A 14-page personal, subjective, selective summary of my SXSW 2012 (the interactive part) visit.

1. South
by
Southwest
2012
-­‐-­‐
summary
Introduction
This
is
my
brief
report
on
South
by
Southwest
(‘SXSW’),
a
massive
music,
film
and
interactive
festival
held
in
March
in
Austin,
Texas.
I
will
try
to
keep
it
short:
writing
and
distributing
reports
like
this
is
a
bit
old
school,
SXSW
is
typically
something
to
track
real-­‐time
through
for
instance
Twitter,
and
through
other
online
sources
(many
many
blogs
were
posted;
and
some
videos).
And
yet,
it
seems
really
useful
to
share
some
of
what
I
witnessed.
SXSW
hardly
offers
video
streams.
I
recommend
those
that
are
interested
to
check
out
the
web,
and
next
time
‘witness’
SXSW
or
parts
of
it
real-­‐time
through
the
social
infrastructure.
What
follows
is
a
subjective
selection,
written
in
haste
over
the
Easter
weekend.
There
will
be
errors
and
mistakes
in
here,
I
did
not
allow
for
anyone
else
checking
it:
no
time.
It
is
an
incomplete
summary
of
some
things
I
have
seen.
What
I
have
witnessed
over
there:
probably
accounts
for
less
than
10%
of
the
total
offering
of
the
interactive
part
of
the
event.
This
interactive
part
lasted
for
five
days,
and
often
had
some
10-­‐12
parallel
one-­‐hour
sessions,
all
day
long,
next
to
meet-­‐ups,
stands,
drinks,
parties
and
other
get-­‐togethers.
It
is
overwhelming.
The
fear
of
missing
out
(‘FOMO’)
was
palpable.
(I
also
attended
a
very
small
part
of
the
music
festival.
And
a
handful
of
films.)
This
is
a
big
hip
festival.
It
is
celebrity-­‐infested.
It
is
well
organised,
though
very
crowded.
More
and
more
people
go
there
these
days.
Myself,
I
am
a
late
adopter,
this
being
my
first
visit.
It
was
time
well
spent.
It
is
quite
a
trip
but
the
costs
are
limited
(some
$1,000
for
the
event
itself)
and
I
did
pick
up
some
really
good
things.
I
also
get
a
better
picture
of
what
some
other
people
worry
about.
For
networking,
too,
it
can
be
a
good
spot.
Even
for
‘Dutch
networking’:
alarmingly
many
Dutch
people
there
(left:
some
nice
ones;
FMT,
AVRO).
page
1

2. South
by
Southwest
2012
-­‐-­‐
summary
Strangely,
there
are
few
‘old
media’
people
there
–
I
have
seen
few
people
from
publishers
or
broadcasters.
SXSW
is
dominated
by
young
‘new
media’
and
technology
people.
I
tend
to
think
that
big
events
in
the
US
are
better
than
those
elsewhere
–
like
it
or
not,
the
online
world
is
still
being
driven
by
US
innovation.
I
think
that
visiting
this
event
makes
sense
for
our
company,
and
deserves
time,
some
costs,
and
a
bit
more
structured
approach
(see
‘wrap-­‐up
&
next
steps’).
In
this
document,
I
deliberately
left
out
most
links
to
web
sites,
videos
and
exact
names
and
titles
of
talks,
books
and
persons.
My
guess
is
that
those
factoids
would
make
tiresome
reading.
For
those
interested:
give
me
a
call
and
I
will
provide
you
with
more
such
factual
details,
if
desired.
I
am
100%
certain
that
there
is
more
information
to
be
found
on
everything
I
review
here;
and
on
that
I
have
not
witnessed
or
discussed
below.
Google
will
lead
you
the
way.
Confession:
I
skipped
sessions
with
two
celebrities
I
actively
dislike
–
Al
Gore
(hardcore
liar
on
so-­‐called
global
warming;
and
self-­‐appointed
inventor
of
the
Internet)
and
Bruce
Springsteen.
Celebrities
I
missed
with
some
regret
included
Robert
Metcalfe
(of
Metcalfe’s
law)
and
Willem
Dafoe
(the
actor).
I
did
witness
Mark
Mothersbaugh
(founder
of
Devo)
and
Anthony
Bourdain
(maker
of
entertaining
cooking
TV
and
books,
but
loudly
self-­‐congratulating).
Here
are
some
loosely
structured
take-­‐aways.
In
the
next
chapter
I
list
some
topics
in
a
very
high-­‐level,
snacky
fashion.
In
the
chapter
thereafter
I
spend
some
more
text
on
some
selected
topics.
All
this
is
superficial.
There
are
enormous
amounts
of
books,
articles,
blogs,
videos
and
tweets
of
relevance.
I
tried
to
make
it
clear
where
opinions
are
mine.
I
urge
all
people
reading
this
to
also
look
up
additional
sources
to
get
a
more
complete,
broader
picture,
and
to
finetune
or
refute
my
observations.
There
is
a
lot.
Key
themes
–
in
short
These
were
threads
I
saw
coming
back
in
many
sessions.
Many
were
to
be
expected
I
guess.
Here
I
list
the
ones
I
remember.
• Old
&
new
media:
lots
of
discussions
on
‘old’
and
‘new’
media,
mostly
rather
inward-­‐looking,
often
from
the
point
of
view
of
the
professionals
involved.
Not
always
about
the
behaviours
and
desires
of
consumers.
Or
advertisers.
Often
emotional,
with
elements
of
triumphalism
(from
‘new’),
denialism
(‘from
‘old’)
and
narrowness
(from
various
sides).
