This is a guest post by Mandy Miller. Follow her on Twitter at @MandyMayM.
I was listening to a NPR story on the recent challenge held at Harvard against the famous IBM Watson. As you may recall, Watson beat out the all-time Jeopardy champion, Ken Jennings earlier this year.
In the NPR segment, the reporter posed the question if technology is the reason for the elimination of many high-skill jobs. It got me thinking – have we out-invented ourselves? Are our technologies a reason for so few jobs today? What will my kids have to look forward to when entering the workforce? Will I even have a job in 20 or 40 years?
While we can laugh at the thought of the robotic future running our society, the thought isn’t that far from reality. When you consider how many assembly-line jobs were eliminated through new manufacturing technologies, who’s to say what else can’t be eliminated? Look at how many telephone systems are now automated for customer service, airlines systems have self check-ins and more efficient farming technologies we have to plant and harvest more and better yields. For auto repairs, so many cars are so electric that a mechanic can hook them up to a computer system for a quick diagnostic.
The story did note that healthcare would remain virtually untouched in terms of doctor-nurse and patient interaction. I’m not 100% in agreement with that. As you may also remember, shortly after Watson beat out Jennings, Nuance Communications and IBM announced a research collaboration to bring Watson to healthcare. From that announcement, many questioned how Watson would redefine healthcare, and, in some cases, especially for more dangerous military scenarios, eliminate the need for a human physician. Could it be with how automated our medical records are becoming that we could also be going to a computer (no, not WebMD) for a doctor visit?
I’m not convinced that our society will go sci-fi and we’ll have a robotic nation, but I do feel that we need to grasp the full scope of the lack of innovation in this country. Granted, you can’t go a day without seeing a story about how innovation has flat-lined. In a time where unemployment rates are at an all-time high and we face a double-dip recession, we really have to continue to address societal problems and create new industries. If we don’t, I really don’t feel we can keep up with technology. As corny as it sounds, as a human race, we need to keep up with the technology that we’re inventing. While technology makes our lives easier, we have to, in essence, be competitive with our own gadgets.
What are your thoughts? Are we so encompassed in the luxury of our own technologies that we are ignorant of our own (potential) demise? What is our solution?
I love my new smartphone. Not only is it super-awesome, but the apps give me cool stuff to cover in RaceTalk – let me know if there’s a mobile app I must see.
We love not paying full price for things, and the success of group-buying daily deal sites has only fueled our penchant for not paying full-price for everything from pizza to skydiving lessons. The challenge for vendors choosing to participate is turning would-be one-time penny-pinchers into loyal returning customers even after the coupons are distant memories. Many businesses never close the deal, instead being left with the equivalent of countless, unfulfilling one-night stands from consumers who only loved them briefly for their discounts. Now that I’ve painted this sad, sad picture for you, cue LevelUp.
Rather than offering a one-time discount to deal hounds, LevelUp instead offers consumers an incentive to come back: spend $X, get $Y in credit. Spend $X again, get a little more than $Y in credit. The more you spend with LevelUp, the more credit you get back. As described on the site, it’s a “Sesame-Street-simple loyalty program.” We get our savings, and businesses aren’t finding themselves in the red. Good stuff, right? Let us know about your LevelUp experiences in the comments.
If you know me personally, you can skip to the next paragraph. If not, finish this one: Hi, I’m Brittany. I love beer and location-based social media. If I found anything that married the two, I would consider marrying it.
One of the reasons why I was most excited about finally getting a smartphone – aside from no longer having to make excuses along the lines of “Sorry, my phone rides the short bus” – was all the applications and bookmarked mobile sites that would inevitably accompany it. I of course anticipated the usual suspects – Twitter, Foursquare, Angry Birds, Words with Friends – you know, all those little megabytes that have become all but staples of our livelihood. What thrilled me even more was the thought of perhaps the most magical, albeit less mainstream, mobile site to grace the lives of social beer-drinkers the digital world over: Untappd. Haven’t heard of it? Read on.
I first heard about Untappd via the Twittersphere many months ago. Being an avid consumer of beer, the prospect of being able to check into which one I was drinking sounded nothing short of incredible – especially when you go to as many beer fests as I do, and keeping track after the eighth sample can get tricky. Untappd lets you track what you’re drinking, where you’re drinking it, and what you think of it.
