RICH MINER: Hey, all.
Rich Miner, Google Ventures.
I'm just going to introduce David
because I've known him for, I think, pretty close to 20 years
or so.
I'm excited to have him here talking
about his book and other projects.
He's been a sort of innovator, entrepreneur in the Boston area
for-- well, since the early 90's and has a multitude of degrees,
including, I think most recently,
he was sort of both at MIT Media Lab
and also at Harvard [INAUDIBLE] and got a masters.
But he'll give you more of his background.
From my perspective, I think I first
started seeing David around-- taking
real notice around the time of Ambient-- welcome, come on in.
For me, he really caught my eye when
he was doing the work at Ambient Devices, which
was, I don't know, his second or third startup out of five
or six.
But his ability to combine beautiful objects
and information in the most unbelievably simplest
terms absolutely caught my imagination
and started to make me realize just how
you can cook down incredible amounts of information
into common, everyday objects that are around you.
And I'm interested in hearing what he has to tell us today
about his explorations in [INAUDIBLE] and that
and other things that he's been doing.
And so with that, I will give you David Rose.
DAVID ROSE: Thank you, Rich.
[APPLAUSE]
Thanks for having me this morning.
I brought you all posters.
There aren't enough books to give out to everybody.
But they're available on Amazon, or ask your manager.
They'll pay for them I've heard.
But Rick Borovoy just reminded me
that one of his objects, the nTAG conference badge,
which you wear, and it talks to other conference badges
and seeds the conversation with interesting things to say,
is one of the things on the periodic table
of enchanted objects.
So have one of these.
And the meat of the talk sort of covers some of what these are.
And so this is good reference for later too.
But there are more at the back of the room.
And for people that are back in the lodge living room,
could I ask you guys to come up?
It's more fun to have you be part of the mix.
So today, I'm going to try to convince you
that these black slabs, which are doing so well for Google,
may not be the future of how we interact
with the internet in five or 10 years.
And to tee up the conversation, I
want to show you a recent piece that came out in the "New York
Times" last week-- or I guess it was the week before now-- that
features my cute son.
[VIDEO PLAYBACK]
-Enchanted objects are ordinary things
that have the same functionality that they had before,
except now, they can talk.
They're connected.
These are ordinary things that have
extraordinary capabilities.
-When we're creating technology for the home,
really we want to make something that's
seamless and transparent, and as opposed to having
things sort of call out and draw your attention to it,
make it a more ambient experience.
-It will just continue to behave with those everyday objects
as we do in the world.
And we can remain focused on connectivity
between two people.
-What we're seeing now is this proliferation
of different devices that are moving out from the cellphone
and onto our bodies and into the world.
-So in the middle of our living room
is a coffee table that has Google Earth embedded
in the coffee table.
And I just found that having access
to this amazing, zoomable map completely
changes how often we talk about travel
and how often we talk about the world
and how often we look up places that are mentioned.
And it's nice to have this beautiful, large reference
object sitting in the middle of our living space.
Our devices can be a lot simpler.
And the interaction to them can be a lot simpler.
The internet-connected umbrella can just
be an umbrella that only shows whether it's going to rain.
You don't need to tap on an icon or do anything
that seems sort of artificial.
-We come from a time in which we need
to adapt to our homes, and not the other way around.
So what if our home could be a platform
that we personalize and we customize?
The key is how do we create this ecosystem, these technologies
that allow us to move from one experience
to the other in the most seamless, most magical way.
-Some people might think that a connected home is overwhelming,
that there'll be so much information in a connected home
that it's just a cacophonous environment,
and you wouldn't want to live there.
But I think about how we decorate our homes today.
We put photographs everywhere.
We put paintings up.
We put Post-It notes up.
There's a lot of decoration and adornment in the home.
And I think if enchanted objects can
be designed in the right way, we're
going to want hundreds of them around us.
-I think what we're going to see is a new Renaissance where
designers as well as computer scientists
are going to really make a really big impact in the type
of technology that we see in the home.
-The history of computers has mostly been about efficiency.
I think one of things that's changing
is that enchanted objects can be about adding motion
and add magic to the fabric of our everyday lives
and experiences.
[END VIDEO PLAYBACK]
DAVID ROSE: Isn't he cute?
AUDIENCE: What is with the watches?
DAVID ROSE: What's that?
AUDIENCE: You have two watches.
DAVID ROSE: Oh, one is called a Road-- what is it?
It's an identification band that shows your blood type
and that sort of thing.
Road ID, that's what's called.
Road ID.
So this can be interactive.
You can ask me questions.
I'm used to teaching, so if you're controlling the room,
I will intimidate you.
The first enchanted objects project that I worked on
was this project out of the Media Lab, probably in 1994.
And I had a company called Interactive Factory
at the time.
And we worked on the DVD part of the LEGO robotics Mindstorms.
The project was to take computation and sensors
and put it in LEGO bricks.
And I thought, even then, boy, if you
can reduce the size-- this was the size
of the brain of the thing.
But now, it could probably be done for about this size.
And I just thought, wow, if you look
at the trends in computation and in sensors,
and you can do it at the cost of embedding it
in plastic like this, it's going to change toys.
But it's also going to change everything and our interaction
with everything.
So just so you don't have to read the book,
here's the four parts.
The first part of the book is about-- I
try to draw a distinction between four very different
futures and try to draw sort of the brightest
line possible between what I call the terminal world, which
is sort of what people assume will be the future.
This was a Microsoft vision video you may have seen.
What's interesting to me about the vision that Microsoft
brings-- and to some extent, Google
has made other investments.
But the assumption is that there will be more screens
and they will have more gesture, but that our interaction
with them will be sort of the same as what we have today.
It will be a call and response interaction.
They will be waiting for us to do something to them.
And that requires a lot of our attention and demands-- I mean,
these are very seductive objects that we can fiddle with all day
long and be blue-faced as we walk down the road.
And in some ways, that's sort of the problem with these-- is
how much attention they demand.
And to me, there are market incentives
that keep this terminal world in place,
because there's a wonderful advertising
mechanism that loves pixels.
And so the more we can sort of project
and cover the world and our kitchens
and everything with pixels, the sort
of more of a built-in advertising model that is.
Now, the second future that I talk
about is to really, instead of locating technology
and these convergence devices, is
to locate technology on and in ourselves.
And this is the fantasy of superpowers.
The difference between Superman and Iron Man
is that anybody can wear one of these suits, right?