Clearly,
some
media
are
shrinking,
some
are
growing,
not
all
new
things
come
‘on
top
of
the
old’
but
some
substitute,
or
at
least
compete
for
time.
There
is
broad
agreement
that
media
are
changing,
of
course
(from
the
Dept
of
Open
Doors).
There
was
one
venue
in
which
almost
solely
sessions
took
place
that
had
to
do
with
journalism,
in
its
different
forms.
Quite
OK,
many
of
them,
in
spite
of
lots
of
grumbling
and
complaining
(‘democracy
is
going
to
die!’
etc).
Lots
about
curation
and
aggregation,
of
course,
there.
page
2

3. South
by
Southwest
2012
-­‐-­‐
summary
• Generational
friction:
this
is
related
to
the
previous
one.
People
keep
asking
‘can
a
50-­‐year
old
understand
a
20-­‐year
old?’,
in
the
light
of
‘making
media’.
The
simplistic
take
on
this
I
liked
best
was
something
like
‘who
cares
–
just
hire
some
20-­‐year
olds
and
make
sure
they
can
help
you’.
Also,
it
seems
that
many
people
actually
research
their
children
these
days.
(I
have
once
read
translated
2500-­‐year
old
Egyptian
papyrus
scrolls
pointing
at
this
generational
theme.
It
looked
like
it
was
written
yesterday.
I
guess
we
are
stuck
with
this
generational
phenomenon.
In
media,
too.)
• Analytics:
hard
figures
are
making
their
way
into
content
production
and
distribution.
Measuring,
measuring,
measuring
–
engineering
methods.
There
was
a
lot
of
attention
for
quantitative
approaches
to
editorial
work;
and
to
things
one
can
no
longer
call
‘editorial’.
More
later
on.
This
topic
is
somewhat
related
to
the
rise
of
machine
‘computing’
(note:
I
do
not
use
‘thinking’
here,
but
sometimes
I
do
–
it
is
quite
impossible
to
find
the
right
words,
if
you
think
it
over),
i.e.
to
the
power
of
algorithmic
approaches.
Relevant
for
us
this.
We
have
already
started
some
things.
We
should
go
faster,
I
now
think.
This
does
impact
our
way
of
working.
More
to
come.
Of
course,
the
term
big
data
was
used,
too,
at
SXSW.
It
is
certainly
not
the
same
what
I
describe
here
as
analytics,
but
I
chose
to
leave
out
other
flavours
of
big
data
for
(mainly
because
I
did
not
attended
those
specific
sessions).
• ‘SoLoMo’:
social
local
mobile,
everything
seems
to
go
that
way.
A
quite
generic
theme
of
course,
but
also
quite
real.
One
might
wonder:
why
even
work
on
web
sites
as
we
know
them?
Why
launch
such
a
thing
or
put
a
big
effort
in,
whereas
especially
social
and
mobile,
and
to
a
lesser
extent
local
stuff
seems
to
draw
so
much
attention
and
energy?
This
is
my
take-­‐away.
OK,
let
me
also
say:
mobile
and
social
are
not
yet
getting
a
proportional
part
of
the
advertising
pie.
Not
at
all.
This
is
puzzling.
The
social
dimension
of
TV
was
a
recurring
theme,
too.
There
were
some
pretty
good
examples,
but
also
some
boring,
open
doors
re-­‐opened.
I
would
expect
battles
in
the
‘social
TV
dimension’
shortly.
Several
speakers
expected
–
or
witness
–
massive
amounts
of
experimentation.
Some
asked:
how
many
per-­‐TV
programme
apps
can
the
public
absorb,
or
are
we
heading
for
generic
TV
apps?
Two
social
phenomenons
mentioned
(praised)
most
included
Instagram
and
Pinterest
(graph
right).
Are
these
passing
fads?
I
guess
not.
Are
there
many
trendy
social
things
that
will
not
make
any
real
needle
move?
I
guess
so.
And
yet,
there
will
be
more,
many
more.
But,
as
Lanier
hinted:
how
much
space
does
Facebook’s
network
effect
allow
for
others?
What
sort
of
things
can
one
still
do
outside
of
Facebook?
page
3

4. South
by
Southwest
2012
-­‐-­‐
summary
• Curation,
aggregation:
a
very
interesting,
somewhat
divisive
matter.
More
later
on
in
this
document.
I
think
this
is
about
new,
disruptive
approaches
to
forms
of
journalism.
Think
of
Jeff
Jarvis’
slogan
‘do
what
you
do
best
and
link
to
the
rest’.
That
–
taken
to
extremes:
journalists
who
don’t
write.
More
later.
• The
photo
tsunami:
photography
has
exploded,
and
keeps
growing.
Everybody
can
make
and
distribute
(quite
good)
photos.
Increasing
smartphone
penetration
will
push
this
phenomenon
further
–
but
where
to?
Will
this
merely
produce
a
sea
of
mediocrity,
or
even
worse?
More
later
on.
• Computation,
AI,
the
Singularity:
the
rise
of
machine
‘thinking’
and
the
future
role
of
technology.
Will
we
witness
–
and:
be
able
to
control?
–
the
extension
of
the
human
brain?
In
how
we
produce
and
distribute
content?
My
worry:
can
we
take
this
matter
in
a
rational
fashion,
or
are
we
either
too
afraid
(like
we
were
of
HAL,
in
2001
A
Space
Odyssey,
picture
right),
or
too
excited,
to
come
to
a
cool-­‐headed
judgment?
Maybe
there
is
a
matter
of
faith
at
play
here.
