Macworld ‘08: Merlin Mann / “Living with Data”

Last month, I premiered a new presentation at Macworld San Francisco 2008 called “Living with Data” (previously). Since this talk was part of the “Vision” track, I used the opportunity to start gathering some threads around the idea of time and attention that had been floating around my head for a while (I think you can see the genesis of some of this stuff in my IDEO visit).

The IDG folks were kind enough to post a movie of my slides + the audio. Unfortunately a lot of folks were having trouble getting to the page (it doesn’t appear to have a permalink), so here’s a Flash version you can watch from right here:

N.B.: The first slide is white; the video is fine, and you are not tripping. Presumably.

As I say, this was the first edition of a talk that’s already starting to evolve rather quickly. The slides are available at Slideshare, and you can yoink yourself an embeddable version right here:

Thanks to Paul Kent and Kathy Moran at IDG for being such wonderful hosts. And very special thanks to Mike Monteiro (and his now-famous meeting tokens) for inspiring the talk in the first place.

Referenced by 10 Items:

References 4 Items:

Published 4 months ago from Merlin Mann on 43 Folders - Received 4 months ago
Close | Link | Comments

The December 27, 1950 Robesonian (Lumberton, NC) ran an Associated Press article titled, "How Experts Think We'll Live in 2000 A.D." The article covered the future of movies, commercial flight, space travel, medicine and women, among many other topics. Can you believe that by the year 2000 a woman may be president of the United States? Apparently not.

Some highlighted predictions of the piece appear below. A transcribed version of the article in its entirety can be found on my other blog, Older Than Me.

- Third dimensional color television will be so commonplace and so simplified at the dawn of the 21st century that a small device will project pictures on the living room wall so realistic they will seem to be alive. The room will automatically be filled with the aroma of the flower garden being shown on the screen.

- The woman of the year 2000 will be an outsize Diana, anthropologists and beauty experts predict. She will be more than six feet tall, wear a size 11 shoe, have shoulders like a wrestler and muscles like a truck driver. She will go in for all kinds of sports – probably will compete with men athletes in football, baseball, prizefighting and wrestling.

- Wireless transmission of electric power, long a dream of the engineer, will have come into being. There will be no more power lines to break in storms. A simple small antenna on the roof will pick up the current for lighting a house.

- The Third World War - barring such a miracle as has never yet occurred in relations between countries so greatly at odds - will grow out of Russia's exactly opposite attempts to unify the world by force.

- The telephone will be transformed from wire to radio and will be equipped with the visuality of television. Who’s on the other end of the line will seldom be a mystery. Evey pedestrian will have his own walking telephone – an apparatus by a combination of the X-ray and television. Electronic appendectomies will be performed with an X-ray-TV camera, projection screen and electric “knives” – the latter actually being electrodes functioning without puncturing the skin.

- In 2000 we shall be able to fly around the world in a day. We shall be neighbors of everyone else on earth, to whom we wish to be neighborly.

- The nation's industrial and agricultural plant will be able to support 300 million persons 50 years from now - twice the present population. Land now unproductive will be made to yield. Science will steadily increase crop production per acre. Technological, industrial and economic advances will give the American people living standards eight times as high as now.

- Public health will improve, especially the knowledge of how air carries infections, like the common cold, from person to person. Before 2000, the air probably will be made as safe from disease-spreading as water and food were during the first half of this century.

- Space platforms, sent out from earth, will end mid-century’s “iron curtain” era by bringing the entire globe under constant surveillance.

- Combination automobile-planes will have been perfected.

- People will live in houses so automatic that push-buttons will be replaced by fingertip and even voice controls. Some people today can push a button to close a window – another to start coffee in the kitchen. Tomorrow such chores will be done by the warmth of your fingertip, as elevators are summoned now in some of the newest office buildings – or by a mere whisper in the intercom phone.

- Radio broadcasting will have disappeared, for no one will tune in a program that cannot be seen. Radio will long since have reverted to a strictly communications medium, using devices now unheard of and unthought of.

- Some movie theaters of A.D. 2000 may be dome-shaped, with ceiling and walls arching together like the sky. These surfaces would be the “screen.” Most action would still be in front of you, as now. But some could be overhead, some at the sides, and some even on the wall behind. A little girl steps into a street in the action before you – and you turn around and look behind you to see if an auto is coming.

