Off Course-On Target

PhotoSynth: Mashups of Our Collective Intelligence via Photos

I don’t know about the rest of you who have your own blogs, but I seem to add many more items to my list of things to write about than I get around to finishing, so my list just grows. Here is one item that I am finally catching up on and which I feel even stronger about than when I was first writing it up several months ago.

I've found a particularly compelling example of the power of mashups. Here is one of those capabilities that you think you understand quickly and then, as you think about it more, you come up with whole new possibilities on how to make use of it. Truly an enabling technology for me!

Intrigued?  I’m referring to the recent release of a combined set of tools (in itself a mashup) called “Photosynth,” which was developed at the University of Washington and by Microsoft Research. Photosynth can take a large collection of photos gathered through a browser search for example, analyze them for similarities, and display them in a reconstructed three-dimensional space with each of the individual photos properly registered to their respective location in the 3D model.

For example, type in the word “Notre Dame, grab all the photos that come up, and run them through Photosynth, which will then display them in a reconstructed three-dimensional space.

As is often the case, seeing is believing, so I strongly encourage you to first take a few minutes (7:42 to be precise) to watch this video of a TED Talk given last year (2007) by Blaise Aguera y Arcas, one of the main developers of the technology,

Photosynth provides an enormous enhancement of automated registration and metadata tagging, finding the commonality of images, the creation of these 3D models, and the network effect that comes from combining photos from any source. As you begin to understand it better, start to imagine how powerful this new means of creating 3D models from existing information (photos) is, and how it enables design to start with what is already in existence and then work from there, by subtracting and adding to it.

Among other things, this type of technology enables you to zoom in from “outer space” down to earth using tools such as Google Earth and MS Virtual Earth, and then when you get to ground or street level, you can start looking around any area with not just satellite imagery but the added information from thousands or millions of photos from “you and I” that are posted up on any of the many online photo storage services.

Think about this for a minute, and you'll start to understand that this means we can now go INSIDE of buildings by “seeing” things through all the photos which are stitched together to create these 3D models and have each photo registered in the right place.

Watch the video clip below to see a fascinating depiction of a scenario where Photosynth is used to help solve a crime.

 

How could this form of a mashup-creating tool be applied to teaching and learning? You and your students could build some amazing history, geography, art, or other learning resources on the fly on an as-needed basis. You could reconstruct a field trip after the fact or set out on a field trip with the express purpose of capturing a location of interest, and then you could construct these highly detailed models from all the photos. Just imagine the new collections (or “synths” as they might be called) that would start showing up by the thousands and then millions as this kind of technology catches on.

Best of all, you can do this right now.  Download Photosynth and take it out for a spin!

The most powerful takeaway for me is that the merging of individual bits of knowledge—in this case photos—creates both better and unexpected new results, such as 3D models and a new form of collective intelligence. The information one can glean or discover within is a huge step forward in human knowledge. Take some time to both wander around in some of these examples and ponder these potential of new developments.

Finding More by Looking Less

For the past 2 weeks, I’ve noticed that I’ve been recalling a favorite metaphor many times in a great variety of conversations and communications with different people so I take this as a reminder to post a bit more about it. 

Many of you know my fondness for serendipity, which I describe simply as the unexpected discovery of something better while searching for something else. I’ll leave the topic of serendipity to another longer exploration and explanation, but for me serendipity is the way I live my life, both professionally and personally, and I believe it is the most powerful way to success.

Today I wanted to just mention one technique I have found to be very useful in the pursuit of more serendipitous discoveries and that is to purposefully NOT focus directly on whatever it is that you are looking for at the time. I think I first hit upon this  technique when I learned about an interesting fact about the way our eyes work and, specifically, why we have a “blind spot” in our vision.  As I understand it, because of the way the optic nerve attaches to the back of the eye, we have a blind spot where it attaches. The best example of how this comes into play is what happens when you are looking at the stars. The next time you get a chance to look up on a starry night, try to find either a faint star, galaxy, or a cluster of stars.  What you will find is that you can only really see these when you do NOT look directly at them but instead focus your attention off to one side.

I thought this effect was quite fascinating and as usual, I’ve turned this into a general concept which seems to hold true in other instances, not just with sight. Ever notice that when you get stuck trying to remember something or are solving a tough problem, the harder you try to focus on it or solve it, the less you succeed?  And then when your mind has wandered off onto something else or you do something completely different, the answer or solution comes to you in a flash?

