vonbeetzen

[vonbeetzen]

Hjälp den nya regeringen knäcka det digitala utanförskapet

Tänk dig att gängkriminaliteten eller energikaoset hade kunnat lösas med en ny lag som den nya regeringen hade kunnat lägga på riksdagens bord samma vecka som den tillträdde. Vilken rivstart! Nu är det dessvärre inte möjligt, men ett annat gigantiskt samhällsproblem kan lösas precis så enkelt.

Över en miljon människor befinner sig i ett digitalt utanförskap på grund av att de inte kan komma åt majoriteten av de över 6000 tjänster som idag kräver att du har en e-legitimation; allt från socialförsäkring till vård, skola och andra grundläggande tjänster alla medborgare borde ha rätt att komma åt.

Det finns idag två statligt godkända mobila e-legitimationer; BankID och Freja. Alla 6000 e-tjänsterna enligt ovan välkomnar dig som har BankID - det vill säga dig som är kund i en viss bank och möter dessa bankers krav. Mindre än 10% av de 6000 tjänsterna välkomnar dig som inte har ett BankID men som har Freja, en e-legitimation som kan inkludera nästan alla de som av olika skäl inte kan eller får ha ett BankID.

Jag vädjar därför till den tillträdande regeringen att med ett enkelt lagförslag eliminera det faktum att en miljon människor har blivit andra klassens medborgare i vårt digitaliserade samhälle. Lagstifta om att alla som kräver e-legitimering i sina tjänster måste erbjuda alla statligt godkända e-legitimationer. Svårare än så är det inte.

En extra bonus är att vi gör Sverige mindre sårbart mot cyberattacker och IT-störningar. Att hänga upp hela digitaliseringen på en enda e-legitimation är varken smart eller hållbart.

Och innan ni nu skrollar vidare, tänk en stund på Peter som på grund av tidigare spelmissbruk har en god man som hanterar hans ekonomi och därmed inte längre har ett BankID. Därför kan han inte följa sin dotters skolgång eftersom hans kommun bestämt att endast BankID gäller för att logga in i skolplattformen. Men Peter har Freja och hade kommunen erbjudit alternativ hade Peter kommit åt skolplattformen lika lätt som han kommer åt 1177, Skatteverket och andra inkluderande e-tjänster.

Eller tänk på Johanna, som på grund av funktionshinder inte kan ha BankID och därmed är utestängd från nästan allt hennes jämnåriga kan göra på nätet.

Detta är bara ett par av de en miljon individer som den nya regeringen kan hjälpa med ett enkelt lagförslag om inkludering och valfrihet för e-legitimering. Vilken rivstart det hade varit.

Dela detta inlägg så det når fram till den tillträdande regeringens representanter!

[vonbeetzen]

Politisk stiltje kring digitalt utanförskap

Föreställ dig att du inte kan köpa en bussbiljett eller göra ett enkelt vårdärende online. För oss som är vana vid all digital bekvämlighet är det omöjligt att förstå hur svårt livet kan vara för den som befinner sig i digitalt utanförskap. Och det är inget litet problem, flera rapporter talar om att över en miljon individer är drabbade. Detta borde väl vara högt upp på alla politikers agenda så här i valtider?

Digitaliseringen har gått så fort att inkludering och rättvis tillgänglighet inte verkar ha hunnits med. Men är det rimligt att vi fortsätter i samma takt, utan se till att de som hamnat utanför också får hänga med? Finns en politisk agenda för att komma till rätta med det nya klassamhälle som växt fram? För att ta reda på detta jag gått igenom samtliga riksdagspartiers valmanifest och politiska program.

Inget parti lyfter digitaliseringsfrågor i sitt valmanifest men de flesta – inte alla – tar upp digitaliseringen i sina politiska program. Av dessa är det endast ett parti som adresserar det digitala utanförskapet med konkreta politiska förslag.

Listan är rangordnad utifrån antal riksdagsmandat, från största till minsta parti:

Socialdemokraterna: Under rubriken ”Digitalisering” är handlar punkterna främst om utbyggnad av bredband och mobilnät. En mer allmän punkt handlar om att offentlig sektor ska dra nytta av digitaliseringens möjligheter. Digitalt utanförskap är inte omnämnt och inga politiska förslag på området tas upp.

Moderaterna: Även Moderaterna har bredbandsutbyggnad som främsta fokus. Punkt två i digitaliseringsprogrammet handlar om att skapa ett institut för AI och den tredje handlar om att fler myndigheter ska använda digital post. Digitalt utanförskap nämns inte och inga politiska förslag på området tas upp.

Sverigedemokraterna: Under punkten ”IT” i det politiska programmet tas bredbandsuppkoppling och förbättrad IT-säkerhet upp. Digitalt utanförskap nämns inte och inga politiska förslag på området tas upp.

Centerpartiet: Partiet har det ojämförligt mest omfattande politiska programmet kring digitalisering. Under följande sex rubriker listas ett flertal politiska förslag: AI, Cybersäkerhet, Digitalisering i skolan, Digital utbildning och arbetsmarknad, Digital välfärd samt Jämställd och hållbar digitalisering.

Den sista punkten adresserar specifikt det digitala utanförskapet och man presenterar inkluderande e-legitimering som den viktigaste lösningen. Man skriver bland annat:

”BankID har i dag i praktiken monopol på digital identitet i Sverige, viket måste utmanas på grund av de konsekvenser monopol leder till när de har problem. Identifiering i välfärdssystem och andra lägen ska inte vara beroende av banker, eftersom det bland annat drabbar dem som inte kan vara kunder till banker men måste kommunicera med det offentliga. Det finns i dag alternativ till BankID och denna mångfald som börjar etablera sig måste erkännas av offentlig sektor. Valfrihet leder bland annat till en förenkling för personer utan bank att få ett digitalt ID.”

Vänsterpartiet: Här listas ingen separat punkt i det politiska programmet som handlar om digitalisering och i de övriga punkterna kan jag inte heller hitta något som handlar om digitaliseringspolitik. Under punkten ”Funktionsrätt” konstaterar man helt riktigt att ”hinder i samhället leder till exkludering”. När man beskriver lösningen nämns dock inget om digitala hinder – lösningarna avser endast fysiska miljöer; ”Arbetsplatser, bostäder, transporter och offentliga lokaler måste vara tillgängliga.”

Kristdemokraterna: Partiet har ett kort stycke om digitaliseringen och det handlar om att ”utvecklingen måste ta hänsyn till äldre personer och personer med intellektuella eller kognitiva funktionsnedsättningar som av olika anledningar kan ha svårt att använda sig av digitala tjänster.” Det digitala utanförskapet är därmed i vart fall identifierat, men ingen vidare analys av vilka dessa ”olika anledningar” görs och inga konkreta politikförslag presenteras.

