Ged Carroll

Category: technology | 技術 | 기술 | テクノロジー

It’s hard to explain to someone who didn’t live through it how transformation technology has been. When I was a child a computer was something mysterious. My Dad has managed to work his way up from the shop floor of the shipyard where he worked and into the planning office.

One evening he broad home some computer paper. I was fascinated by the the way the paper hinged on perforations and had tear off side edges that allowed it to be pulled through the printer with plastic sprockets connecting through holes in the paper.

My Dad used to compile and print off work orders using an ICL mainframe computer that was timeshared by all the shipyards that were part of British Shipbuilders.

I used the paper for years for notes and my childhood drawings. It didn’t make me a computer whiz. I never had a computer when I was at school. My school didn’t have a computer lab. I got to use Windows machines a few times in a regional computer labs. I still use what I learned in Excel spreadsheets now.

My experience with computers started with work and eventually bought my own secondhand Mac. Cut and paste completely changed the way I wrote. I got to use internal email working for Corning and internet connectivity when I went to university. One of my friends had a CompuServe account and I was there when he first met his Mexican wife on an online chatroom, years before Tinder.

Leaving college I set up a Yahoo! email address. I only needed to check my email address once a week, which was fortunate as internet access was expensive. I used to go to Liverpool’s cyber cafe with a friend every Saturday and showed him how to use the internet. I would bring any messages that I needed to send pre-written on a floppy disk that also held my CV.

That is a world away from the technology we enjoy now, where we are enveloped by smartphones and constant connectivity. In some ways the rate of change feels as if it has slowed down compared to the last few decades.

  • The changing culture of Silicon Valley

    I have have been thinking about how platform changes are marking a changing culture in Silicon Valley. This changing culture will play not only into innovation but workplace practices.

    1990s

    When I was in college I interviewed for a few placements, one was with Hewlett-Packard in Germany. They wanted a marketing student to look after their printing brochures on demand initiative for their UNIX product line. This was going to save them a mint in terms of marketing spend using an Indigo Digital Press rather than brochure runs on litho printing, reducing waste, storage needs and allow for faster document updates. (HP went on to buy Indigo in 2001).

    Commercial adoption of the web was around the corner, I was already using it in college, but its ubiquity still seemed quite far away. I decided I didn’t want to go for the job primarily because I wanted to get my degree over and done with. Also HP weren’t paying that much for the role.

    We were interviewed by a succession of people, the only one who was memorable  was a guy called Tim Nolte who wore a Grateful Dead ‘dancing bears’ tie and had a Jerry Garcia mouse mat in his cubicle.

    At that time HP, had the dressing of the company man but had more than a few hippies on the payroll who permeated its culture. Reading Robert X Cringely’s Accidental Empires made me realise that technology was as much a culture war as technological upheaval.

    Counterculture

    If one looks at the icons of the technology sector up to and including the early noughties many of the people were influenced by the counterculture movement if not part of it. The  Grateful Dead where one of the first bands to have their own website at dead.net. The Electronic Frontier Foundation was founded by John Perry Barlow, a lyricist with The Grateful Dead. Steve Jobs was influenced by Indian mystics and his experiences using LSD.

    Stewart Brand who founded WIRED magazine and The WeLL was the editor of The Whole Earth Catalog, a guide to useful things for people who wanted to get back to the land. He was influential in the early environmentalist movement and had been involved in the counterculture of 1960s San Francisco.
    Members of the Golden Circle Senior Citizens Club of Fairmont holding quilt they made. The quilt was raffled off during the Fairmont centennial, May 1973
    Ideas from open APIs and creative commons came from their libertarian values. Open Source Software again comes from academic and countercultural attitudes to information and has had to defend itself from accusations of communism, yet it now runs most of the world’s web services and gadgets from smartphones to Google’s search engine.

    Reading the Cluetrain Manifesto is like reading a screed that could have come from an alternative Haight Ashbury.

    Aeon magazine wrote an article on how yuppies have hacked the hacker ethos, but the truth is they’ve got behind the steering wheel as web2.0 declined. The move from open web API’s and the walled garden approach of Facebook and their ilk marked a changing of the guard of sorts.

    Flickr had and ability to move your photos as a matter of pride in their product. Just a few clicks kept them honest and kept them innovating. Joshua Schachter’s similar approach on del.icio.us allowed me to move to pinboard.in when Yahoo! announced that it would be sunset.

    Government always is the last to catch up, which is the reason why open data only really gained mainstream political currency in the past five years.

    Yuppies

    Were now in a changing culture that sees a Silicon Valley whose values are closer to the Reagan years and I am not too sure that it will be a positive development.

    I suspect that the change won’t be positive for a number of reasons. Greed will be good. There will be no lines that won’t be crossed in the name of shareholder value. Innovation will be viewed as a cost. Silicon Valley’s imperfect meritocracy will be undermined by a boy’s club mentality.