You don't have to be born with superpowers.
You can inherit them by putting on the suit.
And I think this is obviously transformational
if you're an amputee or getting a [INAUDIBLE] implant.
It does seem to be problematic as we
put these things on our faces.
And how many people have read "The Bubble Filter"?
It's a book about how the more that we have personalisation
technology and the more that we have
collaborative filtering technology,
the more we'll all have our own privatized view of media.
And so there will be no consensual news.
There will be no consensual view of what we see in the world.
And that's what I feel like is the biggest
problem with wearables like Glass
is what happened with audio in the '80s where we're
all sort of jamming on our own Walkman,
and you couldn't really talk to anybody on the bus
because they were all in their own audio space.
Now, if everybody's in their own visual space,
it will limit sociability in some ways.
So I talk about that problem.
Now, another very distinct place that you
might locate technology is not in and on yourself,
but outsourced.
So the outsource model is the social robot model.
And this has been the fantasy forever of human computer
interaction, right?
Wouldn't it be awesome if they just spoke our language
and gestured our gestures?
And if God made us in his image, or her image,
shouldn't we be making tech in our image?
This is-- of course, right?
Now, I think of this as sort of the Downton fantasy,
which is you have your people.
You've got somebody for everybody.
You've got the person who cooks for you,
who dresses you, who teaches you all embedded
in different agents, if you will.
And the more that these agents can look like us
and reflect our emotional states and have
their own emotional state, that will accelerate how much
we bond with them.
So this will be much more powerful than iPads,
because they'll have eyes, right?
And they'll be maybe beautiful.
And maybe they'll have what psychologists call neoteny,
which is the childlike characteristics of cats
and dogs and Japanese anime are really attractive to us.
And we immediately glom on to these big eyes and big head
proportions.
And they will accelerate how much we bond with them.
One of our colleagues at the Media Lab
has created this dieting robot that sits next to your fridge
in your kitchen and has you enter what you eat.
And it would be an iPad, except it's
sitting inside the Teletubby belly of Autumn, which
has these beautiful, big, giant blue eyes.
And so you feel like bonded with this thing.
And you feel more guilty the more [INAUDIBLE] you
have after 11:00.
And just last week, Cynthia's group announced this.
[VIDEO PLAYBACK]
-This is your house.
This is your car.
This is your toothbrush.
These are your things.
But these are the things that matter.
And somewhere in between is this guy.
Introducing Geebo, the world's first family robot.
Say Hi, Geebo.
-Hi, Geebo.
DAVID ROSE: How many people have seen this?
-Geebo helps everyone out throughout the day.
He's the world's best camera man.
By intelligently tracking the action around him,
he can independently take video and photos
so that you can put down your camera
and be a part of the scene.
-Geebo.
Take the picture.
[CAMERA SHUTTER]
-He's a hands-free helper.
You can talk to him, and he'll talk to you back.
So you don't have to skip a beat.
-Excuse me, Ann.
-Yes, Geebo.
-Melissa just sent a reminder that she's picking you up
in half an hour to go grocery shopping.
-Thanks, Geebo.
-He's an entertainer and educator.
Through interactive applications, Geebo can teach.
-Let me in, or else I'll--
-Huff.
-And I'll--
-Puff.
-And I'll blow your house in.
[END VIDEO PLAYBACK]
DAVID ROSE: So I guess I would argue that he's cute, right?
He's getting there, right?
And he is sort of a convergence device, right?
He reads to you.
He talks to your mail.
He orders pizza.
He does everything, which sort of is on the same path as her,
which leads us right into the uncanny valley of the more we
come closer to human-like characteristics,
the more we're creeped out by the technology we just made.
And it becomes this gollum or something else
that we don't want to spend time around
because it threatens our own humanity.
It threatens our own humaness the better we
are at making these things, which takes us
into "Blade Runner" and lots of other fictions
that have foretold of that uncanny valley problem.
So in the book, I argue a fourth future, which
is neither convergence nor on us nor personalitied,
is enchanted objects.
And these are things like-- I don't know.
My exemplar from the cover of the book
is the Ambient Umbrella, which was inspired by Frodo.
Who knows what Frodo did?
Todd?
TODD: [INAUDIBLE].
DAVID ROSE: Who knows what Frodo's sword,
what the capability was?
Adam?
ADAM: [INAUDIBLE].
DAVID ROSE: No, this one.
ADAM: Something with orcs.
DAVID ROSE: Orcs, right.
Orcs, right.
So Sting was a sword that was both sharp
and sort of the perfect size for Frodo.
But it also anticipated its own use, right?
It knew when orcs were nearby and it would warn you of that.
So it had a personal affordance.
It was a feed forward affordance, right?
It was like tool tips, like you'd
roll over-- it anticipates its use.
So the Ambient Umbrella does that with rain.
So the little LED is sprinkle because it
has a pager chip in the handle that gets data from AccuWeather
and signals when you're on your way out the door.
So this is a dialectic between a fictional story
and a real invention.
And I'm really interested in these dialectics
because it really answers the question of how
are we inspired to make what we make.
And the book goes through a series
of examples of these stories that
run in all of our bloodstreams about these different objects
or these different play patterns.
So I mean, one of those from Grimm
is to look at the surface of a mirror,
and say, well, it's already a narcissistic surface.
But you could make it even more narcissistic
if it has even more capabilities,
like this project.
[VIDEO PLAYBACK]
DAVID ROSE: So this shows her recent self,
the last thing she tried on.
So she can do sort of a compare and contrast at Nordstrom's.
It also can slow down the video so you
can see your ass as you spin.
So another enchanted object, which
is both a normal thing that works as a thing
but then has this imbued extra intelligence,
is this Anoto pen.
Has anybody tried an Anoto yet?
So it's a pen.
And it writes on anything, just has ink.
But it also has a microphone inside.
And it will record the lecture.
And then if you write on special paper,
it has a camera that looks at the dot
pattern of the special paper.
So it will record every gesture.
And the sort of magical thing is that it associates the lecture
with the gesture.
So if you want to get back to the point in the lecture
where it was interesting or confusing,
you just tap your notes there and it
starts playing the audio right there,
which is sort of cool, right?
But then it's also a pen, right?
It doesn't have to be this bizarre other thing.
It can sort of start and end with being itself.
Or these trash cans, which you all
know around Cambridge, which are both trash cans physically.
But then also, they compact the trash.