Liberalerna: Under punkten för digitalisering i politikprogrammet lyfter man fram att ”digitaliseringen ger Sverige fantastiska möjligheter och att ”Sverige ska vara bäst i världen på att ta vara på digitaliseringens möjligheter”. Hur detta ska gå till berörs endast i svepande ordalag och Liberalerna tar upp saker som att se över regelverk, avväga integritet mot innovation samt satsning på forskning. Digitalt utanförskap identifieras inte som en av de övergripande utmaningarna och inga förslag på området nämns.

Miljöpartiet: Det talas inte om digitalisering någonstans i partiets politiska program och det finns inga specifika åtgärdsförslag mot det digitala utanförskapet. Under programpunkten kring funktionsrätt är man dock tydlig med sin övergripande ambition när man skriver:  ”Alla individer är olika och samhället ska inte bara vara utformat för de som utgör normen.” Man skriver också att man varit ”pådrivande för att bristande tillgänglighet ska klassas som diskriminering.” Huruvida detta även innefattar digital tillgänglighet framgår inte. 

Bättre förståelse krävs

Det digitala utanförskapet är inte ett prioriterat politikområde vid en summering av samtliga partiers agendor. Vad som också är noterbart är att i de fall det digitala utanförskapet berörs, så är det huvudsakligen kopplat till funktionshinder. Men utanförskapet drabbar även äldre, ungdomar, individer med ekonomiska bekymmer, personer med utländsk bakgrund och ett flertal andra grupper. Utan en bred förståelse av problemet minskar såklart möjligheten att se lösningar.

Partiprogrammet är inte hela sanningen

Det måste också sägas att valmanifest och partiprogram inte är hela sanningen. Det har lagts förslag under den senaste mandatperioden, från såväl regering som opposition. Samtidigt har en del förslag, som skulle ha löst en stor del av det digitala utanförskapet, dragits tillbaka från riksdagens bord. Att identifiera en politisk handlingskraft i någon specifik riktning är inte helt enkelt.  

Alla har ett ansvar

Vad beror detta på? Jag är övertygad om att det inte handlar om vare sig illvilja eller bristande omtanke. Jag tror det handlar om okunskap. I så fall tycker jag det är ett gemensamt ansvar från oss som känner till problemen att sprida kunskap om det. För till skillnad från många andra samhällsproblem finns det kända lösningar. Och dessutom ska vi kanske inte alltid peka finger åt politikerna när vi själva kan bidra till lösningen. Hur många myndigheter, kommuner, digitala vårdtjänster och finansiella tjänster erbjuder exempelvis en inkluderande valfrihet kring vilken e-legitimation som krävs för att nå deras tjänster? Det behövs ingen politiker för att en verksamhetschef ska be sin IT-avdelning att lösa detta redan idag.

[vonbeetzen]

“Jag håller inte med om vad du säger, men jag skulle dö för din rätt att säga det”

René Voltaires klassiska citat gjorde ett stort intryck på mig som ung student på Sannarpsgymnasiet i Halmstad, när vi betade oss igenom upplysningsförfattarna. Jag bottnade det nog inte riktigt på ett intellektuellt plan vid den tiden, men senare skulle jag inse vilken betydelse det haft för att jag ens hade möjlighet att läsa någon annan bok än Bibeln i den åldern.

Vi tillskriver ofta den remarkabla utveckling som skett för mänskligheten de senaste två århundradena den industriella revolutionen. Vi gick som en art genom tiotusentals år utan att några stora förbättringar skedde med avseende på allmänt välstånd, medellivslängd eller teknisk utveckling. Sen hände allt på några få århundraden.

Den industriella revolutionens moder

De flesta är överens om vi har den industriella revolutionen, som började i den brittiska textilindustrin runt 1760, att tacka för det välstånd stora delar av världens befolkning upplever idag.

Vad som dock inte är lika uppenbart för många är vad som låg bakom den industriella revolutionen. Hur kommer det sig att kreativa idéer, innovation och nytänkande plötsligt exploderade efter tusentals år av stiltje? Svaret är tankefrihet och yttrandefrihet. Eller som vi numera kallar denna rörelse; upplysningen.

I början på 1700-talet påbörjade en rörelse bland Europas intellektuella som utmanade den av gud givna världsordningen. Filosofer och författare som David Hume, Immanuel Kant, Jean-Jaques Rousseau och – inte minst Voltaire – ifrågasatte den religiösa maktordning som slog fast att all kunskap utgick från gud.

Alla vetenskapliga upptäckter och idéer var tvungna att passa kyrkans världsbild för att bli accepterade. Allt som utmanade kyrkans idéer straffades. Mest känt är kanske hur Galileo Galilei dömdes till livstids husarrest av den romerska inkvisitionen för att han avvek från kyrkans bild att jorden var universums centrum.  

 Framsteg kräver frihet

Upplysningens filosofer propagerade för kritiskt tänkande och att utmana auktoriteternas makt över kunskapen. Verkliga framsteg nås i en öppen och fri prövning av alla idéer – helt enkelt därför att de goda idéerna vinna över de dåliga och sanningen kommer att vinna över lögnen.

Denna enkla idé var gnistan som fick den moderna vetenskapen att explodera vilket i sin tur ledde fram till den industriella revolutionen. Tyvärr verkar upplysningens viktiga idéer alltmer komma på undantag i vår moderna värld.

Den moderna inkvisitionen

Corona-pandemin har satt blixtbelysning på detta. Debatten kring vaccinering och restriktioner har delat världen i två läger och diskussionen har stundtals varit hätsk. Amerikanska poddare, svenska forskare, brittiska författare är några av alla som fört fram vad som betraktats som kontroversiella – ibland subversiva – åsikter om såväl pandemirestriktioner som vaccinering.

Drevet går sedan fram med den metodik vi blivit vana vid i det uppkopplade samhällets mediedramaturgi. Några tongivande röster ondgör sig över hur oacceptabelt det är att torgföra olämpliga idéer, en bredare svans följer efter och på motståndarsidan mobiliseras motvärn.

Denna polarisering begränsar sig inte till pandemin. Alla som befinner sig utanför den - för tillfället - acceptabla åsiktskorridoren riskerar att stämplade som kättare av den moderna åsiktsinkvisitionen - i ämnen som rör allt från identitetspolitik till klimatdebatt. 

