The Father of Mobile Computing Is Not Impressed (fastcompany.com) 144
harrymcc writes: Starting in the late 1960s, Alan Kay envisioned a powerful portable computer that would be a revolutionary learning device, then built some of the necessary tech at Xerox PARC and elsewhere. Today, his ideas are all around us -- but Kay is distinctly unimpressed with the iPhone, iPad, and other modern devices, which he says encourage passivity rather than creativity. Brian Merchant talked to the computing pioneer for a wide-ranging interview on FastCompany. An excerpt from the interview: Google has been around for a long time now. I bitched at [Google] for years: Why the fuck can't we type in a question and get a decent answer? There's all sorts of pre-processing you can do with the computing we have now to put a lot more semantics in there, and look at the shit you're retrieving. And by the way, the stuff that isn't popular -- which is probably what most people need to read, if the thing even knew what the question is -- is buried [in Google search results], and most people won't go past a couple of results or clicks.
True for any tool (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
True enough, but the pen doesn't send a copy of your grocery list and location back to Apple/Google, and then present you with an offer for slightly less expensive carrots if you join Amazon Prime during your next visit to Whole Foods.
Re: (Score:3)
True enough, but the pen doesn't send a copy of your grocery list and location back to Apple/Google, and then present you with an offer for slightly less expensive carrots if you join Amazon Prime during your next visit to Whole Foods.
You gotta admit, it would be a lot cooler if it did!
Re: (Score:1)
Re:True for any tool (Score:4, Insightful)
But they don't get used to read other people's grocery lists.
Re: (Score:2)
Back when only 1% of the population was literate, pens/quills were used for proper 'creative purposes'.
Once reading and writing became widespread it was just used to 'encourage passivity rather than creativity.'
Re: (Score:3)
Back when only 1% of the population was literate, pens/quills were used for proper 'creative purposes'.
Or maybe it just seems that way because they kept the creative stuff, and tossed the grocery lists in the trash.
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody ever fapped to ASCII/8 bit porn back when computers were used for 'creative' purposes. /sarc
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody ever fapped to ASCII/8 bit porn
Are you sure about that?
Re: (Score:2)
Quaint.
Well but there's a big difference (Score:2)
Pens and quills can still be used to write books... however mobile computers have deliberately been dumbed down to only be ad displaying devices making some noise every couple of seconds.
I mean he has seen systems like this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
That system, including software and operating system was far simpler than Android/iOS/whatever we have today, yet it's able to provide you with an intuitive and powerful user interface. I mean in the video you see someone drawing a program without a keybo
Don't blame the tech ... (Score:3, Insightful)
See, the problem isn't the technology, it's the humans.
As much as visionaries come up with things they think will lead to a better world, the reality is cat videos, narcissism, and porn are what people really want. The internet is more about teenagers taking selfies these days than it is about improving the human condition.
Unfortunately, you can't force people to do what you envisioned would be their potential.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Using the excerpt given regarding uselessness of results. Google does not use tech to provide good answers because they don't care about providing good answers. Instead they use the tech to maximize advertising revenue. It costs money to provide good results, so that cuts into revenue. Some sites will pay money to show up higher in the results, so no way is Google going to give you a free but relevant link when it could show a useless link that they get money from.
Getting higher up in Google search results
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
I don't particularly like what Google's become, but I think you're being a bit too cynical here.
You probably never used the internet before google existed, or you'd appreciate just how damn good their search results are.
Try forcing yourself to use Bing(tm) exclusively for a week, that'll give you an idea of what using the internet was like circa 1995.
You could even use an android phone's google voice search, and then switch to Cortardna(tm) or Siri.
In any case there are options, but as you already know they
Re: (Score:2)
I've been on the internet since the 80s. I liked being able to search for "bacon patties" and only results have both words would appear, or "bacon patties -turkey" to make sure it filtered out results that had were talking about turkey bacon. I see LOTS of results from google that decide it does not need to use all of my search terms, just today I saw this, Google decided it would replace "firmware" with "software" in search results.
Re: (Score:3)
And some stuff is just really hard, like making sense of the meaning behind search queries and coming up with relevant results. Quite a bit of research has gone into this, and I've seen some promising results a while back. Not like "we type in a question and get a decent answer", but a system that asks the user to clarify his search and helps refine it. Still early days though.
He s
Re:Spoiler alert: most humans are not very creativ (Score:4, Interesting)
Get off my lawn! (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
The product is not meeting customer demand (after all, Kay is a customer, and his demands aren't being met).
No. He's not the customer. Google is an advertising company. Their product is eyeballs, not search results. over 90% of their revenue comes from advertising.
"If you're not paying for the service, you are not the customer, you are the product."
