Seth Yates

Elias Bizannes wanted to know “What is the next big thing?” and tagged me and a few other people.

I reckon the “Next Big Thing” will be The Device Web / The Interconnected Me.

Part I - The Device Web

First, there will be a consolidation of the “Web 2.0″ applications as the recessional and market forces choose winners (there will be some carnage in The Valley).  Thanks to the social tools that will likely make it through (e.g., Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc), we now have networks of our friends, acquaintances and co-workers.  All nicely annotated.

As more advanced handsets (iPhone, BlackBerry, etc) are released and become more prevalent, WiFi/WiMax/3G+ networks are more widely available and carriers break down the walled gardens, we will increasingly move our Web usage to the Mobile Web.  This will be similar to the fast broadband revolution that happened at the beginning of “Web 2.0″.  You’ll no longer see tables of geeks at the front conferences, typing away on their laptops.  The audience will instead be typing away on their mobile devices.  Connected Mobile apps will be big.

Twitter (or whatever it survives as) will go mainstream.

Add some Semantic Web goodness, and nascent web-database/applications will begin to appear.  Knowledge will begin to be codified and machine-understandable (not just readable).  Think about what happened when Google Maps came out, with local business listings.

Part II - The Interconnected Me

Now, here’s where it gets a bit Singularity / Orwellian:

We’ll begin seeing human-computer input devices beyond keyboards and mice.  Emotiv and other companies will release direct human-computer input devices using brain waves. No more “type, type, type, click, click, click”.  Simply think of the command and the computer will react.

Instead of the bulky headsets required today, in 10-20 years (2020-2030), they will be downsized to a device the size of a bluetooth headset (remember the first mobile phones?).

Natural Language recognition, processing and understanding will be widespread for a few languages (Hungarian will, sadly, not be one of them).

In the 20+ year timeframe (i.e., after 2030), we will develop human-computer feedback mechanisms.  No longer will we need the screens of an LCD or mobile device, but will instantly receive computerised feedback directly:

• Want to know the nearest Thai restaurant (like you can’t just look and see one across the street, in Sydney)? Just ask the GBrain which will use the pervasive Mobile Internet and knowledge of your Social Web/Profile, and will query a Semantic Web service, returning the location, ratings and directions directly to you.
• Want to talk to a friend in Sacramento? Just think about them and SkypeBrain will check to ensure they’ve not blocked you in the social network and will dial them and connect you, brain-to-brain (hope you’ve got a good firewall installed).
• Want to know what your friends are up to? Just subscribe to their TwitterBrain feed, and you’ll instantly know when they update (seems like Psychiatry is going to be a big profession in the ’40’s).

Then all we would need to do is integrate Mechanical Turk….

UPDATE: Brad Howarth has a written post about Emotiv.

UPDATE: Harvard Business Online have an interesting blog post on this called The Business Opportunities in Mind Control. Interesting read.

Related posts

• Mobile phone ban on aeroplanes (0)
• Running Twhirl on Ubuntu 7.10 (11)
• More breaking news: Google acquires Internet for US$2.4 trillion (0)
• Google processes over 20,000 TB of data per day (0)
• Google is now officially evil (2)

ComputerWorld has a great article entitled “Why cell phones are still grounded”.

The author recounts why the parties supporting the ban want it continued:

1. Why airlines want the ban
   • Crowd control: Mobile calls might promote rude behaviour and conflict between passengers, which flight attendants would have to deal with. The airlines also benefit in general from passengers remaining ignorant about what’s happening on the ground during flights, including personal problems, terrorist attacks, plane crashes and other information that might upset passengers.
   • Avoiding costs: If real testing were done, and the nature of the problem fully understood, it would become obvious that aeroplanes could be designed or retrofitted with shielding and communications systems that would enable safe calling through all phases of flight.
   • Increased revenue streams: The airlines know that some kind of plane-to-ground communication is coming, and they want to profit from it. Simply allowing passengers to use their own mobiles in flight would leave the airlines out of the profit-taking.
2. Why carriers want the ban
   • Avoiding costs: Because of the way that mobile phones and cell towers are designed, phones on an aeroplane could access two or more towers that use the same channels, which confuses the carriers’ computer systems. This situation might result in interrupted calls, reduced system capacity and other problems. Of course, this could be fixed in any number of ways, including an overhaul of the software used to manage calls between towers, but the fix would cost money. The ban is cheaper.
3. Why the (U.S.) government wants the ban
   • Avoiding costs: If it’s determined that some devices do cause problems, all gadgets would have to do extra certification testing, which the government doesn’t want to spend the money to do. The ban is cheaper.
   • Avoiding risks: Nobody wants to sign off a change in the rules because if a mobile does cause either an aeroplane crash or a cell tower computer system crash, they don’t want to be blamed. Keeping the ban is the safe decision for the politically ambitious.

