Larry is a smart guy, his success is proven, and he has the resources to make the future happen.
But don't put too much weight on his prediction. Real innovation usually comes from unexpected places. Historically, predictions of technology big-shots are not as accurate as the tech press seems to think.
According to the media, Google essentially shut down 20% time years ago, and forced all employees to work only on official company-approved product teams.
This usually comes as a surprise to all the people who are actively working on 20% projects.
My understanding from various folks who work at Google is that 20% time is not something that you just "get", you have to fight for it generally, you have to have real projects to work on, etc.
Only in the sense that to do anything self-directed, you have to fight for it. It wouldn't be self-directed otherwise.
Basically, that means that your manager is not going to nag you to take 20% time, and it's your responsibility to come up with a 20% project that's both tractable and useful to Google, and you're still responsible for pulling your own weight on your 80% project. If you can balance those concerns, nobody's going to stop you from working on a 20% project (and there're escalation paths if they do). It's just that many Googlers are not accustomed to situations where they can work on something of their own initiative but nobody's asking them to work on something of their own initiative.
Yes. It's not just goof off time that you can spend willy nilly until you figure out a productive project. I imagine that the problem isn't just lack of self-direction it's work saturation. If you set your coworkers expectations based on your level of effort sans 20% time and you set your work-load the same then even if you come up with a good idea it might be difficult to carve out enough cycles to work on it without letting obligations drop on the floor in the short-term. And then that situations persists indefinitely.
I guess it's team or role dependent. When I interviewed with Google the first time I was directly told that there would be no 20% time (my memory is hazy but I was interviewing for something related to AdWords Fraud at the time). And this was back in 2005, when the media was actually glowing about Google's 20% time policy. The interviewer joked, "Sure you get 20%. On Sunday you can do whatever you want."
So I suspect that if people are picking up on the "curtailed 20%", it's because Google employees are telling people that it is during the actual interview process.
There is no joke because I was not including all of the time spent on 20% time as a gain in productivity. Read where I wrote that they could see an increase in productivity of up to 20%. I'm not quoting exact numbers because drumroll managers hardly ever think of hard numbers. Its all (gu)es(s)timates.
It seems to be more about the role of Page in the company than the future of Google. A lil' bit about driverless cars and Google Now but mostly on Page, his background and personality.
Is it really that big of an issue to let some site accurately track the source of their referral traffic? That's all UTM codes do by the way--it isn't anything nefarious.
For some reason I read that as if there was a page on Google called Larry. Guess plenty of people made the same mistake with Page Rank though, so I don't feel too bad!
This is why proper grammar is important. With the correct capitalization of proper nouns, there is little room for ambiguity. Of course, that doesn't help in speech...
That parses. It just implies there's only one security camera. And you and the sign painter already know of and speak informally about it. And it's operating RIGHT NOW.
Hadn't thought of it like that. There aren't any cameras unfortunately. The spate of break ins was dealt with by installing a sign. A very proactive sign. Wonder what they will do to its punctuation if 2 cameras get installed...
I am more than ok with the self-driving car. This will really relieve us from a heavy and unsafe burden. Our grand kids in 50 years will wonder how we did foolishly let (almost) everyone drive so dangerous a killing machine.
But I am not ok with most other directions Google seem to be looking at:
- Voice control: Voice control maybe useful to do some hand-less complex configuration but it will always be awkward for normal operations of electronic tools. To push the comparison to its limits: one would not talk to one's screwdriver ("on the left, on the left, stop! on the right! get inside, turn right, euh no! I mean LEFT, counterclockwise..."), one will always prefer tools with direct interaction and feedback. Moreover, in most situations, using voice or sound to communicate is just adding noise to already noisy envs (eg on a plane, train, during meetings. etc).
A factory robot or a plane cockpit have full-fledged interfaces, with knobs and screens and all, but none will use voice control or even sound feedback except for the most urgent and intrusive warning notifications. Even the navigation voice telling me to "turn left in 100 meters" is too intrusive, because maybe at the same time I am talking with someone in the car. A soft "bzzz" on the wheel to remind me to check the navigation screen should be enough.
As anyone has experienced, the voice robot "press one for x, press two for y" is a very good subject for jokes, because it is borderline unbearable: both too slow and too fast, both too rigid and not solid enough. With touchscreens in everyone pocket, I bet these usability nightmares will be replaced with apps or websites.
So, in all, voice control, Siri and Google Now seem to be technological dead-ends. It will probably be similar to alchemy however: it is wrong to try to make gold out of mud, but it was the seed of Chemistry.
- Guess my wishes: I think the "Fairy Godmother" better stay fairy tale. Human beings have shown enough they do not like to be catered like a crowd of sheep. History books are full of revolutions against entities willing to "guess the wishes", from the Catholic Church, to communism, to feudalism. Always in the name of Freedom, and freedom is best felt when you have "unguessable wishes". If Google buys me plane tickets to Sri Lanka because it has detected it was the most suitable destination for my tastes, I probably will cancel the tickets and turn off Google Travel Prescience, because I want this choice to be mine.
I know I am getting a bit too far, but I don't think most people really want their wishes to be guessed. Everyone hopes to be unique, and choose one's life, and decide one's fate. This is the feeling of one's freedom and guessing wishes would just kill it.
Or, the "suggestions" must be very careful in suggesting things and must be psychological enough to let you think that you did find the idea yourself. Just like a careful mother will transparently suggest to a kid something to do or not to do and at the same time will not hinder the kids' feeling of "free-will".
"""
Laziness and cowardice are the reasons why such a large part of mankind gladly remain minors all their lives, long after nature has freed them from external guidance. They are the reasons why it is so easy for others to set themselves up as guardians. It is so comfortable to be a minor. If I have a book that thinks for me, a pastor who acts as my conscience, a physician who prescribes my diet, and so on--then I have no need to exert myself. I have no need to think, if only I can pay; others will take care of that disagreeable business for me.
