Tag Archives: mountain view

Better Way to Assess Cyber Risks?


























Baukes agrees.


Now, for the future?



Unlocking the Gate to Open Innovation

Many of the innovations fueling economies in our information age did not require new technologies or scientific feats, but rather depended on arranging and manipulating in a novel manner existing technologies, as well as devising new business methods or applying established ones with an ingenious twist.

These sorts of innovations are in most cases extremely efficient. They are less expensive to benefit from, and the duration between awareness and implementation is relatively short.

Coming up with such innovative ideas and detailed product descriptions relating to the Internet and mobile market does not require any special training or education, and most of the information that is needed for a potential innovator is available in plain sight for all of us.

That doesn’t mean it’s easy to achieve such innovations and creative insights. But It does suggest that the chances of being enlightened with the same innovative concept are similar for both a bright Google employee and a bright and curious Indian or Chinese teenager or an adult with a smartphone.

Of course, when comparing the chances of being enlightened with a true and disruptive innovation on a specific issue, the group of 60,000 Googlers has slim chances of getting there ahead of the billions of teenagers and adults in the world.

You would think that applying open innovation, which gets 3.3 million search results on Google, would direct companies to take advantage of those billions of potential innovators out there. That’s definitely not the case, and I’m guessing that for most companies open innovation involves mainly following and cooperating with external companies and start-ups as well as with relevant academic institutions and individuals.

In fact, most companies discourage potential innovators in the general population from sending anything valuable to them. Have a look at Apple’s policy. The company covers all (contradicting) bases, starting with:

“Apple or any of its employees do not accept or consider unsolicited ideas”

And ending with:

“your submissions will automatically become the property of Apple, without any compensation to you. Apple may use or redistribute the submissions and their contents for any purpose and in any way”

Google appears to be more polite and logical, and so does Amazon, but the bottom line is the same: There are no incentives and only risks for potential innovators from the public to send anything valuable to such companies.

There are certainly legal risks in soliciting detailed concepts and product designs from the public, so I don’t blame companies for being cautious. I do think they can be creative in seriously mitigating those risks.

What can be done?

To start with, companies need to realize they are far less innovative in many areas of their business than they could be. And even hiring thousands of additional geniuses and cooperating with established third parties can’t do much to improve their improbable odds against a competitor that solicits innovation from the general population.

One way to go forward would be to engage trusted third-party professionals (maybe a new company consisting of former executives and employees) that would act as an “innovation firewall” between the public and the company itself (the “trustee”). The rules should be simple. All detailed product description and innovation concepts would be transferred only to the trustee, which would have an obligation of confidentiality both to the claimed innovator and to the company (regarding information the trustee possesses or receives from the company itself).

The trustee would have the hard job of screening the input received from the public, finding the innovation jewels and then verifying as best he can that such innovation does not already exist within the company. Once a true innovation is found, the trustee would make the direct connection between the innovator and the company. A standard nondisclosure agreement would then be executed.

The public should also be educated on how to present concepts, replacing the innovation-suffocating legal text existing in the links provided above.

Lack of Enthusiasm for Driverless Cars?




Consumers Are Skeptical About Driverless Cars

Among key findings of the survey:


Self-driving cars are here


Nevertheless, a transition to autonomous cars seems inevitable.





Interest in Owning a Driverless Car





When People Would Buy a Driverless Car


What People Like About Driverless Cars



Safety and cost are top worries


What People Don't Like About Driverless Cars




Most Desired Advanced Technology Features

A few are ready to spend today





For the full study, click here.

A Misguided Decision on Driverless Cars

On first glance, the California Department of Motor Vehicles’ recent proposal to ban the testing and deployment of driverless cars seems to err on the side of caution.

On closer inspection, however, the DMV’s draft rules on autonomous vehicles rest on flawed assumptions and threaten to slow innovation that might otherwise bring enormous, time-critical societal benefits.

At issue is the requirement that DMV-certified “autonomous vehicle operators” are “required to be present inside the vehicle and be capable of taking control in the event of a technology failure or other emergency.” In other words, driverless cars will not be allowed on California roads for the foreseeable future.

One problem with the human operator requirement is that it mandates a faulty design constraint. As Donald Norman, the technology usability design expert, has noted, decades of scientific research and experience demonstrate “people are incapable of monitoring something for long periods and then taking control when an emergency arises.”

This has been Google’s direct experience with its self-driving car prototypes, too. As Astro Teller, head of Google[x], told a SXSW audience in early 2015: “Even though people had sworn up and down, ‘I”m going to pay so much attention,’ people do really stupid stuff when they’re driving. The assumption that humans could be a reliable back up for the system was a total fallacy!”

The ramifications are more than just theoretical or technical. The lives and quality of life of millions hang in the balance.

Americans were in more than six million car crashes last year, injuring 2.3 million people and killing 32,675. Worldwide, more than 50 million people were injured, and more than one million were killed. Human error caused more than 90% of those crashes.

It remains unclear whether semi-autonomous or driverless cars would better reduce human error and lower this carnage. Thus, it is important to encourage multiple approaches toward safer cars — as quickly as possible. Instead, California has slammed the brakes on the driverless approach.

Another major problem with the human-operator mandate is that it slows testing and development of systems aimed at providing affordable transportation to the elderly, handicapped or economically disadvantaged. Millions of Americans either cannot drive or cannot afford a car. This hurts their quality of life and livelihood.

Driverless cars could enable Uber-like, door-to-door mobility-on-demand services at a fraction of today’s transportation cost. This will require, however, efficient, low-cost vehicles that do not need (nor need to accommodate) relatively expensive human drivers. It also requires empty driverless cars to shuttle between passengers. The California DMV rules, as proposed, would not allow the testing or deployment of such vehicles or fleet services.

The immediate victim of California’s proposed rules is Google. Google’s self-driving car program is the furthest along in the driverless design approach that the new rules would rein in, and its current efforts are located around its headquarters in Mountain View, CA. Google’s attempt to field a fleet of prototype driverless cars (without steering wheels) would certainly be dashed.

Other companies’ efforts might be affected, too. Will Tesla owners, for example, need to get separate DMV certification to use enhanced versions of Tesla’s autopilot feature? How about GM owners with Super Cruise-equipped cars? How will these rules affect Apple’s car aspirations?

The longer-term victim is California.

Silicon Valley is becoming the epicenter of autonomous vehicle research. Not only are native companies like Google, Tesla and, reportedly, Apple investing heavily in this arena, but the race to develop the technology has compelled numerous traditional automakers to build their own Silicon Valley research centers.

If California regulators limit on-road testing and deployment, companies stretching the boundaries of driverless technology will inevitably shift their investments to more innovation-friendly states (or countries).

The proposed rules must now go through several months of public comment and review before they are finalized. California needs to take that opportunity to reconsider its course on driverless cars.