- Through the extended use of better plants and animals, improved fertilizers, new growth regulators and more efficient machinery, it should be possible, leaders say, for farmers to produce future crop needs on much less land than today.

- Some see us drifting toward the all-powerful state, lulled by the sweet sound of “security.” Some see a need to curb our freedom lest it be used to shield those who plot against us. And some fear our freedom will be hard to save if a general war should come.

- So tell your children not to be surprised if the year 2000 finds 35 or even a 20-hour work week fixed by law.

The piece was written by the following specialists of The Associated Press: J.M. Roberts, Jr., foreign affairs; Howard W. Blakeslee, science; Sam Dawson, economics; Dorothy Roe, women; Alexander George, population; James J. Strebig, aviation; David G. Bareuther, construction; C.E. Butterfield, television; Gene Handsaker, movies; Ovid A. Martin, agriculture; Ed Creagh, politics; Norman Walker, labor; David Taylor Marke, education.

See also:
After the War (1944)
Will War Drive Civilization Underground? (1942)
Taller Women by Year 2000 (1949)
Tomorrow's TV-Phone (1956)
Disney's Magic Highway, U.S.A. (1958)
The Future is Now (1955)
Closer Than We Think: Headphone TV (1960)
Transportation in 2000 A.D. (1966)
I want an oil-cream cone! (1954)
The Complete Book of Space Travel (1956)

Referenced by 10 Items:

References 2 Items:

1 Attached File

Published 5 months ago from Matt on Paleo-Future Received 5 months ago
Close | Link
Published 6 months ago from John Gruber on Brand New Received 6 months ago
Close | Link

Walmart Logo, Before and After

In what has to be the most under whelming unveiling yet — and a bad case of stolen thunder — for one of the largest retailers in the world, Walmart (unhyphenated as a single word from now on) just uploaded a formal, band-aid of a press release to their web site confirming the logo change that surfaced over the weekend when The Wall Street Journal reported that the Memphis and Shelby County Division of Planning and Development had received documents from Walmart with the intent of opening a prototype store there. An artist rendering on those documents showed a new sign over the facade of the proposed store.

Walmart Signage Rendering

Artist rendering of the new signage. All I can say, though, is "Really? This is the best Walmart can do when it comes to renderings?" Oy.

As a reason of why the logo change, the reports on newspapers all allude to Walmart's continued evolution and progression from its less-than-glamorous reputation and image as an invasive retailer with less-than-desirable employment and environmental practices. And the evasive press release does little to explain anything:

But what really matters is what happens out there in the stores. This update to the logo is simply a reflection of the refresh taking place inside our stores and our renewed sense of purpose to help people save money so they can live better.

Walmart Logo, Detail

So with no reasoning or no explanation of what the new star burst stands for, or why the decision to change to a single word, all we have to go by is the logo that replaces the 16-year-old sans serif that was as thick and heavy as the beige boxes it adorned for so long. The new logo is rumored to have been designed by New York-based Lippincott — and I will happily amend this as soon as there is more information available. The change to title case helps humanize Walmart with a name that reads more like John, Albert, Sarah or Wilbur; it really looks very different and sets a different tone. The wordmark is nice and friendly and has enough customization to feel more proprietary than out-of-the-box. The new icon, however, is very questionable. It reflects technology start-up or telecommunications company before it does discount retailing that will make anyone live better. Sure, it might represent a flower or a sun, but the execution is too modern and cold to be seen as a natural element.

The new store environment and applications of the logo will define how good this can be and if the whole package supports this initial tease. I remain skeptical yet optimistic, but not too much. To leave you with some inspiration, here are Walmarts' logos over the years, picked from this page — do note the tuscan-faced logo of the 1960s, wow.

Walmart Logo History

Thanks to everyone who e-mailed over the last three days about this logo.

Referenced by 7 Items:

References 1 Item:

1 Attached File

Published 8 days ago from Armin on Brand New Received 8 days ago
Close | Link | Comments

This morning, in response to my Microhoo: Corporate Penis Envy? piece, Michael Arrington wrote The importance of a competitive search market.

First, let's be clear. I agree with Michael that competition is a good thing, and that there's a real risk that, absent competition, Google will become "evil," as "absolute power corrupts absolutely." Nonetheless, I thought I'd take a few moments to explore why Michael got it wrong, despite the fundamental appeal of his assertion, especially to people who grew up learning the lessons of the Microsoft desktop monopoly.