Several
speakers
were
believers.
These
were
quite
smart
people
with
a
track
record
though.
Some
other
people
are
reluctant
to
allow
machines
to
take
a
certain
role
in,
say,
content
production,
selection
or
distribution.
I
personally
think
it
might
be
better
to
experiment
with
‘automated
intelligence’
and
think
really
hard
about
it.
Actually,
most
of
us
–
using
Zite,
or
Spotify,
or
Google
–
are
already
doing
that.
Meanwhile,
technology
is
developing
sort
of
exponentially.
More
later.
• User
interfaces:
it
is
now
becoming
clear
that
interaction
between
people
and
machines
has
changed
for
ever.
Look
at
the
role
of
‘multitouch’,
for
instance.
That
said:
regarding
Siri
(voice
recognition)
and
related
stuff,
I
am
a
skeptic,
for
now.
Will
this
evolution
of
interaction
continue?
Most
experts
said
yes.
Personally,
I
believe
that
some
20-­‐30
years
from
now
we
will
laugh
at
what
we
are
now
working
with,
that
our
current
stuff
will
look
medieval
in
just
a
couple
of
decades.
May
I
suggest:
have
a
look
at
some
of
the
videos
of
Corning,
the
glass
company.
And
look
at
Kinect
(Microsoft).
• Mobile
markets
and
advertising:
there
was
a
lot
about
mobile,
but
most
of
it
did
not
make
massive
sense
to
me.
What
I
observe
is
broad
and
deep
uncertainty
as
to
how
‘mobile’
will
work,
business-­‐wise,
and
to
what
extent
it
will
supplant
or
add
to
existing
media,
from
magazines
to
web
to
TV
(as
for
newspapers,
I
do
not
doubt
that
mobile
is
the
way
to
go).
Also,
mobile
is
a
great
transactional
platform,
that
was
confirmed.
A
bit
more
later
on.
And
now
for
some
relative
depth.
page
4

5. South
by
Southwest
2012
-­‐-­‐
summary
Analytics
One
of
the
sessions
I
attended
involved
people
from
Wired
magazine,
and
from
Condé
Nast’s
‘analytics
unit’.
They
observed:
there
have
always
been
analytical
data
on
sales
and
usage,
but
those
have
–
through
online
and
on
tablets
–
become
incredibly
much
more;
and
heterogenous;
and
(mostly)
real-­‐time.
Also,
you
can
now
apply
those
figures
on
content;
and
not
just
on
circulation.
From
the
provider’s
side,
you
can
measure
almost
everything;
and
use
that
in
your
editorial
process.
Which
can
turn
things
upside
down.
This
is
about
accurate
data
on
who
read
what,
when,
and
what
else,
what
buttons
were
pushed
and
what
not,
on
traffic
streams,
conversion,
the
profiles
of
people
reading
specific
stuff,
as
well
as
who
wrote
what,
and
how
the
consumption
of
contributions
from
different
authors
differs.
All
of
this
real-­‐time.
All
of
this
as
direct
input
into
the
editorial
process.
All
this
connecting
content
and
commercial
messages.
Think
of
the
extremist
example,
the
way
for
instance
Demand
Media
works:
it
creates
content
purely
based
on
the
popularity
of
search
terms.
Without
any
interest
in
the
content
itself
(which
is
quite
visible
if
you
consumt
Demand’s
stuff:
most
of
it
is
outright
dreadful,
in
my
view).
In
online
versions
of
magazines
and
related
online
sites
and
apps,
there
is
a
wealth
of
usage
data
that
still
has
to
be
gathered
and
used.
This
topic
popped
up
in
other
sessions,
too.
My
guess
is
that
the
analytical,
‘quant’
approach
that
is
already
in
use
in
transactional
systems,
including
in
online
advertising,
is
coming
to
the
editorial
world,
to
a
certain
(?)
extent.
Some
tools
that
were
mentioned
include
ChartBeat,
LightBulb
and
VisualRevenue.
I
have
not
checked
these,
I
have
suggested
some
others
to
do
that.
I
guess
Wolfram
Alpha
(see
elsewhere
in
this
document)
is
of
a
different
nature
but
deserves
to
be
mentioned
here
too
(I
found
Wolfram
stunning).
We
had
already
started
some
experiments
along
these
lines,
and
we
will
speed
up.
This
is
pretty
much
something
one
just
has
to
try
to
bring
further.
It
does
require
an
open
mind
as
it
is
quite
different
from
the
classic
approach.
It
is
more
about
understanding
the
pull,
than
about
planning
the
push.
It
reminds
me
in
a
way
of
the
switch
from
conventional
above-­‐the-­‐line
marketing
to
below-­‐the-­‐line,
‘direct’
methods.
Which
brought
approaches
that
were
not
always
‘understandable’,
but
they
worked
–
the
figures
just
showed
it
worked.
It
is
pretty
much
about
adapting
your
behaviour
(=production)
to
what
the
numbers
say,
as
opposed
to
having
your
professional
intuition
lead
the
way.
This
topic
also
related
to
the
computation
stuff
(see
below)
that
was
discussed
here
and
there.
Once
you
have
this
sea
of
analytical
data,
you
can
start
number
crunching.
Several
people
(strongly)
suggested
that
the
speed
and
quality
of
that
number
crunching
is
likely
to
keep
increasing
steeply,
or
even
–
in
the
case
of
Kurzweil
–
to
increase
to
unimaginable
levels.
For
me,
a
significant
increase
seems
enough
to
make
me
rethink
some
things.