On an even more general scale and conceptual level, I have observed that this same phenomenon is true. For example, as I’ve studied people and organizations who are exceptionally successful, I’ve noticed that they are usually the ones who focus the least directly on what other might see as their main goal. In business, for example, the most successful and profitable businesses seem to focus the least on profitability itself and more on such things as figuring out a fundamental value proposition for their customers and finding as many innovative ways as possible to deliver on it. 

Or in other cases, an organization starts out assuming it is going after one thing and discovers that the real value is in something else. Netflix, the “DVD in the mail” subscription company comes to mind as a good example. You’d think that their focus would be on the movies, having the most available, getting the ones you want to you the fastest, etc.  And these are indeed important elements of their success. However, their greatest value is helping people find “just the right movie” to watch. This capability comes in the form of their recommender system known as Cinemax. This technology takes the input you provide on which movies you like and don’t like and uses this information to create recommendations that become almost frighteningly accurate. If you’re interested in more on this, I wrote up a longer explanation recently on the Long Slow Chat called “$1 Million Dollar Snowflake Prize”, which details a fascinating competition Netflix is running for the first person who can increase the effectiveness of the Cinemax system by 10%. 

Most recently, my friend Marcia Conner sent me a note to her amusement on serendipitously discovering some recent research by Paul Whitmore Sas that seems to essentially support this same model of indirection. Paul titled his work descriptively as “How to spot your life’s guiding star” and you can download the full dissertation if you want more.  He talks about the Delmore Effect (named after the apparently failed poet Delmore Schwartz), which is the situation where:

“most people tend to set much more explicit goals for low priority domains than for their most important ambitions.”

To prevent this from happening, Paul’s research was based on the same star gazing example that I cited earlier and which Paul referenced as follows:

"Astronomers know to look slightly away from the point at which they expect to locate a star. Analogously, when a person aims to most clearly articulate her own guiding goals, she would be more successful by calling to mind the values which are peripherally related and supportive of her complete self.

Instead of directly confronting the value of greatest import, a person can become more articulate about their central life goals by taking a slightly less direct approach."

Interesting reading.  I recommend you give this method of indirection at try and see if you don’t find more by looking less.

Where Is Value in the Economy of “Free”

Seems like one of my recent postings “Good Luck Trying to Copy a Snowflake”  on the Long Slow Chat, resonated with many of you. The Long Slow Chat is a blog that Erik Duval and I are using to focus more on the Snowflake Effect. I got a lot of comments in particular about my note that:

“I think we are now in an era where there is an inverse correlation of ease of copying with value.“

I remember being struck by this idea when Kevin Kelly first published his article “New Rules for the New Economy” in Wired magazine back in September 1997.  He talked about the “The Law of Plentitude: More gives More".  When you couple this with the fact that value is directly related to scarcity, the uniqueness generated by the Snowflake Effect takes on a a very large and new value. 

For example, I have often observed that content has little-to-no value in and of itself. In large part, this is because content has become so plentiful and abundant. In this context, I’m using the term content to describe anything recorded or captured, such as illustrations, drawings, text, video, audio, and music. Largely due to the Internet, content has become increasingly easy to copy and distribute, and therefore its value, based on scarcity, has been on the asymptote towards zero and getting closer by the minute. 

But if there is an inverse relationship between value and the ease of copying, such that most content has no value, then where do we find value and in what?  Well, I believe there is still a direct correlation between value and scarcity. So in the case of content, the value comes from the mantra of the Snowflake Effect; that is, getting it “just right”—just the right content to the right person at the right time and in the right way.  Reflect upon this a moment and see what you think. Would you not find that your valuation of any piece of content is directly related to how useful it is to you at a specific time and in a specific context? 

To my way of thinking then, the value proposition for content is transforming it from a “product” to a “service”, since the value comes not from the content itself but from when it is the right content for the right person at the right time. All this is very much in keeping with my noun/verb perspectives but I’ll leave that for a future posting.

I was therefore delighted to find that Kevin too has also been working more on this theme of copying and value, and he has recently published his thoughts in an intriguing article called “Better Than Free” on his blog The Technium, which is also the new book he is working on. But this same article has also just been published on the Change This site in PDF format.

I highly recommend that you check out this article from either source to get some new perspectives on where value comes from in this economy where “free” is increasingly predominant. Kevin addresses the challenge that most others seem to ignore or deny, which is "where will value come from and how will there be a fully functioning 'free economy'?"  As Kevin succinctly said:

“How do you make money with the free?”

When copies are super abundant, they become worthless.
When copies are super abundant, stuff which can't be copied becomes scarce and valuable.

