Podcasts about Google Glass

The Experience Strategy Podcast | theexperiencestrategist.substack.com Part one of a four-part mini-series unpacking the frameworks in Dave Norton's new book, Human Context: How Intelligent Companies Build Customers. The Stupid/Dumb/Smart/Genius framework has been in use with clients for nearly a decade. It was born in a room in Burbank, in real time, when Joe Pine found himself in the back of a client workshop and Dave told the client that Joe would have a new framework for them.  This episode tells that origin story, walks through how the framework works — with examples from glasses to healthcare — and explains why it's never been more relevant than right now. What's in This Episode How the framework was born. Joe and Dave were working with a media company in Burbank. Dave had mapped out consumer insights across a whiteboard — rows, columns, the full picture. Joe, watching from the back of the room, took it as a prompt to build a two-by-two on the spot. The dumb-versus-smart contrast came from the conversation itself: broadcasting is dumb — it sends out a signal with no feedback loop — and the client knew they needed to move toward smart but weren't sure how. From there, the natural extension followed: if dumb has a worse version, it's stupid (intelligence used against the consumer). If smart has a better version, it's genius (intelligence that truly knows and serves the individual). The framework has been a core part of Dave and Joe's client work ever since, and it's now a central chapter in Human Context. What each level actually means: Dumb — no context is being collected or used. Not a pejorative. A pair of glasses that helps you see is dumb. A family doctor who knows your history and gives good care is practicing dumb medicine. The product or service does exactly what it's supposed to do, without any data layer. There will always be a market for dumb — and increasingly, it may feel like a relief. Smart — an iterative sense-and-respond loop. The system collects some data and adjusts. Your streaming service tracking what you watch and making recommendations is smart. Glasses with an audio component connected to your phone are smart. Genius — anticipatory, fully contextual, deeply personalized support. The system knows your history, your situation, your mode, and acts on your behalf before you have to ask. Dave uses the example of a health AI that knows your supplements, your medical history, and the fact that you're going golfing today — and surfaces exactly what you need to know, without a doctor's visit. Meta smart glasses are a current candidate, though the jury's still out. Stupid — intelligence used adversarially against the consumer. Getting in the way of what someone is trying to do. Collecting and deploying data in ways that feel invasive or serve the platform instead of the person. Google Glass — where users were famously called "Glassholes" — is the canonical example. Joe's live case study: Amazon Prime serving him ads for Lioness every single episode, for a show he's already watched in full. That's not smart personalization. That's stupid. The same technology, all four levels at once. The glasses example makes the framework concrete: regular glasses are dumb (and excellent at it). Hearing-aid glasses or phone-connected frames are smart. Meta smart glasses are approaching genius. Google Glass was stupid. One product category, four distinct orientations — and a viable business model for at least three of them. Healthcare is the most important application. The dumb version: fill out the same form you filled out last time, see the doctor, get the prescription. Not bad care — just no data layer. The critical gap Joe identifies: no one has the full picture of what you're taking. Your GP, your specialist, your rheumatologist — each knows their piece. Nobody has the whole context, including your supplements, which means drug interactions go undetected. The genius version: a health AI with your complete medical history, supplement stack, and daily context — flagging what you need to pay attention to before you even call the office, with the doctor as a periodic checkpoint rather than the first point of contact. Consumer expectations will catch up to this. When they do, dumb healthcare won't feel bad — it'll feel retro. The consumer's rising expectations change the baseline. As genius becomes standard, what felt cutting-edge becomes expected, and what was once acceptable starts to feel quaint. Dave's point: companies need to be building toward genius now, because the window in which it's a differentiator is shorter than it looks. This Is Part One of Four The next three mini-episodes unpack the remaining frameworks from Human Context: Part 2: Situational Markets Part 3: Modes Part 4: Time Value Get the Book Human Context: How Intelligent Companies Build Customers by Dave Norton is available now on Amazon (Kindle and print) and on Dave's Substack. The ten industry workbooks — showing how each framework applies to your specific category — are available alongside the book. Questions for the hosts? Reply to any episode email or find us at theexperiencestrategist.substack.com.

OpenAI heeft de ontwikkeling van onderdelen van zijn nieuwe AI-model Astra deels stilgezet. Uit interne tests bleek dat het model volgens de maker van ChatGPT de eigen kritieke cyberveiligheidsdrempel kan bereiken: het zou zonder tussenkomst van een mens zelf kwetsbaarheden in digitale systemen kunnen vinden en uitbuiten. Het bedrijf werkt nu aan strengere veiligheidsmaatregelen. Verder groeit de maatschappelijke kritiek op de slimme brillen van Meta. Joe van Burik vertelt erover in deze Tech Update. OpenAI zegt niet te kunnen uitsluiten dat Astra de hoogste risicoklasse, aangeduid als critical, uit het eigen Preparedness Framework haalt. Zolang het bedrijf de veiligheid niet kan garanderen, worden interne activiteiten rond Astra stopgezet. Tegelijk zegt topman Sam Altman te willen werken aan een brede beschikbaarheid van het model, al duurt dat door de capaciteiten wat langer. Het bericht past in een reeks incidenten van deze zomer, waarbij modellen van OpenAI en Anthropic uit hun testomgeving ontsnapten. Zo drong een OpenAI-agent eerder de systemen van AI-platform Hugging Face binnen. Groeiende kritiek op slimme brillen van Meta De kritiek op de slimme brillen van Meta wordt luider. Vergelijkbare zorgen klonken al dertien tot veertien jaar geleden rond Google Glass, waarvan gebruikers spottend glassholes werden genoemd, maar dat bleef een klein prototype. Meta verkocht vorig jaar naar eigen zeggen zeven miljoen slimme brillen, ontwikkeld met merken als Ray-Ban en Oakley en met een samenwerking met Kylie Jenner. Met de brillen kun je filmen terwijl omstanders dat nauwelijks doorhebben. Er zit een ledlampje op dat opnames moet aangeven en dat volgens Meta niet te blokkeren is, maar toch melden mensen dat ze stiekem zijn gefilmd. Poppodium TivoliVredenburg stelde vorig jaar al een verbod in en Bits of Freedom riep op tot een totaalverbod in de openbare ruimte. Misbruik van slimme brillen volgens The Guardian The Guardian beschreef dit weekend hoe gebruikers van de brillen op onbedoelde reacties stuiten. Influencers en creatievelingen die zeggen leuke beelden te willen maken, worden door omstanders beschuldigd van het gebruik van pervert glasses. Een vrouw die aan promotie had meegewerkt, Rida Tharana, bood publiekelijk excuses aan. Daarnaast zijn er ernstiger gevallen. Zo vertelde een vrouw de BBC dat een man haar had gefilmd en vervolgens geld eiste om de video's te verwijderen, en beschreef een andere vrouw dat ze zonder toestemming tijdens seksueel contact was gefilmd. In Schotland loopt een onderzoek naar een extreemrechtse TikTokker die zich met de bril zou hebben gefilmd terwijl hij vrouwen en een winkelier ongevraagd benaderde. OpenAI zet ontwikkeling van Astra deels stil vanwege cyberveiligheidsdrempel Republikeinse aanklagers vragen OpenAI documenten over de Hugging Face hack te bewaren Anthropic meldt dat eigen modellen drie organisaties hackten tijdens tests The Guardian over mannen die met slimme brillen vrouwen heimelijk filmen Meta belooft harder op te treden tegen misbruik van de slimme brillen Over de maker:Joe van Burik volgt en duidt de belangrijkste ontwikkelingen in tech, met scherpte, vlotheid en de nodige humor. Je hoort hem dagelijks op BNR Nieuwsradio over het belangrijkste technieuws, van AI tot cybersecurity en social media tot quantumcomputers. Ook interviewt hij in De Grote Tech Show samen met Ben van der Burg leiders in digitale innovatie. In het bijzonder volgt Joe al twee decennia de wereld van videogames, nu voor zijn podcast All in the Game.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

HEADLINES: An investigation has been launched after two aircraft came within metres of a collision at Sydney Airport. A $5 million national anti-bullying campaign has been launched. The Albanese Government will be forced to defend their draft legislation as Parliament resumes following the winter break. Western Australia makes a $20 million bid to snag the 2028 NRL Grand Final from Sydney. Barbie and Ken might be starting to look a little closer to reality. GET IN TOUCHGot a story, news tip-off, feedback or dilemma?Send us a voice note or email us at thequicky@mamamia.com.au SUBSCRIBER GIVEAWAY: The Out Loud hosts have handpicked their all-time favourite reads and one subscriber is winning the entire 12-book stack. Subscribe to Mamamia here to be automatically entered. Already a subscriber? Don't sweat it, you're already in. T&Cs apply. CREDITSHost: Charlotte Mortlock Audio Producer: Scott Stronach & Tegan Sadler Group Executive Producer: Georgie Page Check out The Quicky Instagram here and our TikTok here Discover more Mamamia podcasts here Did you know some of our shows are now in video on the Apple Podcast app? Make sure your phone is up to date and check it out here! Mamamia acknowledges the traditional owners of the land on which we have recorded this podcast.Become a Mamamia subscriber: https://www.mamamia.com.au/subscribeSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In this episode of UC Today, host Christopher Carey sits down with Matt Maher, CEO of M7 Innovations, to explore the latest smart glasses from Meta and Snap — and what this new era of wearable computing could mean for businesses and consumers alike.Matt breaks down why Meta and Snap are taking very different bets on spatial computing, introduces his "Three F's" framework (Fashion, Function, and Feasibility) for evaluating consumer adoption, and explains why now — unlike 2013 when Google Glass launched — the Overton window has finally shifted in favour of smart glasses.The conversation also covers the growing privacy concerns around Meta's hardware, how Europe is leading on regulation, and where the biggest commercial opportunities lie for businesses exploring wearable tech today.Key topics covered:

Our conversation with Kirk McElhearn about his new Take Control of AirPods continues, exploring the advanced capabilities of AirPods beyond simple audio playback, explaining listening modes, Conversation Awareness, head gestures, and how the Apple ecosystem enhances the experience. He also discusses why AirPods perform poorly as phone microphones, examines rumors of camera-equipped AirPods, and reflects on technology searching for a purpose, from smart displays to the rise and fall of 3D TVs.   Today's edition of MacVoices is supported by MacVoices Live!, our weekly live panel discussion of what is going in the Apple space as well as the larger tech world, and how it is impacting you. Join us live at YouTube.com/MacVoicesTV at 8 PM Eastern 5 PM Pacific, or whatever time that is wherever you are and participate in the chat, or catch the edited and segmented versions of the show on the regular MacVoices channels and feeds. Show Notes: Chapters: 00:00 AirPods listening modes: Noise Cancellation, Transparency, and Adaptive Audio07:02 Why Transparency Mode improves safety and everyday use12:08 Conversation Awareness and head gesture controls20:40 AirPods for phone calls: microphone quality and Bluetooth limitations36:20 Rumors of camera-equipped AirPods and privacy concerns45:43 Smart displays, AI, and products searching for a market57:17 Lessons from Google Glass and the rise and fall of 3D television71:55 Why learning AirPods' full feature set is worth the effort Links: Take Control of AirPods by Kirk McElhearn The Imperfect Loaf - Kirk's bread blog Guests: Kirk McElhearn writes about Apple hardware and software, books, music, and more. As a Senior Contributor to Macworld for more than 15 years, he wrote hundreds of articles, including the Ask the iTunes Guy column. He is a regular contributor to The Mac Security Blog, the Literature & Latte blog, where he writes about their writing app Scrivener, and TidBITS, as well as several other websites and magazines. He is co-host of several podcasts, including The Next Track, a podcast about how people listen to music today, and Write Now with Scrivener. Visit his website Kirkville. Support:      Become a MacVoices Patron on Patreon     http://patreon.com/macvoices      Enjoy this episode? Make a one-time donation with PayPal Connect:      Web:     http://macvoices.com      Twitter:     http://www.twitter.com/chuckjoiner     http://www.twitter.com/macvoices      Mastodon:     https://mastodon.cloud/@chuckjoiner      Facebook:     http://www.facebook.com/chuck.joiner      MacVoices Page on Facebook:     http://www.facebook.com/macvoices/      MacVoices Group on Facebook:     http://www.facebook.com/groups/macvoice      LinkedIn:     https://www.linkedin.com/in/chuckjoiner/      Instagram:     https://www.instagram.com/chuckjoiner/ Subscribe:      Audio in iTunes     Video in iTunes      Subscribe manually via iTunes or any podcatcher:      Audio: http://www.macvoices.com/rss/macvoicesrss      Video: http://www.macvoices.com/rss/macvoicesvideorss

Our conversation with Kirk McElhearn about his new Take Control of AirPods continues, exploring the advanced capabilities of AirPods beyond simple audio playback, explaining listening modes, Conversation Awareness, head gestures, and how the Apple ecosystem enhances the experience. He also discusses why AirPods perform poorly as phone microphones, examines rumors of camera-equipped AirPods, and reflects on technology searching for a purpose, from smart displays to the rise and fall of 3D TVs.   Today's edition of MacVoices is supported by MacVoices Live!, our weekly live panel discussion of what is going in the Apple space as well as the larger tech world, and how it is impacting you. Join us live at YouTube.com/MacVoicesTV at 8 PM Eastern 5 PM Pacific, or whatever time that is wherever you are and participate in the chat, or catch the edited and segmented versions of the show on the regular MacVoices channels and feeds. Show Notes: Chapters: 00:00 AirPods listening modes: Noise Cancellation, Transparency, and Adaptive Audio 07:02 Why Transparency Mode improves safety and everyday use 12:08 Conversation Awareness and head gesture controls 20:40 AirPods for phone calls: microphone quality and Bluetooth limitations 36:20 Rumors of camera-equipped AirPods and privacy concerns 45:43 Smart displays, AI, and products searching for a market 57:17 Lessons from Google Glass and the rise and fall of 3D television 71:55 Why learning AirPods' full feature set is worth the effort Links: Take Control of AirPods by Kirk McElhearn The Imperfect Loaf - Kirk's bread blog Guests: Kirk McElhearn writes about Apple hardware and software, books, music, and more. As a Senior Contributor to Macworld for more than 15 years, he wrote hundreds of articles, including the Ask the iTunes Guy column. He is a regular contributor to The Mac Security Blog, the Literature & Latte blog, where he writes about their writing app Scrivener, and TidBITS, as well as several other websites and magazines. He is co-host of several podcasts, including The Next Track, a podcast about how people listen to music today, and Write Now with Scrivener. Visit his website Kirkville. Support:      Become a MacVoices Patron on Patreon      http://patreon.com/macvoices      Enjoy this episode? Make a one-time donation with PayPal Connect:      Web:      http://macvoices.com      Twitter:      http://www.twitter.com/chuckjoiner      http://www.twitter.com/macvoices      Mastodon:      https://mastodon.cloud/@chuckjoiner      Facebook:      http://www.facebook.com/chuck.joiner      MacVoices Page on Facebook:      http://www.facebook.com/macvoices/      MacVoices Group on Facebook:      http://www.facebook.com/groups/macvoice      LinkedIn:      https://www.linkedin.com/in/chuckjoiner/      Instagram:      https://www.instagram.com/chuckjoiner/ Subscribe:      Audio in iTunes      Video in iTunes      Subscribe manually via iTunes or any podcatcher:      Audio: http://www.macvoices.com/rss/macvoicesrss      Video: http://www.macvoices.com/rss/macvoicesvideorss

Are we living through the dawn of a permanent Surveillance Summer?SUPPORT MY WORK: Buy a paid subscription to my newsletter at usermag.co           Support my work on Patreon: http://patreon.com/taylorlorenz     Kylie Jenner is the new face of Meta's AI smart glasses and suddenly, mass surveillance is a fashion trend. Influencers are declaring a "hot surveillance summer," West Village fashion girlies are posting AI glasses selfies, and for thousands of people (not me! lol), cameras on your face have officially gone from creepy to chic. How did we get here?  In this episode, I sit down with iconic fashion journalist Amy Odell, author of the Back Row newsletter covering fashion, culture, and power, to unpack how Big Tech used the fashion industry to normalize wearable surveillance. We trace the full history of smart glasses, from the Google Glass disaster and Snapchat Spectacles vending machines to Ray-Ban Stories, Oakley Meta glasses, and the rhinestone-studded AI glasses taking over your feed. We discuss why the Kylie AI glasses are a turning point for wearable tech, and how this could be the moment personalized AI surveillance becomes permanently woven into public life. Subscribe to Amy's newsletter here: https://www.backrow.net/  We get into: ▸ Why Meta chose Kylie Jenner as the face of its AI glasses campaign ▸ How Mark Zuckerberg rehabbed his image through influencer interviews ▸ The "hot surveillance summer" discourse and why some women are embracing being recorded ▸ How fashion makes surveillance tech palatable — from GoPro to AI hair clips ▸ Meta's facial recognition plans, data harvesting, and what it means for privacy ▸ The Meta Gala, OpenAI's fashion world infiltration, and Snap's $2,000 AR flop ▸ How anti-phone and anti-screen sentiment is fueling the rise of ambient computing, AI pendants, pins, and camera-equipped AirPods ▸ Who actually owns the data Meta's AI glasses collect 