Nirvana
can
come
later.
page
5

6. South
by
Southwest
2012
-­‐-­‐
summary
Curation
&
aggregation
I
got
to
see
and
listen
to
Maria
Popova
(on
the
left)!
She
curates
stuff
on
www.brainpickings.org,
a
site
I
read
daily
(some
3-­‐4
tweets
from
@brainpicker
per
day
I
guess).
There
were
also
leading
people
from
www.percolate.com,
www.news.me,
www.longformapp.com
and
from
Flipboard.
All
‘curation’
stuff,
of
various
nature.
Several
of
them
are
really
good
at
finding
and
re-­‐
arranging
existing
stuff,
sometimes
new,
but
sometimes
rally
old,
and
putting
that
into
some
sort
of
a
new
context,
and
delivering
that
to
people
in
a
more
or
less
personalised
manner.
Many
sorts
and
tastes.
More
tools
exist
(think
of
Zite),
and
many
more
will
come
(Zeen,
so
it
seems,
is
about
to
be
launched,
by
the
Youtube
founders).
I
am
not
getting
into
the
finer
details
here
–
I
just
talk
about
‘re-­‐use
of
existing
content’.
There
were
some
people
who
took
a
romantic
stance:
only
content
that
you
have
either
made,
or
paid
for,
is
OK.
Content
you
found
and
put
together
cannot
be
good,
will
not
add
value.
Was
what
people
seemed
to
argue.
Personally,
I
think
that
that
does
not
adequately
value
‘curation’
(a
well-­‐defined
concept?),
nor
does
it
acknowledge
that
quite
a
bit
of
‘paper
journalism’
comes
with
aggregating,
curating
existing
stuff
as
well.
Which
is
a
professional
skill.
Popova
skillfully
argued
that
there
is
so
much
‘old’,
really
good
content
on
the
web.
Which
can
–
or
should
–
be
put
to
use,
again,
because
it
is
so
good,
or
(again)
relevant,
and
can
be
made
even
better
if
it
is
combined
with
other
content.
If
a
new
context
or
target
audience
is
created.
A
simple
view:
watch
Popova
proving
that
daily.
The
other
platforms
mentioned
above
are
not
so
bad
either.
I
find
Zite
–
acquired
by
CNN!?
–
nice,
and
I
am
convinced
that
the
current
Zite
and
its
peers
will
in
a
few
years
time
be
seen
as
simplistic,
handicapped,
dumb
tools.
In
their
current
form,
these
are
sort
of
LPs,
or
early
cars.
Zite
will
be
much
smarter
and
better
in
just
2-­‐3
years.
So
will
many
others.
Same
for
Pinterest,
the
women’s
curation
thing.
Same
for
Spotify,
or
a
Spotify
derivative
for
news,
or
for
magazines,
etcetera.
Will
that
be
triggered
by
human
curation
or
by
machine
intelligence
–
I
guess
both,
but
I
don’t
really
care.
Let’s
see,
let’s
try.
page
6

7. South
by
Southwest
2012
-­‐-­‐
summary
There
were
emotions.
Those
tend
to
get
amplified
by
asking
this:
how
does
a
human
curator
compare
to
an
algorithm?
This
‘machine
dimension’
fuels
an
emotional
experience.
For
some.
the
human
touch
seems
almost
sacred.
For
few,
it
seems
easily
missable.
The
debate
made
me
think
of
debates
on
computer
chess
or
Turing
tests,
in
which
people
sometimes
criticise
machines
for
not
being
able
to
walk
on
water,
and
seemingly
overlook
that
the
machine
is
actually
walking,
or
sometimes
even
running
(on
the
ground,
that
is).
Kurzweil
similarly
mentioned
the
chess-­‐playing
dog.
This
discussion
also
came
up
in
a
seminar
on
‘online
musicologists’
I
attended.
Which
was
also
about
the
differences
between
human
curation
and
algorithms.
There,
most
people
tended
towards
who
cares?!
Another
thing
I
picked
up
there
hinged
on
the
fun
factor
many
people
experience
while
getting
lost,
to
a
certain
extent.
People
like
to
wander
on
the
web,
now
and
then.
It
is
good
to
face
some
unexpected
diversion
while
consuming
information
–
like
you
do
in
a
newspaper
or
magazine.
Highly
‘personalised’
media
cannot
easily
do
without
that
‘serendipity
factor’.
I
remember
Negroponte
writing,
long
ago,
that
in
personalised
streams,
one
should
include
random
bits
of
news,
just
to
create
an
experience
similar
to
a
newspaper
or
a
magazine.
Someone
nicely
called
the
web
‘a
giant
serendipity
machine’.
I
am
inclined
to
think
that
a
wide
and
wild
variety
of
both
–
man
and
machine
methods
–
should
be
tried,
mixed
and
tested,
and
that
both
will
have
their
function,
and
some
surprising
results
should
be
expected.
I
am
in
favour
of
non-­‐
ideological,
unemotional
approaches
that
seem
like
evolution,
and
bring
out
the
fittest.
I
guess
I
miss
out
on
some
emotions
with
this
stance.
That
happens
more
often.
I
do
think
the
machine
dimension
is
important,
but
that
‘man-­‐made
curation’
(and
aggregation,
or
how
one
would
define
those
things)
is
equally
important,
and
even
more
of
today.
Popova
read
out
a
text
on
circulation
management
for
newspapers,
dated
1923,
that
was
pretty
much
the
same
we
would
nowadays
say
about
search
engine
optimisation
(SEO).
Quite
funny.
Quantitative
optimisation
methods
evolve.