And then they only tell the trash truck
to come when they're full, which reduces
a lot of high cost labor waste.
So the poster you have in your hand
goes through these six aspirations
that we've had that are revealed through fairy tales and stories
and pop culture that we've had forever and sort of
tries to line up both things we might imagine
and also real things that have been
built in the Internet of Things according to this structure.
Any questions so far?
Yeah?
AUDIENCE: One interesting thing with mobile devices
is someone recently published a picture internally that said, I
took the Android interface and I took away all the anachronisms.
And what he did was he took the wall clock
and replaced it with a picture of a phone.
And he took a book and replaced it with a picture of a phone.
He took the headphones and replaced it
with a picture of a phone.
All these objects that were designed
for a particular sensory motor way of getting information
were replaced, because now we don't use that thing.
We use our phone for that.
And so the set of idioms that you
could refer to to guide people's expectations of what's
going to happen are actually shrinking.
DAVID ROSE: Absolutely.
AUDIENCE: We had this [INAUDIBLE].
We launched a newstand product.
And there's supposed to be a stylized picture
of a rolled-up newspaper.
But a lot of people don't know what a rolled-up newspaper
is because that's a way of getting information
that's just not useful anymore.
How do we add idioms back so that there
is a space of expectations rather than
just tracking all the time.
DAVID ROSE: Right, like after skeuomorphism goes away,
and you don't have any of these reference icon.
AUDIENCE: [INAUDIBLE].
DAVID ROSE: Yeah, right.
Well, in some ways, I'm railing against the putting everything
in your phone and sort of arguing
that if you spread information and services thinly
throughout your environment, that'll
be a more naturalistic interface.
AUDIENCE: Do you that there is a way to actually still create
richness though and a learning thing, like there's actually
something still to teach your kids.
It's not just that they come with all their expectations.
What does that light on your umbrella mean,
might still be a question that needs an answer--
DAVID ROSE: Not really.
I mean, the light on the umbrella
is sort of-- what I like about that example
is you don't really have to ask the question of, well,
which app are you in right now?
And which mode are you in?
It's modeless.
And so it just does its thing.
And it does it in the perfect decisional moments
of when you're passing it.
And so why tell you about the weather
on the news or any other time?
Don't put the weather in the mirror,
because what are you going to do about it when you're dressing?
Put it right in the moment where you need the information.
AUDIENCE: Is there enough information though,
in that umbrella cap?
It's very simple, right?
DAVID ROSE: Right.
AUDIENCE: What if it's going be high wind
hurricane versus drizzle?
One would call for the umbrella.
The other one wouldn't.
DAVID ROSE: Right.
Well, I do think you can think about sort
of the design of information as this pyramid where
at the very highest level, you have to answer the question of,
is it worth my attention?
Even as a manager, you're sort of like,
what's worth my attention now?
And then once you answer that question,
then you can get more details about well,
why is it worth my attention?
And tell me more.
But I think what's mostly missing from interfaces
is just answering that very high-level, most-summarized
question of where should I be allocating my attention.
Because just think about-- remember voice mail systems
when you had to go check and see if you had any voicemail,
and it took time to even just answer that question,
much less the question of, are any of them critical right now?
So that's that.
Let me offer some more examples.
And these are both really good questions.
And I don't want a short shrift them.
But let me-- inspired by "Dorthy and The Wizard of Oz"
and the crystal balls and sort of the ability for crystal
balls through fiction to show not only information quickly
but also to foretell the future, in 2001,
I invented this ambient orb device
which would show anything you cared to track.
So it really didn't have the same affordances
of the umbrella, right?
You didn't know what it was tracking.
It might be tracking weather.
It might be tracking pollen counts.
You go to a website and set it.
You may be tracking whether it's too windy or too calm
to sail your boats, wherever your boat is,
or the first derivative of barometric pressure,
or how your garden's not growing or--
But all of those were information
that could packed into one pixel.
Because you could sort of one-dimensionalize
the information and be able to really see it out
of the corner of your eye.
And the magic of that device was just how little attention
it required.
It didn't ever feel like you were overwhelmed
with information around the house.
And the company today, Ambient Devices,
is doing this product, which is the Energy Joule, which
is being sold into power companies
to try to help people understand how much energy they're
consuming in the house and what the price of energy is.
And as the price of energy changes in more dynamic energy
priced markets, that helps reduce brownouts and reduce
new plant construction and spinning up
dirty diesel plants and all kinds of other goodness.
And this has two levels of reading-- sort of back
to your question, Keith-- which is it both shows you,
at a glance, what the status is.
And then you pick it and it shows
you the details of how many cents
you're paying for mid-peak power right now
and how much the-- so it sort of is
a drill-down device in itself, although I think it
would be more elegant to just make it an NFC or Bluetooth LE
sort of thing so that you just tap your phone on it,
and then it gives you the [INAUDIBLE] information
on your phone rather than having to have a screen on it.
So for telepathy, one of my favorite examples
is this issue of understanding where
your family is and their state, or the state of your team,
like who's where and who's working on what.
People have made maps that allow you
to track the status of your family
on a map, which always feels completely intrusive.
And even if you're not having an affair
and you love them, even then, you really
don't to be tracked on a map.
So the Weasley Clock is sort of cool,
because it just shows you the status of people.
It doesn't show you exactly where
mortal terror is-- mortal peril.
It just shows you that they are in mortal peril.
And when I was a kid, my parents would
play this LP of "Peter and the Wolf"
where every character in the story has a different ringtone.
And it was sort of a neat idea that I
took to generalize this idea of a doorbell.
So our location-based system that we have in our house
is as each family member is on their way
home at the end of the day, the doorbell plays
a ringtone for her when she's about that-- 10 miles out, one
mile out, or very close to home, which just gives you
this sort of breeze of presence.
It's audio only.
And it's nice to know.
It's reassuring and calming and keeps me
from texting when I'm on my bike.
Objects for safekeeping are the next category.
This project I especially like at the Media Lab
because it embedded the sense of how close you
are to blowing through your monthly budget-- which
is, I suppose, a way of somebody taking care of you--
by changing the spring tension on a hinge in your wallet.
So as you get closer to blowing through your monthly budget,
your wallet's like [GROANS].
It's harder and harder to open it, which is great, right?
Because there's no screen in sight.
It's an it's a gesture you do 30, 10 times a day.
And it's almost subconscious.
It can communicate this information to you
in a way that's almost below the conscious threshold.