Hello EICustard Creams! For this week's bonus we're discussing the ethics of wearing or owning smart glasses. It's a tech that has existed in various forms for over a decade, first with Google Glass, then Apple's Vision Pro, which caused concern on release for featuring twelve cameras, six microphones and two depth sensors. And now Meta, along with other big tech giants, are expanding their own smart glass collections, ponying up for huge celebrity endorsements and seeking to normalise the tech for everyday wear. With your help- we discuss.Thanks so much for your takes on this topic. We love love love being In Conversation with you all!B, R, O xLinksThe Washington Post - Smart glasses record people in public. The most online generation is pushing backCNIL - Smart Glasses: The CNIL calls for vigilance TikTok - Alex Haddon matches songsBBC - Woman covertly filmed for 'humiliating' social media content - then told to pay Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Dead On Arrival: What was just Hype and what was just wrong Timing? Some technologies and products get over-hyped, and never seem to come to fruition? Some just come to fruition, but years or even decades later? In this episode of Tech Deciphered, what is Dead On Arrival versus just wrong timing Navigation: Intro The Fork Cold Open General Magic The Metaverse Dead on Arrival The soon to be Resurrected… Conclusion Our co-hosts: Bertrand Schmitt, Entrepreneur in Residence at Red River West, co-founder of App Annie / Data.ai, business angel, advisor to startups and VC funds, @bschmitt Nuno Goncalves Pedro, Investor, Managing Partner, Founder at Chamaeleon, @ngpedro Our show: Tech DECIPHERED brings you the Entrepreneur and Investor views on Big Tech, VC and Start-up news, opinion pieces and research. We decipher their meaning, and add inside knowledge and context. Being nerds, we also discuss the latest gadgets and pop culture news Subscribe To Our Podcast Bertrand SchmittIntroduction Welcome to Tech Deciphered episode 78, Dead on Arrival. Was it just hype or just wrong timing? In this episode, we are going to discuss two different types of businesses that as an investor, as an entrepreneur, you want to think carefully about. Looking back, you want to understand better what happened. If we take dead on arrival, we’re talking about businesses, technologies that maybe the tech work fine, but actually no one cared about it, no one wanted it. It’s really a mismatch in terms of what consumer want versus what you are trying to deliver. It’s a classic example of a solution finding for a problem. On the other hand, will it happen but not like that, not now? It’s a type of business where we were too early. We tried to make it work, but actually the technology is not ready now, but it might become ready in the future. As an entrepreneur, as an investor, obviously, you want to make sure you are not in one of these two technologies, one of these two categories. But it’s really a useful lesson to learn which situation you might be in because it will help you make better decision and pick better industries going forward. Nuno, what’s your take on this tough analysis?Nuno Goncalves PedroYeah, in hindsight, everything looks like, “Oh, of course, this wasn’t meant to work,” etc. But here we’re going to take a stab, as you mentioned, at things that are just wrong timing. They might have failed miserably in the past, but they might work in the future. The Fork To have this stake on the ground approach to it, as we’ve had in previous episodes, of defining exactly what we think will happen, but just not like that, versus the dead-on-arrival, which is a little bit more of a hardcore view on it. To your point, we want to really split between those two things because in some ways people are like, “Well, are we ever going to go and have different ways of interacting, for example, in terms of input and output, like with glasses or things like that, that really scale to become pretty pervasive?” We probably would agree that, “Yes, that will happen”. Maybe not in the way that we’ve anticipated until now, and certainly it’s going to take longer than we’ve expected. In some ways, the “will happen, not like that” is a little bit like Amara’s law or Nuno’s law, as referred to in the past. We tend to overestimate the speed at which we get to a revolution, underestimate impact. The “will happen, not like that” will probably fit into that. They will have probably bigger impact than we thought they would, but they will just take longer. Therefore, the solutions we’ve had until now are not great solutions. Whereas the dead-on-arrival, we’re saying, “Hey, we don’t think actually this works.” It’s to your point, not solving a problem that actually needs to be solved, or it’s solving it in the wrong way. Yeah, it’s basically an attempt to really frame, if you’re an entrepreneur, if you’re a venture capitalist, if you’re someone who is an angel investor and is looking at the market right now, what things should you put some real money and real resources, real time behind versus not, and really share that with you guys: our audience.Bertrand SchmittCold Open I always like to go back to a company called General Magic, a company that was legendary in Silicon Valley, spun out of Apple in the 1990s. There was even a movie made about General Magic. It’s a company that tried to basically build the first modern smartphone with touchscreens, app ecosystem. The only issue was it was years before the technology existed to support it. But Nokia at the time was less ambitious and more practical with what the technology was able to do at the time. But what’s interesting with this company is that obviously the smartphone was coming, just took 10 more years, 15 more years. Interestingly enough, some of the people in the team ended up being very successful in that exact space. Tony Fadell, for instance, who ended up creating the iPhone, co-create at least, and Andy Rubin, who end up building up Android, selling that to Google and leading the charge with Google Android.Nuno Goncalves PedroYeah, a very successful team. Tony Fadell, obviously, later on did Nest as well. Megan Smith, who was later the Chief Technology Officer of the US. A lot of people that came out of it that did a lot of important things. To be honest, I think a lot of the technology that was developed that was in some way a capacity or that are reused later on by some of these team members. I’m not saying they were infringing on any IP, but definitely there was a lot of reuse of tech. But it was too soon, right? They were doing something that was truly ambitious too soon. But a lot of these principles, a lot of these things ended up manifesting themselves, and particularly in the iPhone later on and in that deployment. Another such example is actually the metaverse. We did two episodes back in the day, a long time ago, on the metaverse. We debunked it a little bit. Back then, I think it was a very nuanced debunking, if I recall it correctly, Bertrand, because we were saying, “Hey, it’s going to happen in some ways, but it’s an evolution, not a revolution,” not in the way that we saw definitionally. We were huge fans of Matthew Ball and his analysis around media, but somehow we disagreed, I remember, with his definition of what the metaverse is and how it will look like. There’s no doubt that there’s going to be a metaverse in the future, probably metaverses in the future before there’s any given unification. In those metaverses, we do believe. But this whole hype cycle around metaverse and what’s happening clearly didn’t work out well, as proven also by all the write-offs done by Meta on their metaverse stuff. That much must have hurt. It’s related to AR and VR as well and to the enriched reality positioning of a lot of these technologies, which we’ll talk about later. But, again, it was probably something that’s going to happen. It’s going to happen likely in a different product manifestation as the one that was anticipated by a lot of the pundits that opined on what’s happening around metaverse in the future. But it’s going to happen. It’s just going to take longer. It’s going to probably come from angles of entry that are likely not what people had anticipated earlier on. Maybe it’s from gaming, maybe from something else. But definitely it’s going to happen.Bertrand SchmittYes, and you could argue that Apple did a similar mistake with the Vision Pro. I think the Vision Pro is the worst launch of an Apple product. When we say launch, it’s been three years maybe?Nuno Goncalves PedroSince the Newton, maybe?Bertrand SchmittYes, that’s my point. You have to go back a really long time to have such a disastrous launch. I think for me, it’s very interesting because it’s really a category where on one side there is a metaverse of some sort. You should argue if you are just using Twitter, or Facebook, these are some parallel universe in parallel to your real life. But the full on metaverse where you need some extra super heavy glasses to make it work, that simply has not worked. Don’t get me wrong, there are some super small, narrow cases where your heavy VR glasses makes sense for some training, for some simulation, for some light gaming. But given the weight, the disconnection from the real world, it has really never taken fire. Even at cheaper price like Meta was able to do, at more expensive price, much higher quality like the Vision Pro did. It looks like people have an issue with putting heavy glasses on top of them. We’ll talk later about the other side: AR glasses. But the traditional metaverse, heavy glasses, VR glasses, yes, it’s not feeling right, and I don’t think it will ever be right. It needs a different form factor to go at scale.Nuno Goncalves PedroDefinitely fundamental shifts on the metaverse. Just a quick reminder, Meta actually changed their name because of metaverse.Bertrand SchmittYes. Nuno Goncalves PedroIt’s not just that they’re writing off the investments, it’s their name is apparently wrong. It didn’t really happen in that way. You are saying that this persistent embodied virtual world, which was the early definitions of what a metaverse was, didn’t really happen until now. It might happen at some point, but not in that way. But, obviously, a lot of the enablement layers are still work in progress, right? Real-time 3D, presence, avatars, all of these things are moving on. A lot of these enablers will be ready once there is a time where these technologies and businesses that are fundamentally anchored around these technologies will emerge. It’s, again, right components, wrong product alignment, but at the same time, it will happen, just not yet.Bertrand SchmittAgain, I think we’re going to face a split of a virtual reality light that you can call AR with very light glasses that are not a pain to wear, that are more limited, especially today or the next 5 years. The VR glasses that will stay a niche product that are useful for some use cases. Do you want to do a flight simulation? You want to do military training? There will be use for that. But beyond that, it’s more limited. We forgot to talk about the Google Glass. This one was an early, early AR glasses. But, again, here we go back to the capabilities. Simply, we were not there at the time.Nuno Goncalves PedroDead on Arrival We’re moving to Dead on Arrival. What things do we think are relatively dead on arrival? We’ll be nuanced on a couple of these aspects. Not everything is totally dead on arrival. But maybe let’s start with a good one, which is some of the crypto summer promises, particularly around NFTs, non-fungible tokens, and the decentralization of everything, the tokenization of everything. That didn’t quite work the way people thought it would. A lot of people were very happy for a period of time that they had some NFT that was worth a ton of money. Good for them. I hope they sold it back then. Some did actually, fortunately for them, but most of them did not. As an asset and the tokenization element, we’re not questioning that tokenization itself doesn’t make any sense. But from my perspective, a lot of the elements of tokenization plus the tokenization of everything don’t make necessarily imminent sense. I think we’re going to have a world that not everything is going to be tokenized, and a world where, to be honest, having the latest ape token as an NFT is maybe not something I really need. It’s dead on arrival in some ways. What do you think, Bertrand?Bertrand SchmittIt feels like it’s a tale of two worlds. On one side, there was clearly exuberance and bullshit. All these cryptocurrencies that make no sense, have no values. The NFTs are the same: no values, no sense, no logic in them. At the same time, we can see that Bitcoin, Ethereum, and few others were significant products, invention, that have a current total market value that is significant. I would say we can see that step by step, little by little, there is some tokenization happening, but it has been much more narrow than what was initially thought, expected. But it’s happening step by step. I think there is value in tokenization, but definitely not as much value as people expected. I think for one simple reason: it’s very expensive to set up in the sense that it doesn’t work so well, actually. It requires a lot of computing power for stuff that might not justify it as simple as that. Why do you want to replace a very efficient, superfast database by something slow, expensive to maintain? Why? You need to have real reason for that. I think in most situations, there was not a real justification to make that switch. I think, again, there is a niche for tokenization. It’s getting used. Obviously, there is stablecoin as well that are working and provide value. But definitely, the use cases have narrowed. The success stories have been few and far between. It’s definitely a space, but I don’t think it has lived up to the expectations. The expectations were simply quite insane in terms of what to expect, and it failed to achieve that. I don’t think it qualifies as a true revolution. It has been successful again in our situation: in Bitcoin, in Ethereum, in some tokenization. But beyond that, it was not the dramatic change that people were picturing.Nuno Goncalves PedroYeah, it’s been successful and there is a security, in this case, a currency of types, that links to the value of that specific network and the utility of that specific network. But on this case, in particular, the NFT stuff, I think there were two core premises that were very valuable about it. One was the premise of digital collectibles, the element itself being collectible and the fact that I have a unique one was only minted one. It’s a unique thing out there. I think at some point people forgot that actually digital collectibles are not as valuable as people think they are. Physical collectibles are more valuable. The reason for that is just human nature. I want to have something in physicality. I want to have something that I can show people, etc, that has a physicality to it. Digital collectibles, I think there was a problem fundamentally in part of the articulation of NFTs that reside in the value of digitization of these collectibles in and of themselves. I think that was part of the problem. The second problem was really the notion of provenance, the notion of certification, the notion of “this is what it says it is, and nobody can say this is something else.” This notion of provenance. That, I think, fits more into the point you were making, which is the point around use cases. This doesn’t fit all use cases. The provenance piece and the certification piece doesn’t fit for all use cases. Probably it might fit actually even more for actual physical assets where you want to have a certificate, that thing is what it says it is, but it’s actually maybe a physical asset rather than a digital asset. Again, lo and behold, it doesn’t apply to all the use cases that relate to provenance. I don’t think we need to tokenize all the provenance ledgers in the world for this to be working well. Again, it was a little bit of an overreach. In some ways, all these players were very happy. There was a lot of bullshit. To be honest, this is an area that I do think there was actual active fraud. All due respect to a lot of the players in the market, but there was active fraud. Honestly, there was bullshit.Bertrand SchmittI agree with you. I was going to say that it’s one of the rare sector in technology where I think frauds, scams were prevalent. Yes, you might have some shitty startups in general and stuff, and there might be fraud. I think true fraud is rare. True scam is rare. But here for NFTs, for cryptocurrencies, that was the majority you could argue. That’s the part that I never really liked in all that industry. If you look at NFT, personally, I never understood the concept. For me, it made simply no sense because, yes, you can say, “Oh, I have created this rare digital token.” But sure, so what? Who cares? Who cares? You can have hundreds, thousands, millions of unique digital tokens. How does it matter? What’s the use case? What’s the connection? You can show it on your screen, but then how is it unique anymore? It’s not like people have to come to your house and check stuff on site or something like physical art. No, not at all. I don’t know. I think it was surprisingly true bullshit. Again, I’m still a believer in Bitcoin. I think there is true logic to have a separate virtual digital currency. But you don’t need hundreds of them. You just need one, maybe two for some variation. The same for tokenization, it doesn’t need to happen everywhere. Just need to happen where there is really strong real logical value. Beyond that, there is no point.Nuno Goncalves PedroYeah, makes sense. Maybe moving to our next one. I think we discussed this in a previous episode, which was the whole 3D TV stuff. We just don’t think that’s the product, right? It’s not going to be a 3D TV. I believe when we discussed this in the episode—I don’t want to lie too much—but I believe that’s what we came up with… It looks a bit more holographic or the manifestation comes through other mechanisms like glasses, etc. But we thought it was just dead on arrival. Nobody wanted to have glasses on the couch to watch the 3D TV, but also the 3D TVs themselves they tried to develop were very holographic, were super clunky and very heavy. In some ways, I think TV manifestation somehow is not a great manifestation for this. I put it on the dead-on-arrival pile. I have one, just to be clear. I still have one.Bertrand SchmittYeah, but it’s a weird one because if you remember, it suddenly happened. I remember being shocked as a consumer. Suddenly everyone talks about 3D TV. In a few months, 3D TVs are all out everywhere. Then after a few years, no one bothered to keep adding that because consumers didn’t care. I think one issue was, I think it has only worked with Blu-rays. I don’t think any streaming service supported that. With the rise of streaming, that was certainly a pretty big issue in the first place. Interestingly, in the movie theaters, do we still have movies being shown in 3D? I think we still have a few, but it’s really few and far between the movie theater.Nuno Goncalves PedroYeah, IMAX won on that format, the high-end format, IMAX won, not the 3D thing.Bertrand SchmittBut, yeah, if you’re on the TV at home, you don’t want to bother. Maybe if you’re in the movie theater, more high-end experience, you are willing to wear special glasses. I think it makes sense. I think, I guess at home, we are just too busy doing multiple things at once. Rarely sitting all around 2 hours for a movie, so you watch your phone, you check on something else. You don’t want to have these glasses on top that block you from the rest of what’s happening at home.Nuno Goncalves PedroYeah, it just didn’t work. I’m not sure it will work in any case, so we’ll see. But definitely, I don’t think that’s the right form factor.Bertrand SchmittIt technically worked, but practically, it was not accepted by consumers.Nuno Goncalves PedroLet me rephrase. I think it was a solution to a problem nobody thought they had. The execution of the product was the wrong one. It’s like that’s not what people wanted. Maybe we do want some 3D immersive experience, but that’s not the 3D immersive experience that we want, not manifested like that in effect, with its limitations, etc.Bertrand SchmittI want to say that we are not denigrating some of these experiments. Me, I still remember putting a Vision Pro and watching some content that is natively created by Apple for the Vision Pro. It’s an amazing magical experience, truly. But at the same time, I’m always worrying to have to think I’m going to spend 30 minutes putting my Vision Pro on my head. It’s heavy, it’s painful. Again, we go back to, I’m disconnected from everything else, and I don’t like that.Nuno Goncalves PedroWhen there was real technological development, like the case of 3D TVs, that technology development may have served other purposes. Again, we applaud those that put the money where their mouth was, the companies, the individuals that wanted to move forward some of these technology stacks, maybe less so the people that just decided to create NFTs for the sake of it with apes. No attack on those guys specifically, but just to create a specific view on that. But there’s a lot of stuff we’re talking about today which is actually great technological development. There’s stuff that came out of it that is very, very valuable technological development. Maybe to our next one on mobility, physical mobility. The Segway. Everyone’s like, “Oh, this is going to change how we move around the world, in particular for shorter distances, etc.” Well, apparently no. Apparently, it’s not super intuitive. There are still Segways out there for use by police forces, tours, and all that stuff. People say, “Oh, it’s…” No, well, it never scaled. It wasn’t changed. It didn’t change how relatively short local mobility was going to be done. I think part of it is actually the problem with the product. The product is not as intuitive as people thought it would be, and it has other issues around that in terms of security and safety. If you’re going to have a device or something that moves you around, what’s the minimum-accepted level of security that you would have. The fact that you have to incline to move it is actually not super as initially some probably people thought it’s actually not as intuitive as some might have thought it was. I think it’s a dead-on-arrival play. The vehicles of the future, I’m not sure, look like that at all. Happy to eat my words down the road, but I don’t think so.Bertrand SchmittYes, and I remember the massive hype at the start of this product. They were hiding it, but still telling you, We have seen it. That’s true. It’s going to totally change how cities are planned. I mean, the level of hype and bullshit was insane before the launch of the product and before anyone outside of a few knew what it looked like. Then we saw what it looked like, and it was on one side, an engineering marvel, the self-stabilization system was new. I mean, very few people had seen something like this before. At the same time, as you said, the issue was what happens if it loses battery? What happens if you fall from it? Quite frankly, if you look at today’s modern electric scooter, you have 95% of the value of a Segway without any of the downsides. You don’t need to learn a new way to do things. If you lose battery, it still works. I guess you can still push it. It’s not too expensive. You don’t have massive computers to just make it work. You don’t have massive robotics. It’s clearly an impressive engineering solution. But the exact example of a solution to a problem people didn’t have, when ultimately a much more simple and elegant solution was there for people who care. To be clear, you still could use a regular bike. The alternative was still your regular bike. But now you have electric scooters that are a clear, closer alternative, I guess, in spirit to what was supposed to be the Segway. Sometimes, let’s be careful. Overengineering might not be the answer.Nuno Goncalves PedroEven scooters, which are, to be honest, I would argue a much easier philosophical view of how mobility should be done and a much easier form factor, so to speak, in terms of mobility, even those won’t have wide adoption to everyone. It’s not like everyone’s going to use a scooter. The bar for a scooter is much less than a bar for a Segway.Bertrand SchmittYes. I think in a way, the electric scooter is showing us in some ways that the limit of the dream is that even well-executed, even cheap, even easy to use, even low-risk in a way, there is still only so much that people are willing to use it because it’s a pain to bring with you everywhere. Actually, in some ways, you could argue it has only worked with this distributed platform, like lime and others that let you take one and drop it when you are done using it. But that was not a model that was workable for the Segway. I totally agree. You could argue that bikes are still the gold standard or now electric bikes are still the gold standard for who want that level of mobility.Nuno Goncalves PedroWell, the next one is to be a favorite of, I guess, everyone that didn’t invest in them, which is Juicero, which was the machine that basically created Juices out of squeezing a bag. I’m going to be nice here to… There were a bunch of well-known investors. They raised, I think, 120 million or something like that.Bertrand SchmittThat’s insane.Nuno Goncalves PedroIt is insane. But maybe the vision was not that vision. It was something grandiose and the complexity around dealing with liquids and whatever. I’m not really sure we didn’t pass or invest on the company.Bertrand SchmittBig old juice bags.Nuno Goncalves PedroMaybe. You’re being facetious. Anyway, I’m not trying to attack the guys who actually invested in this, the investors that put money into this. But it was basically one of these examples that we’re trying to solve a problem that didn’t exist. It’s like a solution for a problem that doesn’t exist. I can just squeeze a bag of concentrated thing and make a juice. I can do something around the juice. As I said, maybe the big vision was well beyond that, and I’m not sure many of us will ever know what the big vision actually was. But yes, it was a solution, a $400 machine to a problem that nobody really had. That didn’t work.Bertrand SchmittI think the most crazy part of the story is that the business exploded when there was this Bloomberg reporter that showed that you could squeeze the bag with your hands without a machine and get the same juice. That’s pretty insane. That’s just so unbelievable.Nuno Goncalves PedroThe funny part of the story is MSCHF, this company that does all their on-point, slightly artistic, whatever, one-off, drops, etc, etc. Shout out to Gabriel. Gabe Wally, who was the founder there. This is funny. They actually did a collectible series of figurines of that startup toys, of which Juicero was one of them. Jibo, which I don’t think you’d appreciate. Bertrand, and the Theranos minilab. So someone is also making money on that, which is funny. So well done, MSCHF.Bertrand SchmittWhy not? Why not? Maybe we can go quickly over Lytro. This one was, I would say, brilliant technology. It was a camera able to capture light in a different way. You could actually dynamically change focus after the picture was taken. So something quite impressive, and I still remember looking at their products and thinking, should I get one? At the same time where it didn’t work, it was too limited in terms of image quality versus shooting the real picture. It was very tough to sell as an independent device because either you’re in the phone or you are in a DSLR, but there was no spot in between. In some ways, phones solved the issue not directly, but they kept adding cameras. At some point, you had not one, but two, but three, but four, but five cameras in your phone. You had a specific mode for anything you needed, and that’s it. Phone manufacturers managed to convince people they should pay for all these cameras, or provide a low-end version if you don’t want to pay for all these cameras. But yes, very interesting technology that did not manage to find a go-to market.Nuno Goncalves PedroYes, it’s falling in love with a technology solution that, as you said, was incredible, and not falling in love with what problem you are actually trying to solve. Because a lot of the elements of the problem that you’re trying to solve, either you take another picture. All due respect, instead of me trying to change the field of view, etc, and the focus, post picture taken, I take another picture. To be honest, you can take thousands of pictures now with different setups. Also, ignoring the fact that this was pre this whole AI boom. So obviously, that one I will be kind on. But with the AI boom, you can do a lot of things to pictures and changes and stuff like that. All of that changes the game in and of itself. Obviously, Lytro or Lytro, not sure how you spell them, or how you say their name, but they failed before that. So again, this was super great tech, great investors, good investors on board, but just nobody wanted that device. Why would I want this thing? A total failure on arrival. I think one also other aspect of it that may have been misinterpreted and underestimated by some of the early investors, certainly in the company, is the value chain. There is a value chain for cameras, for SLRs, DSLRs, etc, etc. They know what they’re doing, and they’re doing their own level of innovation. In some ways, that fits squarely into that value chain, which I’m sure is a complex value chain to manage in and of itself. Maybe that’s created its own dynamics as well.Bertrand SchmittI think they try to insert themselves in the value chain, but I’m not sure first that they managed to get technology as small as it should have been. They simply didn’t convince anyone. The Sony or Nikon of the world, or the Apple or Google of the world, to use their technology in their phones, because no one really saw the value, per se. One thing to keep in mind, using their technology means you had a big trade-off in terms of megapixels. Actually, you will benefit from that great effect around the focus that can move anywhere after the fact. But in exchange, you had to lose dramatically the number of megapixels. At the time, all the rage was about how do I get more megapixels for my phone with good image quality. That was all that you were selling to consumers. Consumers would not have bought 10 times less megapixels for a weird benefit that at the time no one cared about. I think you are very right to introduce the fact that, of course, they could not have guessed at the time, but today you can