Re: (Score:2)
Nexus and Pixel users pay Google for hardware. Are they also "the product"?
Re: (Score:2)
As long as over 90% of Google's revenue comes from advertising, yeah, they are.
You're not wrong. You're also not correct. (Score:1)
You have to attract those eyeballs, pal. The OP's point still stands.
Re: (Score:2)
Since Google is one of the wealthiest companies in the world, and are not, as OP noted, meeting most people's demands, I'd say OP's point is incorrect. And so are you.
They have to attract eyeballs, but they don't have to do so by providing precisely what everyone wants. Or even do so honestly. They just have to attract eyeballs.
Re: (Score:2)
"Google, how many people are currently on my lawn?"
Re: (Score:3)
And yet, the search results we got back in 1999 seem to have been better than the results we get today. Plus you had better control over the search (ie, a way to exclude results containing certain keywords).
Re: Get off my lawn! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Did the noise floor go up since then, or the signal strength go down?
Re: (Score:3)
His problem is that he's brilliant.
We went from everything completely sucks to now some things don't suck, and a few of them are really good. And that works out good for regular people -- they like their phone, they text people, glance at email, use maps, get an Uber, make it somewhere on time, and watch a video. It's nice.
But Kay still sees all the problems and imagines a better world that appeals to him. But he's not like the regular people. So a world that appeals to Kay isn't as well suited to regul
Shit is Stupid Now (Score:2)
Stuff has been dumbed down for the masses. Compare any "music streaming service app" to WinAmp from 1998 - none of them even have 1/4 of the features of WinAmp 2.8/2.9. Do any of them even let you actually rate songs? Or just the mindless Thumb.
Re: (Score:2)
I used winamp back then, and gave up on it.
I just wanted to have something playing in the background in the garage while I worked on my lathe or an engine or something. That friggin' program practically required a college education just to play a song.
That's the thing with the "masses". They don't care about what you (or Kay) care about. Their minds are focused on different issues that are just as important to them as an infinitely configurable music player is to you. The stupid thumb is actually more t
Re: (Score:2)
He's complaining about the technology, but it is the people using it that make companies build it that way. They don't want to put any thought into the process, they just want to put in a minimal amount of info and get a reasonable answer.
30 years ago, if you wanted to operate a computer, you either put in the effort to learn how to do it yourself (assuming you held the intelligence and technical proficiency to do so), or you found some "geek" who was proficient enough to operate one.
Today, every idiot wants to operate a computer. Thus, manufacturers had to dumb down every UI to make it idiot-proof in order to capitalize on that demand. App stores are a perfect example of idiot-proofing software installations.
Regarding his complaints about
Re: (Score:2)
No, lots of people don't want to operate a computer. Just like lots of people don't want to drive.
It's better to say "Lots of people are forced to operate a computer". The computer is required in order to get their job done - it may be to download manuals, order parts, send invoice
Re: (Score:2)
Regarding his complaints about computers not allowing for creativity, I disagree. Social media has done more to advance mass narcissism than anything else in our history. Never before have we been more entertained by creative idiots online.
That's hardly what he has in mind. [mprove.de]
Re: (Score:1)
Nope. (Score:5, Interesting)
Unconvinced. I don't want computers to answer my questions. I want them to help me answer my own. An answer isn't the mere transfer of data, it's the alteration of my mind into a different state. That can't happen properly if the basis for the transformation exists only in some other system.
It's not a technical reason (Score:5, Interesting)
Google has been around for a long time now. I bitched at [Google] for years: Why the fuck can't we type in a question and get a decent answer? There's all sorts of pre-processing you can do with the computing we have now to put a lot more semantics in there, and look at the shit you're retrieving.
Because Google already gets into trouble when it prefers its own services or when it editorializes. Alan Kay should note that when one asks Google for what are essentially undisputed facts one often gets Google-formatted answers. Search for famous persons and one usually get the page formatted with an excerpt from their biography, date of birth, place of birth or upbringing, some basic information on what brought the person to prominence, etc. Generally these things are not disputed, so there's no real risk in presenting them in this fashion.
Now, if Google starts answering controversial questions, even correctly, they may face some real backlash that they wish to avoid from people that can't accept the answer. It's even worse if there is some legitimate dispute in a discussion, and appearing to side with one answer or another when something isn't settled can influence the discussion in ways that are not appropriate.
If you want straight answers, look at Wolfram Alpha.
Re:It's not a technical reason (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Try entering the following into Wolfram, Google, and Duck Duck Go: who is the greatest artist of the 1900's
Perhaps not all that controversial of a topic, but arguably, not one with a clear cut answer. Google come close to giving you an answer, Duck points you to a few sites with more information, and Wolfram can't parse the question.