  1. To focus on search is to miss the big picture. Web 2.0 (or whatever the fullness of the Internet Operating System ends up being called) is far bigger than search. Yes, search is currently the most valuable and monetizable Web 2.0 application--or perhaps better-named, subsystem. But look back at 1984: Lotus was bigger and more valuable than Microsoft ($153 million in revenues to Microsoft's $100 million, and growing faster -- Lotus had tripled in size, while Microsoft had only doubled.) But we now know that Microsoft had the stronger position. As I've said in my Web 2.0 talks from the very beginning, a platform beats an application every time.
The key question is what kind of platform we're collectively building.

There is strong evidence that the platform that's emerging is more like Linux than it is like Windows. That is, no one player is going to own all the pieces. But that could change if someone owned enough of the pieces that everyone else became dependent on them. So I'd be much more concerned about a single player rolling up unrelated and complementary pieces of the larger internet OS till they owned critical mass in multiple areas than I would be about a single player owning a best of breed application in one area or another.

The sooner we start getting serious about interoperability between best-of-breed services (the next step up from first generation mashups), the safer we'll be against a single dominant player turning their subsystem into the "one ring that rules them all."

  1. I think Google understands the need for interoperability better than Microsoft. When Eric Schmidt says "don't fight the internet," I believe he means it. Google seems to be doing their best to balance competitive advantage with giving back and the overall health of the internet ecosystem.

  2. Even if Google does achieve true monopoly status, that monopoly will be short-lived. Just as Microsoft stumbled at what appeared to be the peak of its power, so too will Google. The pace of technology is increasing, and it's rare for a company that led with one generation of technology to also win at the next. Take mobile, as hopmojo notes, or as I wrote myself in Static on the Dream Phone, mobile is going to be a make-or-break transition for Google.

  3. Many Web 2.0 applications tend naturally to monopoly, precisely because they harness network effects. In fact, one of my short definitions of Web 2.0 is the design of systems that get better the more people use them. Network effects apply to the Web 2.0 system as a whole as well as to any individual subsystem. In What is Web 2.0?, I wrote:

    The race is on to own certain classes of core data: location, identity, calendaring of public events, product identifiers and namespaces. In many cases, where there is significant cost to create the data, there may be an opportunity for an Intel Inside style play, with a single source for the data. In others, the winner will be the company that first reaches critical mass via user aggregation, and turns that aggregated data into a system service.

    The critical point is whether or not, having achieved critical mass, you take the next step and turn that aggregated data into a system service. If Google doesn't do that, and the rest of us have done their homework, then someone else will beat them in search because the network effect of the entire system will be greater than the network effect of the search ecosystem alone. If Microsoft understood this, they'd be competing with Google by making search services that are more open, re-usable and re-deployable than Google's search services. Since they aren't operating this way, they ought to throw in the towel.

  4. We're still so early! There's so much yet to invent. Take what Amazon is doing with S3 and EC2. They broke new ground and took a leadership position in an emerging category, while A9, their attempt at incremental innovation in search, got them nowhere. If Microsoft and Yahoo! want to compete with Google, go where they aren't!

True search innovation will come from something that doesn't look like search. Google's video search efforts foundered, while YouTube took off. (Google was smart enough to buy YouTube quickly.) Facebook took off in an area that could be characterized as "people search." Tweetspace is becoming a hidden transmission channel for information, one that Google doesn't yet search. Everything Microsoft (and other explicit search competitors, including most specialized search startups) is incremental innovation. Google's search dominance will be toppled by a disruptive innovation that changes the game, not by playing catch-up at the same game. The challenges that keep Google on their toes, innovating in search, will come from outside the current system.

Referenced by 7 Items:

References 2 Items:

Published about 1 month ago from Tim O'Reilly on O'Reilly Radar - Insight, analysis, and research about emerging technologies Received about 1 month ago
Close | Link | Comments

Quarter 2, 2008

Welcome to iLT’s second-quarter roundup of sites that use type well. It may be that not all the sites listed here are to your taste, but it’s hoped that something—even a detail somewhere—will inspire you. Invariably, these lists are subjective, so if you disagree, then feel free to do so in the comments below. If this list provokes discussion of what constitutes good web typography, then all the better. The designs are listed in no particular order. Click on the screen-shot to visit the site. Enjoy!

Designing the News

High contrast between header and main content area, lots of white space and well organised.

Designing the News

OmiTi

Nice logotype, clear text and a very nice colour palette. You can read more about the design process here.