get for free this refocusing effect with AI, actually.Nuno Goncalves PedroThat’s exactly the point I was making on the value chain. They went into a value chain that has a lot of players in it, and they got kicked in the butt anyway, because people were like, Why would I adopt it? They didn’t serve the purpose of the use case or the user flow. They didn’t anticipate competitive dynamics to it. Then they actually went straight up into a technology plus IP logic on a value chain that would be like, “Hey, dudes, just get out of here.” What would be the incentive for people to bring them on board? It’s like in some ways, they did all the mistakes under the book in that sense. Again, I’m not trying to diss the company, the founders, the investors, but it feels that was the problem in the end.Bertrand SchmittYes.Nuno Goncalves PedroShall we do some rapid fire dead-on-arrivals?Bertrand SchmittYes. A fan favorite. Have you tried a keyboard projector on?Nuno Goncalves PedroYes. I think I mentioned that in a previous episode, I did have one of the early ones and whatever. Yes, somehow we forgot that there’s other best, better ways of input, maybe voice would be a better way of input if that’s the problem, but anyway.Bertrand SchmittThis one is interesting because you just use it for one minute, and you discover it’s horrible.Nuno Goncalves PedroIt’s a horrible experience.Bertrand SchmittYou have to type on it. You don’t see exactly where you type. Each time you type, you are hurting your fingers because it’s not a smooth keyboard feeling, but you are tapping a solid surface. That’s amazing that it went to manufacturing, and basically no one gave feedback. There is no way it’s working. No way technically working, but practically, no one would want to use that.Nuno Goncalves PedroIt’s bad in all aspects. The finger’s touching. It needs to be a very over-engineered experience for it to actually detect the key stroking and all that stuff. It’s an over-engineered solution by default. It’s not private because once you have the keyboard projector, you’re like, “Where am I keyboarding projecting on?” It’s something that others can see. There are other alternatives that are better. The keyboards on our phones are pretty good these days, with autocorrection in most cases, I wouldn’t say all cases. Voice can also be an interesting replacement to that. If that’s what you’re going for, voice recognition has improved dramatically over the last few years. Again, it’s one of these, “Yeah, cool.”Bertrand SchmittIt’s clear that, first, touch has replaced a physical keyboard where you need one. And two, now voice recognition is getting better for sure.Nuno Goncalves PedroThe opposite side is that voice assistants were going to take over everything, that everything was going to be voice assistant-led. Alexa is going to run your life. You’re going to have games for voice. I actually have a good friend of mine who did a startup in that space. Actually, the company got acquired, and everything’s going to be voice, which, as we know, is also not true. We need to visualize sometimes. Sometimes we still want to write because we want either the added value of privacy or of expression at some standpoint. There are a lot of things that are happening around voice that are exciting. We just mentioned voice recognition, but not everything is going to be voice. Certainly not for the foreseeable future, and so that doesn’t work. Also, as the ultimate platform, we also want some visuals. We also want to have other kinds of interactions. There are limitations to voice assistants, for example. Voice assistants were not quite the next platform that people said they were going to be. I would say they’re a channel, but they’re definitely not a platform. That’s how, at least I see them.Bertrand SchmittYes, a channel versus a platform. I would agree with you. I must say I start to feel that we could be close to the future we have seen in Her. This movie, Her, I guess you saw it as well, where these guy keep talking to his personal assistants, and it’s becoming his friend, maybe even his love. I start to feel we are getting close enough with AI that this becomes a possibility. But again, it’s not your only way to interact. You want to type, you want to see stuff. There are many situations where you don’t want to be seen talking with someone. It’s more of a channel versus a platform. Yes, Alexa, it’s quite amazing how it went to the roof and crashed and burned. It moved up very quickly. Amazon invested billions, hired thousands of people, which was the right move. I mean, you have something that seems to work well enough and could be game changer, why not? But it was quite impressive as a crash and burn. It’s pretty rare to move that fast up and down.Nuno Goncalves PedroI agree. A lot of money is put into this stuff. I mean, Google went after it as well. I think Google probably executed better. Their tools and their hub tools, etc, were better in their devices. But to be honest, it was the beginning of something, it wasn’t really there. It’s shocking because a lot of people have Alexa at home, and Google Hubs at home, and whatever at home. But it’s really not that powerful. I have a bunch of Google stuff at home, and I still use it for very basic information. It’s not really doing much for me. It’s not like magically now with AI, it’s going to be much better. It’s not. It’s a legacy device now. Maybe in the future, we’ll have some stuff that will be cool, but definitely not the voice assistant manifestation that we saw in the past. I know the next is exciting to you, so I’ll let you go for it, Bertrand.Bertrand SchmittNetbooks. If you remember Netbooks, this was a horribly underpowered PC device. I kept buying one after the other, hoping that the next one would be fast enough. Trying to be a small, lightweight portable PC, they were called netbooks. Usually, they also had a small screen, like 10, 12-inch, 9-inch, and each time it was horrible. Very poor battery life, 2-3 hours, super, super, super slow. They were equipped typically with a full Windows OS, and they were killed overnight by the iPad. After 2 years of the iPad, no more netbooks. Oh, yes, and they had this… Typically, they would be equipped with… What was this name of the CPU? It was an Intel Atom CPU, I believe, or Celeron. Again, the root cause why, it was so slow. It was horribly slow.Nuno Goncalves PedroSo netbooks didn’t work. We didn’t want to go back to that. The iPad won and all [inaudible 00:34:05].Bertrand SchmittI think it has been proven at this stage. There are some small mini PCs these days. You have, for instance, the ROG Ally for gaming. There has been some revival with some Chinese manufacturers making some small PCs. I have to admit, I bought some, so I kept trying. It’s much more powerful, no question. Better battery life also. But we go back to the fact that if you have a very limited screen size, 7, 8, 10 inch, it’s just tough to put a full desktop operating system to good use. You need something more simplified, more touch friendly for it to be really practical. Yes, you can run the full desktop Excel on it, but will you do it on an 8-inch screen? Probably not.Nuno Goncalves PedroNetbooks, and maybe we’ll end with Google Glass. I mean, obviously, we’re going to talk about AR and VR in just a bit. I think it’s a good segue to our next section, and we’re not necessarily saying AR, VR is dead on arrival. We actually think they’re going to be out there for us in the future. But Google Glass, in the way that a lot of the first wave wearables were developed, was cool, but not enough. I think even the recent ones, the Meta Ray-Bans. I see a lot of friends of mine now, you’re wearing Meta Ray-Bans, and they’re like, “Oh, this is so cool”. It’s like, “How is that different from the Google Glass, but now a little bit nicer?” It still feels to me that’s the wrong way to approach it. Either we go with a more comprehensive solution for glasses or a solution for glasses that’s a little bit more easily integrated into existing frames, etc, for those of us, like the two of us, who have actual eyeglasses, or I don’t see it quite happening this way. I think just as a formality in how it was deployed, it seems to me it’s been the wrong angle a couple of times, even, to be honest, beyond the first wave of wearables. It’s been a little bit the wrong way to approach this, the wrong paradigm.Bertrand SchmittIf you remember the Google Glass, initially, they were launched in… Again, overhyped. You couldn’t even buy them, but still, it was overhyped. You could see a marketing department going crazy when they were showcasing models wearing Google Glass, that sort of stuff, fashion shows. That was insane. How is it connected to the value proposition of the Google Glass? Absolutely not. But you remember what killed the Google Glass?Nuno Goncalves PedroThis is the Robert Scoble in the shower thing. The whole lack of privacy thing.Bertrand SchmittYou tried to have this vision of the Google Glass that models are wearing and stuff in fashion shows. You have this guy, Robert Scoble, taking his picture with his Google Glass in the show, half-naked. Oh, wow, that quickly dropped. In the interest into Google Glass.Nuno Goncalves PedroRobert’s a good guy for the most part, so we’ll let him get away with it. But yes, it was not a good moment for the use of Google Glass. But to your point, it was overhyped. I don’t even recall that I had to do so many things to actually get access to one. I still have it. Then in the end, it was just totally underwhelming. I do think the meta Ray-Ban solutions, etc, etc, now they’re doing it with other brands as well, are more elegant because it’s around voice activation and stuff like that. But still, it’s not this. The soon to be Resurrected… I think these kinds of solutions are dead on arrival, which may be a good segue to the resurrection pile, so to speak, that will happen, just not like that pile that we have to share today.Bertrand SchmittYes. That’s the question. Are we in resurrection mode with AR glasses? The Ray-Ban, Oakley glasses, are the way to go? There are also some other brands like XREAL, for instance, that are a different approach. It’s more fun to watch movies that I personally like a lot and use a lot. I know quite a few fans for this. There is a market for either the XREAL for movies, meta, or Ray-Ban, for light information on top of your glasses. There are niches. I don’t know if it’s full resurrection mode yet, but I can see again, with AI, that there is the ability to do more and more. Will it be connected to your phone, will be independent from a phone? That’s also stuff to see. I guess at this stage, connection to a phone has some value. It’s making a comeback.Nuno Goncalves PedroI think it’s suffering from being overhyped. It makes sense that the category comes back. The use of glasses, a lot of people actually have eyeglasses. The use of different mechanisms that really expand your view. We’ve seen that with the advent of foldables in mobile phones. People want bigger screens. They want to get as close as they can to the tablet experience without necessarily having to go to laptops, etc. Definitely, I think the use cases make sense. It’s just how do you deploy it, and who’s going to deploy it best? I don’t think we’ve seen anyone that’s been particularly enlightened about doing it. All the great developments with Android XR from Google, Samsung doing a bunch of things in terms of deployment out there as well at the same time. I mean, are these guys going to redefine this category and create the first ever wearable, at least AR great experience or VR category of experience, or are we going to have much of the same? In the same way, it took several years for the smartphone category to be recategorized as a smartphone category under the iPhone. That was the category-defining moment. It was the vision of a bunch of people, obviously led by Steve, but a bunch of people that went to market and said, This is how we view the market to be, and they just nailed it. We haven’t seen the guys who’ve nailed it, I think, is the issue thus far, either on the VR side or the AR side. We just haven’t seen it.Bertrand SchmittDefinitely, we have not seen that. There are, of course, rumors that Apple is ending their Vision Pro program, and at the same time, is full-on on AR glasses, an alternative to the Meta Ray-Ban. We will see. I start to think I have trouble to see Apple pull this off because it starts to feel that, yes, they are great at making more efficient supply chain these days, but I feel after 10 years plus of Tim Cook leading the business, that’s all there is to Apple these days: thinner phones, pink colors for your latest device.Nuno Goncalves PedroVariations.Bertrand SchmittMore efficient chips, for sure. They have great chips. But beyond that, they canceled their car program, the Vision Pro was not successful in the marketplace. They have trouble to find the next story and to execute on the next story, quite frankly. You could argue that their most successful recent launch has been the AirPods.Nuno Goncalves PedroI think that’s absolutely spot on. We’ve discussed it in previous episodes how much… It’s taken much longer than I thought it would. I always said after Steve’s passing, that it would take maybe 5 to 10 years for the beginning of the demise of Apple, and it is taking longer. There was definitely some gravity created. Steve passed away in 2011, right? They’ve been hanging on to their time, so it’s now 15 years. It seems that only now Apple is really suffering in terms of product lines. Probably they started 1 or 2 years ago. They have a new CEO coming in September, so we’ll see if John will do a better job, if he’s really a product guy, and that’s how he’s going to go for it. He’s going to go for a few products really nicely done that can have great experiences, which is Steve’s hallmark, instead of what you said was the milking of the cow, so to speak, under Tim Cook. There’s nothing wrong with it created in a hugely valuable company with a huge amount of still innovations around the edges, but it’s like now they need real product innovation, a new category definition, play, and is John going to be the guy for that or not?Bertrand SchmittYes. Positively, Tim increased market cap of Apple. He didn’t destroy the business. We are not trying to tell that Tim Cook was a failure, but definitely it was not Steve Jobs. It was more a caretaker, optimizer type of CEO. But to go to the next level, you need another type of CEO. Quite frankly, it’s hard to find when it’s not a founder CEO.Nuno Goncalves PedroYeah, I think it will be difficult to find, but we’ll give John a chance once his time comes in September 2026, as one would. Moving to another topic that we’ve discussed in the past, self-driving. It’s going to happen. We all are waiting for it to happen. Self-driving cars, self-driving vehicles that we don’t need to drive in this mess of traffic, in particular spending a lot of my time in Southern California where traffic is incessant. The driving is… How can I put it in a nice way? Awful. People don’t seem to know what they’re doing. I think we all want to have self-driving cars. It’s taking longer than we thought it would, but I do think it’s going to happen. I wouldn’t put a mark on the sand on how long to get this world of self-driving cars. It’s going to coexist with non-self-driving cars for sure for a period of time. But I, for one, know deeply that it will happen, and I look forward to it. I love driving, but not in horrible traffic with horrible drivers.Bertrand SchmittWe are for sure very close. I mean, now, Tesla self-driving is extremely good. I have taken Waymo many times with great experience. It’s not going too fast, it’s not going on the highway, so there are some limits. But I would say really impressive all in all. I think we are pretty close. I don’t know if you know, but Waymo is working on expanding to many, many more cities, actually. I think we might be at a tipping point there. Quite frankly, I expect that teenagers in 10 years from now are not going to bother to learn driving. I mean, we’ll see, but I think many won’t.Nuno Goncalves PedroI mean, Waymo is now doing also stuff on freeways, certainly in the Bay Area. I had a friend of mine who took one recently, and he was scared. He was scared shitless—I think that would be the right way to put it—because the car wasn’t going that fast, people are aggressive on the freeway around your car. But to your point, I’ve used it in city. In the city, it’s great, and it’s aggressive enough. That’s one of the things I was a bit afraid about Waymo, that it wasn’t going to be aggressive enough in city driving, it is pretty aggressive. Yeah, maybe we’re closer than we think. Maybe it’s a couple of years rather than a decade, which is normally where we put the stake on the ground. But it’s definitely going to happen. I think there was an overhype too soon. There were great movements around level 3 and level 4 autonomy that in some ways were misconstrued early on as full autonomy. But now we will likely get what we ask for. Then at some point someone’s saying, “Hey, but why don’t we just have the flying objects instead?” We’ll get back to that. The flying car stuff, the eVTOLs and all that stuff, we’ll see.Bertrand Schmitt10 years ago, I remember the overhyping was very, very strong with self-driving. I nearly believed the bullshit. It was so strong in 2015, 2016 that nearly everyone thought it’s here in the next 12 months, basically. I think that was a lesson for quite a lot of people. Don’t trust the Silicon Valley bullshit machine, hype machine. It can go way too strong, way too fast. You absolutely need to spend time to understand realistically where we truly are. You cannot just buy the premise.Nuno Goncalves PedroMoving maybe to robotics and humanoids. Again, it’s going to happen both for consumer and for industrial. The humanoid form, I think, at some point will be important. Just not yet. I think we’re behind now the big buzz sentence is embodied AI, where you have physical AI manifestations. AI manifested through robots and other kinds of devices. It’s going to start happening in certain beachheads. But, hey, we’ve had this offer for a long time, and I know you still have your frustrations, Bertrand, with the Sony AIBO. I won’t traumatize you more than that, but definitely it will happen. We will have humanoids at some point. We’ll have different specialty devices that will help us in activities that we do both as consumers and also in the B2B and enterprise space, even in the industrial space. The writing’s on the wall that definitely is going to happen.Bertrand SchmittYes. I think the question, as always, is how do you get there? I think the intermediate steps of your optimized robot, a physically optimized robot, like a Roomba to clean your home or some other robots to mow your grass, a good example, I think initially you have to start a small, practical, not too technology advanced and progress your way. Truly humanoid robots are very disruptive because technically, if they work, they can do everything a human could do. But practically, I don’t think it’s that true because a lot of constraints. You have to have enough weight, you have to have enough force, you have to have enough vision, you have to have enough AI to just understand commands and move around. But, again, with all the progress in AI, the progress in electric motors, I am optimistic that there is a chance for the humanoid robot, but it’s not 3 years. It’s probably not even 5. It’s probably more like 10. Let’s not forget that a lot of demos with humanoid robots today are fake. It’s a remote operator, remotely controlling a robot. It’s not a robot working by himself in many, many, many situations. That, I think, is another thing hurting the reputation of some of these companies because these fake demos, they look great, but once you dig a bit, you realize it was a fake demo because it certainly didn’t come with a warning that it’s remotely operated.Nuno Goncalves PedroMoving maybe to the next one that it will happen, but not exactly like that. Quantum computing, I think for the most, it’s been in many cases a solution looking for problems. It’s beautiful, but it’s like, “What’s the problems we’re trying to solve?” I think we’re going to start having beachheads into problem solution and apps. I’m sure a lot of people out there would say, “Well, there’s already killer apps for this, a lot of the scientific modulation, cryptography, breaking, all that stuff.” But I’m like, “Yeah, cool.” It still feels very much like a bunch of pieces and hardware in effect that is trying to solve a problem that needs to be very much defined into several problems, several areas of problem solution going forward. Will it happen? For sure. I’ve been hearing about quantum computing since I was in college, since I was 17 when I got into college. I’m sure it will happen. It will have manifestations. There’s a lot of stuff probably already residing on some of these instances. But a full mainstream view of what quantum computing can do for us is still quite ways out.Bertrand SchmittYes, I mean, there has been some reports that some key steps in the technology starts to be working and that potentially the technology could start to deliver results in the coming 2-3 years. What I mean by results, results that will dramatically change how you need to encrypt because a lot about quantum computing is actually trying to decrypt the current technologies that are used to protect your information online. This one is big. If we manage to have a limited use of quantum computing things that work in a few years, that will have a dramatic impact on how we encrypt data. That’s the one piece I’m looking for: do we really manage to solve encryption with computing? If yes, then we need to make a lot of changes how we encrypt things.Nuno Goncalves PedroFusion energy, the gift that keeps on giving, but this somehow doesn’t fully happen. I know you’re a big fan.Bertrand SchmittI would say, practically, I’m a big fan of nuclear fusion energy because in a way, it’s working. It’s solved in terms of safety. Latest Gen5 reactors are ultra-safe. They cannot go out of control anymore. China has a working reactor. In some ways, part of me would say, “Why bother with fusion when we have fission that is working extremely well, and we know how to make?” If we are efficient about the process, we could make for really cheap. Having a better source of energy today will already be great for the world. I would like to see scale with fission. It’s great to research fusion. Fusion is near a limitless form of energy. This is exciting. I think what’s interesting with fusion these days, it’s not just the big governments working on spending billions before seeing any potential returns, but there is a lot of startups that are working on it. The bar went lower in terms of researching fusion. That part gets me excited. But again, I think we should go fission first and parallel with some fission investment, fusion research, and hopefully, fusion comes at some point, but we should not wait for fusion would be my big take.Nuno Goncalves PedroGood point. Last but not the least, we’ve dedicated episodes on this, so maybe today we’ll just do the little teaser. If you guys haven’t heard our episodes on AI and the bubble and all those things. The last big one that’s just not like that, it will happen is AI itself, and in particular, AGI, so generalized AI that will be just like a human. Obviously, it’s happening. We’ve discussed in previous episodes, there’s a lot of breakthroughs in terms of methodological approach beyond the GPT curse of actual hallucinations that doesn’t seem to be solvable. There’s a lot of things happening around reinforcement learning, evolutionary computation, and other methodological approaches to AI that we think will create tremendous breakthroughs. There’s definitely a lot of funding going into it. We quantified it recently. I think 63, the number probably has changed in the last couple of weeks, but 63 new AI labs that have raised significant rounds upfront, just getting into the market, some of them as high as hundreds of millions or even over a billion dollars for the first round of funding. Obviously, there’s a lot of dramatic things happening in that space. There’s a lot of capital going to that space. It’s going to happen. It’s going to take much longer than, I think, we think it’s going to take. I just saw, I think, Marc Andreessen recently saying, AGI is already upon us. Maybe it is. Maybe he knows something we don’t know. But I suspect we’re still ways to go in a lot of the developments on AI. For now, it will continue its complications and its limitations. But definitely it will untap a lot of great productivity enhancements, technological enhancements, even in the short term that at least I’m very excited about. Then the AGI story, I think, will be a story that will be told later.Bertrand SchmittI might actually disagree on this one. I actually believe, like Marc Andreessen, that we are at AGI. We reached AGI a few months ago with the latest ChatGPT 5.5 with Claude Anthropic, Opus 4.7, 4.6 even. For me, in some specific space, let’s say coding, for instance, I truly believe we have reached AGI. It is totally replacing people for development, testing, writing, specifications, doing design. Yes, there are some use cases where it’s not working as well. But for at least the coding side, I think AGI is truly there. Is it better than the best human experts at every piece of the puzzle? No. I think if you go to some very specialized development stuff like a CUDA development, for instance, or some kernel development, it might not be at the level of the top human experts. But as we can hear about stories around security to the new versions that are unreleased yet of Anthropic and others seem to be at the level of the best human experts at cybersecurity. I think we are actually there. I think that’s why there is an acceleration the past six months in terms of investments in data centers. There was a big question in 2023, 2024, 2025, “Are we investing too much? Is it a bubble?” And so on. That was true because revenues were increasing, but not that fast. The increase in the growth in revenues for Anthropic is insane. No one has ever seen that in the whole history of technology, what happened to them the past six months. Growing so fast at such a scale, no one has seen. I think that’s truly because they have stumbled upon AGI for coding. Coding is such a huge, large market that even if we are just solving coding, even if we never solve more than that, I think it’s already one of the biggest markets in the world, full stop.Nuno Goncalves PedroBut that, for me, I think maybe it’s a definitional thing. That, for me, is still narrow AI. AGI, as defined, is a type of AI that can match or surpass human capabilities across virtually all cognitive and intellectual tasks. Coding is just one of them. I think there’s a lot of narrow AI right there, to your point, that can replace humans maybe today. Coding may be a great example of that. But I don’t think we are at the AGI. I haven’t seen any agents out there that can replace fully human beings, where I would not understand that they’re actually AI. Anyway, again, maybe you guys have seen stuff that I haven’t seen. I just feel there’s a lot of overhype on what the AGI actually is. But the ability to surpass us as human beings, I haven’t seen it yet across the board, not on a specific domain.Bertrand SchmittYes, I think my point is that I have seen it on a few domains. If you look at mathematics, for instance, and there are more and more examples of people who are using AI to solve math problems that only the very top people in the world were able to solve that are now being solved by AI. I start to feel that we are getting a few examples in different fields where AI is matching the absolute best experts in the world. I would just go back in terms of market size. Already what we got today, and today is not the limit, but what we got today, and especially AI combined with all these agents, harness agents, that’s also that specific combo that makes a difference. This is, for me at this stage, huge market. Does it solve everything? Does it replace a human for everything? No, you still need the human in the loop. You don’t let your AI go wild for weeks and just check once in a while. But you could argue very few humans are able to do that, quite frankly, to run by themselves for weeks without control.Nuno Goncalves PedroI feel there’s still a great deal of confusion because there’s dramatic impact on narrow AI domains where things are being done that weren’t done before, where there’s these great mathematical proofing, coding stuff is being done very easily, etc, etc. But still that, for me, is not the definition of AGI. AGI is a human being. It’s like someone who can really be a human being. Ideally, become top end of what a human being will look intellectually across domains. I don’t think that’s where we are. Again, maybe definitional, maybe that’s what Marc means, but I mean-Bertrand SchmittYeah, the question is, what does it mean? I would argue it’s beating 80% of humanity today pretty easily. Most of humanity doesn’t know how to code. It will be unable to do coding at the level AI is doing. It will be unable to do math at the level AI is doing. Use ChatGPT to check for medical issues and stuff. It’s not perfect for sure, but, again, it still beats most humans. I don’t know. I feel that we are reaching a level where it’s truly beating most of humans, many experts in many fields. I feel the definition of, “Hey, it has reached the level of an average human being.” I would say it passed that one. Is it the same as a human being? No. But reaching the level of your average human being, I think we are there in a lot of fields.Nuno Goncalves PedroConclusion Well, in conclusion, in episode 78 of Tech Deciphered, we went into two piles: the pile of dead-on-arrival products, technologies, businesses, and the pile of “it will happen, but not like that” or “not yet” pile of technologies, business out there as well. We went into a bunch of topics today that were of extreme importance back in the past where we thought the world was going to change, anywhere from self-driving to fusion in the nuclear space. We also went into some dramatic, dramatic mistakes like Juicero and other deployments like Segway that seem to be really very much dead on arrival. With that, I would ask you if you’re excited, and you want to share with us some of your agreements or disagreements on today’s episode, as well as your own dead-on-arrival versus merely-early examples, feel free to do so on LinkedIn, X, or via email. Thank you, Bertrand.Bertrand SchmittThank you, Nuno.