David
Carr,
the
media
critic
of
the
New
York
Times,
also
appeared
in
this
panel.
An
unconventional,
grumbling
personality.
I
recommend
reading
his
pieces.
He
is
quite
present
in
Page
One
–
Inside
the
New
York
Times
documentary
(I
found
that
so-­‐so,
as
it
seemed
part
nostalgia,
but
it
is
an
enjoyable
sketch
of
a
monument,
I
would
say).
Carr’s
articles
are
always
insighful.
His
grumbling
here
was
good.
Photo
tsunami
Instagram
was
all
over
the
place
at
SXSW
so
it
seemed.
Understandably.
Its
CEO,
Kevin
Systrom,
took
part
in
several
panels.
I
amongst
others
attended
one
by
Koci
Hernandez
who
both
discussed
the
perceived
mediocrity
of
all
these
photos
people
make;
and
gave
a
10-­‐minute
workshop,
to
underpin
his
point
that
quality
is
not
so
far
away
for
many
of
us.
I
assume
that
this
session
page
7

8. South
by
Southwest
2012
-­‐-­‐
summary
was
not
easy
to
swallow
for
many
classic,
professional
photographers.
Nor
for
me.
Hernandez
was
inspiring,
funny
and
made
most
of
the
audience
think.
He
is
quite
present
on
the
web
(blog,
other
stuff)
–
recommended.
Hernandez
did
a
workshop.
Even
I
got
it,
partly
(I
am
a
photography
Neanderthaler).
He
showed
the
use
FilterStorm
(€2.99)
and
ProCamera
(€0.79)
on
an
iPhone
–
impressive
(for
me
at
least).
He
had
been
playing
with
some
200
photo
apps
so
he
told.
And
a
wave
of
Android
photo
apps
has
yet
to
arrive.
Having
heard
several
not-­‐so-­‐structured
discussions
on
modern
and
upcoming
photography
–
its
dirt
cheap
production,
smart
tools,
endlessly
long
tail
of
topics,
frictionless
distribution
–
I
expect
an
even
bigger
role
from
non-­‐professionals
in
there.
Like
it
or
not.
It
also
brings
to
mind
the
concept
of
‘good
enough’:
many
things
do
not
have
to
be
top-­‐quality,
in
many
cases
mediocre
quality
suffices.
This
is
hard
to
admit
for
professionals,
but
it
is
true.
One
can
make
too
good
quality.
Technology
can
be
too
good
as
well,
at
least
for
wide-­‐ranging,
mass
applications.
Is
what
I
learned
from
a
Wired
article
of
some
years
back
–
and
that
pops
up
in
my
mind
now
and
then.
It
applies
to
apps
in
general:
mostly
mediocre
stuff.
It
might
apply
to
photography.
But,
that
said,
with
modern
tools,
even
a
‘0.01%
is
really
good’
score
of
contemporary
photography
would
create
an
amazing
quantity
of
good
photos.
This
was
also
observed
by
a
Library
of
Congress
person
–
responsible
for
archiving
photography,
a
daunting
task
most
people
felt.
(One
thing
that
was
not
discussed
but
which
may
be
of
utmost
importance
in
some
future,
regarding
this
topic:
intelligent,
visual
search.
It
was
not
mentioned.
I
assume
some
people
in
certain
offices
are
thinking
really,
really
hard
on
that.
It
is
worth
money,
lots
of
it.)
The
Instagram
person
shared
what
companies
have
done
the
smartest
things
with
his
tool
so
far,
in
his
view:
Burberry,
GE
and
Audi.
Check
it
out.
Computation
&
AI
There
were
several
sessions
that
had
to
do
with
the
future
of
technology.
Various
Big
Names
discussed
this
somewhat
philosophical
theme,
but
it
did
become
very
practical
now
and
then.
Those
I
witnessed
included
Ray
Kurzweil
(of
The
Singularity
Is
Near),
Stephen
Wolfram
(of
Mathematica
and
of
Wolfram
Alpha)
and
(picture
left)
Jaron
Lanier
(of
You
Are
Not
A
Gadget).
Lanier
was
inspiring.
page
8

9. South
by
Southwest
2012
-­‐-­‐
summary
These
three
have
some
overlaps,
especially
Wolfram
and
Kurzweil,
who
are
in
the
optimist
hard-­‐core
techy
camp.
They
argue
that
technology
will
go
further
and
further.
Further
than
most
people
can
oversee.
These
are
believers,
and
–
so
I
think
–
they
have
valid
insights.
I
do
think
it
is
important
to
stay
calm,
as
these
guys
have
a
following
that
now
and
then
blurs
some
things.
I
am
certain
that
guys
like
them
do
not
have
their
own
interests
in
mind
like
some
big
companies
do
(this
was
debated,
too,
here
and
there
–
are
they
evil?).
Lanier,
first.
Intriguing
he
is.
He
confused
the
audience
now
and
then
interrupting
the
interview
for
a
musical
intermezzo
–
him,
playing
on
a
self-­‐made
instrument.
Interesting.
Weird.
Sounded
bloody
awful,
frankly
(I
made
a
video).
This
was
philosophical.
Really
good.
Difficult
to
summarise.
This
man
puts
question
marks
at
unexpected
places.
I
was
impressed.
Some
things
he
said
I
would
find
difficult
to
summarise.
Relatively
simple
things
he
said
included:
• Google,
Facebook
and
Apple
are
growing,
growing
and
growing.
But
isn’t
it
quite
likely
–
and
explainable
–
that
they
are
meanwhile
actually
shrinking
the
rest,
both
in
the
physical
and
in
the
online
world?