OminTi

Designr.it

Gorgeous logo (who can name the typeface?), and lots of subtle details.

designr.it

Seed Conference

No Flash, no images, no fuss; just well-styled text and well-written copy; and proof that type alone can make one hell of a statement. I’d love to see more on-screen type treatments like this one.

Seed Conference

Design View

Andy Rutledge is a designer who practices what he preaches. I particularly like how the text size is related to the article’s age, with the most recent excerpt set in the largest size.

Design View. Andy Rutledge

WordPress.org & WP 2.5.x Admin

Although the WordPress blogging platform is not a web site, it is something that thousands, if not millions, of us see on our screens every day. If only more applications—on- and off-line—were built and designed like this.

WordPress

OurType

I’ve been reluctant to include this site before owing to it’s use of Flash. However, it does showcase beautifully some great typefaces (and some of my favourites, I might add).

Ourtype type foundry

The Deck

Another site that simply relies on text for everything. A great example of hierarchy and layout. Who said a picture paints a thousand words? Type paints more.

The Deck

Hell Yeah Dude

A busy site, but one that clings to a good grid.

hellyeahdude.com

Information Architects

Not afraid of white space and a limited colour palette.

Information Architects

Naz Hamid

Beautifully done. A design that really lets in the light.

Naz Hamid

Jon Tan

Typographically rich, elegant and uncluttered; and the logo…it’s not an image!

jontangerine

Under Consideration

Lots of information without feeling cluttered, and complimented by a carefully chosen colour palette.

Under Consideration

Elliot Jay Stocks

This web site has been featured just about everywhere. It’s here because it uses type well too.

The Things we Make

Colourful, organised and big type.

The Things we Make


In a future article, Typographic Detail for the Web, we’ll look a little more closely at some of these sites.
Previous lists: 12.

Thank you for subscribing to iLT!

Buy and try Type from Veer

15 Great Examples of Web Typography

Referenced by 7 Items:

References 5 Items:

4 Attached Files

Published 2 months ago from johno (iLT) on i love typography, the typography blog Received 2 months ago
Close | Link

By Quinn Norton

One of the great pleasures of being involved with O'Reilly Media is learning from the many fascinating people who get involved with the company on one level or another. They're Friends of O'Reilly, or Foos. We have occasional get-togethers with Foos, our own Nat Torkington has taken the concept to New Zealand, and we have one -- on the social graph (see coverage in the next Release 2.0) -- coming up this very weekend. While the Foo events are quite off-the-record, the work Foos do is very much public. So we'd like to share with you some of what we're learning. Over the next few days, we're going to use this blog to introduce you to one Foo in particular, synthetic biology pioneer Drew Endy. This multi-part profile of Drew and his work is, appropriately, written by another Foo, Quinn Norton, who will be talking about body hacking at ETech in March.--Jimmy Guterman


HelloWorld.jpg

Dr. Drew Endy tends to fidget. He motions frantically when he's trying to get something across. "It's hard because we've never made it simple," he explains with exasperation. Endy, a professor at MIT until the end of the school year (he's headed to Stanford), engineers new life forms. He's spent his life doing the hard work of bending the complexity of DNA to his will.

And he's determined to make it simple for you.

Drew Endy is a leading star in a field that's emerging to be the biggest thing since Walter Brooke suggested to Dustin Hoffman he should think about plastics. He's a synthetic biologist, a group of scientists and engineers that take microbes with familiar names like E. coli and yeast and make them do previously unimagined things.

Synthetic biology is next-generation biotech. Over the past 30 years, genetic engineering has laid the groundwork for what synthetic biology is and will be. All the important innovations of genetic engineering are put to work with newer techniques. What makes synthetic biology more than its predecessor is the ability to write DNA cheaply and easily. After designing a sequence, the genetic engineer can mail it to a vendor that will build the base pairs and overnight it back to them.

Sequencing, or reading out DNA, was once the purview of, at the very least, grad students. Now it can be accomplished by minimally trained unskilled labor. Will DNA writing go the same way DNA reading has gone? Probably not as much, but the price of synthesizing a base pair has lowered 16 fold in the last five years according to Endy.

Synthetic biology doesn't change the goals of biotech: medical applications, environmental remediation, biology based manufacture, etc. But it brings them closer, and adds more possibilities to the pile.

