The Quantified Self - Technology Implications in Everyday Life

Gary Wolf, writes about science and social issues for Wired, where he is a contributing editor. Gary is also working on a project with Kevin Kelly and a book termed, "The Quantified Self". He recently wrote an interesting article for NYT Magazine, The Data Driven Life which reflects on the surge of new devices that track everything and demonstrates his keen interest in the quantified self concept. The advent of inexpensive technologies is creating new ways for people to think about how they live. As I have spoken about recently at the IHRSA show for the health and fitness industry this is a significant trend that is and will continue to have tremendous impact and implications. Here are some excerpts from Gary's recent article:

Millions of us track ourselves all the time. We step on a scale and record our weight. We balance a checkbook. We count calories. But when the familiar pen-and-paper methods of self-analysis are enhanced by sensors that monitor our behavior automatically, the process of self-tracking becomes both more alluring and more meaningful. Automated sensors do more than give us facts; they also remind us that our ordinary behavior contains obscure quantitative signals that can be used to inform our behavior, once we learn to read them. 

“The real expertise you need is signal processing and statistical analysis,” says James Park, the chief executive and co-founder of Fitbit, a company that makes a tracker released late last year. The Fitbit tracker is two inches long, half an inch wide and shaped like a thick paperclip. It tracks movement, and if you wear it in a little elastic wristband at night, it can also track your hours of sleep. (You are not completely still when sleeping. Your pattern of movement, however, can be correlated with sleeping and waking, just as the acceleration of a runner’s foot reveals speed.) Park and his partner, Eric Friedman, first showed their prototype at a San Francisco business conference in the summer of 2008. Five weeks later, Park and Friedman, who are both 33, had $2 million in venture capital, and they were flying back and forth to Singapore to arrange production. Last winter they shipped their first devices.

At nearly the same time, Philips, the consumer electronics company, began selling its own tiny accelerometer-based self-tracker, called DirectLife, which, like the Fitbit, is meant to be carried on the body at all times. Zeo, a company based in Newton, Mass., released a tracker contained in a small headband, which picks up electrical signals from the brain, and uses them to compile the kind of detailed record of light sleep, deep sleep and REM sleep that, until now, was available only if you spent the night in a sleep-research clinic. Lately I’ve been running into people who say they wear it every night. And Nike recently announced that its Nike+ system, one of the first personal speedometers, has been used by more than 2.5 million runners since its release in 2006.

Read the article and follow Gary and Kevin. They have a lot to say and share about what is happening with technology and its impact on our everyday lives and culture.

Apple on Flash: Hey Steve, "C'mon Man"

Remember Hamlet and the quote, "The lady doth protest too much, methinks"? While in this case it isn't a lady, the question still applies to Apple's CEO.

Steven P. Jobs, posted a 1,700-word letter on Apple’s Web site on Thursday, explaining the company’s decision not to allow the multimedia software Adobe Flash on Apple’s mobile devices, including the iPhone and iPad. The letter titled "Thoughts on Flash" ran the gamut from philosophical issues about the nature of closed platforms to complaints about performance and crashes.Why would Steve go to the trouble of sharing his "diatribe"? Think back to the Hamlet quote.

Let me say this: I enjoy Apple products. I own an iPhone, iPad and a MacBook. I have great respect for the innovations Apple has created. But give me a break Steve - why go to the trouble of writing a long letter of half truths? The reason you don't want Flash to run on your devices is as self serving to your business model as it is in the interest of "open source" philosophies (of all the reasons this was one you should not have mentioned Jobs). Do you think Apple is open source Steve ? "C'mon Man".

In response Adobe CTO Kevin Lynch posted an entry to Adobe's website titled "Moving Forward," in which he underscored the passion people feel about both Apple and Adobe technologies. "We feel confident that were Apple and Adobe to work together as we are with a number of other partners, we could provide a terrific experience with Flash on the iPhone, iPad and iPod touch," Lynch wrote. 

He also sided with Adobe Flash evangelist Lee Brimelow, who had registered his disgust with Apple earlier in the month. Brimlow was upset about a developer agreement from Apple that makes it a violation of terms to use a non-sanctioned development language.

So why the protestation ? Here it is - Jobs is fighting for the survival of Apple and Charlie Stross got it right in his recent post on the "The Real Reason Why Steve Jobs Hates Flash". I strongly suggest you read his post. As Charlie explains, The PC World is coming to an end and Jobs knows this. The App Store and the iTunes Store have taught Steve Jobs that ownership of the sales channel is vital. Even if he's reduced to giving the machines away, as long as he can charge rent for access to data or apps he's got a business model. As hardware commoditizes and margins evaporate, the only way for Apple to remain viable is to own a completely closed system. Adobe threatens that system, hence Steve's protestation.

Next time you see Steve lecturing about open source philosophies, wether you love him or not, you gotta say, "Hey Steve, "C-mon Man".

How Laws Are Stiffling Creativity & Innovation

This morning I reaquainted myself with some of Lessig's past talks in reaction to a post I was reviewing Steve Lohr had tweeted on transparency. Recently I had an important business meeting with a group of executives to discuss a potential business acquisition, which required their input. The transaction involved a great number of copyright and other issues requiring (or not requiring to the point of this post) voluminous contracts. One of the 5 or so significant reasons the proposed transaction I was attempting was not achieved was, according to this group, my being too "legalistic".