    More information
    Accidental Empires: How the Boys of Silicon Valley Make Their Millions, Battle Foreign Competition, and Still Can’t Get a Date by Robert X Cringely
    Don’t listen to Bill Gates. The open-source movement isn’t communism. | Slate
    How yuppies hacked the hacker ethos – Aeon

  • The limits of Google

    Earlier I wrote a post on the work blog: Alphabet: what does it all mean? – which I have republished below. One thing that came through to me from this exercise was the growth limits of Google and by extension the growth limits of online advertising. The ceiling on advertising is limited by a number of factors:

    • Cost of acquisition – the most obvious ceiling is tat advertisers generally won’t pay more than their profit margin is wort to acquire customers. Search advertising did see bubbles of a sort around mortgages and insurance, but as performance marketing has improved measurement of attribution in the customer journey buying stratagems have become more efficient. More efficient the purchaser, the less profits for Google
    • Supply – when Google rolled out search advertising there was only really display advertising as competition. Now there is a plethora of social platforms and advertising technology behind display advertising that provides better data and a more nuanced understanding for media agencies
    • Context – ten years ago Morgan Stanley claimed that seven out of ten web journeys start with search. This knocked the guts out of the portals: Yahoo!, Excite and MSN. Now social and mobile advertising platforms via for Google’s lock on context. Google’s stewardship of Android facilitated some of these competitors. Now Google is prevented from even from access to the Chinese marketplace, one of the fastest growing internet markets in absolute terms. Amazon has ended up having such a lock on retail that many consumers don’t go to Google first but instead use the search box on the Amazon store for many of their purchases. Every search on Google is a potential loss of advertising opportunity
    • Screwing the channel – marketing groups such as WPP have facilitated and many cases bought a whole sector of media buying ‘middleware’, or what the industry calls ‘ad tech’ platforms. Google has stopped playing nicely with them and their largest customers publicly view them as co-opertition – behind closed doors the sentiment is likely to be less amiable

    Social media went into overdrive on Monday evening UK time when Google announced a formal restructure of all its businesses, creating a new company called Alphabet. For the man on the street, Google means Search, YouTube, Drive (including Docs, Sheets etc.), email and Android. For the average marketer you can throw various advertising products and Google Analytics into the mix. For business IT managers, it is everything from productivity, software-as-a-service and possibly as a supplier of a search appliance for its internal servers.

    Three different customer types exist and a product set that grows layer-by-layer like an onion. The bulk of Google’s revenue currently comes from advertising due to the clever technology behind it. One can see from Microsoft’s move to the cloud that there is less revenue in cloud computing than in Google’s current business, so when advertising reaches a natural ceiling for growth, services will provide an incremental benefit at best.

    Android was designed as a conduit to Google services and for advertising to venture out into the mobile space. But the world’s most popular mobile operating system is not without its own issues. Despite all phones essentially looking the same, there is a massive amount of fragmentation in the Android marketplace, which makes life harder for developers. Google is also a developer, so building applications that it can build loyalty through and make money from becomes more difficult.

    Secondly, an appreciable amount of Android devices (those sold in China) and many sold in Russia don’t use Google services and provide little to no opportunity for Google advertising.

    This means that Google is forced to make big bets in very different sectors. Sergey Brin and Larry Page, partly because of their entrepreneurial nature to explore new opportunities, built in an ability to scale Google beyond the business lines that I have outlined above. This was apparent from their original IPO share prospectus and accompanying letter. Xerox is famous in Silicon Valley lore for fumbling the future, by inventing lots of products that would be recognisable to us today in the late 1960s and early 1970s, only to see a corporate head office miss the boat. Brin and Page would have had some awareness of this. Microsoft’s inability to leapfrog beyond its core business successfully is probably also a factor for consideration.

    Alphabet formalises the framework that Page and Brin had been working to for a number of years.

    So what does this mean to Google?

    For the foreseeable future it will be more of the same for Google. We’ve the seen the business scale back services; by September last year Google had closed down 30 services. It has cut back the functionality of Google Adplanner as a reference tool, to just focus on sales. Google has continued to prune back services such as Google+ (a challenging task given the tentacles + has across Google’s services). The changes inside Google for staffers also reflect similar moves towards profit optimisation, move away from experimentation and being a ‘mensch’.

    The biggest move was to get rid of the 20% of time engineers could devote to projects that interested them. The truth is since at least 2009, the Google myth of people working there to change the world rather than delivering profit hasn’t held sway for a great deal of their staff.

