Invisibility & Cloaking Experiment Successful

Any fan of Star Trek knows all about “cloaking” technology.  Well, we’re one step closer as of yesterday.

LiveScience.com – Scientists Create Cloak of Partial Invisibility

Interestingly, while groundbreaking, the basic concept for cloaking has been worked out quite well in the science fiction community.  This experiment seems to confirm the basic approach:

Bend light around you, and there will be no reflection of light for an observer to see.   The experiment used the latest technology in metamaterial fabrication, and was limited to the microwave spectrum.  It also wasn’t perfect, with some small amount of distortion & reflection.

Still, it’s an impressive demonstration, and it’s extremely likely that this technology will progress with nano-materials to true cloaking capability at a variety of wavelengths, including visible light.

Most of the coverage I’m reading argues that this will be of limited use, largely because unlike Harry Potter, when you bend light around you, none of it is captured resulting in an inability to “see” outside of the cloak.  You are invisible to others, but others are invisible to you.

It seems to me that there is an easy solution to this:  the device in the cloak needs to be able to capture a percentage of light hitting it so it can “see”, but then have an energy source to duplicate the signal with sufficient fidelity to make it appear that the light was never captured at all.

I love seeing metamaterials play a strong role here.  As a trivia point, I originally planned to major in Molecular Biology at Stanford.  But my freshman year, I took an introductory course in Material Science & Engineering, and I fell in love with the science.  I ended up majoring in Computer Science, but Material Science was my “first love” in the Engineering School.

The advances in materials are every bit as breathtaking as the advances in software these days.  There is something magical about creating these materials with almost magical properties.

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.”
— Arthur C. Clarke

Playstation 3, Uncanny Valley & Product Design

Like most tech geeks, I’m excited about the new wave of video game consoles coming out this year.  Xbox 360, Playstation 3, Nintendo Wii.  You name it, I want it.   This despite the fact that with work & a family I rarely have time to play video games anymore.

I came across a PS3 article yesterday that mentioned a term I had never heard before, but that I thought crystalized a phenomenon I’ve personally theorized over the years.  It’s called Uncanny Valley.

PS3 article here.  Wikipedia for Uncanny Valley here.

Uncanny Valley is a theory borrowed from robotics that says that when you have something relatively non-human like a puppy or a teddy bear, people will anthropomorphize it and like the “human-like” qualities of it.  However, if you make something too close to human, like a robot, people start to dislike it strongly as they focus on some key, missing detail.  Think about the uneasy feeling around corpses, zombies, or prosthetics.

The article makes the point about recent computer animated movies like Polar Express and the next generation consoles have run into this problem.  The computer animation is getting more realistic, but ironically people like it less than stylized, non-realistic graphics like The Incredibles.

I think this is a fantastic insight, and it goes beyond computer graphics and robotics.

As a software engineer and product manager, I have always been fascinated with the difficulty companies have migrating between major versions of platforms.  In most cases, no matter how good the new version is, a significant minority will hate it and complain ferociously about the disruption of the change.

Naturally, people have tried to solve this problem by trying to make the new version “feel” as close to the old version as possible.  Ironically, this seems to fan the flames even more as people focus even more on small differences.

Some of the most successful transitions, like Apple made from classic Mac OS to Mac OS X have been based on specifically not trying to make the new work the same as the old.  Sure, there are elements in common, but with Mac OS X Apple specifically did not replicate either the classic Mac OS Finder, or the NeXTStep browser.  They did borrow some of the better ideas from each.

I don’t want to turn this into a flame war about whether or not you like the UI decisions Apple made.   Instead, I just want to let this new insight flow around inside my head, and think about how it applies to various situations in life.

To my theory about people being “predictably irrational” – this seems like a truly generalized insight.  For human perception, sometimes being too close to something, without matching it, can be worse than establishing clear and thoughtful differentiation.

When I now look back on the product and design decisions we have made with eBay Express, I have new insights into the decisions we made.  We didn’t do it on purpose, but our rigorous focus on building the most convenient, multiple merchant, fixed-price shopping  experience has given the site an identity that is clearly differentiated and unique.  The site clearly evokes eBay, and many of the strengths of the eBay brand and community, but it offers a clearly differentiated experience through every page.

Fascinating.