So what does a future of human-built biology look like? The obvious ideas are the ones researched now institutionally. It doesn't take much imagination to see that a great mover in this field will be pharmaceuticals, and the medical concerns that drive the healthcare industry. We will likely see progress towards biological agents for pollution remediation, drug manufacture, and nanomaterials. Many of these are not only in the works, but on the verge of entering the market. After that, a little imagination goes a long way.

The holy grail right now is alternative fuel production. Petroleum's supply and environmental problems might not dog an organism custom designed to get from the sun's energy to a liquid we can stick in our vehicles. If geneticists can produce a viable replacement for petroleum, there's a mint to be made even if the organism goes off patent in 20 years. J. Craig Venter's institute and his company, Synthetic Genomics, are particularly geared to this goal. The institute receives its research money from the U.S. Department of Energy as well as Synthetic Genomics. It's still a ways off. The institute has yet to complete its first fully synthetic organism of any kind, much less one that makes gas. With genes already modified to produce drugs, and the attention paid to fuel, a wide array of other products are candidates to grow instead of fabricate. Synthetic biology is very serious business.

Tremendous minds and piles of money are pouring into the potential organisms, and almost any one of them could easily payback that investment if successful. Drew Endy, despite is in-demand talents isn't part of any of that.

What makes Drew Endy's work unique in his field is what he wants to do with it, not the research itself. He wants to modularize DNA into something like a programming language. Then he wants to give it away.

Tomorrow: How can you make anyone a genetic engineer?

Wondering what that "Hello world" image is doing at the top of the post? It's synthetic biology in action: Students at the University of Texas re-engineered E. coli to be photosensitive, like photographic paper. Their first message? The programmer's traditional. It's published here courtesy of Jeff Tabor and Randy Rettberg.

.

Referenced by 7 Items:

Published 5 months ago from Quinn Norton on O'Reilly Radar - Insight, analysis, and research about emerging technologies Received 5 months ago
Close | Link

The December 13, 1942 Montana Standard (Butte, MT) ran an interesting piece by Gardner Dane about the world of 1975, devastated by war, forcing people to move underground in order to survive. The original article appeared in Every Week magazine. Excerpts, as well as the article in its entirety, appear below.

Dane sets the stage with a vision of total ruin, a world obliterated by war:
It's 1975! All hell has burst loose in World War Three! The nations of this earth have lined up again on two sides. The slaughter, devastating fury, and material damage make the wars of past history seem like children's games with toy tin soldiers!

In an hour, gargantuan cities are blasted into nothingness. Desolated heaps of rubble and smoking, stinking debris mark the spot where a flock of towering skyscrapers lifted pointed peaks into the heavens.

Does this mark the end of a city's existence? Does it mean the Grand Climax of civilization? The ultimate Armageddon? The wiping out of a nation as one would crush a hornet's nest?

Not at all! For already the keen, dispassionate, incisive minds of scientists are fashioning the world in which many now living will be forced to exist when the next cataclysmic and catastrophic spasm of mankind occurs.

Dane then goes on to put things into the context of 1942 (World War II):
Historians, a thousand years hence, will write that after the victory of the Allied Nations near the middle of the twentieth century, there was an attempt to build a war-free world; but after a few years commercial rivalries sprang up again. Then the military leaders of the democracies, with the acquiescence of disillusioned millions, began preparing for the next cataclysmatic spasm of humanity.

He explains what the wars of 1975 or the year 2000 would look like:
There will be monstrous airplane carriers of the skies. Gargantuan dirigibles, capable of carrying a hundred fighting and bombing planes, will roam over the continents and oceans of the world. The only effective defense will be more airplanes! Yes, there will be anti-aircraft guns of power and velocity that will make today's fire power seem like toy pistols. But half a century hence giant bombers will carry cannon as powerful as today's anti-aircraft guns!

The power of the atom is eerily predicted:
What will happen in the twenty-first century we cannot tell. A century hence, man may have learned to use the unlimited and terrible power of the atom. He may be able to trap the rays of the sun and miraculously render obsolete the electric generator, the gasoline engine and the Diesel motor. Rocket ships may displace the motored airplanes as effectively and quickly as the automobile displaced the horse in the early part of the twentieth century.

Dane then explains the preparation nations will take for war:
First, when the black clouds of another war begin to gather on the horizon, nations will lay by great stores of food! Not food as we commonly think of it today, but millions upon millions of tons of dehydrated meats, fruits and vegetables!

These millions of tons will be stored underground at strategic and accessible points. Scientists would probably tell u