Den nya kyrkans tempel

Vad som skiljer det senaste decenniets fria debatt från den som pågått sedan upplysningens dagar är att vi återigen har aktörer med lika stor makt som kyrkan hade förr i tiden. Plattformar som Twitter, Youtube, Facebook och Spotify har blivit den nya tidens inkvisitorer och på senare år har ett antal kända röster blivit helt eller delvis censurerade på dessa plattformar.

Plattformarna är enligt min mening inte grundproblemet, lika lite som kyrkan var grundproblemet till att vi inte såg någon välståndsutveckling i världen under tusentals år. Grundproblemet – nu som då – är frånvaron av frihet.

Det verkliga priset är inte tystnad

Det är i det fria utbytet av idéer och åsikter som det goda kan segra. Ja, det innebär att många dåliga, tokiga och rent av farliga idéer kommer upp till ytan – det hände även i den kunskapsrevolution som var upplysningen. Men det är en del av poängen – det goda kan bara utkristalliseras i jämförelse med det dåliga.

Självklart måste det finnas gränser för yttrandefriheten; att man inte ska få kränka, hota eller hetsa. Denna balansgång har vi lyckats med i vår svenska yttrandefrihet ända sedan 1700-talet.  Men den censur och de-plattformeringar som skett de senaste åren har inte alltid skett på dessa fullt rimliga bevekelsegrunder. Många gånger har det handlat om vad som i bredare kretsar anses fel, olämpligt eller osympatiskt.

Men lika lite som kyrkan på medeltiden hade någon objektiv källa till vad som var rätt, lika lite finns det en objektiv sanning kring många av de åsikter som idag gör att individer hamnar i en modern variant av Galileis husarrest.

Att inte låta utbytet av idéer och tankar vara fritt – goda som dåliga – är att svika de upplysningsideal som gett oss den rika värld vi lever i idag. Detta kan vara värt att tänka på; det stora priset vi betalar för censur är i förlängningen inte tystnad, priset kan faktiskt vara det fantastiska välstånd som sprang ur upplysningstidens frihetsideal.

[vonbeetzen]

DEN DIGITALA UTMANINGEN - DEL 1

Kan man klara sig med bara sin mobiltelefon? Alltså att lämna hemma de fysiska betalkorten, kontanterna, lojalitetskorten och det ID-kort som man annars släpar runt i sin plånbok. Jag bestämde mig för att göra ett experiment och se hur långt jag kan komma. Inte bara ger det intressanta idéer om hur vårt framtida digitala samhälle kan se ut, det ställer också viktiga frågor om det digitala utanförskapet för alla de som av olika skäl inte har tillgång till grundläggande mobila tjänster. Leva utan plånbok I somras lanserade vi funktionen “Legitimera dig” i den e-legitimationsapp jag jobbar med. Det är som ett ID-kort i mobilen, fast säkrare och smidigare. Den första kund som anslöt sig var ATG vilket innebär att man kan lägga spel och hämta ut vinster i deras 2000 butiker, med Freja eID-appen som ID-handling. Sedan började detta leva sitt eget liv och jag hörde om människor som använt Freja eID på vårdcentralen, i ICA-kassan och hos postombudet. Eftersom jag sedan en tid har mina betalkort i Apple Pay väcktes en tanke om hur långt jag skulle klara mig med bara mobilen. Jag drog igång experimentet den 1 september och har i princip inte haft plånboken med mig sedan dess. Digitala transporter Den digitala resan börjar alldeles utanför ytterdörren. Jag älskar att åka elscooter och tar mig alltid runt i Stockholm på en VOI när det är längre än promenadavstånd. Man blippar scootern med sin mobil och sen är det bara att gasa på. Enda nackdelen med scootrarna är att så många inte fattar att man ska parkera dem med respekt för omgivningen. Fortsätter nötterna parkera mitt på trottoarerna är risken att Stockholms politiker tar samma beslut som deras kollegor i Köpenhamn nyligen gjorde och förbjuder kommersiella elscootrar. Jag kan ha sympati med bevekelsegrunden, men att ha en så begränsad syn att förbud är den enda lösningen man ser, är för mig ett tecken på bristande intellektuell förmåga. I övrigt gillar jag danskar. Monopol skapar utanförskap Jag bokade en tågresa för att hälsa på min far i Halmstad och betalade med Swish på SJ.se och var beredd med Freja eID ifall konduktören skulle fråga efter ID. Vilket dock inte skedde på någon av sträckorna. Swish är ett fantastiskt verktyg, men den monopolställning bankerna har skapat med kombinationen Swish och BankID ställer till stora problem för de som befinner sig i digitalt utanförskap. Detta problem kommer jag återkomma till längre fram. Det kontantlösa samhället Att betala med ApplePay funkar överallt där det går att betala med kort, numera har alla terminaler blipp-funktion och i Corona-tider är det en extra fördel att slippa behöva slå in PIN-koden. Corona-epedemin har också accelererat nedmonteringen av kontantsamhället och på allt fler ställen ser man skyltar som den ovan, att man inte längre accepterar kontanter. Enligt företaget som driver landets bankomater har kontantuttagen minskat med cirka 10% årligen de senaste åren, men bara under första halvåret 2020 var minskningen hela 18%. Jag är ju en varm förespråkare för digitaliseringen men, precis som i fallet med Swish och BankID, är jag oroad för alla de äldre, nyanlända, funktionshindrade och individer utan bankkonto som är beroende av att kunna betala med kontanter. Vad vi bevittnar är en systematisk utfrysning av cirka en tiondel av vår befolkning. Hur långt kan jag klara mig? Transport och shopping har fungerat alldeles utmärkt under en dryg månad med mobilen som enda verktyg. Men hur fungerar det att hämta recept på apotek, registrera bonus i en kundklubb och ta sig in i en högsäkerhetsbyggnad med stränga vakter i entrén? Följ mig här på den digitala resan så får du veta det!