Aren’t
they
sucking
value
out
of
others,
or
out
of
whole
markets?
• With
the
massive
network
effect
(aka
Metcalfe’s
law)
of
Facebook,
it
becomes
practically
impossible
to
get
something
going
outside
Facebook,
in
some
areas
–
anything
with
a
strong
social
dimension.
That
has
a
business
impact.
Should
one
even
consider
to
do
certain
things
outside
Facebook?
Is
Facebook
a
de
facto
necessity?
Should
it
have
a
regulatory
impact?
(He
talked
about
Facebook.
Some
of
these
considerations
could
equally
or
similarly
be
applied
to
Apple
or
Google.
Or
even
to
some
local
classifieds
markets.
There
are
winner-­‐takes-­‐all
effects
in
digital
markets.)
• Privacy
regulation
is
going
in
the
wrong
direction.
The
starting
point
should
be:
one
legally
owns
his/her
own
data,
all
data
that
‘describe’
or
refer
to
that
person.
Ownership
of
that
data
should
be
legally
defined.
That
would
turn
around
the
whole
debate.
It
requires
a
very
different
approach.
(For
me,
it
is
hard
to
think
through
what
this
means.
I
know
it
is
very
different
from
current
practice.
It
sounds
good.
I
personally
think
it
is
too
late,
we
are
stuck
in
an
old
and
not
so
relevant
legal
model.
I
foresee
decades
of
muddling
through.)
(As
for
privacy:
there
were
systems
at
SXSW
that
classified
passers-­‐by
automatically.
Here,
I
am
seen,
labelled
as
‘young
adult
male’.
I
leave
out
the
one
where
it
said
‘old
woman’.)
His
observations
on
Aristotle
were
profound,
but
difficult:
‘when
the
machines
operate
themselves,
we
can
free
the
slaves’.
I
think
that
Lanier’s
session
could
be
summarised
as:
technology
will
continue
to
be
a
driving
force
of
this
civilisation,
possibly
even
more
so
than
up
till
now,
but
we
need
to
think
harder
how
to
steer
that,
to
keep
it
under
control.
page
9

10. South
by
Southwest
2012
-­‐-­‐
summary
An
then
Kurzweil:
who
claims
that
in
some
decades
from
now,
total
machine
intelligence
on
this
planet
will
surpass
collective
human
intelligence.
That
moment
is
The
Singularity.
It
is
not
quite
clear
what
that
will
look
like,
but
it
is
a
Big
Thing.
He
has
some
data
to
underpin
his
claims
(see
his
books
and
his
videos,
all
over
the
web).
It
is
all
about
exponential
effects,
the
law
of
accelerating
returns
based
on
technology
that
facilitates
development
of
even
better
technology.
But
Moore’s
Law
is
a
nice,
simple
illustration.
He
is
a
slightly
strange
evangelist
with
an
impressive
track
record.
One
of
his
claims
is
that
with
genetic
technology,
biology
has
become
computer
science
–
we
can
build
and
alter
life
now.
He
seriously
thinks
almost-­‐endless
life
is
within
reach;
and
swallows
some
200
pills
per
day
to
increase
the
probability
that
he
will
witness
the
Singularity.
I
should
mention
Craig
Venter
here,
he
who
‘sequenced
the
human
genome’.
He
decoded
DNA,
which
was
commonly
considered
impossible.
Nowadays,
one
can
have
his/het
DNA
sequenced
for
about
$100.
Which
is
astonishing.
This
does
illustrate
one
of
Kurzweil’s
points.
If
you
look
through
the
almost-­‐religious
atmosphere
surrounding
Kurzweil,
there
is
a
scientific
and
actually
mostly
realistic
thinker
at
work.
Kurzweil
likes
to
talk
about
Siri
(the
Apple
iPhone
4S
voice
interface)
and
Watson
(a
program
that
beat
humans
at
Jeopardy).
He
observes
that
the
some
of
these
things
are
often
downplayed,
using
an
analogy
of
‘sure,
that
dog
can
play
chess,
but
he
is
not
very
good
in
the
end
game’.
I
can
attest
to
that
from
my
days
at
university,
where
computer
chess
was
a
ridiculed
research
topic
in
the
80s.
Deep
Blue
beat
Kasparov
in
1997
–
there
is
not
a
human
anymore
better
at
chess
than
a
strong
program.
Kurzweil
argues
‘we
are
a
human-­‐
machine
civilisation,
everybody
in
this
room
is
enhanced
with
computer
technology’
–
referring
especially
to
medical
technology,
from
pacemakers
to
Viagra.
McLuhan
already
saw
TV
as
‘the
extension
of
the
human
nerve
system’.
By
the
way,
Kurzweil
did
deliver
some
inventions:
optical
character
regognition
(OCR),
the
electronic
piano
and
a
(computerised,
of
course)
method
to
deal
with
dyslexia.
A
–
somewhat
sad
–
documentary
on
him
is
Transcendent
Man.
He
just
founded
the
Singularity
University,
partly
founded
by
Google
and
NASA.
He
has
a
following
which
shows
slightly
religious
traits.
page
10

11. South
by
Southwest
2012
-­‐-­‐
summary
As
an
aside,
referring
to
our
‘relationship’
with
Wikipedia,
Youtube
and
the
like,
he
stated
that
current
educational
methods
are
woefully
inadequate
if
one
takes
into
account
that
detailed
knowledge
and
advanced
methods
to
retrieve
and
use
that
knowledge
are
easily
available
to
half
of
the
world’s
population.