He then provides the following reasons for wanting the ban lifted:

1. Either phones and other gadgets can crash aeroplanes or they can’t. If they can, then we’ve got a serious problem on our hands, and aeroplanes need to be upgraded to protect the public safety.
2. If gadgets can’t crash planes, then the ban is costing billions of hours per year of lost productivity by business people who want to work in flight.
3. Clearly, using cell phones is a public benefit, not to mention a business benefit. Shouldn’t the airlines and the regulatory agencies figure out how to make that happen?

Its an interesting analysis on a topic that (momentarily) irks me every time I board a plane. However, I’m not sure I agree with the basis of his reasoning for why the ban should be lifted.

1. Either phones and other gadgets can crash aeroplanes or they can’t. Okay, fair question and we should find out the answers to this question for reasons mentioned in the article.
2. If gadgets can’t crash planes, then the ban is costing billions of hours per year of lost productivity by business people who want to work in flight. I’m not sure how he’s calculating this. Assume for a minute that 30% of the 1.37 billion domestic passengers per year (globally) are business travellers. Note that due to the geography of my local region (Australia/New Zealand), I’m making an assumption here that international travel would mostly be over water and therefore out of mobile coverage anyway, so therefore irrelevant. However, this assumption wouldn’t hold true in, for example, Europe and most of Asia. Anyway, this equals 411 million domestic business travellers per year. Further assume that 25% of these travellers would use their mobile phone for an average of 30 minutes during the flight to conduct productive business. This represents 51 million productive hours per year. Assuming an average annual salary of US$65,000, that would be US$1.6 billion of productivity. Vary the assumptions and you’ll obviously get different results but that should give an order of magnitude of the issue.On the face of it, that’s a lot of lost productivity. However, if you think about it, the people who would likely be engaging in this behaviour would no doubt be finding other productive ways to fill their travel time, so its not a real loss in productivity.
3. Clearly, using cell phones is a public benefit, not to mention a business benefit. Shouldn’t the airlines and the regulatory agencies figure out how to make that happen? Surely having a safe flight is also of public benefit. I’ve been witness to some truly anti-social behaviour on flights in the US and can understand the airline’s desire to reduce rude behaviour and conflict amongst the passengers.

Turn the arguments around and ask what is in it for the other parties to lift the ban?

1. Why would the airlines want to lift the ban? They would possibly increase costs, risk reducing passenger safety and remove the “captive audience” factor for new revenue streams. They would need to increase the price of tickets to cover the increased costs, opportunity costs of foregoing the new revenue streams and increased costs for training and insurance to protect against anti-social behaviour caused by mobile phone usage. It unlikely this would be worthwhile.
2. Why would carriers want to lift the ban? They would incur costs with little additional benefit. Would the increase in usage enable them to recoup their investment in infrastructure to support this? Unlikely.
3. Why would the government want to lift the ban? They would possibly increase costs to certify devices and open themselves up to lawsuits if any accident happened and could be traced to usage of mobile phones. Sure, their citizens and businesses would benefit in convenience, but is that sufficient to motivate a risk-averse regulatory chairman? Doubtful.
4. Why would travellers want to lift the ban? They would benefit from the convenience and some productivity gains. But, would this justify the increased call charges from the carriers to cover the infrastructure upgrades, the increased plane fares from the carriers and the increased taxes/reduced services from the government?

When weighing up the costs and benefits, it doesn’t seem to be significantly beneficial to any party.

Related posts

• What is the next big thing? (4)