Re: (Score:2)
That's because the question is not parseable until you define what "best" is. Answers are easy. Asking the right question is what's hard.
Re: (Score:2)
If you want straight answers, look at Wolfram Alpha.
I don't accept this answer. We have https://www.wolframalpha.com/ [wolframalpha.com] [wolframalpha.com]
I don't understand your answer. Are you a bot from either Google or from Wolfram Alpha?
Re:It's not a technical reason (Score:4, Insightful)
Google search results always favor sites selling something over sites offering information. That's okay, but I'd like to see Google add a tab at the top of the search results (where the All, Shopping, Videos, Images... tabs are) to exclude all sites selling the object of the search.
I doubt this'll happen, though, as the companies that represent Google's revenue stream wouldn't stand for it.
Re: (Score:2)
Yesterday, I had this conversation with Google Assistant before I went outside to play frisbee: :-(
Me: "OK Google, what is the weather?"
GA: "The current temperature is 79 degrees Fahrenheit and..."
Me: "OK Google, what is the wind?"
GA: "The perceptible natural movement of the air, especially in the form of a current of air blowing..."
Me:
Me: "OK Google, is it windy today?"
GA: "The wind is coming from the southwest at 4 miles per hour."
Complaining is easier than implementing (Score:3, Interesting)
If he knows how to build a better search engine than Google, then form a company and kick Google's ass. Or, go to work for Bing. Wasn't question answering supposed to be wolframalpha's forte?
AI still lacks what we usually call "common sense" and screws up a lot of things because of that. The tech isn't there yet.
Re: (Score:2)
If he knows how to build a better search engine than Google, then form a company and kick Google's ass.
He would have to duplicate Google's index, which would cost $Bs, which he doesn't have. The days when an upstart can enter the search business may be over.
Or, go to work for Bing.
Microsoft may hire him, but they aren't going to put him in charge of strategic decision making.
Wasn't question answering supposed to be wolframalpha's forte?
Alpha sucks because it has a shallow index.
Re: (Score:1)
He could start by focusing on a topic where his team only has to collect content on a particular subject matter. They could even use Google to get content leads. Focus on something historical or static (at first) to avoid having a moving target, like ancient history, Shakespeare, math, etc. When the concept is proven, he can get more resources/investors.
Re: (Score:2)
you sound bitter, sweet tits
Why shouldn't he be bitter? When we were young, we were promised flying cars and jet packs. We were told we would have moon bases in the 1970s, and by 2000 colonists would be heading for Europa. Yet decades later, here we are, still washing the dishes with no robotic maid in sight.
Alan Kay is 77 years old, and in the twilight of his life. He has worked hard, paid his taxes, and followed the rules. Yet not only does he have no flying car, he can't even get a proper answer to a fricken query!!! Damn rig
Get a decent answer? From Google?? (Score:2)
Please, Google is an advertising agent, not the answer man.
SmallTalk (Score:2)
I would be ready to pay a nice price if there was SmallTalk for Android (not RedLine, based on Java, that has no 'images'), a truly one where you can suspend the VM and restart where you where.
But alas, I don't have the time to compile a Skeak or Pharo VM and figure all the pitfals.
Re: (Score:2)
It's "Smalltalk".
Re: (Score:2)
Never noticed ... and I doubt I will remember the next time I type SmallTalk, oops. :D
But thanks
Inventor's remorse (Score:4, Interesting)
Exceptional individuals are rare by their very nature, and it seems likely they're prone to misunderstanding the minds and motivation of the regular folk.
Still, the technology is there for someone who wishes to use it to access the collected knowledge of mankind, so the misuse by the many doesn't completely negate the original intent.
The difference is stark (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
How good Hypercard was, is debatable but no argument it's a crime that more isn't done to make the devices platforms for the users.
Re:The difference is stark (Score:4, Informative)
Well, get a Mac and program on iOS. Since iOS9 (or 8?) Apple has allowed users to deploy their code to personally owned iOS devices without paying $99 a year, and without Apple's approval.
In fact, there's a small underground open-source community of people who use this to put "unapproved" apps on their devices. Stuff Apple will never let in the store, yet you can deploy it to your devices and use it. And yes, it has to be open-source. Apple actually frowns on people using this method to distribute binaries.
Re: (Score:1)
Who the fuck cares that you have a personal problem with certain words that are used for emphasis. You're a child if you find that special words should be excluded from use.
F bombs correlated with personal attacks (Score:2)
Perhaps readers discriminate against writers who use "fuck" because of the high overall correlation between forms of that word and fallacious arguments, particularly those that use personal attacks or other appeals to emotion. Someone who reads Cracked, for example, might not have this bias because though its articles contain the occasional F-bomb, they are on the whole well reasoned.