Welcome to Ununoctium (Element 118)

Just a quick article that I had to post.

The Seattle Times: Nation & World: Heaviest known element created

Ever since I learned about basic chemistry, I’ve had an unnatural affection for the periodic table. What an amazingly elegant and simple roadmap to understanding the composition of matter.

I’m not sure what we’re learning at this point as we built heavier and heavier elements, but for some reason, I still love the fact that we have scientists pushing forward our understanding of matter in this way.  This one was particularly interesting, because there has always been something special about the noble gases, and this one was the blank spot on that last row.

Let’s hope they give it a better name than Ununoctium

Apple license Mac OS X to Dell?

“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”
Life of Reason, Reason in Common Sense, Scribner’s, 1905, page 284
George Santayana

“The future success of Apple, Dell and Intel lies with a licensing deal between Steve Jobs’ company and the PC maker according to analyst Gartner,” Andrew Donoghue reports for ZDNet UK.

The ZDNet article is here.  The MacDailyNews coverage is here (the commentary always cracks me up).

I happened to be at Apple Computer in 1996-7, and I remember quite well the launch of Mac OS licensing, and the eventual cancellation by Steve Jobs.

This idea is one that MBAs just love… regardless of the economic reality of the process.

The basic problem with OS licensing for Apple is easy.   Yes, the profit margins are much higher.   But the aggregate margin dollars are much lower.

Example:
Sell 10 copies of Mac OS X to Dell for $50 each.   Even if the margin is 95%, that is a $450 profit.

Sell 10 iMacs for $1000.  A margin of 20% gives you $2000 profit.

End result: Apple would need to expand Mac OS marketshare by 4-5x to make exactly the same profit they do today on the Mac.

It’s not impossible, but the problem is the transition.  What Apple learned during licensing is that when given the option to buy a non-Apple Mac, a lot of existing Mac users took it.

These are Mac users who used to give Apple $200 profit each, and they switched to giving them 1/5 that amount.

That means Apple would have to shrink to a company with less revenue and less profit for several years, in order to hopefully someday capture sufficient marketshare to exclipse their old numbers.  An uncertain bet, given the lockdown that the Windows monopoly has on the desktop.

Unfortunately, I’m not a Gartner subscriber, so I can’t read the original report.  But I feel like I’ve read 100 like it in the past 20 years.

None of them ever explained how Apple would live through the process.   What’s worse, is that Apple actually tried this already.  They gave in to the overwhelming pressure of management consultants everywhere.

Maybe there is an answer now.   Maybe the iPod business gets so large that Apple doesn’t really need the Mac profits anymore.  But I doubt it.

This is a good lesson for all companies that have very profitable businesses that are lower margin.  It’s wonderful to see a promised land with higher margins, but make sure you think through the transition.

In evolutionary biology, they refer to this problem as a “local maximum”.  The problem is that evolution can incrementally push you towards a solution that is better than any other incremental step – but it’s still not the ideal solution overall.

It happens in business as well.

By the way, if you didn’t hear, Apple is delivering numbers that no one would have ever thought possible in 1996.  Q3 earnings here.

Dow 12000? Could have been 22000! Berkshire Hathaway in the Dow Jones Industrial Average.

Big news this week. The Dow has closed over 12,000. Whoopee.
Sometimes, I am amazed at how incredibly stable certain staples of culture can be, even in the face of overwhelming logic & reason.

One example of this is the continued fascination that people have with the Dow Industrials index. This group of 30 stocks has changed over the years, but dates back over 100 years (1896), ever since Dow & the Wall Street Journal attempted to capture a measure of the “Industrial Strength” of the US Economy.

The problem is, the equation they used to calculate it is nonsensical. Literally.

The Dow Jones Industrial Average is a “price-weighted” index. This means that a $1 move in a $25 stock is worth more than a $1 move in a $10 stock.

This, of course, makes absolutely, positively no sense.

Now, a “market-capitalization-weighted” index, like the S&P 500, makes sense. An “even-weighted” index makes sense. Even some of the cool new “fundamental-weighted” indexes, based on figures like the revenues or cash flows of companies makes sense.

But a price weighted index makes no sense. If a stock in the Dow Jones splits 2:1, it’s future impact on the average will be lower than if it never split at all.