    On the outside Google will still likely have playful swag and cool offices, but the reality is that it will be more of a ‘normal’ business. That means that we won’t see the next Facebook coming from within Google and that whilst the speed of evolution will continue to run along at the same pace, substantial innovation probably won’t. This kind of business requires a different kind of leader to Page, and by appointing Sundar Pichai, will create a cultural break from the past. Pichai is likely to be able to get more revenue out of the Google ‘cash cow’ to help drive innovation in these other areas.

    Page and Brin are freer to bring their energy to the other businesses in Alphabet. For instance, keeping Nest out of Google allows it to work easier with Google competitors like Apple and Microsoft as part of a wider eco-system.

    Lastly, it could be an effort to ring fence Google’s anti-trust woes within the existing business and prevent restrictions being imposed against its newer businesses because of the past sins of the core business.

    So what does this mean for marketers?

    Google is likely to pursue a steady as she goes approach. The focus will be to optimise revenue, so there will be tension with agencies on advertising practices. We’ve already seen this, with Google restricting methods of buying YouTube advertising. These changes will impact the advertising technology business around programmatic advertising.

    The picture with SEO is more about slow and steady change; Google has evolved its Panda index changes to a rolling change rather than the massive shake-ups of old.

    More information
    Android Fragmentation Report August 2015 – OpenSignal
    2004 Founders’ IPO Letter – Investor Relations – Google
    Fumbling the Future: How Xerox Invented, then Ignored, the First Personal Computer
    What’s eating Google’s brand | renaissance chambara
    Why Google Employees Quit? | TechCrunch
    Google Tightens How Advertisers Buy YouTube Ads | AdWeek
    Google’s $6 billion miscalculation on the EU | Bloomberg Businessweek

  • Hardkiss reissues + more things

    Hardkiss Music – love to see this stuff get reissued. Gavin and Scott Hardkiss brought something new to the table with their recordings. Scott Hardkiss’ use of Emerson, Lake & Palmer’s  Fire on High for the track The Pheonix blows me away every time that I listen to it.

    5ninthavenueproject – YouTube – set of VHS amateur documentaries that capture New York in the late 1980s

    The decline and fall of HTC | Digital Evangelist – a bit of the PC commodisation industry model and the mistake of following the Apple model without the full stack and marketing spend

    Korea’s Daum Kakao Brings In 34-Year-Old CEO To Grow Its Messaging Business Overseas | TechCrunch – can KakaoTalk deal with LINE, WhatsApp, KIK and WeChat overseas? WeChat has already failed to expand significantly beyond the Chinese diaspora

    Has America Completely Forgotten Its Roots In Dance Music? Magnetic magazine – I understand it but many people think that the blues started with Eric Clapton, culture is becoming like vapour

    Google new operating structure – Business Insider – interesting moves which formalises where Google has been. It also means that the Google brand isn’t likely to be over extended or risked on edge ventures. Innovation is likely to be stifled

    Pinterest’s Difference From Other Social Media Lures Quaker | Advertising Age – more like search. Longer content shelf life, minimal snark, searchability. I would be surprised if more family brands don’t go there as well. Facebook and Twitter have become cesspits

    759 Store dips toe in e-Commerce waters | Marketing Interactive – pet products, snacks and other in store products to follow. More retailing related content here.

    Traditional ad spending drops for first time | Kantar China – presumably because the Chinese economic growth is slowing down. Changes in media regulations is making it harder for TV stations to show the kind of content that consumers like

    Here’s how a Finnish startup landed $10M from Baidu. In a McDonald’s – interesting use of magnetic fields

  • Alphabet: what does it all mean?

    Social media went into overdrive on Monday evening UK time when Google announced a formal restructure of all its businesses, creating a new company called Alphabet. For the man on the street, Google means Search, YouTube, Drive (including Docs, Sheets etc.), email and Android. For the average marketer you can throw various advertising products and Google Analytics into the mix. For business IT managers, it is everything from productivity, software-as-a-service and possibly as a supplier of a search appliance for its internal servers.

    Google Logo in Building43

    Three different customer types exist and a product set that grows layer-by-layer like an onion. The bulk of Google’s revenue currently comes from advertising due to the clever technology behind it. One can see from Microsoft’s move to the cloud that there is less revenue in cloud computing than in Google’s current business, so when advertising reaches a natural ceiling for growth, services will provide an incremental benefit at best.

    Android was designed as a conduit to Google services and for advertising to venture out into the mobile space.  But the world’s most popular mobile operating system is not without its own issues. Despite all phones essentially looking the same, there is a massive amount of fragmentation in the Android marketplace, which makes life harder for developers. Google is also a developer, so building applications that it can build loyalty through and make money from becomes more difficult.

    Secondly, an appreciable amount of Android devices (those sold in China) and many sold in Russia don’t use Google services and provide little to no opportunity for Google advertising.