"""
"Even the navigation voice telling me to "turn left in 100 meters" is too intrusive, because maybe at the same time I am talking with someone in the car. A soft "bzzz" on the wheel to remind me to check the navigation screen should be enough."
This is entirely your preference. It in no way mirrors the entire population. For example, I love the fact that when my phone is plugged into my car's stereo system, it will not only turn down my music in order to talk to me, but it will do so loud enough to override the other ambient noise in the car.
I don't want to have to look at my phone for directions. I actually want my eyes on the road. It telling me, "turn left in 100 meters" means I can do that without taking my hands and eyes off of the controls of the car.
1) History contains precisely zero precedents for the transformations in ease and quality of life about to be unleashed by smart learning algorithm-sensor systems.
I don't think you're giving the future enough credit. You discredit voice control, but base your opinion solely on their present capabilities.
> the voice robot "press one for x, press two for y" is a very good subject for jokes
Interactive voice systems are among the most primitive voice control system possible. The simplest require you "talk" using generated tones. The more complicated accept a real voice but are hardly conversational; they present a rigid and invisible menu of options. At least they present options, some text-based games of lore required you to read the minds of their game designers.
But they won't always be this way. There's no reason to believe computers won't someday become as good at conversing as humans are. Surely you've noticed talking with a human over the phone is much faster than talking over IM, and eventually computers will also hit that point. Imagine it: you pick up your phone and call AT&T, the system immediately picks up and asks "Thanks for calling customer support, may I have your PIN please?", followed by "Hello gbog, and why are you calling today?". You respond with a simple "I'd like to pay my phone bill" and the conversation continues.
> With touchscreens in everyone pocket, I bet these usability nightmares will be replaced with apps or websites.
What happens when you don't have a touchscreen in your pocket? Touchscreens are magical and the current rage, but there's no reason to believe they are the last word in HCI. What about Google glass? Implants? Some other form-factor we haven't yet imagined?
Voice recognition will become faster than using apps, it's already happening! Telling Siri to "set an alarm for 9:30 tomorrow" is much faster than unlocking your phone, finding the right app, waiting for it to open, then messing with those damned spinners.
> So, in all, voice control, Siri and Google Now seem to be technological dead-ends
Siri is a vision of the future. For the first time (if you'll allow some narrative license) you can have something resembling a conversation with your computer. You talk to it like you would anybody else, and it tells you what you'd like to know. Speech is the fastest method we have of dumping information from our brains, it's incredibly natural, and it's nearly universal; I wouldn't be surprised if it eventually became our primary method of controlling computers.
I don't want to make this comment too long, but a similar argument applies to Page's vision of predicting your needs. You are focusing too much on the present and not enough on the futures potential.
If tomorrow you have some unusual reason to wake up at a different time, I agree that voice control is simpler, but this one is the kind of complex one-time configuration I was talking about above. You should not need to give the same order every evening, right? And even in this case, if your gf/bf just fell asleep next to you, would you not prefer some silent way to give this order?
I agree too that touchscreen is not the last word in HCI. But I still don't see a future of people talking to robots. More precisely, I think that robots will always be machines, and that the main interaction channel with machines will not be sound waves carrying human language. I'll try to explain why.
The most useful and powerful tools and machine we have today, from chopsticks to pen and paper to cars to computers, are all using hands and fingers. Human being are as much defined by their language capacity than by their crafting-by-hand capacity. When sound channel is used, for example for sherperding and hunting, it is because it can reach far away, not because it is particularly convenient, and it is not using normal human language anyway.
Most powerful tools are powerful because they have near infinite precision and expressivity. Think a Chinese brush, or a violin: human language is extremely rough compared to the range of actions allowed by these. Try to voice-control a pen to draw a single smiley face, I would be surprised if we would recognise the thing. In fact, I think next and next-next generations of electronic devices, be it phones or glasses or implants, will go closer to the tight coupling and immediate feedback we have with pens, brushes, pianos, and even hammers or game controllers.
Many (if not most) of the interesting interactions we can have with machines and tools are not worded and cannot be expressed in current human language. This is a bit out of sight these days, but not everything need to be words or text. Reading famous chefs recipes will never help you cook food if you do not have the "hand" (and taste) for it. The HN crowd is a bit biased, with so many bloggers and blog-readers, but many people do not consume as much text as we do here.
The many attemps to use human natural language to describe the behavior of systems have all failed hard, and we have to fallback on programming languages, which, from linguistic perspective, are abominable caricatures of human languages. This is telling. In order to control properly a computer, we need to talk in the computer's language. Not necessarily because it is not clever enough to understand human language, but because human language is not the right tool for the task. Human language is very efficient in communicating with other human beings, but not so with machines, and useful robots will be machines.
The future will them me right or wrong, I hope to grow old enough to see it.
But allow me to imagine the intelligent glasses UI. It can display anything on the screen. Very good, so it means that, except when alseep, the audio channel is not needed not receiving feedback from the glasses. Talking to the thing using human language is a possibility, but only one in many other possiblilities. Imagine there is a very well thought "UI" that is sensing the taps of your fingers on your forearm, or your leg, or whatever part of your body is easily accessed. Imagine you can give "input" to your glasses by drawing shapes on your blue jeans, or tapping little rythmic commands, "tap-tap-tap" is cancel, "slide-left" is next, "draw a round" is repeat, etc. I think this could be worth trying.
But don't put too much weight on his prediction. Real innovation usually comes from unexpected places. Historically, predictions of technology big-shots are not as accurate as the tech press seems to think.