There are other objects that are obviously for safety
that are becoming connected, which
I'm excited about because they allow you to rent out
your house to other Airbnb strangers more easily
without showing up.
I want to talk a little bit about the fantasy
of immortality given to us by fountains of youth.
DAVID ROSE: There's a beautiful project
by Hiroshi Ishii at the Media Lab
called-- I think maybe inspired by rubbing a bottle
and having a wizard come out.
Or having-- who came out of-- the genie came out of the lamp,
right?
So these are just these beautiful glass bottles.
And when you open them, when you uncork them,
you unstop them, the music emerges,
or at least that instrument emerges.
So it's a jazz trio, and you can cork them.
I don't know that you'd want one of these to play with all day.
But it's a great demo.
And it's really evocative of how you can bake information
into an ordinary, everyday gesture.
This inspired my most recent company,
which is called Ambient Vitality, which
did an internet-connected pill bottle cap.
So we sort of assumed we weren't going
to change pharmacy workflow, and we just used the amber pill
vial that 3 and 1/2 billion scripts are distributed
in these things in the US every year.
And then we just implemented a little sensor LED and speaker
into the cap.
And I think the key thing to the success of this product
was actually its subtlety.
So it lived most of its life in the sort of barely nudging
you land of ambientness, right?
So it would, rather than beeping like your microwave beeps,
which is totally annoying-- I would
love to have all beeping eliminated from my life.
It would start out by just pulsing
with light really subtly.
And there was an ambient puck on the wall
that also pulses with light.
It's almost like the perfect butler, you know?
Because he's like [CLEARS THROAT]
[CLEARS THROAT]
And then you realize it's time for your next meeting,
and you don't even credit whoever the other person is.
So there's a lot of design space down here
in the sort of pre-conscious-- like scent
and subliminal sound effects like white noise,
or the change in temperature of something--
that happens even before you get through to ambiance or apparent
or obnoxious.
But I think designing objects that
have that sort of smooth curve to them is good.
So we did have a trial with partners,
with Mass General Hospital.
And the control group-- this is days, and this is people.
And pink means they didn't take their med day.
So this is what normal pill-taking behavior
looks like.
And then we turned on all these subtle prompts.
And this is what the intervention group looked like,
so a huge change in pill-taking behavior,
which is good for pharmaceutical companies
because they sell a shitload more pills.
It's good for insurers because people
don't go to the hospital as much.
It's good for people too because they don't reject livers.
And AT&T loves this, because there are a lot more pill
caps sold than cars or other things you
might put cell phones into.
[VIDEO PLAYBACK]
DAVID ROSE: This was a national campaign that AT&T did.
-In here, video games are not confined to screens.
In here, medicine talks to you.
DAVID ROSE: And dogs, there are a lot of dogs.
So it's a good connectivity opportunity
for connectivity with dogs.
[END VIDEO PLAYBACK]
DAVID ROSE: And then we were parodied
by Colbert, which is a high point.
As you've probably noticed, there
are many, many objects that are internet-connected that
attempt to track our sleep and mood and stress
and food and activity.
A couple of ones that you may not have seen-- I'm
an adviser to a little company that's
doing this little button.
It should be half the size, but it's called the SunSprite.
And it's for people that have seasonal affective disorder.
So it makes sure you get enough sun.
And it's remarkable for only one reason.
I mean, it's a little Bluetooth device
and has a nice app and everything,
but you'd expect that.
But there are two solar panels on it
so you never have to charge it, which
just seems like it solves a really important problem on all
these wearable gadgets like the Jawbone UP.
I'm always like, oh, is it charged?
Is it not charged?
I end up feeling--
AUDIENCE: Unless--
DAVID ROSE: What?
AUDIENCE: Unless you don't get enough sun.
DAVID ROSE: Right, right, right.
If you don't get enough sun, then it dies, right.
And then you're depressed too.
But I feel like these things need
to harness parasitic power off of motion
or off of sun in order to care for us rather than us always
caring for them.
This other project also from [INAUDIBLE] group
at the Media Lab was a fork that tries
to make you eat less quickly for people
who sort of shovel it down.
And it was commercialized through this other company
called Happy Fork.
And the feedback loop here is interesting.
Because as you eat too quickly, it
introduces a little bit of palsy so you sort of
don't hit your mouth as often, which it's such a stupid idea.
I can't believe anybody would want this.
But you know, I don't know.
[LAUGHTER]
AUDIENCE: If they got the opposite--
my mother-in-law has Parkinson's and--
DAVID ROSE: Oh, right.
It would dampen.
It would dampen her palsy.
Yeah, that's a good idea.
How many people have seen this?
The Vessyl Cup.
Do you do how they're doing like the mass spectrometry
tech in the bottom of the cup?
I really don't get that.
But apparently it differentiates between Diet Coke
and Diet Pepsi.
It knows exactly what's in the cup
and then can measure how much and how often you drink.
So it really solves this very hard, quantified self-problem
of what are you eating, right?
Because no one's willing to log it on an app consistently.
And so this is one approach.
As long as you're going to have your chardonnay out
of this cup, it's OK.
AUDIENCE: [INAUDIBLE].
DAVID ROSE: I did, yeah.
Colbert has a really good one.
So this fantasy of flying, of course,
is in the ninth century, "One Thousand and One Nights,"
the fantasy of a magic carpet, was imagined.
We don't quite have flying cars yet or self-driving
cars, at least for purchase yet.
How many of you guys have a self-driving car?
Don't you get them here?
No?
That's not a perk?
Should be a perk.
AUDIENCE: [INAUDIBLE].
DAVID ROSE: Right, that's true.
This project called the Copenhagen Wheel
makes your commute at least a little bit easier--
maybe less sweaty if you're a biker-- by baking
in a battery and electric motor into the wheel
so that as you pedal harder, it gives you more power.
I like the architecture of this where
you can take your old bike and just put a new wheel on.
You don't have to buy a whole new bike.
It's sort of like the parking meters in Brookline.
They just took the tops off and put the credit card machine
on the top of the old meters.
I just thought that was great that they didn't
have to like redesign the whole meter.
It had to the right architecture.
I'm going to fly through another one just quickly.
So the last category is expression.
This is maybe the most interesting.
I talk in the book about LEGO and about "Guitar Hero."
I really like scaffold that supports creativity.
And this magic paintbrush is one of those things.
[VIDEO PLAYBACK]
[MUSIC PLAYING]
[END VIDEO PLAYBACK]
DAVID ROSE: Nice, huh?
