An oral history of the many ways technology is changing the way we buy, sell, play, communicate...and live.

Search through these snippets using the tags below.

Rule 1: “The war room and the meetings are for solving problems. There are plenty of other venues where people devote their creative energies to shifting blame.”

Rule 2: “The ones who should be doing the talking are the people who know the most about an issue, not the ones with the highest rank. If anyone finds themselves sitting passively while managers and executives talk over them with less accurate information, we have gone off the rails, and I would like to know about it.” (Explained Dickerson later: “If you can get the managers out of the way, the engineers will want to solve things.”)

Rule 3: “We need to stay focused on the most urgent issues, like things that will hurt us in the next 24—48 hours.”

The stand-up culture—identify problem, solve problem, try again—was typical of the rescue squad’s ethic.

Obama’s Trauma Team: Inside the Nightmare Launch of HealthCare.Gov — Printout — TIME (via interestingsnippets)

(via interestingsnippets)

3 notes

Silicon Valley has become one of the most ageist places in America. Tech luminaries who otherwise pride themselves on their dedication to meritocracy don’t think twice about deriding the not-actually-old

Silicon’s Valley’s Brutal Ageism | New Republic (via interestingsnippets)

(via interestingsnippets)

5 notes

(via Understanding the Internet of Things: Towards a Smart Planet)

(via Understanding the Internet of Things: Towards a Smart Planet)

0 notes

Mr. Zuckerberg clearly has an impeccable business sense for not only what’s next, but also what’s next right now. He acquired Instagram at the exact right time, when the cameras in smartphones were just good enough, and photo filters were making people feel more confident about sharing images. He bought WhatsApp when people wanted to text message and chat with friends and family without the fear of added charges from a phone provider. He’s also picked up dozens of smaller start-ups that were created at just the right time.

But I’m not convinced that virtual reality is ready for right now. I’m not even convinced that it’s ready for five years from now.

1 note

All of Us (by Internet.org)

0 notes

(via https://twitter.com/MKBHD/status/449541635605819393/photo/1)

(via https://twitter.com/MKBHD/status/449541635605819393/photo/1)

1 note

Google’s vision of the future involves overlaying the real world seen through its specs with information from its search engine and other services. Facebook’s is of people totally immersing themselves in virtual worlds where they will be able do everything from taking virtual classes together to communicating with distant friends as if they were standing in the same room. The two firms may not see exactly eye-to-eye on how this will all play out, but neither can be accused of being shortsighted.

Facebook buys Oculus VR: Game of goggles | The Economist

0 notes

The real-time Billboard chart will “create the new industry standard for tracking and surfacing the conversation around music as it happens,” said Twitter in a released statement.

The two companies have also signed a Twitter Amplify partnership, the social media company’s complement to TV ads. This will help dispense the real-time chart, which will live on Billboard.com, beyond the website.

The charts will trace the most buzzed about tracks and those shared by artists in real-time and over longer periods.

(…)

The aim is to help organize the noise around music, the most talked about subject on Twitter by its 54 million monthly active users in the U.S. Twitter #Music app, which was pulled from the iTunes store last week, was more about discovering new music on Twitter. The chart and Twitter’s strategy going forward is to better leverage the over one billion tweets about music that were shot off in 2013.

Twitter’s First Step With New Music Strategy: Billboard Charts - Digits - WSJ

0 notes

(via The Rise of Anti-Capitalism - NYTimes.com)

(via The Rise of Anti-Capitalism - NYTimes.com)

0 notes

1 note

During the ‘apps versus HTML’ argument of a year to two ago, someone said that the issue is not what coding language you use but how you get an icon onto the user’s home screen and whether indeed they want your icon on their home screen. The conversation more or less crystallised around the position that apps are for the head of the tail and the web is for the rest. But Android Wear is not the web or an app. Neither is Google Now, and neither is the Healthbook I just described.

Now, suppose you hesitate outside a restaurant and look at your phone, and iBeacon has already activated a Yelp review card on your phone or watch, or Google Now has put a scraped review up, or Facebook tells you 10 of your friends liked it? Is that the web? Or apps? How do you do SEO for that? What’s the acquisition channel? Some of that might be HTML, but you’ll never see a URL.

It seems to me that the key question this year is that now that the platform war is over, and Apple and Google won, what happens on top of those platforms? How do Apple and Google but also a bunch of other companies drive interaction models forward? I’ve said quite often that on mobile the internet is in a pre-Pagerank phase, lacking the ‘one good’ discovery mechanism that the desktop web had, but it’s also in a pre-Netscape phase, lacking one interaction model in the way that the web dominated the desktop internet for the last 20 years. Of course that doesn’t mean there’ll be one, but right now everything is wide open.

This thought, incidentally, is one of the things that prompted this tweet.

Cards, code and wearables — Benedict Evans

0 notes

This shows the power of an open protocol like Bluetooth vs a proprietary protocol like Airplay. Airplay is a superior technology but it’s lack of ubiquity may mean that it doesn’t win the market in the end. We will see.

http://avc.com/2012/08/bluetooth-vs-airplay/

1 note

The era of Facebook is an anomaly. The idea of everybody going to one site is just weird. Give me one other part of history where everybody shows up to the same social space. Fragmentation is a more natural state of being. Is your social dynamic interest-driven or is it friendship-driven? Are you going there because there’s this place where other folks are really into anime, or is this the place you’re going because it’s where your pals from school are hanging out? That first [question] is a driving function.

There was this one teen girl I talked to, a total One Direction fan. Twitter was her One Direction space. What that meant was that her friends all knew about her Twitter account, but they weren’t into One Direction, so they weren’t on Twitter with her. But they all were on Instagram together because that was a fun place where they were sharing photos. And what she was sharing on Instagram was not about One Direction because that just wasn’t the place for it. Meanwhile, they were also doing crazy things on Tumblr, where they were part of a little maker community.

Whereas in the Facebook era, you have to balance all these audiences simultaneously. You’re saying, “Are you going to get angry with me because I posted about One Direction? Are you going to think I’m lame because I’m posting this maker stuff?” Where does this fit? And I think that’s a lot of the reason why when you start to fragment your audience, you start to think about what you’re looking for, you’ll go to different spaces, and it parallels what we do as adults. You go to different bars when you’re in the mood for different things. You see different people when you want to go listen to music or when you just want to have a quiet drink with a couple of friends.

The era of Facebook is an anomaly | The Verge

3 notes

(via Google)

(via Google)

1 note

If you asked people in 1989 what they needed to make their life better, it was unlikely that they would have said that a decentralized network of information nodes that are linked using hypertext.

If you asked people in 1989… | chris dixon’s blog

504 notes