Economics of Technology – Page 61

Exponential Entrepreneurs Get Rich by Innovating (and Fleecing?)

The reviewer’s concern about technology platforms fleecing the masses is shared by Jaron Lanier who describes, and tries to solve it, in a thought-provoking book called Who Owns the Future? (Hint: his solution involves an extension of property rights.)

(p. A9) The exponential entrepreneurs are “paving the way for a new world of abundance” by finding big problems and exploiting the “Six D’s”: digitalization, deception, disruption, demonetization, dematerialization, democratization.

Take the case of Kodak and photography. First came the technology that allowed photographs to be taken and stored digitally rather than on film–digitization. But it seemed too trivial for a giant like Kodak to worry about–an act of self-deception. Then came disruption, when digital photography grew from a tiny niche into a big business and then surpassed print photography. People no longer needed to pay to store or share their photographs because free digital services had sprung up. Kodak found itself demonetized. Then photography was dematerialized, as cameras were built into phones and the physical materials of the darkroom were replaced by digital tools. Finally, the entire process was democratized, since anyone with a phone can (at no additional cost) take pictures, edit them and share them.
In 1996 Kodak employed 140,000 people and had a market value of $28 billion. In January 2012 it filed for bankruptcy. Instagram was founded in October 2010 and was bought by Facebook in April 2012 for $1 billion. It had 13 employees at the time. Instagram was the definition of an exponential organization, one “whose impact (or output)–because of its use of networks or automation and/or its leveraging of the crowd–is disproportionally large compared to its number of employees.” The Six D’s, the authors make clear, are leaving the poor executives who think in linear rather than exponential fashion in a state of three D’s: “distraught, depressed and departed.”
. . .
The great lie about so much technology is that it has enabled a more sharing, more democratic age. But too much of the “sharing” that happens online seems to involve people abandoning their livelihoods to the owners of “platforms”–letting the masses be demonetized and dematerialized for the enrichment of a few. Too much of the “democracy” feels like voyeurism or surveillance. The crowd is not just sourcing and funding this new economy; it’s also getting fleeced.

For the full review, see:
PHILIP DELVES BROUGHTON. “BOOKSHELF; Go Big Or Go Home.” The Wall Street Journal (Tues., Feb. 17, 2015): A9.
(Note: ellipsis added.)
(Note: the online version of the review has the date Feb. 16, 2015.)

The book discussed in the review is:
Diamandis, Peter H., and Steven Kotler. Bold: How to Go Big, Create Wealth and Impact the World. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2015.

The book mentioned by Lanier is:
Lanier, Jaron. Who Owns the Future? pb ed. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2013.

Those Who Use “Consensus” Argument on Global Warming, Should Endorse Genetically Modified Food

(p. B3) NAIROBI, Kenya — Mohammed Rahman doesn’t know it yet, but his small farm in central Bangladesh is globally significant. Mr. Rahman, a smallholder farmer in Krishnapur, about 60 miles northwest of the capital, Dhaka, grows eggplant on his meager acre of waterlogged land.
As we squatted in the muddy field, examining the lush green foliage and shiny purple fruits, he explained how, for the first time this season, he had been able to stop using pesticides. This was thanks to a new pest-resistant variety of eggplant supplied by the government-run Bangladesh Agricultural Research Institute.
Despite a recent hailstorm, the weather had been kind, and the new crop flourished. Productivity nearly doubled. Mr. Rahman had already harvested the small plot 10 times, he said, and sold the brinjal (eggplant’s name in the region) labeled “insecticide free” at a small premium in the local market. Now, with increased profits, he looked forward to being able to lift his family further out of poverty. I could see why this was so urgent: Half a dozen shirtless kids gathered around, clamoring for attention. They all looked stunted by malnutrition.
. . .
I, . . . , was once in [the] . . . activist camp. A lifelong environmentalist, I opposed genetically modified foods in the past. Fifteen years ago, I even participated in vandalizing field trials in Britain. Then I changed my mind.
After writing two books on the science of climate change, I decided I could no longer continue taking a pro-science position on global warming and an anti-science position on G.M.O.s.
There is an equivalent level of scientific consensus on both issues, I realized, that climate change is real and genetically modified foods are safe. I could not defend the expert consensus on one issue while opposing it on the other.

For the full commentary, see:
MARK LYNAS. “How I Got Converted to G.M.O. Food.” The New York Times, SundayReview Section (Sun., APRIL 26, 2015): 5.
(Note: ellipses, and bracketed word, added.)
(Note: the online version of the commentary has the date APRIL 24, 2015.)