Some builders don't just create breakthrough products. They create entirely new ways of thinking about how innovation happens. In this episode of Building One, Tomer Cohen sits down with Astro Teller, Co-founder and Captain of Moonshots at X, Google's legendary moonshot factory. Astro has helped build one of the world's most remarkable innovation engines—an organization responsible for projects like Waymo, Google Brain, Wing, Taara, Google Glass, Loon, and many more. But this conversation isn't just about ambitious technology. It's about building a system that makes ambitious technology more likely. At X, innovation isn't treated as inspiration or creative genius. It's treated as a discipline. Teams are rewarded for disproving their own ideas, attacking the hardest assumptions first, and learning faster than everyone else. Success isn't measured by how long a project survives—but by how quickly you discover whether it deserves to. In this episode, Tomer and Astro discuss: Why X calls itself a "moonshot factory"—and what it takes to build innovation as a repeatable system Why the goal isn't to prove your ideas right—but to discover when they're wrong Why 10x thinking can actually be easier than incremental improvement The famous "teach the monkey before you build the pedestal" framework for attacking risk in the right order Lessons from Waymo, Google Brain, Taara, Google Glass, and Loon—and why some of X's biggest "failures" produced its greatest insights How culture, incentives, and organizational design determine whether breakthrough ideas survive If you've ever wondered why some organizations consistently produce world-changing products while others struggle to innovate, this conversation offers one of the clearest frameworks you'll hear. It's a masterclass on building not just products—but the systems that build products.