This, compounded with the incredible unpredictable and poor timing that the index owners have used to add & remove stocks from the index has led to extremely unpredictable performance.

There is a really great piece in Business Week that illustrates how ridiculous this index is.

As you may have heard, Berkshire Hathaway, Warren Buffet’s company, hit its own milestone lately by trading at $100,000 per share. Yes, that’s right. The reason it is so high is that they have never split their stock, and it has compounded at extremely high rates since the 1960s.

Can you imagine what the Dow would be like if it had included Berkshire Hathaway as one of its stocks (which would be easy to justify)?

The answer is: if they had added it in 2000, the index would now be at 22000!

Buffett’s Baby: Too Big for the Dow

Despite this, every newspaper and television show seems to highlight this milestone for this nonsensical financial metric. And it really does influence investor behavior. I have family members who have told me they are reluctant to buy stocks right now because “the Dow is so high”.

For the 20 or so readers of this blog, hopefully now you know the truth. Spread the word. The DIA is meaningless.

Sequoia backs PopSugar for $5M

I’m finding the trend of venture backing for blog networks really fascinating.  Looks like Sequoia has jumped in with $5M for PopSugar out of San Francisco.

Techcrunch has some coverage here.

I’m guessing that the venture backing is a bet that this is a disruptive way to build a new media outfit with a fundamentally lower cost structure, but with all the revenue upside.  Media has always been profitable – witness the longevity and economics of newspapers – so this theory isn’t completely outlandish.

VentureBeat has coverage here.  Interesting deal for Mike Moritz.

Are Web 2.0 Social Networking Sites Exponential?

Jason Steinhorn sent me a link to this fairly interesting blog post on the growth dynamics of social networking sites.

The mathematics of Web 2.0: Why don’t ALL social networking sites experience phenomenal growth?

The article looks at two interesting questions:

  1. Do social networking sites show N^2 growth (ala Metcalfe’s Law), or do they show 2^N growth (exponential)
  2. Why do some social networking sites show far more rapid growth than others.

I need to think about this a bit more.  My initial reaction was no, these sites are showing N^2 growth (which is huge), and the author is getting confused about the fact that trees don’t grow to the sky, and not all sites are going to fulfill their algorithmic destiny.

However, on further consideration, the growth of groups is really the key.  Since groups can continue to form, and can “repeat” membership fairly aggressively, you might be seeing more of a combinatorics equation, like the one in his article.   A study of the growth of groups might be the real key here – I’m not sure these sites really support full combinatorics, which is what you’d need to see 2^N behavior.

If you are wondering why this matters, let’s try a mathematical explanation.  These equations define the “growth characteristics” of certain types of models.

N^2 (N Squared) tends to get you numbers like:

1, 4, 9, 16, 25, 36, 49, 64, 81, 100

Pretty good.  1 to 100 in just 10 steps.

2^N (2 to the N) tends to get you numbers like:

2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256, 512, 1024

1024 in just 10 steps.  Much more powerful growth, and the difference gets more and more staggering as the model grows.

This is why, by the way, compound interest is your friend.  Exponential growth is your savings doubling regularly, over some period of time.

Of course, this article has me thinking… Metcalfe’s Law is about computer networks.  But why wouldn’t computer networks actually show exponential growth?  After all, I can belong to multiple networks – my ISP’s network, my home LAN, my workplace LAN (VPN)… is there some element of this growth in the networking business as well?  Is that why wireless networking has been so powerful?  The overlay of these “networking groups”?

There’s something interesting here… but it’s just too late tonight for me to figure it out…

Tivo Series 3 to 1 TB Hack

Nice coverage on Engadget of a hack to take the new, high-definition Tivo Series 3 to 1 Terabyte (1 TB).

Engadget Article

This gets your Tivo Series 3 up to 131 hours of high definition programming, which is not bad, but doesn’t quite match the 170 hours I enjoy on my DirecTV Tivo today (I have an upgraded box).

I have to say, having over 100 hours of storage definitely changes the way you use your Tivo. When we had 30 hours, my wife and I would rarely record movies, since 30 hours covered just about 2 weeks of average recording. Dual tuners made it worse, because you could actually now catch competing shows.

With 170 hours, we’ve never run out of room, and anytime we want to catch a movie we missed in the theater, we record it off one of the cable movie channels.