“Bring Prosperity to Billions of People”

(p. B1) If you’re feeling down about the world, the book, “Resource Revolution: How to Capture the Biggest Business Opportunity in a Century,” is an antidote. Mr. Rogers and Mr. Heck outline how emerging advances — among them 3-D printing, autonomous vehicles, modular construction systems and home automation — might in time alter some of the world’s largest industries and (p. B7) bring prosperity to billions of people.
They put forward a rigorous argument bolstered by mountains of data and recent case studies. And once you start looking at Silicon Valley their way, your mind reels at the far-reaching potential of the innovations now spreading through society.

For the full commentary, see:
Farhad Manjoo. “STATE OF THE ART; The Future Could Work, if We Let It.” The New York Times (Thurs., AUG. 28, 2014): B1 & B7.
(Note: the online version of the commentary has the date AUG. 27, 2014.)

The book praised in the commentary is:
Heck, Stefan, and Matt Rogers. Resource Revolution: How to Capture the Biggest Business Opportunity in a Century. New York: Melcher Media, 2014.

“We Embrace New Technology”

(p. 2D) . . . , the first digital images created by the earliest digital cameras “were terrible,” Rockbrook’s Chuck Fortina said. “These were real chunky images made by big, clunky cameras.”
Viewing those results, some retailers dismissed the new digital technology and clung doggedly to film. But Rockbrook Camera began stocking digital cameras alongside models that used film, Fortina said.
“Film sales were great, but we just knew digital was going to take over,” Fortina said. As those cameras and their images improved, the retailer saw a huge opportunity. ”Instead of thinking this is going to kill our business, we were thinking people are going to have to buy all new gear,” Fortina said of the switch from analog to digital.
“By 2000, film was over,” he said. Companies that didn’t refocus their business found themselves struggling or forced to close their doors.
Today, Rockbrook Camera is constantly scouring the Internet, attending trade shows and quizzing customers and employees in search of new technologies, Fortina said. “We embrace new technology,” he said.

For the full story, see:
Janice Podsada. “More Ready than Not for Tech Shifts; How 3 Omaha-area businesses altered course and thrived amid technological changes.” Omaha World-Herald (SUNDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 2015 ): 1D-2D.
(Note: ellipsis added.)
(Note: the online version of the story has the title “How 3 Omaha-area businesses altered course and thrived amid technological changes.”)

French Billionaire Entrepreneur Starts Small and Cuts Costs

On Mon., October 13, 2014, Iliad dropped its bid for T-Mobile, after lack of interest from some of the T-Mobile board and from the majority owner, Deutsche Telekom AG.

(p. B1) Iliad wants to improve T-Mobile US’s cost structure by applying its own ultraslim cost base, under which it has kept costs to a minimum in everything from IT services to back office to equipment purchases. Iliad estimates it will be able to save about $2 billion annually by cutting out costs such as sending paper bills, and savings on equipment and IT systems, Mr. Niel said.
. . .
(p. B4) . . . before Mr. Niel can execute his American dream, Iliad has to win over T-Mobile US’s board, which could prove a formidable challenge.
. . .
He says he is sticking to the same principle that has guided his ascent from a teenage computer programmer in a working class Paris suburb to one of France’s richest men.
“I always follow the same idea: Start small and disrupt to create something big,” he said.

For the full story, see:
RUTH BENDER. “Will This Billionaire Bring $3-a-Month Phone Plans to U.S.?” The Wall Street Journal (Sat., Aug. 2, 2014): B1 & B4.
(Note: ellipses added.)
(Note: the online version of the story says it was updated on Aug. 4, 2014.)

Bicycles Emancipated Women

“A portrait from the 1890s at the Smithsonian Institution’s National Museum of American History. Susan B. Anthony said cycling did more to emancipate women than anything else in the world.” Source of caption and photo: online version of the NYT article quoted and cited below.