[vonbeetzen]

CREATING SOMETHING THAT MATTERS

I started my first company at the age of 15, selling printed t-shirts to graduate students, and from that moment I became completely encapsulated by the idea of business as an engine of creation. Ever since then I´ve been pursuing the dream of creating something that I can be proud of, a business that not only makes a change for myself, but for others. Yes, I know it sound pretentious to connect your personal goals to some kind of higher achievement for mankind, but in my mind this is what defines an entrepreneur from a businessman – or woman. If you´re just in it for the money, there are far simpler routes to success than the way of the entrepreneur. I have friends that chose the path of finance and made more money in their first year of their career than I´ve made in 27 years of struggling for my entrepreneurial dream to come true. It´s not that moneymaking is unimportant, only a fool would argue that money doesn’t matter in a material world, it´s just that the money is not the end game for an entrepreneur. Defined by the objective The end game of an entrepreneur is the successful creation of something that matters to others – the end game of a businessman is the successful creation of something that matters to himself. For an entrepreneur, the money generated along the way is only one of many measurements of success – important but not decisive. Finding your calling In the pursuit of my dream I´ve blazed more trails than most – from running an advertising agency, a pizza shop, a publishing business and a radio station, just to name a few. In one aspect I wish I would have been more like Ingvar Kamprad (of course, who wouldn’t?), who found his calling early on and started IKEA at the age of 16 but as it turns out my story resembles the one of Ray Croc, who after many years of different initiatives without any major breakthrough never gave up on his dream of creating something really successful.  He was 52 years old when met with the McDonalds brothers and from that point came to co-create the world´s most successful fast food business. Obviously, I would be lying if I said my story resembled Croc´s in terms of success, but in terms of finding your calling late in life it certainly does. Today I am part of a company that in my view checks all the boxes required to create a business that has the potential to make a change for others. Freja eID is a mobile electronic identity that gives users the control of logins, payments, consent, signatures and other things that matter as we move our lives from the physical to the digital world. It is still early days, we launched the product three years ago, but we have managed to create a significant stronghold in Sweden as a first step, before scaling the business internationally. The next big thing? If you run a tech business out of Stockholm it´s impossible to not being inspired by unicorns like Spotify, Mojang/Minecraft, iZettle, King and Klarna. Every startup in town pitches themselves as “the next (choose your favorite success story)” and obviously that is what every investor is looking for. So, the obvious question is then, if Freja eID is the next unicorn coming out of the Stockholm tech scene? Well, I´ve personally gone all in on the bet that we will become successful and the odds are favorable; at least for our business concept. In Sweden there is more than four billion eID transactions done annually and its impossible to get through an ordinary day without using your eID. In most other countries eID is not even a novel concept, it´s still unknown. So, my bet is that the five billion internet users of the world will not settle with the hassle of passwords and the constant risk of ID-fraud, and at some point choose the convenient path of using a mobile eID instead. The only question is if Freja eID will be one of the major players in this game or not. The phenomenal team I´m working with and the advantage our product currently gives us, certainly makes it possible that Freja eID may come to change the life of millions. That would certainly be something to be proud of.

[vonbeetzen]

UNEXPECTED CONSEQUENSES

I got my wife a classic vinyl record player for her birthday a few weeks ago. Since then we´ve both found ourselves rediscovering the music of our youth and has begun to explore music in a brand-new way, looking for classical vinyl records wherever we can find them. I know that we are a bit late to this party, but the revival of analogue music can teach us something about the dynamics of a world where everything is going digital at the speed of 5G. Emile Berliner was granted the patent for the “Gramophone” in 1887 and as with many inventions that at some point turns out to be groundbreaking, the inventor was clueless on the impact the novel technology would have on the world. Berliner thought his record would be a way for individuals to become immortal. Music was not the big thing for Berliner initially, instead he predicted that the invention would be used for voice recording: “Future generations will be able to condense into the brief space of twenty minutes the tone pictures of a lifetime - five minutes of childish prattle, five moments embalming the last feeble utterances from the death-bed. Will this not seem like holding veritable communion with immortality?” A killer app? It turned out that Berliner´s idea of using his inventions for death-bed recordings wasn’t a killer app (no pun intended) but instead revolutionized both the distribution and creation of music. The vinyl record dominated the scene until 1988 when the CD took over the throne as the most sold music medium. From there, the only way was down and in 2006 vinyl sales hit the all-time low, at least according to the Swedish numbers that reveals that as few as 7000 vinyl records were sold throughout the whole year. Although it had nothing to do with the demise of vinyl, Spotify was founded in Sweden this very same year and as we know by now a new revolution in the music industry was dawning. I can´t remember when I played a vinyl record before this summer´s renaissance. And hadn’t it been for the fortunate fact that all my records were stuffed away in my dad´s house since I moved from home, they might have been lost somewhere along the many places I´ve moved between since then. I got them back when my father visited us a while back and when I could play Alphaville and Forever young after getting the vinyl player it was a stroll down memory lane like nothing else. Of course, I´ve heard this song a gazillion time over the years in other media and formats but holding the cover in my hands along with the sparkly crackling of the vinyl was something else. Predicting the unexpected If any trend spotter or business analytic claim that they could predict that the vinyl would increase sales in Sweden from the all-time low in 2006 of 7000 records to 700 000 records ten years later, they would be the Pythia of modern day. This parallel trend to the digital transformation of the music industry was simply off the charts. So, the question is, what other digital transformations that we embrace today has a similar, parallel trend that will surprise us when it eventually surfaces before our eyes? Of course, vinyl records are no threat to the streaming industry, digital music today accounts for 90% of the global music revenue and the share keeps growing. The key is that the digital transformation did not kill the analogue predecessor, it rather boosted it. So, what can we expect? A renaissance of Filofax, Kodachrome cameras exploding in sales and paper letters becoming the new status marker? During the Corona-epidemic the harsh digitalization a lot of people were forced into will probably fuel this development as the threat from the virus wears off. If there are any oracles out there who can tell me what the future holds, I would be more than happy to listen. If not, let’s keep an open mind and perhaps add some humbleness when sharing posts on social media on the theme that “everything that can go digital, will go digital”. Famous last words To conclude, I heard an interview with Spotify CEO Daniel Ek a few days ago, where he described how voice recordings, predominantly podcasts, are emerging as huge business area. Who knows, perhaps people will start recording their death-bed words and publish it on Spotify and create the next killer app on the platform? In that case I would do a recording of Emile Berliner´s quote above and publish it as a reminder of how the evolution of ideas sometimes takes really strange ways.

[vonbeetzen]

“THE DIFFICULTIES WILL ARGUE FOR THEMSELVES”

