested quite remarkable behaviors. I do know that certain basic mental functions like concentrating is visible to me every time I have a teenager check me out at the grocery store.
- By redefining excellence and quality, the notion of a high-value goal drops down a bit. Some new automobiles don’t work too well; for example, the Tesla Cybertruck owner whose vehicle was not able to leave the dealer’s lot.
Net net: Is a Telegram mini app Hamster Kombat today’s equivalent of the Mona Lisa?
Stephen E Arnold, November 14, 2024
Bring Back Bell Labs…Wait, Google Did…
November 12, 2024
Bell Labs was once a magical, inventing wonderland and it established the foundation for modern communication, including the Internet. Everything was great at Bell Labs until projects got deadlines and creativity was stifled. Hackaday examines the history of the mythical place and discusses if there could ever be a new Bell Labs in, “What Would It Take To Recreate Bell Labs?”
Bell Labs employees were allowed to tinker on their projects for years as long as they focused on something to benefit the larger company. These fields ranges from metallurgy, optics, semiconductors, and more. Bell Labs worked with Western Electric and AT&T. These partnerships resulted in transistor, laser, photovoltaic cell, charge-coupled cell (CCD), Unix operating system, and more.
What made Bell Labs special was that inventors were allowed to let their creativity marinate and explore their ideas. This came to screeching halt in 1982 when the US courts ordered AT&T to breakup. Western Electric became Lucent Technologies and took Bell Labs with it. The creativity and gift of time disappeared too. Could Bell Labs exist today? No, not as it was. It would need to be updated:
The short answer to the original question of whether Bell Labs could be recreated today is thus a likely ‘no’, while the long answer would be ‘No, but we can create a Bell Labs suitable for today’s technology landscape’. Ultimately the idea of giving researchers leeway to tinker is one that is not only likely to get big returns, but passionate researchers will go out of their way to circumvent the system to work on this one thing that they are interested in.”
Google did have a new incarnation of Bell Labs. Did Google invent the Google Glass and billions in revenue from actions explained in the novel 1984?
Whitney Grace, November 12, 2024
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