Kurzweil,
and
Wolfram,
see
humankind
as
a
fundamentally
technological
sort.
They
see
evolution
of
us
as
a
series
of
technology
advancements.
Kurzweil’s
point
is
that
things
go
exponentially.
Take
Moore’s
Law
which
states
that
computational
power
doubles
every
eigtheen
months.
That
means:
it
grows
to
a
thousand-­‐fold
as
big
(roughly
2
to
the
power
of
10)
in
15
years.
Have
a
look
at
the
To
the
power
of
ten
video
by
Eames
to
try
to
perceive
this.
Wolfram
talked
–
in
a
subdued
manner
–
about
the
tools
he
made.
These
include
Mathematica,
an
extremely
powerful
tool
to
automate
mathematics;
and
Wolfram
Alpha.
He
showed
the
latest
version
of
the
latter.
This
was
overwhelming.
Wolfram
Alpha
builds
on
Mathematica.
It
is
a
‘computational
machine’
that
can
be
confused
with
a
search
engine.
It
has
a
form
of
logic
‘inside’,
and
mountains
of
data.
It
is
fundamentally
different
from,
say,
Google,
which
searches
the
web.
This
Wolfram
Alpha
is
an
attempt
at
an
intelligent
machine.
The
modest
talk
by
Mr
Wolfram
was
rather
staggering
because
of
the
examples.
Trust
me,
I
was
not
the
one
most
impressed.
I
had
some
very
down-­‐to-­‐earth
colleagues
sitting
next
to
me
who
were
–
possibly
–
more
astonished
by
the
‘computational’
examples
that
Wolfram
showed
–
think
of
him
entering
‘flights
overhead’
which
produced
a
real-­‐time
picture
of
all
airplanes
that
were
just
hovering
over
Austin,
Texas.
Het
also
did
some
mathematics
with
his
‘machine’
that
showed
more
‘understanding’
than
99%
of
humans
could
ever
reach
–
note,
this
was
not
number
crunching,
but
manupilating
formulas.
Myself,
later,
on
Wolfram
Alpha,
I
played
around
with
Internet
penetration,
average
length,
income
and
other
demopgraphics
for
various
countries.
Mastering
Wolfram
Alpha
is
a
task
in
itself.
I
skipped
the
real
mathematics
stuff
(but
I
know
it
is
very
powerful).
The
new
Wolfram
Alpha
Pro
facilitates
uploading
data
and
finding
all
sorts
of
relationships
in
there.
Wolfram
showed
some
examples,
like
an
analysis
of
his
own
millions
of
keystrokes
dating
back
to
1989.
This
was
weird,
and
yet,
insightful.
I
think
we
should
play
around
with
this
a
bit
(we
already
started).
(I
find
it
hard
to
reconstruct
Wolfram’s
talk.
I
was
somewhat
astonished.
It
made
me
think
of
Arthur
C.
Clarke’s
statement
‘any
science,
sufficiently
advanced,
is
indistinguishable
from
magic’.
That
is
strong,
but
it
was
overwhelming.)
page
11

12. South
by
Southwest
2012
-­‐-­‐
summary
What
this
might
mean:
machine
‘intelligence’
is
still
progressing,
probably
rapidly.
Is
it
real
‘intelligence’?
I
don’t
care.
Does
it
work
like
our
brain?
No.
Will
it
surpass
our
computational
abilities?
In
many
respects,
yes.
Is
there
any
point
in
comparing
it
to
our
brain?
I
believe
not.
Actually,
I
believe
that
is
a
quite
common
and
persistent
mistake.
But
these
and
other
‘machines’
will
do
at
least
interesting,
probably
some
really
effective
work,
in
chess,
in
manipulating
data,
in
search,
or
in
–
for
instance
–
curation.
I
think
that
a
bit
of
the
power
of
Wolfram
Alpha
included
in
Zite,
or
in
Spotify,
or
in
Pinterest,
will
create
really
new
stuff,
that
will
effectively
address
some
of
the
informational
needs
of
some
people.
At
least.
this
I
took
from
Kurzweil
and
Wolfram.
Also,
both
argued
that
education
should
be
rethought
in
the
light
of
progressing
‘thinking
technology’.
And
what
I
took
from
Lanier:
think
about
all
this
really
hard,
in
an
independent,
fresh
manner.
This
needs
other
approaches
than
current
copyright
and
privacy
laws.
For
instance.
Stop
looking
into
the
rear
view
mirror,
McLuhan
would
say.
My
lesson
from
the
past
(computer
chess,
for
instance):
thinking
that
‘machines
take
over
from
humans’
does
not
really
help.
This
is
the
standard
science
fiction
topic,
as
in
Do
Androids
Dream
of
Electric
Sheep
aka
Blade
Runner.
There
are
very
smart
tools,
even
smarter
ones
under
way,
and
experimenting
with
them
is
the
best
way
forward.
‘Human
curation’
and
‘human
editorial
interventions’
will
continue
to
play
a
role
but
some
things
might
change.
Machines
may
well
do
some
things
better,
or
cheaper.
They
will
certainly
help.
Stuff
like
Zite,
Spotify,
Pinterest
and
next
generations
of
such
tools
will
play
a
big
and
bigger
role
in
re-­‐creating
content,
connecting
consumers
and
advertisers.
I
saw
some
movies
(documentaries),
too.
One
of
them
(picture
left)
was
about
this
man-­‐machine
theme,
about
how
one
lives
with
technology.