(p. D1) . . . , Twain promoted the new sport of cycling with characteristic rhubarb tartness. “Get a bicycle,” he urged readers. “You will not regret it, if you live.”
. . .
The full-bore bicycle fever was brief, and by the early 20th century it had given way to fascination with the automobile. Yet, as a new exhibit at the Smithsonian Institution’s National Museum of American History makes clear, the impact of the bicycle on the nation’s industrial, cultural, emotional and even moral landscape has been deep and long lasting.
In addition to air-filled rubber tires, we can thank the bicycle for essential technologies like ball bearings, originally devised to reduce friction in the bicycle’s axle and steering column; for wire spokes and wire spinning generally; for differential gears that allow connected wheels to spin at different speeds.
And where would our airplanes, tent poles and lawn furniture be without the metal tubing developed to serve as the bicycle frame? “The hollow steel tube is a great form,” said Jim Papadopoulos, an assistant teaching professor of mechanical and industrial engineering at Northeastern University in Boston. “It’s tremendously structurally efficient, light and strong, and it came into being for the bicycle.”
. . .
(p. D4) Bicycles also gave birth to our national highway system, as cyclists outside major cities grew weary of rutted mud paths and began lobbying for the construction of paved roads. The car connection goes further still: Many of the bicycle repair shops that sprang up to service the wheeling masses were later converted to automobile filling stations, and a number of pioneers in the auto industry, including Henry Ford and Charles Duryea, started out as bicycle mechanics. So, too, did the Wright brothers.
“The pre-story is so important,” said Eric S. Hintz, a historian with the Smithsonian’s Lemelson Center for the Study of Invention and Innovation. “You don’t get automobiles unless you first have bikes.”
. . .
By the mid-1890s, some 300 American companies were churning out well over a million bicycles a year, making the safety bike one of the first mass-produced items in history. Among the most exuberant customers were women, who discovered in the bicycle a sense of freedom they had rarely experienced before.
. . .
Bicycles allowed young men and women to tool around the countryside unsupervised, and relationships between the sexes grew more casual and spontaneous. With a bicycle at her disposal, a young woman could also venture forth in search of work.
Small wonder that Susan B. Anthony said of cycling, “I think it has done more to emancipate women than any one thing in the world.”

For the full story, see:
NATALIE ANGIER. “Basics; A Ride to Freedom.” The New York Times (Tues., JULY 14, 2015): D1 & D4.
(Note: ellipses added.)
(Note: the online version of the story has the date JULY 13, 2015, and has the title “Basics; The Bicycle and the Ride to Modern America.”)

112 Years of Spectacular Progress Started With Wilbur Wright

“New close-up images of a region near Pluto’s equator reveal a giant surprise: a range of youthful mountains.” Source of caption and photo: online version of the NYT article quoted and cited below.

(p. A1) LAUREL, Md. — The first close-up image of Pluto has revealed mountains as tall as the Rockies, and an absence of craters — discoveries that, to their delight, baffled scientists working on NASA’s New Horizons mission and provided punctuation for a journey nine and a half years in the making.

Only 112 years after the Wright Brothers were barely able to get their airplane off the ground, a machine from Earth has crossed the solar system to a small, icy world three billion miles away. The flyby on Tuesday, when New Horizons buzzed within 7,800 miles of the former ninth planet, came 50 years to the day after NASA’s Mariner 4 spacecraft made a similar first pass by Mars.

For the full story, see:
KENNETH CHANG. “Pluto’s Portrait From New Horizons: Ice Mountains and No Craters.” The New York Times (Thurs., JULY 16, 2015): A1 & A17.
(Note: the online version of the article has the date JULY 15, 2015.)

“If You Get Too Cold, I’ll Tax the Heat”

(p. A11) George Harrison knew what he was talking about when he wrote the song “Taxman” for the Beatles: “If you get too cold, I’ll tax the heat / If you take a walk, I’ll tax your feet.” Had the Internet been around in 1966, they might have added: “If you use the Web, I’ll tax your tweet.”

For the full commentary, see:
OHN THUNE and AJIT PAI. “Taxman, Won’t You Please Spare The Internet?; A moratorium on taxing online access has been an unqualified success. Let’s make it permanent.” The Wall Street Journal (Fri., July 18, 2014): A11.
(Note: the online version of the commentary has the date July 17, 2014.)

More Danger from Existing Artificial Stupidity than from Fictional Artificial Intelligence

(p. B6) In the kind of artificial intelligence, or A.I., that most people seem to worry about, computers decide people are a bad idea, so they kill them. That is undeniably bad for the human race, but it is a potentially smart move by the computers.
But the real worry, specialists in the field say, is a computer program rapidly overdoing a single task, with no context. A machine that makes paper clips proceeds unfettered, one example goes, and becomes so proficient that overnight we are drowning in paper clips.
In other words, something really dumb happens, at a global scale. As for those “Terminator” robots you tend to see on scary news stories about an A.I. apocalypse, forget it.
“What you should fear is a computer that is competent in one very narrow area, to a bad degree,” said Max Tegmark, a professor of physics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the president of the Future of Life Institute, a group dedicated to limiting the risks from A.I.
In late June, when a worker in Germany was killed by an assembly line robot, Mr. Tegmark said, “it was an example of a machine being stupid, not doing something mean but treating a person like a piece of metal.”
. . .
“These doomsday scenarios confuse the science with remote philosophical problems about the mind and consciousness,” Oren Etzioni, chief executive of the Allen Institute for Artificial Intelligence, a nonprofit that explores artificial intelligence, said. “If more people learned how to write software, they’d see how literal-minded these overgrown pencils we call computers actually are.”
What accounts for the confusion? One big reason is the way computer scientists work. “The term ‘A.I.’ came about in the 1950s, when people thought machines that think were around the corner,” Mr. Etzioni said. “Now we’re stuck with it.”
It is still a hallmark of the business. Google’s advanced A.I. work is at a company it acquired called DeepMind. A pioneering company in the field was called Thinking Machines. Researchers are pursuing something called Deep Learning, another suggestion that we are birthing intelligence.
. . .
DeepMind made a program that mastered simple video games, but it never took the learning from one game into another. The 22 rungs of a neural net it climbs to figure out what is in a picture do not operate much like human image recognition and are still easily defeated.