We’re one of the last hold outs who have not upgraded to HD yet. We’ve largely been waiting on a solution to two large problems in this area:

1) A decent, HD Tivo solution with 100+ hours and that doesn’t break the bank.
2) A solution to the fact that a new TV & setup means replacing our cherry entertainment center (purchased in 2001).

As usual, I have more faith in technology to solve problem (1) than problem (2).

Aleksey Vayner on Ivy League Blog

I got forwarded this saga last week from my brother, a recent MBA. Unbelievable.

The coverage on Ivy League Blog is the best.

It’s unbelievable how the blogosphere can grant a relatively unknown person an amazing amount of notoriety and fame – all for despicable acts that are collectively researched and aggregated through community effort. It would make sense if Aleksey was a congressman or senator… but this is just a guy who lies about everything.

Then again, maybe in previous decades it is people like Aleksey who would in fact go on to become congressman and senators.

Who knows, but I haven’t seen this much email on an MBA since that banker had his email about partying in the Philippines circulated to 100 million of his closest friends a few years ago.

Code Monkey Video on YouTube

Found this today on Chad Alderson‘s blog. It’s not worth $1.65 Billion, but it’s definitely worth something.


Jonathan Coulton releases his songs under the Creative Commons license, allowing third parties (like Michael Booth) the ability to create things like these videos with them. These videos themselves are spliced together from World of Warcraft.

Lyrics are available here.

Some key lines:

Code Monkey think maybe manager want to write god damned login page himself
Code Monkey not say it out loud
Code Monkey not crazy, just proud

Code Monkey like Fritos
Code Monkey like Tab and Mountain Dew
Code Monkey very simple man
With big warm fuzzy secret heart:
Code Monkey like you

Very funny, and very cool.

Seema Shah has a Blahg

One of the fun things about having a blog is that you start discovering that many of your friends have blogs.  It’s interesting because somehow, before you start blogging, you are relatively unaware of these blogs.

I find that I learn so much from friend’s blogs, even when they are infrequently updated and silly.

Well, today I learned that Seema Shah, a fellow product manager at eBay, has a blog.  So much fun to read through these posts!

Seema is one of the rockstar product managers on next-generation search for eBay.  She was an invaluable contributor to the initial launch of eBay Express, and more importantly, a person who really champions innovation and actively blends customer insight with technical insight.

You might not get this all from reading her blog, however, which is why I’m calling it out here…

Autopilot 401(k) Plans & Psychological Inertia

There is a very nice write-up today on Vanguard’s RSS Feed from John Brennan, Chairman of Vanguard Group.

Vanguard − Chairman’s Corner: A look at the year’s sleeper hit

This is a good overview of some fairly significant changes Congress made this year to the retirement and college savings vehicles available to most Americans.

I want to take a moment to note what is likely the biggest enhancement to the entire “defined contribution” style of retirement plans: the autopilot 401(k).

Let me preface this by saying that, by nature, I am a very strong advocate for self-directed savings vehicles. However, in recent years it has become apparent to me how much “defined benefit” plans, like traditional pension plans, provided for individuals.

In my opinion, more than anything, they provided an automatic way for people to “save” for their retirement, without really knowing they were saving. To participate in a pension, people do not need to understand compounded interest, inflation, “their number”, or diversification between different types of assets.

As we move to a society with more individual responsibility and accountability, we’re learning a lot about the realities of how human beings relate to concepts like long term investment. In fact, there is almost a cottage industry now just advising people on common mistakes people make with their 401ks.

One of the things we have learned is that psychological inertia is a powerful force. The National Bureau of Economic Research does a good job explaining that employees typically follow the path of least resistence.

In a normal 401k plan, a new employee starts at the company, and by default is not enrolled in the plan. They get a lot of material, and they put it aside, planning on “seriously looking at it” sometime in the future.

Years go by, and they are still not enrolled. From a long term saving perspective, with compounding, this is a disaster for their long-term financial well-being.

Now, some of this has to do with the Paradox of Choice. Companies, well intentioned, give employees too many options, too much to analyze. It leads to a state of paralysis.