After that first glorious (sometimes not-so-glorious) sip, visit m.untappd.com and search for whatever it is you have in your hand. Find it – or add it – add your two cents, and check in. Simple, but that’s the beauty of it. Like many Bostonians, while I do have a few go-tos, I really love trying different brews, and I only have so much brain space dedicated to beer. Untappd is turning into my handy little Rolodex of draughts and bottles and making some recommendations at the same time based off my check-ins (although I haven’t tested that out yet – has anyone who can share their thoughts?). Like Foursquare, it also lets me keep tabs (pun unavoidable) on my beer-inclined friends to see what they’re drinking. Possibly even more fun, I earn badges (also like Foursquare) for my drinking habits, which serve no purpose other than bragging rights (and perhaps a VIP pass for an AA meeting).
Have you tried Untappd yet? Love it? Hate it? Let us know in the comments!
It’s that time of year, again: where the SXSW Interactive 2012PanelPicker is open for public voting! For those of you who are already versed in the innovative, educational treasure trove that is SXSW, I don’t think I need to expound any further. For the rest of you, read on:
“The 19th annual SXSW® Interactive Festival challenges you to envision the future of innovative technology. Featuring five days of compelling presentations from the brightest minds in emerging media and scores of exciting networking events hosted by industry leaders, SXSW Interactive offers an unbeatable line up of special programs showcasing the best new websites, digital projects, wireless applications, video games and startup ideas the community has to offer. From hands-on training to big-picture analysis, SXSW Interactive has become the place to preview of what is unfolding in the world of creative technology.” – SXSWi’s “About” page
One of the really cool parts about SXSW (you know, aside from all that exposure to cutting edge media and tech mentioned above) is the crowd-sourced component of the event’s sessions via the site’s PanelPicker. Last week, public voting opened for over 3600 very strong speaking proposals. Public voting will factor into the selection of a privileged 500 or so for the show itself. That’s right: YOU have a say in who makes it to the agenda. What better incentive to attend is there? Voting ends 11:59 p.m. CDT on Friday, September 2, so hurry up and add your two cents.
Of note, your friends at Racepoint Group and Digital Influence Group have thrown a couple hats into the ring. Check out the sessions below and if you like them, feel free to vote (and encourage your friends to do so, too).
A recent survey from iPass collected data on business workers and travelers around the world, and discovered that people check their email constantly. How much, you ask? 35 percent of people check email first thing in the morning before doing anything else. Email comes before getting dressed, showering and eating breakfast.
Email addiction can also be disruptive. 32 percent of people admitted that their mobile technology causes friction in their personal relationships, and 90 percent of this friction comes between partners. While email addiction can be annoying for a partner at any time, I’m guessing that a significant amount of this friction comes at night, to the tune of 38 percent of people occasionally checking email while they’re sleeping. But it gets worse: 8 percent of people admit to checking email in the middle of the night every single night.
While we all can agree this would not be identified as “healthy” behavior, the Economist argues that these email must have some kind of dividing line:
Many jobs now demand constant connectedness, leaving little space for life outside of work. Indeed, while 64% of those asked said it was unacceptable to take a call in a public toilet, 29% confessed to talking on the loo. The line between work and private life has to be drawn somewhere. At the toilet door, perhaps?
Now it’s your turn to be honest with us. What’s the worst situation, place or time you’ve ever checked your work email?
There are so many ways to watch movies these days. You can watch them on your home television, computer, phone, tablet, or even…go to the movie theater. With so many options and more on the way, I’ve decided to examine some of the most popular movie-watching methods.
If you don’t agree or have another platform you prefer, share your opinion in the comment section.
1. The Movie Theater: 10 years ago the movie theater was the best option for movie watching. It wasn’t too expensive, and it offered the best quality viewing experience. However, today home theater technology is just as good (or better) then theaters, and tickets have become really expensive.
2. Netflix: While it began as a mail-order DVD company, it has quickly adapted to today’s technology and become one of the most popular movie-watching platforms. The opportunity to stream movies from anywhere is a major advantage, and it’s monthly subscription rates are priced very fairly.
3. DVDs: When DVDs first came out they were very popular, but how many people are buying them now that you can stream movies directly from your computer? In either case, watching a DVD from your living room can provide you with very comfortable theater experience, especially if you have big LCD screen and surround sound.
4. Red Box: Red Box is currently my personal favorite, but a big factor is the location of the vending machines. If there is one close by, it’s hard to beat the $1 rental fee. Since I’m only renting 2-3 movies per month, I enjoy not having a flat monthly fee and don’t feel like I have to watch a certain number of movies in order to get my money’s worth. Blockbuster Express is also similar.