”Don’t argue the matter. The difficulties will argue for themselves.” Winston Churchill was faced with a challenge that by all measurable means was considered impossible.  Hitler had built strong defenses on all the existing harbors on the Atlantic Ocean, and all other harbors on Nazi-controlled areas – from Norway to the Mediterranean Sea. Getting an invasion force on European mainland therefore required something that never before had been done in human history. D-day was essentially impossible, but nevertheless it succeeded. An essential part of agile development is validating your product or feature as early as possible and to disregard everything that just “seems” like a good idea, even if strong voices in the team or in the management pushes for it. I try to live by this philosophy myself but as an entrepreneur – or a leader in other situations - there are times when no validation is at hand and the only thing you are left with is a leap of faith. Churchill knew already in 1942 that some kind of portable harbor was the only way to win the war. However, it was a huge obstacle overcoming  the problems with the tide. It took three years before it was realized, and it was a bet made from no other validation than that every other option was gone. In a sense, Churchill was extremely agile in the way he came down on the Nazis. He tried and tried with every bit of wit and fighting power he could bring on and reversed his actions whenever it was needed. Dunkirk is perhaps the most agile of all war stories ever told. During Operation Overlord, the official name for the D-day invasion, 156 000 UK, US and Canadian troops joined forces to land on Omaha Beach and the other shores of Normandy, on almost 7000 ships and landing vessels along with 3000 aircrafts and gliders to deliver airborne troops. It was the largest amphibious invasion in history. I visited Normandy with my family a few years back and the photo of Churchill´s memo is taken by me in the Musee du Debarquament in Arromanche-les-Baines. Standing there, reading Churchills own words and sensing his determination had a huge impact on me. It was obvious that if he did not convince Lord Mountbatten, the receiver of the memo, all the others in his administration and not least President Roosevelt with his crazy idea about a portable harbor – he would lose the war and leave Europe, and Britain, to Nazi hegemony. Even though most people considered it an impossible task, Churchill stood his ground and argued for what he considered as the only realistic solution to end the war. Churchill chose the hard way and eventually got all the doubters on his side, even if many of them kept back their praise until Hitler finally validated Churchill´s D-day hypothesis with a bullet through his head on April 30, 1945. It all comes down to Churchill being a great leader and in hindsight we of course knew he was that. But I really would like to know how confident he was, on the 30th of May 1942, when he wrote the memo to Lord Mountbatten. The way things looked in the spring of 1942 he could by no means have been certain of any sucess. Despite this,  he showed what real courage means, and what you need to do as a leader when the most important decision comes down to you. If you believe in something – and there is no validation to be found - you need to have the stamina to believe in yourself and push your idea all the way to the end. The difficulties will argue for themselves anyway.

[vonbeetzen]

LINEAR THINKING IN AN EXPONENTIAL CRISIS

The Corona pandemic is putting the world on hold. The only action seems to be on toilet paper hoarding. The way this situation is evolving just goes to show one thing; the world was not prepared. However, the real question is, could we have been prepared? The answer from a strictly rational perspective would of course be yes, but from a human, evolutionary perspective the answer is undoubtedly no. Early warnings There has not been any lack of voices warning for the scenario we are now going through.  Bill Gates is already back in 2014 did a brilliant TED-talk warning for pretty much everything we are now going through. Most countries have well-funded authorities filled with epidemiologists and other experts to predict and inform about pandemics and even Hollywood contributes to the awareness with movies like Outbreak and Contagion. Clearly the problem is not lack of information, this boils down to the fact that human beings are trapped in linear thinking, while major shifts, like epidemics, follow a chain reaction pattern with an exponential trajectory. The nature of chain reactions On the evening of November 9th, 1989 thousands of East Berlin citizens crossed the checkpoints to West Berlin and were greeted by their western neighbors with champagne and flowers. It seemed to come out of nowhere, sparked by a confused press conference on a not very radical – and temporary - change in travel regulations for East Germans. The East Berlin party leader Günter Schabowski held what turned out to be the most failed press conference ever. He was later quoted with; “The only thing you need to do in order to hold a successful press conference in German Democratic Republic is to speak German and read from a note”. Not quite, as it turned out. The note he had received from Egon Krenz, the newly elected successor to the long time GDR dictator Eric Honneker did, to Schabowsk´s unfortune, not capture the high power´s intention as clearly as he was used to.   When asked by a journalist when the travel regulations were to come in to effect, Schabowski got a rather confused look on his face, doublechecked the note and replied; “As far as I know… effective immediately… ehh… without delay". Being used to forty years of total party control of the country, including control of media and journalists, Schabowski probably was comfortable with winging the situation. As history shows, it backfired and when his statement was interpreted by West German radio stations – broadcasting into East Berlin – people made a run on the wall. In the morning hours of November 9th, not even the brightest analysts or the most well-informed intelligence agencies could predict that the world was at the dawn of a new era. The chain reaction effect of this event is now a historical fact with the collapse of the Soviet Union two years later and a radically different world order following the decades of cold war. Inherent inability The human psychology is adapted by millions of years of evolution where linear thinking has served the best purpose for surviving. An ability to connect the shadow of a lion to the urge to flee, was highly rewarded in the natural selection and to this day our brains are hardwired to deal with threats of this kind. Large scale, exponential chain reactions are simply incomprehensible for most humans. So, if we were this ill prepared for a virus outbreak - the scenario that most experts for decades have claimed being the most likely scenario for global breakdown - what is the likelihood to cope with the threats around the corner? The threats ahead The scientific community – and other experts on the topic - is widely scattered in the debate on artificial intelligence, or more specifically artificial general intelligence – AGI - where machines by means of exponential development reach a human level of intelligence. Narrow AI is undoubtedly already here with face recognition, digital assistants and self-driving cars. Some experts argue that AGI followed by a superintelligence explosion will never materialize, others claim it will create heaven on earth and some raise a warning flag that this might pose a substantial existential risk – as the exponential growth continues out of our control after the point of reaching human level intelligence. And it is not your average Twitter-tin-foil-hat conspirators making this claim. Max Tegmark, Bill Gates, Nick Bostrom, Elon Musk and Sam Harris are just a few from a large community of experts asking for society to take the potential risk of artificial superintelligence seriously. This calls for an article of its own, but in short the risk is that when an entity becomes vastly more intelligent than humans, it might prioritize its own goals at the cost of humanity – much like humans have prioritized our own goals at the cost of other species, ecology and climate. I do not expect the politicians of today - who all seem to have been taken by surprise by such a well-documented and predictable threat as a virus pandemic – to have any preparation for this scenario. And if the threat of artificial superintelligence is ever to materialize, toilet paper hoarding is definitely not the rescue.

[vonbeetzen]

CONSENT TO CORONA?

Are we stretching the intentions of GDPR a bit too much when allowing it to fuel the spreading of the Corona virus? Not if you ask Swedish authorities.