But, what the National Bureau outlines is that for 401k plans, the biggest issue is psychological inertia. People never enroll, the never increase their contributions with raises, and they end up woefully behind in their saving. Amazingly, this inertia is so powerful, it even overwhelms free money! That’s right, employee matching funds. A free lunch. Enrollment still lags, even with free money, sometimes measured in thousands of dollars, left on the table.

Enter the automatic 401(k).

In this case, the employer automatically enrolls new employees in the 401(k) program when they start. They even automatically increase the contribution percentage every year.

The effect is breathtaking in terms of the financial well-being of the employees. In this case, inertia works for the employee, not against.

Now, in our litigious society, companies had to previously be afraid of automatic 401(k)s – what if the NASDAQ crashes, and employees sue for “automatically” being enrolled.

The Pension Protection Act of 2006 resolves this dilemma, by defining clearly what the US Government considers an acceptable automatic 401(k) program.

The reason I get excited about legislation like this is that it represents not only a growing understanding of how people are irrational with money, but also it represents our progress at designing legislation around the ways that human beings are predictably irrational with money.

People are still in control of their own savings, their own future. But with this minor modification, by default, people are put on the right track.

The US Congress may not have done everything right in 2006, but this is an improvement that is worth noting.

Austin, TX: America’s Most Impatient City

This is a fun one, reported in Forbes today:

Column: Marketing, Games, Speedy Towns – Forbes.com

This data is courtesy of eBay Express, so of course, regular readers know my bias as a unwavering member of the eBay Express team.

I had the pleasure of living and working in Austin, TX during the summer of 1995. One of my good friends had been tapped, as part of “Trilogy University 1995” (the first) to help build a Human-Computer Interaction group at Trilogy Software. As an intern, between my Bachelors & Masters degrees in Computer Science, I was one of the lucky inaugural members.

I remember a lot of fun things about that summer:

  • The amazing energy and camaraderie of the small (but growing) Trilogy team
  • Fun nights out at the Copper Tank, 4th Street, and who knows what else
  • The fun of spending a summer living in an apartment complex with a large number of other fun, energetic and brilliant software engineers from Stanford, Carnegie-Mellon, and MIT.

The energy of the summer was contagious in the tech industry. SGI was hiring 5000 engineers. Netscape went public. Windows 95 was about to release. Yahoo was a real, growing entity. Amazon vs. Barnes & Noble was a real debate. I even remember a fun, passionate argument with CEO Joe Liemandt about the future of Apple Computer (in all fairness, Joe was one of those burned PowerBook 5300 series users…)

The collection of talent that Trilogy attracted between 1993 and 1998 is a really impressive in retrospect. Trilogy was a case study on the power of human capital in shaping a company. Joe really had a vision of the type of people, and the type of company he wanted to build. It permeated who he recruited, how he recruited, and what type of experiences he tried to provide for new hires at the company. It permeated the culture, the compensation, and the way the company designed and built product.

That generation of employees is dispersed now, but the amount of raw horsepower of that talent pool was amazing.

Austin, TX is a great city, and was a lot of fun. Although I am a native to the Bay Area in California, I found the city easy to love.

Hard to believe it was 11 years ago already.

Mark Cuban loves YouTube

From one of the blogs I read, one of the better dialogs about the Mark Cuban comments on YouTube and its copyright liability.

Don Dodge on The Next Big Thing: Mark Cuban loves YouTube

I find the comments to this post almost more interesting than the blog post itself.

To me, the issue of all the major intellectual property legal concepts: copyright, trademark, and patent face considerable challenges from the rapid advance in technology.  It’s only getting murkier.

This is one of the situations that you wish Congress would get involved in to make things clear without years of legal maneuvers, but of course, the last time they tried that we got the DMCA.

Mark has a strong point here about the significant amount of infringing content that YouTube has on its site.  It probably would not be hard to evaluate, based on community rank and views, which “type” of content is driving most of YouTube’s traffic – clean or dirty.  Since any homemade video with a song snippet or video snippet from professional sources is dirty, I’m guessing that this type of analysis would not bode well for an argument that YouTube is primarily for clean content.

At the same time, YouTube is not Napster, and YouTube is not Betamax.  It’s something new, and as usual, it will likely be 2010 before our legal system sorts it out.  In the meantime, something even more innovative and challenging to traditional definitions of intellectual property will come into existence…

Just wait until we get that Star Trek replicator technology going…