5. iTunes: iTunes isn’t the ideal movie watching platform due to its prices. If you’re going to buy a movie, you’re probably better off just getting it on DVD for the same price. However, if you’re on-the-go and want to rent a movie, it provides you with a good option, even though it’s expensive as far as rentals are considered.
6. Amazon: This is a similar option to iTunes, but you’ll be able to play it on different platforms. A lot of this depends on what type of devices you have.
In November Asics launched a pretty cool tech campaign during the New York City Marathon. During a marathon every runner wears a chip on their shoe, which was first used to see when runners started and finished the race, to get their exact time. Then it was used at certain checkpoints throughout the race to make sure people don’t cheat (Rosie Ruiz). Now, they’re being used for encouragement.
Asics recorded pictures, videos and messages from family and friends, and used the chip to display these messages on huge screens as runners passed by during the marathon. The video, while a bit of an advertisement, explains it really well and it worth watching.
On December 17th, the NBA will take a major technological step, broadcasting a game in 3D, for the first time ever. The game will be between the New York Knicks and the Miami Heat and will be broadcast by ESPN. The worldwide leader in sports will show a total of eight regular-season games in 3D this season, and another six 3D games during the 2011 playoffs.
Of course, in order to watch these games in 3D, viewers will need to have 3D televisions, which are still very new to the market. According to the Consumer Electronics Association, only 500,000 3-D television sets have been shipped to dealers to-date.
Is 3D television something that can catch on and make it big? Unlike the upgrade to HD, plasma and LCD televisions, 3D is something that viewers will likely spend a lot of time investigating and trying out before purchasing. 3D is such a major change – that can alter the entire viewing experience – that viewers must be sure they like it and want to use it, before committing to purchasing a new TV, especially when they probably already have a really nice HDTV in their living room already. However, if the popularity of 3D at the movies is any preview for what will happen, it should catch on.
Furthermore, this move by ESPN and the NBA shows that there will be a major push in delivering 3D technology to viewers. But will this be something that’s limited to sports and movies, or will prime-time television shows jump into 3D also? It’s something to keep a close eye on.
Li (left) will return to Reuters, while Gelles (right) will replace him in the FT’s NYC Bureau
Kenneth Li is headed back to Reuters. Li, the former global correspondent for Reuters, who has served as a media correspondent the last two years at the Financial Times, will take on the role of Editor-in-Charge of Technology, Media and Telecoms for Thomson Reuters.
During his previous time at Reuters, Li reported on Time Warner and Comcast’s takeover of Adelphia and correctly predicted Rupert Murdoch would continue to monetize WSJ.com after announcing he would make it a free site. He also co-founded Reuters popular business-sector blog “MediaFile,” which highlights the intersection of media and technology.
While at the Financial Times, Li worked under media editor Andrew Edgecliffe-Johnson, who noted to Li via Twitter that the FT will miss him “and not just for his superior suits and peerless coiffure.”
With Li’s departure, the Financial Times will move David Gelles, a technology reporter currently within their San Francisco Bureau, to New York to cover U.S. media.
While it’s hard not to take pleasure in anyone telling Michael Arrington the way it is, Yahoo! CEO Carol Bartz’s run-in and f-bomb dropping with Arrington earlier this week at the TechCrunch Disrupt conference undoubtedly made PR folks squeamish.
But it got me thinking. A few year’s ago, you could wrap this one into a case study for how not to fall for a reporter’s baiting. You don’t see on camera that Arrington asked Bartz if her marketing pitch about Yahoo’s strengths relative to rival Google was “BS.” After-all this is what Arrington wanted to get from Bartz. A public, unsavory reaction that could draw more attention to his interview and the conference.
He got it and more, but was it a PR #fail for Yahoo!? While there were those who quickly berated Bartz for her comments as too publicly defensive, rough, knee-jerk and unbuttoned, others were quick to back her comments as “refreshing.”
At the very least her passion for defending Yahoo! bears resemblance to the passionate way Steve Jobs defends Apple. Yes, he’s not dropping f-bombs on camera in public settings, but it is refreshing to see CEO’s so passionate about their company’s position that they respond to questions, without vetting their words through their team and consultants. And the media, traditional or otherwise, love it.
I’m not saying executives should go off their rocker like this more often (not everyone has Jobs or Bartz make-up or power), but sometimes being yourself in the right moment can come across as a positive thing in the social media age. Every company wants and needs to be reputable, believable and trustworthy in the digital age – should executives be any different??