I only use this example to make a point about where our laws have gone and the practical implication this has on commerce; particularly when it applies to innovation and progress. Attempts at progress are being impeded reguarly as the result of laws which have become disconnected from their original intent. Ironically, when I was told I was being too "legalistic" you should know, I am not a lawyer and the opposing group has multitudes of them employed, including one in the room at the time. I simply ask a lot of questions about lengthy agreements, the terms of which are prepared by others and the implications of which are often ignored until something goes awry. If you don't understand where I am coming from, watch this video of Lessig as he shows a good  example regarding a young woman's video on Youtube. So is it me being too legalistic or the world we live in ? Let me know. Perhaps upon viewing this you'll appreciate what I am refering to and next time reconsider where and when you play music and take pictures, these among many actions our law has deemed "illegal".

How Can You Connect With Customers Using Mobile Apps ?

How can you connect with your customers using mobile applications ? A recent WSJ article, "Services Tailor Apps for Small Businesses" written by Riva Richmond shared some important information about using new affordable tools to generate mobile applications. Mobility is surging and customers are increasingly accustomed to having information important to them delivered via their mobile telephones. Mobile Apps can be an effective way to connect with those customers. Here's what the WSJ article had to say:

In general, businesses that rely on repeat customers, like restaurants and retailers, or have intense interaction clients for some period of time, like real-estate brokers and car dealers, are the most likely to benefit from an app, said Greg Sterling, a senior analyst at Opus Research Inc.

"For ongoing, regular contact with customers that are on the go, it makes sense as a promotional or loyalty tool," Mr. Sterling says, since apps enable businesses to send out coupons and event details, including by text message, and customers can easily place orders or contact you for information.

But businesses that are looking primarily to attract new customers, such as doctors, lawyers and contractors, may find an app is a bit of a waste.

So how can you create mobile applications ? Technology is driving the cost of creating and deploying mobile applications down. Services including MobileAppLoader, SwebApps, Mobile Roadie (as shown above) and Kanchoo have emerged to help any sized company create apps. With easy-to-use online templates, much like those used to make low-cost Web sites, a basic iPhone app can take as little as 15 or 20 minutes to make and cost as little as $15 a month in hosting charges.

Hulu's Business Model Dilema

Hulu, yet another example of an industry trying its best to maintain its business model with minmal innovation in the face of a rapidly changing world. "Remember that Woody Allen movie "Take the Money and Run" where Woody's character keeps getting his glasses broken by bullies and finally in one scene when he is confronted again he takes them off himself and smashes them? Well, that's the kind of logic the industry used on Hulu." This according to Joe Flint of the LA Times yesterday morning and Joe's right...But there's more.

As the LA Times reported, Hulu, the popular online site for watching television shows, is preparing to execute the toughest maneuver in digital media: moving from free to pay. The service will begin testing a subscription offering as soon as May 24, according to people with knowledge of the plans.

Under the proposal, Hulu would continue to provide for free the five most recent episodes of shows such as Fox's " Glee," ABC's "Modern Family" and NBC's "Saturday Night Live." But viewers who want to see additional episodes would pay $9.95 a month to access a more comprehensive selection, called Hulu Plus, these people said.

Its important to remember something when you consider Hulu , its owned by a consortium of content creators, News Corp., NBC Universal and Walt Disney Co., who want to preserve the cable and satellite fees that pay for the high cost of TV production. In other words these guys want to make certain they continue to be paid vast sums of money for what they make. They don't want their business model to change; its too profitable. Therein lies a bit of Joe's analogy and therein lies the pickle Hulu is in. They have to control the distribution channel to realize their goals.

According to the LA Times story on the topic "Television executives don't want to suffer the same fate as music industry or newspapers, which saw revenues plummet after users flocked to free access to songs, stories and classified ads online. Already, Hulu fans are decrying the proposal and threatening to turn to Internet pirate sites to watch their favorite shows."

With all of the alternate means of distribution emerging, the days of owning both content creation and its distribution will become harder, without of course sacrificing FAT margins. The existing scheme of content creators owning distribution channels should be discouraged to increase competition and improve quality and diversity. In the end the consumer will decide, no matter the media industry's continued manipulation of the government to protect its interests (watch Lessig). To this point read  the "Economics of Free" and "Kindle vs. Publishers, the Wrong Debate".

The essence is competition and value. Competition for content and the value extracted by organizations who are mainly middle men; intermediaries between creation and the utlimate consumer is coming under attack in all industries. As I wrote in Kindle vs. Publishers, the Wrong Debate, "Its all about economics. In a business where barriers to entry used to be up front costs in promotion, development, distribution and production, new business models have emerged to render the past value of publishers increasingly mute." There is a reason Apple is one of the largest distributors of content in the world now - economics.

Many people believe that "The challenge will be whether Hulu Plus has enough ‘added value' so that consumers perceive that it's worth the price," said Michael McGuire, media analyst with research firm Gartner. While true that is really a near term problem. The challenge for the owners of Hulu is wether they can keep extracting their margins for what they do given the rise of so may distribution and content alternatives ala Netflix and others.