When copies are free, you need to sell things which can not be copied.

As you will read in his article, Kevin goes on to describe eight things which are “better than free” and are values that can't be copied, which he calls “generatives”:

“A generative value is a quality or attribute that must be generated, grown, cultivated, nurtured. A generative thing cannot be copied, cloned, faked, replicated, counterfeited, or reproduced. It is generated uniquely, in place, over time.”

The eight generatives are:

1. Immediacy
2. Personalization
3. Interpretation
4. Authenticity
5. Embodiment
6. Patronage
7. Findability

As you can imagine, I was particularly interested to see "personalization" on this list. From my (no doubt biased) perspective, the whole list is part of the Snowflake Effect, where getting to a state of “just right” is key. And more so than characteristics, this list of generatives creates a list of qualities and competencies that will be increasingly important and valuable for all of us. More on that in some future postings.

I particularly liked a note Kevin makes at the end of the article:

“In short, the money in this networked economy does not follow the path of the copies. Rather it follows the path of attention, and attention has its own circuits.”

Attention is about as personal a quality as I can imagine, and is one which I value especially since I suffer so acutely from a deficit of it.

I’ll have more on this whole theme of copying, originality, sources of value, new competencies, and attention in future postings. For now, I’d recommend that you give some of your very valuable attention to this topic and this article, and I look forward to hearing more about what you think about the sources of value in an economy of "free."

Mashups in Miami Beach

I’m in Miami today finishing up my most recent set of business trips around the planet and catching my flight back to El Salvador. I had the great fortune of spending last night and this morning with a business colleague who lives on the waterfront of the always interesting Miami Beach area. Thanks Eric!

For me, Miami is one of those grand cities of the world that exemplify uniqueness. As with cities such as Istanbul, NYC, and Paris, it is truly a unique combination of cultures, architecture, experiences and people, with little connection to the country it is in...a world onto itself, a city that you need to simply enjoy and try to learn from.  As so we did just that as we walked around the South Beach area, enjoyed some local food, people watching, architecture and the pulse of life. 

While exploring this area, I ran into what struck me as an interesting example of how to combine customization with standardization. In this case, it came in the form of a Publix supermarket, which is part of a chain of supermarkets that is very popular in the southeastern USA. As best as I can tell, Publix is popular with those who shop there because the reputation they have built up for consistent quality, large selection of mid- to high-end food items and the overall design and ambience of their stores.

What I’ve picked up on in my visits to several of these stores in the past few years (and from talking with friends and others who shop there) is that they have built up a very loyal following of customers who seek out these stores wherever they are. That’s the “standards” part of the equation—delivering on the expectation that you will have a consistently good experience in any one of their stores. However, this particular store is located in a very affluent and “stylish” residential marina area on the waterfront of Miami Beach, and so there were significant concerns by those living in the neighborhood (and those looking to move there) that this store would be very out of place architecturally and at odds with the feel of the neighborhood which is filled with condos, waterfront walkways, parks, etc. 

The solution that Keene Construction came up with was to take a very standard Publix building and layout and wrap it in a very unique exterior that fits well with the neighborhood. As you can perhaps make out in the photo above,  the exterior is very striking, based on a nautical theme with the suggestive shapes of boat hulls, sails, and decks. Yet when I passed through the exterior doors, I walked into a very familiar and standard Publix supermarket. I thought it was a great mashup of the best of both customization and standardization. From the outside, the store is a delightful part of the area and it's ambiance both fits in and stands out at the same time, adding value rather than subtracting from it.

It was also interesting to read some of the comments on this store on Yelp, the community review site, by those who shop at this store. Interestingly some of the comments were from people living nearby and others were from those visiting the area from far and wide.

This is just the latest example of the growing importance of design: how to mix opposite ends of the spectrum, such as old/new, standard/custom, or consistent/unique. It has left me asking my usual question, “What is this trying to teach me?” and so I’m pondering how we could abstract from the lessons here and apply this type of mashup to things beyond architecture, stores, etc. How could we apply this to human interactions, to software development, to content development?

Our goal is to figure out how we can use the concept of mashups to create solutions that are not a compromise, thereby avoiding mediocrity, and instead creating unique combinations of the best aspects of otherwise opposing ends of these spectrums that are truly greater than the sum of their parts. This approach ties nicely into the Snowflake Effect where our goal is to get it all “just right”. *

*  Just the right things, for just the right people, at just the right time, in just the right place, in just the right context, etc.