For the full story, see:
QUENTIN HARDY. “The Real Threat Computers Pose: Artificial Stupidity, Not Intelligence.” The New York Times (Mon., JULY 13, 2015): B6.
(Note: ellipses added.)
(Note: the online version of the story has the date JULY 11, 2015, and has the title “The Real Threat Posed by Powerful Computers.”)

Marie Curie Opposed Patents Because Women Could Not Own Property in France

(p. C6) Ms. Wirtén, a professor at Linköping University in Sweden, pays special attention to the decision not to patent and how it was treated in the founding texts of the Curie legend: Curie’s 1923 biography of her husband, “Pierre Curie,” and their daughter Eve’s 1937 biography of her mother, “Madame Curie.” The books each recount a conversation in which husband and wife agree that patenting their radium method would be contrary to the spirit of science.
It is not quite that simple. As Ms. Wirtén points out, the Curies derived a significant portion of their income from Pierre’s patents on instruments. Various factors besides beneficence could have affected their decision not to extend this approach to their radium process. Intriguingly, the author suggests that the ineligibility of women to own property under French law might have shaped Curie’s perspective. “Because the law excluded her from the status of person upon which these intellectual property rights depend,” Ms. Wirtén writes, “the ‘property’ road was closed to Marie Curie. The persona road was not.”

For the full review, see:
EVAN HEPLER-SMITH. “Scientific Saint; After scandals in France, Curie was embraced by American women as an intellectual icon.” The Wall Street Journal (Sat., March 21, 2015): C6.
(Note: the online version of the review has the date March 20, 2015.)

The book under review, is:
Wirtén, Eva Hemmungs. Making Marie Curie: Intellectual Property and Celebrity Culture in an Age of Information. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2015.

Pentagon Seeks Innovation from Private Start-Ups Since “They’ve Realized that the Old Model Wasn’t Working Anymore”

(p. A3) SAN FRANCISCO — A small group of high-ranking Pentagon officials made a quiet visit to Silicon Valley in December to solicit national security ideas from start-up firms with little or no history of working with the military.
The visit was made as part of an effort to find new ways to maintain a military advantage in an increasingly uncertain world.
In announcing its Defense Innovation Initiative in a speech in California in November, Chuck Hagel, then the defense secretary, mentioned examples of technologies like robotics, unmanned systems, miniaturization and 3-D printing as places to look for “game changing” technologies that would maintain military superiority.
“They’ve realized that the old model wasn’t working anymore,” said James Lewis, director of the Strategic Technologies Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. “They’re really worried about America’s capacity to innovate.”
There is a precedent for the initiative. Startled by the Soviet launch of the Sputnik satellite in 1957, President Dwight D. Eisenhower created the Advanced Research Projects Agency, or ARPA, at the Pentagon to ensure that the United States would not be blindsided by technological advances.
Now, the Pentagon has decided that the nation needs more than ARPA, renamed the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, or Darpa, if it is to find new technologies to maintain American military superiority.
. . .
The Pentagon focused on smaller companies during its December visit; it did not, for example, visit Google. Mr. Welby acknowledged that Silicon Valley start-ups were not likely to be focused on the Pentagon as a customer. The military has captive suppliers and a long and complex sales cycle, and it is perceived as being a small market compared with the hundreds of millions of customers for consumer electronics products.
Mr. Welby has worked for three different Darpa directors, but he said that Pentagon officials now believed they had to look beyond their own advanced technology offices.
“The Darpa culture is about trying to understand high-risk technology,” he said. “It’s about big leaps.” Today, however, the Pentagon needs to break out of what can be seen as a “not invented here” culture, he said.
“We’re thinking about what the world is going to look like in 2030 and what tools the department will need in 20 or 30 years,” he added.

For the full story, see:
JOHN MARKOFF. “Pentagon Shops in Silicon Valley for Game Changers.” The New York Times (Fri., FEB. 27, 2015): A3.
(Note: ellipsis added.)
(Note: the online version of the story has the date FEB. 26, 2015.)