Fallacies are heuristics (Score:2)
Fallacy does not determine truth or falsity of an argument; to claim it does so is the fallacy fallacy [yourlogicalfallacyis.com]. But it does help people identify which arguments to consider verifying or falsifying and which to ignore. Otherwise, if people attempted to verify or falsify all arguments, they would have little or no time to do anything else. Some fallacies make better heuristics than others.
Re: (Score:2)
If it's used in every paragraph, then you ignore that person. Some poeple will drop the f-bomb when the traffic light turns red Some people use the f-bomb as their one and only adjective. The expletive is no longer shocking. But if I hear my mother use an expletive it is shocking enough that I pay attention. Where Alan Kay fits into this range is unknown, but I suspect he doesn't use the word that often in public, so I read that line as showing extreme dissatisfaction and not just mild annoyance.
Re: (Score:2)
Classic "Shoot the messenger, ignore the message" fallacy.
Grow the fuck up.
Re: (Score:2)
You can spend almost the same money on an android phone. Granting they will have extra bells and whistles like a thermal camera or a 1000fps camera.
Development is Ad oriented (Score:1)
Funny how it works very well when you need to buy something, be it a gadget, movies ticket or anything at all.
Of course this is not coincidence.
tools make the user more STUPID (Score:2)
How many of y'all ever sit by somebody chanting/cussing at their phone and could literally boot a computer pull up %browser% TYPE the question and have a correct and complete answer before the person even got close to getting an answer??
trust me unless you speak Mideastern Broadcaster or British Received you would have to be in a quiet room for any VR system to understand you if you don't know how to ask the question.
Whiny, high handed git whines (Score:2)
That people use the devices they paid for in the ways they want to , instead of how he tells them to.
It's all for our own good, you know. Daddy knows what's best for everyone.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Which is to say, he thinks that he, and only he, is the final arbiter of how people should use their own property, regardless of how they want to use it.
Like I said.
Glad you agree.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That people use the devices they paid for how Apple tells them to, instead of how they want to
FTFY. :-p
But Google Does This (Score:2)
It's not perfect, but Google does answer your questions now. For example, if I type into Google "what is the landspeed record?" I get the following result in a caption box above the website search results:
"The official land-speed record (measured over one mile) is 1,227.985 km/h (763.035 mi/h) (Mach 1.020), set by Andy Green (UK) on 15 October 1997 in the Black Rock Desert, Nevada, USA, in Thrust SSC."
Seems like a pretty good answer to me.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Of course!!! (Score:2)
Alan probably wants to use the lidar, cameras, and 6-axis motion sensor to autonomously stitch together accurate 3-d models for insertion into virtual environments or hit "print" and it duplicates a real objec
undo (Score:2)
The article disappoints because the interviewer doesn't force Kay to explain what he thinks Engelbart got right that HTML didn't.
But it did have a few gems along the way.
addendum (Score:3)
The reason I wanted Kay to give an explicit answer about what Engelbart got right that HTML didn't is that I'm wary about these judgements in hindsight.
I was reading Rob Pike this morning.
Go at Google: Language Design in the Service of Software Engineering [golang.org] — 2012
Re: (Score:2)
I fully agree (Score:2)
In particular the bad functionality of Google is utterly pathetic. You often have to comb through a lot of search results until you find something meaningful. Add to that that they basically killed the competition and Google is responsible for a massive dumbing-down. By now they are holding people back as badly as Microsoft.
So, what is it with the stupid pattern search? The lack of a built-in programming or scripting language that easily lets you configure what your phone does or does not do? The lack of UI
Passivity (Score:2)
In other words, no keyboard. You just sit and consume our content. If you have anything to say, keep it to 144 characters that you can compose with two thumbs.
Misdirected rage (Score:5, Insightful)
Sounds like he's complaining more about human nature than anything to do with mobile computing or google.
Just like every other technology (Score:5, Insightful)
And the father of TV thought it would be used for education and to bring symphonies to the masses.
Instead, we have exposed the dregs of the human soul.
If he'd only waited (Score:2)
He spoke prematurely.
This interview happened before Apple unveiled their talking poop emoji.
Millions of people are about to get really creative.
There's an even BIGGER thing to bitch about w/Goog (Score:2)
Fuck "natural language", I just want them to give us back the search primitive for +"must contain this literal text". Or complex boolean queries that rigorously observe parentheses, double-quotes, and proximity.
I wrote an app a few years ago that ran a query, then automatically fetched every search result & bruteforce-searched through them via regex for the real results, but Google's server detected something amiss & started throwing captcha challenges at it.
Re: (Score:1)
You mean he'd have been a messiah?
Re: (Score:2)