Today on The Valley Current®, host Jack Russo explores a question that has haunted Silicon Valley since the spectacular failure of Google Glass: can smart glasses finally succeed where earlier wearable technologies failed? This episode examines how advances in AI, miniaturized hardware, and socially acceptable design have transformed smart glasses from a futuristic novelty into a serious challenger to the smartphone. Drawing on a detailed technology and intellectual property briefing, Jack analyzes why companies like Meta are betting that conversational AI will shift computing from screens in our hands to assistants on our faces. But the bigger story may not be technological. As always-on cameras, microphones, and AI transcription become commonplace, the debate moves beyond gadgets and into privacy, consent, workplace governance, and public trust. The future of computing may depend less on engineering breakthroughs than on whether society is willing to wear them. Jack Russo Managing Partner Jrusso@computerlaw.com www.computerlaw.com https://www.linkedin.com/in/jackrusso "Every Entrepreneur Imagines a Better World"®️  

Recorded live from the AWE main stage in Long Beach, Charlie Fink and Ted Schilowitz are joined by three veterans of the XR industry for a wide-ranging conversation about where the industry has been and where it is actually headed.Malia Probst, founder of Scout House and a decade-plus in creator and developer programs, Shelley Peterson, former head of XR at Lockheed Martin and now running her consultancy Wizard Wells, and Mary Matheson, head of production at Agog and a multi-award winning immersive documentary director, bring three distinct vantage points — enterprise, consumer, and social impact — to the same set of questions. The result is one of the more honest conversations about the state of XR that the show has done.The panel covers the Snap Spectacles launch happening steps away at the same conference, why $2,300 does not make something a consumer device no matter what the marketing says, and what Google Glass actually got right when nobody was paying attention. The group digs into Meta's slow pullback from the metaverse and whether losing the big-pocketed backer is a crisis or a correction. World models come up as the technology that may finally make immersive content creation accessible without years of game engine training. And the conversation lands on a question that cuts across all of it: is the AI backlash really about the technology, or is it about who owns it?The closing question — what do we know now that we didn't know 10 years ago — produces the three best lines of the panel. Mary says the people behind XR are still here and that's what she couldn't have predicted. Malia says the only constant is change, and there has never been a better time to be a creator. Shelley says you are going to pivot whether you like it or not.Key Moments:[00:05:45] Snap Spectacles debut at AWE [00:17:45] Meta's metaverse pullback[00:22:00] Ted asks the uncomfortable question; the panel actually answers it.[00:25:00] Enterprise as the real XR business[00:32:40] The Google Glass parable[00:40:15] Five years out — world models, quantum computing, AI on your body, and the race to be your 24/7 agent[00:50:20] AI backlash[00:57:53] What 10 years taught us — Mary, Malia, and Shelley each close with something worth writing down Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