I´m personally a fan of the philosophy underpinning GDPR, not only because work with a product  that aims to give users back control of their data, but more importantly I think a society that does not protect the privacy of individuals eventually evolves into an Orwellian nightmare. WHO vs. GDPR However, we do not turn into Oceania by making sound interpretations of privacy laws when the lives of millions are threatened by a pandemic virus. So, when the WHO director general Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus plead to all countries to “Do everything. Find, isolate, test and treat every patient to break the chain of contagion. This fire must be put out!”, Sweden´s State epidemiologists Anders Tegnell leans on GDPR not to heed the call. Tegnell argues that that a wide spread testing for the virus has “practical, security and GDPR-related complications” and should therefore not be considered. So here we are, facing a global disaster that WHO says can be mitigated by more testing and the bureaucrats point to a regulation that even the EU-commission themselves are not 100% sure on how to comply with. Cynical or narrow minded? The purpose of GDPR is to protect the privacy of individuals. If you think it is less important to protect the lives of these individuals, you are either very cynical or extremely narrow minded. Or very wrong. Sure, health data is certainly considered as sensitive but a fundamental point of GDPR is that you can process data if you have a legal or consensual basis for it. So, if you don’t think a personal consent from the individuals being tested would be enough, you could easily lean on the legal basis of national health laws. Mr Tegnells own organization – The Public Health Agency of Sweden – is explicitly mentioned by the Swedish Data Protection Authority as an agency that has the right to process this kind of data. A cunning plan Or perhaps mr Tegnell has a more cunning plan behind his reasoning? If the plan is to enforce consent from people prior to being infected by Corona then this would be a brilliant move. Unfortunately, the virus couldn’t care less about GDPR.

[vonbeetzen]

SUCCESS FACTORS FOR PLATFORMS

Creating a gravitating platform with millions of users is still one of the most attractive business propositions in the tech industry, but as Matthew put it centuries ago; “For many are called, but few are chosen”. So, what does it take to make the grade of creating a successful platform business? And what separates the good from the great? Some of the most successful tech companies are platforms. It´s probably not a coincidence that three of the “big four” are platforms and even Apple has a substantial part of their revenue coming from platforms like AppStore, iTunes and Apple Tv. Facebook, Google and Amazon of course have non-platform business areas as well, but the core of their business is their platforms.   The five factors Being in the platform business myself, as CPO for the ID platform Freja eID, I´ve given this topic quite a lot of thought, both from the product perspective but also from an investors point of view. So, if you are aspiring to build a platform business or looking into investing in one, here are five factors to evaluate in order to assess the potential. 1. Stickiness Stickiness is basically about two things; user retention and frequency. To make a very far-fetched example, the e-service at the Tax Authority is extremely sticky on the retention side – I´m forced by law to hand in my tax return once a year – but five minutes once a year does not score very high on frequency. User retention can be created either by a high degree of either relevance or reward. Google is probably the most obvious example of relevance; the service solves the problem of finding information better than anyone else. Facebook is much less of a relevant utility in that sense. Yes, your life would probably be a bit more boring without the social network but you´d still be able to connect with your friends or find news. But the dopamine reward you get from getting a bunch of likes or from discovering something interesting while scrolling the feed keeps you coming back for more. Frequency is about the total time the user spends on a service. This can be achieved by either many short sessions – like Google - fewer longer sessions – like Facebook - or both. Snapchat has tuned every inch of their UX around frequency, most notably with their streaks feature where you build a score by snapping at least once a day with a particular friend. If you miss just one day, your streak falls. Services like Pinterest and Instagram are building heavily on dopamine rewards by the way they present images and stories in the bottomless scroll feature. 2. Positive interaction A platform needs to have a value proposition for both sides and what you should be looking for is a positive interaction between the two. In a platform like AirBnB, both sides benefit from the total growth; each host that joins the platform adds a value to the tenants and each tenant that joins adds a value to the host. Facebook on the other hand has a negative interaction. The more users that join the platform is extremely beneficial for the other side, the advertisers. However, from a user’s point of view if the four million advertisers that are currently using Facebook increase to five million, it is not necessarily adding to a positive user experience. It´s more likely that the opposite is true. 3. Margin There is a general assumption that all platforms are extremely profitable by default, as long as they are digitally scalable. But when you look into the details you will discover that there are huge differences in the potential profitability for different platforms. Spotify is as much of a poster boy in digital disruption as it gets. The current market cap of 28 billion dollars assumes that there is a lot of money to me made here. Still Spotify has, with few exceptions, been losing money quarter after quarter since its inception in 2006. The losses accumulate to billions of dollars. And when you crunch the numbers it not very surprising. For each dollar in revenue that Spotify generates, 75 cents walks straight out the door to the record labels and artists. A 25% gross margin is not very impressive in any digital business and obviously not enough to make Spotify profitable. Google on the other hand has a close to 100% gross margin. So, if you click on an ad word like “Casino” you would generate 55 dollars in revenue for Google, where pretty much all stays within the company. For Spotify to generate 55 dollars in gross revenue, you would have to pay a premium subscription for about two years. This is not black or white and if you are looking at a low margin business, you should investigate whether there are ways to increase the margins. Netflix, that basically has the same model as Spotify, shows gross margins of around 35%. Why? If you wonder why they push their “Netflix Original”-content so hard, you´ll find the answer; owning the content adds hugely to the bottom line. My personal guess is that Spotify´s move towards podcasts is a strategic move along the same lines; I would not be surprised if the rev-share to podcasters are substantially lower than to record labels. 4. Moats The fact that many of the businesses in the digital era is characterized by a winner-takes-all evolution does not mean that the winner takes it all for ever. Before Facebook there was a Swedish social network called LunarStorm that had a close to 100% penetration among teenagers in Sweden. When Facebook came, they lacked moats to keep the competition at bay – in their case the predominant reason being the focus on Swedish users. In general, having a dominance in terms of users is a pretty effective moat. For me to change from Facebook to a competing network would mean that the network would need to convince all my friends to move as well, in order for them to be on par with Facebook. Product excellence is an effective way to keep competitors at bay. Google taking over the search market and keeping the leadership is all about product superiority. Forming habits is another moat building on our human aversion of change. I know that my bank is not offering me as good a service as many competing banks, but I´m just too tied in to my habits to do something about it. In a sense, stickiness and moats are two sides of the same coin. Dependency is a great example. As long as we are using Skype within our company for video calls, I will keep it, whether I like it or not. On the other hand, as soon as IT decides to change to some other service, the moat will instantly dry out. A very rigid moat is regulatory compliance. The reason why you don’t see competitors to MasterCard and Visa making a run for their margins is regulations. Becoming PCI/DSS compliant is no trivial thing and if you add the obstacle of integration with payment terminals on a global scale you´ll find that the two giants have created a pretty deep moat. 5.  Scalability Discussing scalability in tech without separating China from the equation is like discussing Einstein´s general relativity without separating it from quantum physics. Google ticks off more points on the platform scoreboard than any other company, including the scalability factor – if we disregard the blocking from China. However, China is not the only country that limits the space for platforms based on regulation and – just like quantum physics – we will just have to live with regulations even if we do not understand them. So, if we focus on the observable tech universe there are some interesting factors underpinning the overall scalability of a platform. The first one is physical limitations. A platform like Uber cannot offer more ride services than there are individuals prepared to be an Uber driver in a certain geography. The Same thing goes with AirBnB; the number of hosts are limited to those individuals who are willing to sublet their home to strangers. Disregarding regulatory constraints, platforms like Instagram, Facebook and Snapchat – where the content is co-created by the users – are scalable without constraints. The only limiting factor is the number of users with a smartphone. However, the revenue side of the business has constraints as there is likely a limit for any user on the amount of targeted advertising he or she can cope with. A service like Netflix does not face these limitations, not even factoring in the current cultural constraints, where the content of today is aimed at a predominant western audience. Finding the opportunity Applying the factors above to an investment or to your start-up is a good guidance to assess the basic platform qualities of a business. Obviously there are much more to factor in to make a fair evaluation of the company´s potential, such as management skills, market potential and funding.   Of course, factors can change over time. Today Google is one of the most profitable companies in the world but in the beginning they struggled to find a source of revenue. It was not until they introduced AdWords in 2000, two years after the company´s inception, that they figured out how to make money. This is an important lesson in terms of the approach you will need to hace when starting or investing in a platform; you need patience. As opposed to, lets say a software company where you can genereate revenue from the first day you ship your product, a platform can only start generating revenue when a critical mass of players on each side has been established. This means that platform busniesses normally need a longer runway to take off. On the other had the potential gain is enormous if you manage to create a digtially scalable platform with a critical mass on both sides. And to find that potential, the five factors is a pretty good place to start. 