So another form of expression is photography.
And I've been a photographer and taking photos forever.
How many people have tried a life-logging camera?
Anybody worn one?
So this is a product by Narrative, a Swedish company,
successful Kickstarter.
I wore it for about three weeks until I put it in the laundry
or lost it or whatever.
But I'll show you the results.
So it's about an inch and a half by an inch and a half.
It takes a photo automatically every 30 seconds.
And it has a GPS also, so it stamps where the photo's taken.
And then you get this digital portrait of your day,
like a little flip book of your day.
And I'll show you one.
This is a little bit revealing, but let's see.
Oh, here are two.
So I sped it up about 300 times so you could see.
This is one at MIT.
This is one in Copenhagen teaching a workshop.
That's a magician that I was able to teach with.
Sorry, I didn't mask out any faces.
But I mean, obviously this isn't designed
to be shared at a conference or a talk.
It's designed to help you see things about your day.
And I think it does reveal things,
like just as you scan through, how many people
did you interact with?
How sociable where you today?
How many times did you snack?
How many times did you look at your phone
while you're at the playground with your kids?
How often did you get outside?
It's sort of if you could look at the metadata
from all of these photos, it's a pretty revealing picture
of how we live.
So my most recent company is just
about extracting metadata from photos.
And I know Google sort of has an interest in this as well.
But I just want to give you a quick demo.
We're training our system on classifiers for patterns,
primarily because most of the money's in brands.
So brands want to know how are people using
my products and where and with what other things.
So let's see.
So this is a real time feed from Twitter, Tumblr, and Instagram.
I'm sorry.
There might be porn.
I don't control that.
So we can select a category, like faces or text extraction
or retailers.
Or let's just do liquor.
That's going to be fun.
So we can find-- these are the "in the wild" shots of how
people are portraying liquor brands through photos.
So liquor brands obviously love this
because they want to know what are the usage
occasions for the product, who is using it.
And then they can learn more about building audiences
and targeting ads.
They're coming from public sources
from the biggest public feeds.
So we have a deal with-- we're processing
all of Tumblr photos, which is 120 million a day,
about a third of Twitter in the US and about 5%
worldwide, and then Instagram.
So it's this huge trove of photos and 300 servers
that we're paying Amazon a lot of money for.
I mean, I just think it's interesting from an Internet
of Things perspective because cameras are ending up
being such a cheap way of sensing things, right,
like probably the next version of the Nest
will have a camera in it, not just to do motion,
but to figure out who's home, if people would tolerate it.
So in the third part of the book, again,
I sort of try to pick a fight with a phone
and talk about what are the sort of inherent abilities
that's spreading services and information thinly around us
have as opposed to on convergence devices.
So we talked about glance ability,
gesture, things can be maybe more affordable, more wearable,
more indestructible-- like the Facebook coffee table-- more
usable because the interaction be simpler and more lovable.
I recently did a workshop in Copenhagen
at the Copenhagen Interaction Design institute.
[VIDEO PLAYBACK]
DAVID ROSE: And this is one of the concept
videos for interactive shades.
So they know that you need masking
so they move by to respect your privacy.
And then they open if you're not around
because you'd like more light in the room.
[END VIDEO PLAYBACK]
DAVID ROSE: So you get the idea.
So one of the projects that I thought
would be especially interesting to you is just
this question about if you have internet of things
and the programmable world, how might you control that?
How might you program that?
And I think AR is one of these technologies that
allows us to see what is programmable and interrogate
and manipulate what is programmable.
So this is a project where you saw a light switch,
and here, a speaker, where you can look through
with an augmented reality interface
and pick the set of stations that you
want to put on this nine-switch dial.
And then once you've done that, you've picked the nine stations
that you like, and you don't have to use AR ever again
on your radio.
But you now have programmed it, so those nine stations
are the nine stations that you want to toggle between.
So it's sort of answers this question of-- oh,
and this is drawing a relationship
between one speaker and another speaker.
And so you sort of get the idea.
But I thought that would be an interesting-- it
does require something else of the devices in our life
though, whether they're enchanted or not,
which is they have to be legible to the computer, right?
So the computer vision system, as an industrial designer,
you're no longer designing beautiful objects for people.
But you're designing things that have barcode-ness
so that they're differentiated for the robots
to be able to see, right?
Like the speaker had to have that unique pattern
so the system could say, oh, that's David
speaker in his house.
And then it becomes addressable by the machine.
So one last framework in the part three of the book
is to think about how does something
go in a stepwise fashion between being inert, like a trash can,
and being connected and then personalized and then sort of
play a part in the social web, maybe gamified,
and then have a story that engages you.
And as I'll show you in the last video,
we hacked a trash can and made it the Amazon Trash Can.
And as you throw things out in the Amazon Trash Can,
there's a camera that recognizes what's thrown out
and proposes it onto your Amazon Fresh list
because you might want more of that thing.
But as soon as we built the prototype,
we realized what an opportunity-- as you
throw something out, what an opportunity to not just
have coconut water again shipped all the way from Asia,
but to have the trash can propose
like a more locally-sourced thing
or give you shit about like third box of cookies
this week, like, are you sure?
Are you sure you want to do that?
So our fiction was like it's Oscar
who's living in the trash can who's giving you feedback
or a hard time about what he might be reordering for you.
Or out of season strawberries, why not try something else?
So the last part of the book talks more about
what happens when you have many of these things that
can talk together, and they can all collude on your behalf.
And I've been recently wearing the Jawbone UP.
Have other people tried this one?
Seems like the Brookline social network
is all into Fitbits rather than Jawbone.
But anyway, my UP connects to If This
Than That, which allows me to write these one sentence rules.
How many people know IFTTT?
Most people IFTTT.
So I can set my lights to-- recently
what I've done with the lighting in my house
is it glows that sort of Virgin Airlines purple
if I reach 10,000.
So like my home looks cool if I've done the right thing.
But it's nice because it sort of is a feedback device that's
social that my family sees.
But you can start to associate one sensor with another sensor.
And I want to show you one other concept
video from the Copenhagen Interaction Design project
that we just did a couple weeks ago, which
is to move the enchantment out of the,
let's say, umbrella, and move it into more
of the infrastructure around us, like this was a set of hooks
that we're smarter and knew what was on them.
[VIDEO PLAYBACK]
DAVID ROSE: Sort of If This Then That hooks.