As director of Keyhole, Dave Lorenzini delivered the 3D Earth zooms that ran on CNN during the 2003 Iraq War — netting five million users in a month. Sergey Brin was one of them. Google bought the company and poured in billions to build, fuel, and serve maps. As Google Earth, it forever changed how we relate to space.From there: pioneering work on Google Glass, AR platforms, and running an immersive XR lab in Europe for Draw & Code exploring the future of spaces, places, and faces. Today Dave directs Quantum Studio, building World Agent and 4D ID — the "DNS for real space," an addressing layer where every place, object, and moment gets a name AI systems can agree on. His thesis: the next decade of AI won't run on better maps. AI needs an operating system for reality. Not a map. Not a database. A living, queryable foundation where every place on Earth answers for itself.AI XR News: The OpenAI vs. Musk trial continued with damaging testimony from Mira Murati and Greg Brockman. Anthropic struck an unholy alliance with xAI's Colossus compute. GameStop bid for eBay. Colin Angle is back with Familiar, an AI robot pet. Coinbase cut staff. Ask.com finally died. VRChat hit 100,000 concurrent daily users in Japan.Key Moments:[00:03:34] AWE Long Beach in 30 days: Dave on the board, Snap glasses expected, 400 speakers and 250 exhibitors[00:20:10] 30 AI glasses coming: why the near future belongs to audio-first, AI-powered smart glasses[00:25:34] Keyhole origin story: satellite imagery, $25K/sq mile, Sergey Brin, and a $500M/year acquisition[00:37:30] Google Glass, Luxottica, and why Google blinked when it could have been 10 years ahead of Meta[00:40:00] XR vs. rockets: why building for the human brain is harder than getting to MarsBrought to you by Zappar, the company behind Mattercraft — the leading visual development environment for immersive 3D web experiences. Start building at mattercraft.io.Subscribe to the AI XR Podcast wherever you listen to podcasts. Watch the full episode on YouTube: https://youtu.be/weNANIIo7EA Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Back in 2014, Google Glass made the dream of smart glasses a reality for the tech-obsessed. But a hefty price tag and divisive design prevented Google from bringing its vision to the masses. A decade later, Meta seemingly cracked the code, offering affordable, fashion-forward smart specs in frames by established brands like Ray-Ban and Oakley. WIRED senior gear editor Julian Chokkattu and staff writer Boone Ashworth join David to discuss whether Google's new Android XR platform, which the company debuted in May, can give Meta a run for its money. They'll also discuss some of the thorny ethical issues surrounding AI-powered frames and where the industry is headed next. Audible subscribers can listen to all episodes of Business Wars ad-free right now. Join Audible today by downloading the Audible app.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