[vonbeetzen]

A HOLLYWOOD DRAMA

In the fast-changing world of technology, the ability to change is preached as the highest virtue, still organisations face great difficulties doing it. After all, we are human beings with a fundamental appeal for maintaining status quo. However, while the process of change is hard, choosing the right direction is even harder. In few other modern business stories is this more obvious than the one about Netflix and Blockbuster. On top of this, this story has everything you could ask for in any Hollywood drama. During his famous Golden Globe introduction speech in January 2020, Ricky Gervias commented on the disruption in the entertainment industry: “No one cares about movies anymore, no one goes to the cinema, no one really watches network tv – everyone is watching Netflix! This show should just be me coming out going ´well done Netflix, you win everything, good night!´” The new kid in town I guess very few people saw this coming back in 1998 when Reed Hastings and Marc Randolph founded a mail-order DVD business. For long Blockbuster had been the king of film distribution in the US – and with a substantial global operation – and at the peak of their success, Blockbuster employed 84000 people in 9000 stores. The market cap peaked at $5 billion. As the general story goes, Blockbuster refused to see the threat of Netflix and the new business model with mail order followed by online streaming. It’s the story of the fast-moving challenger and the rigid incumbent we all love to hear. In this case however, the story is not that simple. First of all Netflix was not the straight line success that one might imagine. The first years they struggled with financial losses and actually offered Blockbuster to acquire the company. Blockbuster turned down the $50 million offering. It may seem as a really bad move today when Netflix is valued $169 billion. But as we shall see, predicting the future is not a walk in the park. Luck counts too Netflix found their way out of the struggles partly by a strategy change and partly by luck. The smart move was to drop the single rate fees and introduce a flat fee for unlimited rentals. This aimed straight at Blockbuster´s weak spot which was the late fees, that made up a substantial part of their revenue, but which also annoyed customers. Netflix also got lucky that the sale of DVD-players finally took off in 2002. Blockbuster could rely on VHS rentals alongside DVD´s, while Netflix had made a bold bet on DVD as the medium of the future. After a few years Blockbuster started to feel the heat from Netflix and here is the crucial part of this story. They did not sit back and relax and arrogantly laugh at the challenger, like for example Ericsson did when Apple introduced the smartphone. “It´s a shitty telephone that no one will buy”, was an infamous quote from one of Ericssons top managers. Blockbuster acted very firmly. Fighting back By the initiative of the CEO John Antioco, Blockbuster launched a counter attack against Netflix. No more late fees and a big investment in online operations. With the Total Access offering, Blockbuster heavily countered the Netflix threat offering their customers an equally strong mail-order and online proposition in addition to their brick and mortar stores that still attracted millions of customers. Total Access grew faster than Netflix and Blockbuster had a membership base of 43 million customers. It certainly looked like David was being knocked out by Goliath. So how come Netflix today is the world’s largest film distribution company and Blockbuster filed for bankruptcy in 2010? It certainly was not due to lack of change on the part of Blockbuster. Ironically it was too much change, but in the wrong direction. The Total Access launch was huge success, but it wasn’t a free lunch. It accumulated losses at $400 million annually, but John Antioco considered this as an investment in building a user base and moats to competition. It is quite a straightforward and well used strategy for many tech companies in a winner takes all market. So Antioco not only transformed the product, he took it all the way and fundamentally transformed the business strategy of Blockbuster. The change within The hardest things to change are sometimes not related to external factors. The real problem Antioco was facing was internal. One of the major shareholders and board member Carl Ichan failed to see the opportunity Antioco was creating with the change of strategy, he could only see the huge losses. At least that´s the offical story and as we´ll see, Ichan turned out to be on of the biggest winners in the end. Anyway, Antioco was fired in 2007 and was replaced by former 7 Eleven CEO James W. Keyes. Keyes rapidly put an end to the new direction, he raised the price of the online DVD rentals and killed the attractive offerings launched by Antioco. The huge growth of Blockbusters Total Access business rapidly came to a halt. Betting on the wrong horse To his credit Keyes saw the emerging business of streaming by acquiring Movielink as one of his first moves. At this time Netflix had just launched their own streaming service so the game could have gone into a second round here. However, Keyes lacked the ability to see the big picture, or had the ability to predict the future if you want to put it that way. He was still stuck in the world of physical retail and saw Walmart´s low price DVD sales as the main threat. Instead of making a bold bet on streaming, he made the big bet on more retail stores, acquiring a large retail chain in the UK and made a bid for $1 billion to buy Circuit City, an electronic retailer on the downfall that eventually went bankrupt in 2009 without any deal materializing. Keyes obviously bet on the wrong horse and the landscape of film distribution rapidly changed, with plummeting DVD rentals and a boom for online distribution. As a final act of desperation to rectify the revenue streams, Blockbuster re-introduced the late fees disguised as a concept called Additional Daily Rates. This obviously pushed even more customers to the more convenient and less costly online way of consuming film. Such a self-destructive behavior can only be explained by pure madness, or someone having the agenda to put Blockbuster out of business. Hindsight is always easy Blockbuster filed for bankruptcy in 2010 and spiraled towards its extinction for a few years. Now it´s just a historical curiosity of the past. Netflix has 150 million users and consumes 15% of all internet bandwidth in the world. As we´ve seen this could have been the other way around, if the Blockbuster management had chosen to go all in on digital. Of course, it is easy to sit here ten years after and point out the path that should have been chosen by Blockbuster. It´s obvious, isn’t it! But identifying a shift in the market and predicting what impact it will have on the future are two very different things. The hard facts of life are that most big decision for change needs to be based on unknown factors. To a large extent it is a guessing game. Human beings are profoundly bad at predicting the future, for the simple reason that it is extremely difficult. The combination with our love of status quo is very toxic in business, especially in the fast-moving tech world of today. As a former Blockbuster employee put it: “Digital would have changed Blockbuster´s future, for sure, but it wasn´t its killer. That credit belongs to Blockbuster itself.” Epilogue with a twist As mentioned, despite the Blockbuster crash, Carl Icahn came out as the winner in this feude. Estimates say he lost around $200 millon on his Blockbuster investment and called it his worst investment ever. Interestingly enough, he took a 10% stake in Netflix in 2012, soon after the Blockbuster meltdown. He made an exit a couple of years later with a $1,9 billion profit. The only way Carl Icahn could be remotely defined as a loser in this story is the fact that if he´d kept the Netflix investment today the value would have been close to $17 billion. 