So this friend is online, because the system
knows that picture is being hung from that hook.
And the system knows that those running shoes are being
hung from that hook, and it's good weather for running
outside and that it's going to rain so that-- see what I mean?
So the location of the technology
doesn't need to be in the umbrella or in the shoes.
It can be on the infrastructure around that's guiding them.
[END VIDEO PLAYBACK]
So we've talked about lots of different scale
of different scales of these things-- jewelry
scale, toy scale, pill caps scale.
I just want to talk about a bigger project, apartment scale
enchantment.
I just looked this up.
The median price per square foot for a home in Manhattan
is $1,300 per square foot, which means that for a $1,000 flat,
it's $1.3 million, right?
So it's a big price tag, even if you're working here, right,
as a young person.
So there's lots of examples that are
inspiring of how do people choose to live in smaller,
compact spaces, either campers or sailboats.
They do this on vacation.
People choose.
People go-- so we've been decomposing
all of what people do at home-- like sleeping and working
and dining and lounging and movie mode and yoga mode--
and trying to build apartments that have transformer
tech where a 1,000 square feet apartment can be built
in 25% of the square footage.
So rather than it costing you $1.3 million,
it only costs you $330K plus the money for tech.
And that gives you big budget for transformer tech.
And so this is an apartment that we've prototyped over
at the Media Lab that has thickened wall,
thickened ceiling, and thickened floor that
can hide either exercise equipment or tables or bed
or other things that give you sort of this holodeck fantasy.
You'd have to be sort of neat though.
You can't have a lot of other stuff around the apartment
because then it gets hung up.
So one other example from part four
is this idea of embedding feedback systems in furniture.
And this one was done for Salesforce
where Salesforce was interested in having
more balanced conversations on teams.
A lot of introverts don't get as much airtime as extroverts.
And so this started off as sort of this floral pie chart,
if you will.
Each side of that grows more as that person talks.
And so you get a sense over time--
it's both something that's in the middle of the table that's
sort of like a decorative arrangement
but also gives you feedback about who's
contributing more or less.
And where the product is now is rather
than doing the centerpiece, we just
made the whole table into a constellation of LEDs
that are underneath the wood veneer.
So as the person sitting on one side speaks more,
very, very slowly over the course of 10 minutes,
that wedge of the table gradually illuminates.
So you can see over 20 or 30 minutes, you
get these different scenarios-- you can't really see them
here-- of some wedges are more lit
and other wedges are less lit.
So that's mostly what I wanted to show.
And let's see.
I don't actually want to show this.
But I guess I would hearken back-- one of the first stories
that I write in the book is about my grandfather, who
had a wood shop with this huge diversity of tools.
And when I was a kid, he would always
say like, oh, hand me the chisel over there.
And I'd be like, the chisel over there?
It's sort of the same as the chisel you're using.
And he'd be like, no, it's very different.
It's like the blade is slightly curved.
And the one I'm using is straight.
OK.
So just as you-- Kevin Kelly talks
about this in "What Technology Wants,"
which is a really good book.
But he notes that if you look at the diversification
and complexity of life on a coral reef
or of any mature tool set-- like chisels or shoes or silverware
or drinking glasses-- as these categories mature,
you have huge diversification and specialization
and redundancy.
And that's what I would hope that we
have in terms of our tools, that we don't have convergence
into one thing, but we have this huge specialization
and divergence.
And that will make our interfaces more tangible,
like the wallet, more haptic, more incidental,
like the Facebook coffee table you saw on the first video.
It's there.
You can pay attention to it.
You don't have to pay attention to it.
It's embedded in natural things.
And it's expressive and, I think, more humanistic.
I'm happy to take questions.
Thanks.
[APPLAUSE]
Hi, Todd.
AUDIENCE: Hey.
How's it going, David?
DAVID ROSE: Good.
AUDIENCE: So many of the examples you gave, I love them.
There's a great design sense to them.
There's a sense of restraint among them, right?
So they do one thing really simply,
and it's kind of intuitive what it does.
It's natural.
Should we be confident that that level of design
will win out in the future?
Or are we going to get a lot of annoying things
that try to be too smart?
DAVID ROSE: Yeah, well, I do think that the design
challenge is to make a set of things that are doing very
little for us and not count on one device
to have all of the services that satisfy all of the questions
we might have about whatever category it is.
Yeah, and I mean, I think the service that our phones can
play is for the drill-down of the drill-down
of the drill-down.
But they shouldn't handle the other levels of questions
that we might ask about most things, the more
sort of high-level stuff.
AUDIENCE: So like the umbrella case,
how do you keep that from the next company who comes along
and has it do 15 different things and 10
different companies--
DAVID ROSE: Well, I have control over all these companies.
So luckily, I can just tell them not to.
I don't know-- I mean, it's going
to be messy and ugly and with lots of instructive failures.
And no, I think it really will be ugly,
like the number of companies that
get into providing services.
I mean, if you think-- I had a conversation yesterday
about somebody about the luggage industry.
And he was saying like, what should Samsonite do?
How should Samsonite differentiate their luggage?
They've tried to differentiate with the form, the lightness
of the case, the wheels, the colors.
What should they do?
Well, it's sort of a no-brainer that they
should put a Bluetooth LE chip in the luggage
so it can tell you when it's close to, if you've picked up
the wrong one, when the luggage is coming.
Wouldn't that be useful?
Of course it would be useful.
And so obviously, all luggage companies,
over the next decade, are going to experiment with services
that change the inert thing to a smarter service-based thing,
just because it's in their business interest to do it.
But yeah, I'm sure lots of people
will make lots of mistakes.
That's why it's important to have good designers.
Hi, Elizabeth.
AUDIENCE: I think one of the things that I just worry
about-- and I think needs a lot more emphasis--
is the failure mode of things, like 37Signals put out years
ago about error messages on computers,
and I guess it's out of print, but the same--
DAVID ROSE: 404, or 402, yeah.
AUDIENCE: Well, the same idea.
I mean, not to say-- this is not particular to Google.
But when I was coming here today, I had some questions.
And the person who answered the phone would only give me
an email address which spits out a boiler
plate which points you to a forum.
But not in Chrome and not in IE would the forum appear.
There was a server error or a 404 error or whatever.
So I couldn't get to the forum.
So I had to sort of go around to try to get to a person.
DAVID ROSE: What's an example of how one of these things
might fail elegantly?
AUDIENCE: Well.