    This means that Google is forced to make big bets in very different sectors. Sergey Brin and Larry Page, partly because of their entrepreneurial nature to explore new opportunities, built in an ability to scale Google beyond the business lines that I have outlined above. This was apparent from their original IPO share prospectus and accompanying letter. Xerox is famous in Silicon Valley lore for fumbling the future, by inventing lots of products that would be recognisable to us today in the late 1960s and early 1970s, only to see a corporate head office miss the boat. Brin and Page would have had some awareness of this. Microsoft’s inability to leapfrog beyond its core business successfully is probably also a factor for consideration.

    Alphabet formalises the framework that Page and Brin had been working to for a number of years.

    So what does this mean to Google?

    For the foreseeable future Alphabet will be more of the same for Google. We’ve the seen the business scale back services. By September last year Google had closed down 30 services. It has cut back the functionality of Google Adplanner as a reference tool, to just focus on sales. Google has continued to prune back services such as Google+ (a challenging task given the tentacles + has across Google’s services). The changes inside Google for staffers also reflect similar moves towards profit optimisation, move away from experimentation and being a ‘mensch’.

    The biggest move was to get rid of the 20% of time engineers could devote to projects that interested them. The truth is since at least 2009, the Google myth of people working there to change the world rather than delivering profit hasn’t held sway for a great deal of their staff.

    On the outside Google will still likely have playful swag and cool offices, but the reality is that it will be more of a ‘normal’ business. That means that we won’t see the next Facebook coming from within Google and that whilst the speed of evolution will continue to run along at the same pace, substantial innovation probably won’t. This kind of business requires a different kind of leader to Page, and by appointing Sundar Pichai, will create a cultural break from the past. Pichai is likely to be able to get more revenue out of the Google ‘cash cow’ to help drive innovation in these other areas.

    Page and Brin are freer to bring their energy to the other businesses in Alphabet. For instance, keeping Nest out of Google allows it to work easier with Google competitors like Apple and Microsoft as part of a wider eco-system.

    Lastly, it could be an effort to ring fence Google’s anti-trust woes within the existing business and prevent restrictions being imposed against its newer businesses because of the past sins of the core business.

    So what does Alphabet mean for marketers?

    Google is likely to pursue a steady as she goes approach. The focus will be to optimise revenue, so there will be tension with agencies on advertising practices. We’ve already seen this, with Google restricting methods of buying YouTube advertising. These changes will impact the advertising technology business around programmatic advertising.

    The picture with SEO is more about slow and steady change; Google has evolved its Panda index changes to a rolling change rather than the massive shake-ups of old.

    More Google related articles here. Originally written for Racepoint Global’s now defunct CommsTalk blog.

    More information

    Android Fragmentation Report August 2015 – OpenSignal
    2004 Founders’ IPO Letter – Investor Relations – Google
    Fumbling the Future: How Xerox Invented, then Ignored, the First Personal Computer
    What’s eating Google’s brand | renaissance chambara
    Why Google Employees Quit? | TechCrunch
    Google Tightens How Advertisers Buy YouTube Ads | AdWeek
    Google’s $6 billion miscalculation on the EU | Bloomberg Businessweek

  • Native advertising + other news

    Native advertising

    Podcasting embraces native advertising | Digiday – interesting as podcasting historically has struggled with finding a advertising model and native advertising doesn’t fit that comfortably in the performance orientation of online ads. Native advertising does make sense in podcasting as it shouldn’t affect the podcasters flow and content integrity too much – more marketing content here.

    Beauty

    Sephora Launching Beauty Box Subscription Service | TIME – interesting that the retail brand is stepping into BirchBox territory, it’s not only about sales but product market testing and says something about the tyranny of choice. Sephora has also rolled out vending machines in high footfall areas like airports to tap into the tyranny of choice. I can see this working in high value areas but puzzled why subscriptions has caused so much universal excitement across FMCG sectors, yet not luxury brands

    Business

    California Court Gets One Step Closer to Deciding Uber’s Fate | TIME – important because California tends to lead legal trends in the US. Uber will be fighting this tooth and nail

    Culture

    Jungle, Raves and Pirate Radio: The History and Future of Kool FM | VICE – nice to see Kool FM getting some recognition, how did they manage to survive through the raids I wonder

    Economics

    Pepsi plant shuts down in Venezuela as desperation grows over product shortages | Fusion – soft drink becomes a form of currency exchange

    Gadgets

    How to be a cyberpunk, according to a 1990s tech magazine | Fusion – love this article image, but it shows how far Sony has fallen from prominence compared to where it was

     Web of no web

    Refinery29 – Time cover reinforces tech stereotypes – PCGamer calls the cover “the greatest threat to VR” because it “reinforces, rather than challenges, the perception that VR is a mask that nerds use to blot out the world.” – it also probably isn’t helped by photos from the Facebook F8 developer conference with a sea of coders wearing them whilst apparently staring into nothingness.