[vonbeetzen]

A QUICK FIX FOR FAILING RETAILERS

Imagine you go to a web shop to buy a neckless. You find a nice piece and to find out the price, you have to e-mail support. “Hmm, a bit expensive…”, you say when you get the answer after a few minutes, so you keep on browsing. Each time you find something of interest you e-mail support to get the price and after 45 minutes you finally have found something that looks perfect and fits your budget. Any web shop with this concept would be out of business before lunch, but this is still how much of the business in physical retail is conducted. The jewelry example is from a while when me and my wife was looking for a gift at NK, which is like the Harrod´s of Stockholm. Not that they didn’t have price tags, it was just impossible to see the price as the price tags where upside down or hidden behind the glass of the counter. But you´ll find this everywhere and at many places there are not even price tags, you literally have to ask the staff each time. The grandmaster of retail, IKEA founder Ingvar Kamprad, figured out the importance of clear pricing already back in the fifties. Low pricing is a key factor for IKEA´s success but clear pricing is equally important. Why? Two main reasons: 1.     Uncertainty is a showstopper 2.     Nobody wants to feel stupid People like predictability and the sense of having control over a situation. Presenting the price is a fundamental factor of providing control at the point of sale. The second thing is that people don’t want to feel stupid by asking something where the answer poses a risk of making them embarrassed. And it is embarrassing when you have to ask for the price, just to find yourself making up some story of why you don´t want it when the truth is that you just can´t afford it. In Sweden, just as in many countries, physical retail is going through Armageddon and many large retail chains have gone bust, not to mention independent stores. And Amazon has not even entered the Swedish market, so things will go from bad to worse soon. Physical retail has many advantages against e-commerce and there is plenty of room for innovation. Displaying prices is not exactly rocket science, but for now it’s a great place to start.

[vonbeetzen]

WHY THE MOON LANDING WAS A HOAX

I find conspiracy theories tremendously appealing, even though my rational side constantly finds proof that dismantles some of my most hard held beliefs. However, there is one thing that undoubtedly proves that no man ever set foot on the moon. For many years I was a firm believer to many of the conspiracy theories put forward on the assassination of Sweden´s prime minister Olof Palme in 1986. The case has so many oddities that believing the official story of a single assassin was impossible. Then I read the book “The unlikely killer” by Thomas Petterson last year and my well-established conspiracies on the Palme-case instantly crumbled. And even the “conspiracy of conspiracies”, the JFK assassination is starting to collapse before my eyes. A good friend, who was equally convinced that Lee Harvey Oswald hardly could be the single shooter presented a strong case for this to actually be true which in turn got me into studying Oswald. And again, a rock-solid conspiracy is crumbling before my eyes. When it comes to the conspiracy around a man setting his foot on the moon in 1969, there is one fact that cannot be disputed and is the final evidence of the moon landing being the biggest cover up in history. When Neil Armstrong steps down from the Eagle and speaks his well-rehearsed quote, his words are broadcasted instantly all over the world. In parallel he is in constant contact with Houston which basically constitutes what we today refer to as a “video conference”. And there it is. The hoax is so obvious and looks you straight in your eyes. If you´ve ever tried to do a video conference you know it is impossible to get it to work with anything resembling the flawless ease that Armstrong succeeded with from the moon fifty years ago. Either the camera is not working, the sound is messed up or people for mysterious reasons can´t join. Or it’s the connection being to poor, the wifi settings messed up or some setting deep down in the system that has been switched off and only a professor of computer science could have a chance knowing how to switch it on again. I´ve done countless Skype calls, Zoom-meetings, and Teams-conferences over the years and still, the smooth ones that worked without hassle I can count on the hand of a fingerless man. The problem is not the applications, it the fact that the application needs to work in a context of different operating systems and hardware. I´ve seen amazing end-to-end Cisco systems that delivers amazing result and even a FaceTime call works perfectly. But that´s because it resides within the Apple ecosystem and as soon as you try to scale, the technology for video conferences just collapse. If it would be one startup to invest in, it would be a company who could prove that they´ve found a way to connect the dots and solve this problem. It would be a huge. So, my home brewed moon conspiracy boils down to this; if we still haven’t figured out how to make a simple video conference work on earth today, there is no way that Neil Armstrong could have done it 50 years ago from the moon. It´s as simple as that.

[vonbeetzen]

PREDICTING THE FUTURE

One way of defining innovation is as ability to predict the future. Yes, innovation builds upon existing problems and find ways to solve them, but in order to create something that will be successful you need some ability to foresee how your solution will be received. In this case however I doubt that there was any intentional prediction, rather its more of an uncanny, accidental vision of the future. Yesterday I was at a dinner party with friends, and saw an interesting coffee table book with close up portraits, by the German photographer Martin Shoeller. At first I didn’t react too much to finding Barack Obama and Donald Trump next to each other, but there were something about the images that was a bit unsettling; they were both quite a bit younger than today. I looked at the fact section of the book and it turns out it was published in 2005, when Obama was a newly elected senator and Trump still just a loud guy from a reality tv show. There has been a few other predictions of Trumps precidency, like the well-known Simpson episode from 2000, but this is the first occasion where I´ve seen Obama and Trump in a sequence long before any of them where running for the presidency. So whats next? Well, if we are to believe Shoellers ability to predict US presidents, the next one will be a woman. The portrait following Trump in the book is of the photo artist Cindy Sherman.