I was just-- elegantly, yeah.
Like if a pill bottle-- for example, extending the pill
bottle, if it wasn't going to let you take too many
and so one of its mechanisms was to lock itself
if you've already taken the one for the day.
But you've actually dropped that one down the sink,
and you need it--
DAVID ROSE: Right, right.
AUDIENCE: --you know, you need to have a way
to tell it, er, don't do that.
DAVID ROSE: Yeah, I mean, one of the reasons why
I show the Happy Fork is that just seems
to be only paternalistic and no positive feedback, right?
That is only about slapping people's hands
and not about doing the thing that we know, from Pavlov
and everybody else, which is what works,
is to shower attention and positive feedback on things
when they're going well rather than just scold
when the wrong thing happens.
AUDIENCE: I fear not being able to get into my refrigerator
because it's giving some error--
DAVID ROSE: Right, right.
No, I do think designing for more positive behavior is
better than trying to lock things
that people shouldn't be doing.
I mean, a lot of people asked us,
when we were designing this, if we could do a locking mechanism
for medications that are abused by babysitters
and other sort of use cases.
And we said, no, no, no.
Let's just try to get people to take a daily med.
Let's solve that-- that problem would be a big enough problem
to solve that we don't have to solve the overuse
problem at the same time.
So I think picking the problem carefully
is a good design principle.
Yeah?
AUDIENCE: The things that I find interesting that the tools
that we use today are largely interchangeable.
If I'm looking for a pen, it really
doesn't matter what pen I pick up, I can use it.
If, on the other hand, I need to now use
the pen which is listening to the world
and also has what I've written for the last week
or whenever stored on it, it changes that dynamic a bit.
Have you guys seen something where
people are no longer willing to dispose of things?
Are people no longer caring about the $5.00 umbrella
because they now have their $50.00 umbrella that lights up?
DAVID ROSE: Well, I think your first question, which
is, I think, really profound, is that I
do think one of the trends is redundancy.
And one of the problems with the Narrative clip
is that I only had one of them.
And then I put it in the wash, like you would clothes.
So of course I put it in the wash.
But I think, for the guys who are doing the SunSprites,
I would want at least 10 of them and to have them just
be built into jackets and backpacks
so that if I wanted to take this backpack today and this bag
tomorrow, I don't have to remember
to put the SunSprite on it, but they can just all
talk to each other.
And they can say, do you have him today?
Or do I get him today?
So these sensors can share data on our behalf.
And we don't have to care for them, and they aren't precious.
And I think that will happen, just like pens.
Yeah?
You had-- Matt, you had a question,
and then you had a question.
MATT: Yeah, so you mentioned that the goal is to kind of get
away from the feature-rich, deep experience
of a smartphone into more of a thinly spread out experience.
But the great thing about a smartphone
that is that it has all these apps that do different things.
But I can open up an app and kind of instinctively
know what to do with it, even if I've never
used that type of app before.
And it seems like one of the issues
with this is there's a bunch of different companies making
a bunch of different products with different experiences.
And is there anyone trying to create a custom home operating
system that brings that all together so I'm not
going to my smart mirror and doing something
and then having to learn a completely new interface
for my smart refrigerator?
DAVID ROSE: Right, right.
That's a great question.
Should there be-- obviously, the people
that are doing operating systems are working on design standards
for the people that make apps so that they're
easier to learn and have consistency.
I don't know of anybody who's thinking
about other conventions.
I guess there's certain companies that
are doing gesture recognition.
And they're working on conventions
for like, what's a dismiss gesture and what's
click gesture and other click gesture.
But it's a great point about standardizing the expectations
for the Internet of Things, yeah.
But I would question what you first
said, which is you go into an app
and you instinctively know what to do.
You may know to do because you're sort of digital-native.
But compare that to knives, the complexity.
When you pick up a knife, that's instinctively
know what to do as opposed to into an app and you
sort of-- yeah.
Yeah?
Oh, you had a question back there, and then you.
AUDIENCE: I just have a question about self-awareness
you had mentioned.
It seems like a big theme is making the individual more
self-aware, whether it be what they're eating,
which we agree is something that's
very hard to do no matter how much you pay attention to it.
But then something like the Salesforce example,
it just seems like, to some degree, that should just
be something that you should recognize-- that you talk too
much and you're not letting other people talk instead.
And why do you need something to alert you to that?
And what's your comment on that idea
of self-awareness and technology?
DAVID ROSE: Well, I think there can be too much self-awareness.
I mean, friends have recently said,
the quantified life is not worth living, which I like.
And I think you can have too much quantification.
And I think you can also think about quantified self more
in terms of sprints, and less in terms of forever,
like the when I used the sleep coach, the Zeo.
I used it and I got something out of it
for about 20 days or 30 days.
And then I was really happy to throw it away
because I felt like I had learned what I needed to learn
and I didn't have to wear the headband anymore.
So I do think that you don't have to think about-- we're not
all going to quantify ourselves in excruciating detail
forevermore.
But what was your second--
AUDIENCE: Oh, just of the interaction of that
and how do we actually continue to engender innate instincts--
like you said what to do with a knife.
If we're constantly quantifying it, how do we,
at the same time, let people learn instinctively
how to just shut up when it's time to shut up.
DAVID ROSE: Yeah, I mean, I sort of-- my wife
told me not to talk about our relationship.
Let's see.
But I would say that with my mother, if I
wash the dishes before I'm asked,
I get extra points, right?
I mean, we should all be so lucky to live in a world
where can read each other's minds
and do the perfect thing for our spouses and our parents, right?
But the truth is most of the time,
somebody has to say, like, you, rub the back.
I'm not just going to know that she wants a back rub
right then.
I'm not going to know that she needs
me to come to the mammogram.
I'm not going to know all of her needs.
And sometimes we need tools and feedback to help us with that.
And I think with conversational balance
especially, that's one of those things to people predicatively
get wrong.
Like you ask somebody who's a-- like maybe he's an extrovert.
And you ask him, after the meeting,
you say, what percentage of the time
do you think you were talking in the room?
And based on a count of seconds, it was 82%.
And he will say, eh, 55%, maybe 62%,
like that's about that range.
And it's like doing dishes.
It's like I do the dishes all the time in my house.
But I probably do it like 40% of the time,
so I do think we do need feedback for certain things.
Yeah?
AUDIENCE: I might be misjudging the age of your son.
Was able to use the homescreen of the tablet first,
or a dinner knife?