It
featured
several
of
this
festival’s
speakers
(Lanier,
Kurzweil),
but
also
Ted
the
Unabomber
Kaczynski,
his
victim
David
Gelernter
(of
Mirror
Worlds),
Kevin
Kelly
(of
What
Technology
Wants)
and
Shelly
Turkle
(of
Alone
Together).
I
found
the
packaging
of
the
movie
–
the
maker
is
worried
over
his
children’s
survival
–
irritating,
but
the
whole
thing
thought-­‐provoking.
I
disagree
with
The
Unabomber
and
his
erstwhile
mouthpiece
David
Skrbina
(a
professor),
but
I
do
think
their
views
–
that
technology
enslaves
people
and
should
actively
be
restrained
–
are
page
12

13. South
by
Southwest
2012
-­‐-­‐
summary
worth
reading
and
add
value
to
a
discussion
on
how
to
steer
technology.
I
recommend
reading
the
Unabomber’s
manifesto,
I
say
with
some
hesitation.
His
methods
(bombing
people)
were
very
unsavoury.
Mobile
Let
me
start
with
a
quote
I
heard
(again):
‘your
mobile
phone
will
be
your
remote
control
for
life’.
Some
10
years
ago,
I
worked
at
Orange,
and
its
founder
Hans
Snook
used
to
say
that
too.
Literally.
It
seems
quite
true.
It
will
be
the
dominant
medium
for
many
things.
There
are
currently
800
thousand
Android
phones
connected
daily,
worldwide,
and
competition
in
supply
will
only
increase
so
prices
will
go
down,
penetration
will
go
up.
The
big
battle
for
tablets
has
yet
to
start.
Brace
yourselves.
It
will
probably
ignite
in
the
second
half
of
2012
(with
Nokia/Microsoft
and
Google
entering
the
tablet
market).
One
of
the
sessions
I
attended
involved
senior
people
from
AirBNB
(where
I
found
and
rented
my
place
to
stay
for
SXSW,
a
sort
of
garden
shed
outside
downtown
Austin,
far
cheaper
than
a
hotel
–
picture
right
–
which
only
made
me
rent
a
bike
as
well,
at
Lance
Armstrong’s
shop).
Other
people
in
this
session
represented
eBay
and
Groupon.
(An
observation
about
‘mobile’.
This
is
the
term
that
is
often
used.
I
think
that
may
be
incorrect.
My
guess
is
that
one
should
more
or
less
always
distinguish
the
former
phone
–
a
relatively
small
screen
–
from
the
tablet.
I
think
these
are
different
media.)
Mobile
is
a
highly
personal,
always-­‐on
medium.
Mobile
market/exchange
users
respond
within
one-­‐third
of
the
time
of
others.
Mobile
users
show
some
50%
less
expiring
reservations.
Mobile
drives
some
15%
of
all
transactions.
About
1
million
people
in
the
US
made
their
first
buy
at
eBay
in
2011,
through
mobile.
Some
mobile
exchange
owners
have
separate
teams
working
for
consumers
and
for
merchants,
respectively.
Because
they
act
and
think
so
differently.
Also,
several
of
them
follow
the
mobile
first
adage
–
first
coined
by
Google
I
believe
–
in
their
development.
For
them,
this
is
about
real
and
growing
revenue.
They
consider
it
an
almost
frictionless
medium,
the
trailblazer,
with
the
web
merely
following.
Mobile
seems
to
‘click’,
as
in
‘successfully
facilitating
transactions’.
But,
someone
stated:
‘anything
but
the
most
lightweight
interaction
just
will
not
fly’.
It
has
to
be
dead
simple.
Look
at
how
Amazon
acts?
The
sessions
I
witnessed
on
‘old
style’
mobile
advertising
(display)
did
not
really
enlighten
me.
I
remember
one
session
in
which
terms
like
‘holistic’,
‘evolution’,
‘ecosystem’
and
‘cross-­‐platform’
were
used
in
rapid
succession.
I
left
soon
after.
page
13

14. South
by
Southwest
2012
-­‐-­‐
summary
Wrap-­‐up
This
is
it
for
now.
If
you
have
linearly
reached
this
point
I
have
probably
not
wasted
your
(and
my)
time.
Then,
I
suggest
that
you
browse
the
web
a
bit
for
more
depth.
Or
let’s
have
some
discussions.
Also,
I
recommend
reading
some
notes
by
my
colleague
Kirsten
Jassies
(two
of
her
articles
are
on
www.frankwatching.com),
or
look
up
various
things
by
Erwin
Blom
(www.fastmovingtargets.nl,
www.erwinblom.nl).
And
lots
of
other
things.
I
have
made
some
plans
for
SXSW
2013
which
I
am
not
yet
going
to
distribute
in
detail
here
and
now.
Let
me
say:
although
this
event
runs
the
risk
of
collapsing
under
its
own
weight
–
a
singularity,
some
would
say
–
I
do
think
it
makes
sense
to
go
there
again;
and
to
divide
the
key
parallel
sessions
over
a
handful
of
colleagues.
Also,
I
think
it
would
be
worth
considering
to
act
as
speaker.
The
‘panel
picking
process’
starts
in
August
2012.
Let’s
think
this
over.
On
the
content
side:
some
of
the
stuff
mentioned
above
I
will
most
probably
voice
again
over
the
coming
weeks
and
months.
Although
some
of
it
is
already
aging.
Action,
as
in
geen
woorden
maar
daden:
I
have
started
(to
push)
some
things.
For
now:
I
hope
this
texts
enlightens
some
things.
And
triggers
some
fruitful
discussions.
Bye
to
y’all,
from
Texas.
Michiel
page
14