DAVID ROSE: The homescreen of the tablet?
What do you-- well, dinner knives are just dangerous.
[LAUGHTER]
AUDIENCE: My 11 and nine year old maybe
could have used a dinner knife first.
My five and two year old could definitely
launch their favorite app on these non-intuitive slabs
before they could figure out how to use a dinner
knife to cut their own dinner.
DAVID ROSE: Point taken, good.
No, right.
What did you think of the Google Earth table
in the living room as sort of a gesture-based interface that's
rich but doesn't have a keyboard, can't look
at Facebook, can only do one thing at a time,
but the one thing is a much bigger screen
than an iPad and not an app store?
AUDIENCE: The Skype Cabinet was the one
I wanted, having young children.
Because terrible thing about Skype
is that it's only accessible in these devices
that also do other things.
And the two year old is constantly, oh, there
are so many buttons here that are not talking to grandma.
DAVID ROSE: Right.
Me too, right?
Like I can't write on a computer for first drafts
because there are too many other things to do.
I have to do it on paper just because I'm distractable.
I'm like, oh, what's going on on the internet now?
So I suffer from that too.
Hi.
Hi, Jonathan.
AUDIENCE: So, David, [INAUDIBLE].
What is your assessment of Google Glass?
DAVID ROSE: I think you came in right after I showed it.
But well, I wrote in the book that I was disappointed by it.
At first, I was disappointed because it
didn't have a reference to what I was looking at.
And my expectation was that it would
understand exactly what I'm looking at,
and like an augmented reality application,
notice that that part of the wall over there is free
and then put the information right there, so
that it would have a sense-- or know that I'm talking to you
and put the name above your face.
Or have a sense of what I'm seeing right now as a base,
and then superimpose information on that base, which
it didn't do and still just floats
a screen sort of up here.
But the more I thought about it, the more
I thought about this problem that once we're
all wearing that and the better version of Google Glass
does work where it's more immersive, that there will
be this almost sociological problem that you'll
see different things than what I see.
And it'll intrude on our relationship
because we will no longer have this consensual view
of reality, that you'll decide to filter out certain things,
and I'll decide to filter out other things.
And then it'll be hard to talk because you
won't be listening to my music.
And I won't be listening to your music.
And we won't see the same things.
AUDIENCE: Well, because I think the whole concept of Google
Glass is it's not supposed to interfere with your reality.
It's a stream that's off to the side that you can look up to.
But it's not supposed to--
DAVID ROSE: Yeah, just because of the intrusiveness
of the size of the glasses and how much they do shield,
I find that they are a little bit of a pariah right now.
They need to be smaller.
AUDIENCE: So I think that actually gets back
to this conversation of this sort of metaphors [INAUDIBLE].
Like your example with the umbrella,
it makes sense that the umbrella would
say it's going to rain today.
That association works.
I think the problem that maybe you had with Glass
is that because it's a glasses form factor,
you sort of have these expectations based on that.
[INAUDIBLE]
You think certain things because they're glasses, right?
You expect it to [INAUDIBLE] vision clearer.
It sort of does.
But it sort of doesn't.
So I don't know.
I was curious.
Do you think at all in terms of-- because these smarts,
anything could tell you that it's going to rain.
The pen could tell you that it's going to rain.
But it's more logical and natural
to have that be associated with the umbrella, right?
And maybe you get into that stuff--
DAVID ROSE: Yeah, a slide I didn't I didn't show,
but I think-- it's a little bit of a pie chart.
When I did a bunch of ambient furniture pieces
at the Media Lab, the approach that I took
was to take all of the things that we surround ourselves with
and touch everyday, and then all of the apps
that I use everyday, and try to sort of make
marriages between them.
And the way that I drew the line was to sort of interview them.
And I put the couch on the psychological couch,
and said, cabinetry, what are you really about?
And it said, I store things.
People just think I store things,
but I'm really about so much more.
I'm about discovery and surprise and revealing things to people.
And the coffee table said, I'm not just a low table.
But the fact that I'm low changes the conversation.
It's more about communion and sharing and informality.
So that becomes more of a place for photos
rather than a work surface, that sort of thing.
I'm not saying-- this is just my thinking for one day about it.
But you could make a much better chart.
Why don't you be the last question?
Is that all right?
AUDIENCE: I think that there's a really fine line between very
useful tools to creepy tools, like--
DAVID ROSE: Useful versus what?
AUDIENCE: Creepy.
DAVID ROSE: Creepy, uh-huh.
AUDIENCE: --intruding your life.
And how do you know?
Because I talk to my friends, and I get all the time,
Google knows everything.
It's kind of creepy.
And it's OK maybe, for the active user, for those tools.
You're choosing to use these tools,
so you kind of assume that you agree
to all these terms of services.
But then I'm wondering for other people in your life,
the more there are, the tools, you never
know what it's capturing.
For example-- what is it? [INAUDIBLE] pen?
You never know who's recording.
DAVID ROSE: Yes, right.
Right.
AUDIENCE: For example, you'd never
know who's recording your lecture [INAUDIBLE].
Somebody may be voice recording everything, right?
You'd never know.
And there are so many instances that I'm
wondering do you have any sense of where the line is
between when it gets useful, that people are like, you know,
he's OK, and where it gets to be that people freak out?
DAVID ROSE: I think almost all of these things
cast enough data off that they're almost all creepy,
even the ones that wouldn't seem to be creepy,
like the Nest thermostat.
It's changing your heat.
Who cares what you set your heat at?
And who would care about the history of how warm
you warm your house in the winter?
But if you think about it, that's
showing when you're home for forever, right?
So I do think we need privacy policies about who
can access the data.
And also, mostly we need forgiveness.
Mostly we need an absolution button
that says, forget everything.
So all of these things need a button
where you can go to the Nest website,
or even not even on the device, and say, lobotomize.
Like you think you've learned something about me,
and no, you haven't learned-- I'm
somebody who's using the apartment.
And no, you know nothing about me.
So I do think these things need sort of big reset buttons
to solve that problem.
And I'm actually surprised that more people aren't creeped out
by Google reading your email over the last decade.
That seems to cross much more of a line
than a lot of these, like how many steps I've walked
or that sort of thing.
So I think there's actually a lot more potential
for being afraid with mobile phones
than there is for a lot of Internet of Things.
But it's spawning a new conversation about that.
Thank you so much for coming and for your attention.
It's really fun.
[APPLAUSE]