What if diagnosing PTSD, anxiety, and depression could be as objective as a blood test — done in 10 minutes on your phone?That's the vision behind Sensei, a company using AI and ocular biometrics to bring measurable, objective diagnostics to mental health. In this episode, host Deborah Westphal sits down with David Zakariaie, founder and CEO of Sensei, to talk about the science of the eye, a $2M technology problem solved with a commercial camera, and why fixing mental health starts with fixing measurement.Key TakeawaysMental health's biggest crisis isn't just a shortage of care — it's a measurement problem. Major depression, the most commonly diagnosed mental health condition in the U.S., is misdiagnosed approximately 65% of the time. PTSD, bipolar, and schizophrenia are misdiagnosed between 84–92% of the time.Sensei's diagnostic app shows patients a series of ocular stimuli for roughly 10.5 minutes, captures their eyes' responses via a standard smartphone camera, and outputs a binary diagnosis plus a severity score.The platform measures approximately 45 individual metrics across three categories: traditional ocular metrics (pupil size, blinks, saccades, gaze), iris dilator and sphincter dynamics (mapping sympathetic vs. parasympathetic nervous system activity), and heart rate and heart rate variability from facial video.Sensei is currently in Phase 3 clinical trials for a PTSD diagnostic, with an FDA submission planned for late 2025 and approval expected in 2027.About 16,000 people participated in pre-trial studies; the full dataset at submission is expected to reach approximately 30,000.The go-to-market strategy focuses on telehealth platform integration — partnering with companies like Spring Health, Talkspace, and BetterHelp to embed the diagnostic tool directly into existing care delivery workflows.Future expansion targets schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and ADHD, with longer-term interest in neurodegenerative conditions like Alzheimer's and dementia.About David ZachariaDavid Zakariaie is the founder and CEO of Sensei, a mental health diagnostics company building the first FDA-regulatory-grade platform for diagnosing and monitoring PTSD, anxiety, and depression using AI-powered ocular biometrics. His path began at 15, when he attended Google I/O, received an early pair of Google Glass, and became fascinated with the scientific potential of the human eye. He left high school after 10th grade, taught himself to code, and launched the company in 2015.Resources & Links MentionedSensei: sensei.health (verify current URL)Mental Health Study (Phase 3 Trial Sign-Up): mentalhealthstudy.orgKaren Toffler Charitable Trust: tofflertrust.org (verify current URL)Parea Therapeutics (digital therapeutics reference)The CAPS-5 (Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale)The PCL-5 (PTSD Checklist for DSM-5)If You Enjoyed This EpisodeSubscribe to Research Renaissance wherever you listen to podcasts. If this conversation sparked something for you, share it with someone in healthcare, mental health advocacy, or neuroscience — this is the kind of work that needs more eyeballs on it.To learn more about the breakthroughs discussed in this episode and to support ongoing research, visit our website at tofflertrust.org. Technical Podcast Support by Jon Keur at Wayfare Recording Co.

It's 2011, and two Stanford students have built eyeglasses with a tiny camera inside. Their a prototype paves the way for Meta Ray-Bans, the first tech-enabled eyewear to truly go mainstream after attempts like Google Glass fizzled. But in integrating their smart glasses into our daily lives, Meta has created something else: a tool for mass surveillance. See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Reminiscing about the good days, the old school tech, and wondering why we can't seem to remember anything anymore.

In today's episode, Gastor and Shalewa talk about the lack of records broken at the Enhanced Games, stylish Google Glass and saline-filled testicles. PATREON LAUNCH!For all those that have asked how they can help support the pod - it's finally here! Thanks again to all the Troops and Correspondents who rock with us. Check it out - we'll have some exclusive content and fun perks, plus it really does help!⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠patreon.com/WarReportPod⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Many Thanks to our Patreon Troops & Correspondents for helping us bring this show to life. Shouts to the Correspondents!Tanya WeimanFontayne WoodsMark OrellanaB. EmmerichCharlene BankAskewCharlatan the FraudCynthia PongKen MogulSayDatAgain SayDatAgainLaKai DillStephanie GayleUncleJoe StylenoshCato from StonoJennifer PedersenMarcusSarah PiardAna MathambaLooking to further support? Help our data storage/archiving needs here: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/23X55OW4CFU8Y?ref_=wl_share⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Instagram:@WarReportPod@SilkyJumbo@GastorAlmonteTwitter:@SilkyJumbo@GastorAlmonteTheme music "Guns Go Cold" provided by Kno of Knomercyproductions Twitter: @Kno Instagram: @KnoMercyProductions

Nvidia has delivered another monster result, Google is taking another swing at smart glasses, and SpaceX's prospectus suggests Elon Musk's space company may really be an AI company in disguise. Plus, Simon brings a spicy AI infrastructure stock from X, and Luke Laretive reviews a simple, globally diversified portfolio.In this episode:00:00 Nvidia's AI boom keeps booming05:24 Google Glass is back?09:43 SpaceX files its prospectus16:45 X Marks the Stock21:08 SharonAI: the AI Infrastructure stock buzzing on X 28:15 Pimp My Portfolio with Luke Laretive30:17 Reviewing the core ETF portfolio33:19 Catapult, Qantas and stock picking disciplineStocks and ETFs mentioned: Nvidia (NASDAQ: NVDA), Alphabet (NASDAQ: GOOGL), Apple (NASDAQ: AAPL), Microsoft (NASDAQ: MSFT), Amazon (NASDAQ: AMZN), Meta Platforms (NASDAQ: META), Snap (NYSE: SNAP), Fair Isaac Corporation (NYSE: FICO), Old Dominion Freight Line (NASDAQ: ODFL), Cintas (NASDAQ: CTAS), Moody's (NYSE: MCO), Berkshire Hathaway (NYSE: BRK.B), JPMorgan Chase (NYSE: JPM), Sharon AI (NASDAQ: SHAI), NextDC (ASX: NXT), Rocket Lab (NASDAQ: RKLB), Betashares Australian Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF (ASX: CRED), Macquarie Group (ASX: MQG), Catapult Group International (ASX: CAT), Qantas (ASX: QAN), Westpac (ASX: WBC), ReadyTech (ASX: RDY), DroneShield (ASX: DRO), Brambles (ASX: BXB), QBE Insurance (ASX: QBE)———Want to get involved in the podcast? Record a voice note or send us a messageAnd come and join the conversation in the Equity Mates Facebook Discussion Group.———Want more Equity Mates? Across books, podcasts, video and email, however you want to learn about investing – we've got you covered.Keep up with the news moving markets with our daily newsletter and podcast (Apple | Spotify)We're particularly excited to share our latest show: Basis PointsListen to the podcast (Apple | Spotify)Watch on YouTubeRead the monthly email———Looking for some of our favourite research tools?Download our free Basics of ETF handbookOr our free 4-step stock checklistFind company information on TIKRResearch reports from Good ResearchTrack your portfolio with Sharesight———Equity Mates Investing is a product of Equity Mates Media. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Brought to you by TogetherLetters & Edgewise!In this episode: AI & AUTOMATIONMicrosoft AI chief gives it 18 months for all white-collar work to be automatedAI backlash becomes a real business riskOpenAI claims it solved an 80-year-old math problem — for real this timeSpotify launching verification badges for podcasts to help listeners avoid AI slopGemini will use Volvo's external cameras to interpret parking signsCYBERSECURITY & PRIVACYHackers have breached tank readers at US gas stations; officials suspect IranA student with a laptop and a radio stopped four high-speed trainsFour OpenClaw flaws let attackers steal data, escalate privileges, plant backdoorsMozilla to UK regulators: VPNs are essential privacy and security toolsBUSINESS & MARKETSSpaceX reveals plan for $1.75tn stock market debut that could make Musk a trillionaireFintech firm Mercury hits $5.2 billion valuation after funding roundTRANSPORTATION & MOBILITYWaymo pauses Atlanta service as its robotaxis keep driving into floods$130 a year for EV drivers? Lawmakers push federal road-use feeCONSUMER TECH & CULTUREWhy 'smart' products have started to look like the dumb choiceAndroid boss reveals the unsurprising reason Google Glass ended up in the tech graveyardSpotify will start reserving concert tickets for fansPhilips' new display has a screen on both sidesWEIRD AND WACKYBitcoin trader recovers $400,000 using Claude AI after getting 'stoned' 11 years agoAI radio hosts demonstrate why AI can't be trusted aloneSwatch shuts UK stores after crowds queue for new watchChewing gum restores dad's taste and smell years after CovidTech Rec:Sanjay - OpenRouter Adam - Lovable's mobile appFind us here:sanjayparekh.com & adamjwalker.comTech Talk Y'all is a proud production of Edgewise.Media.

Welcome to The Unconventional Path: Entrepreneurship and Innovation Stories and Ideas. In this episode, hosts Bela Musits and Mike Wasserman sit down with a truly deep thinker: Tom Chi. As a founding member of Google X, Tom has spent his career at the intersection of high-stakes technology and profound creative philosophy.When asked the common social question, "What do you do?", Tom doesn't lead with his work on Google Glass or self-driving cars. Instead, he identifies as an artist. With a professional background in songwriting, painting, and graphic design, Tom views any discipline approached with a deep sense of care and craft as reaching the level of artistry. For Tom, this introduction is a litmus test; it filters out "career climbers" and invites genuine connections with people who value mastery and discipline.One of the most compelling parts of the conversation focuses on how we learn. Tom argues that every human is a "genius" between the ages of zero and five. During this window, children learn to coordinate their bodies and master multiple languages with almost zero feeling of effort.Tom teaches that this intrinsic ability is often "trained out of us" as we grow. To illustrate this, he compares a baby learning to walk to a corporate professional. When a baby falls, they might cry for a moment, but they immediately get back up and try again. They don't stop for a postmortem analysis or hold a series of staff meetings to analyze the "failure".Drawing from his experience in rapid product development and rapid prototyping, Tom explains that his high-level consulting is essentially teaching adults how to learn like five-year-olds again. The secret lies in removing the emotional and psychic weight we attach to the word "failure". By stripping away the trauma of falling down in one's career and focusing on fast experimentation, we can return to a state of effortless learning and innovation.Join Bela and Mike for this fascinating dive into the mind of one of the world's most innovative thinkers and learn how to unlock your own unconventional path to success.Connect with The Unconventional Path:Our podcast is now available on YouTube. Simply search for "The Unconventional Path" to subscribe and never miss an episode.We're always on the lookout for interesting guests to feature on our show. If you know someone who has an inspiring story, unique perspective, or valuable expertise to share, please let us know. We're eager to connect with potential guests who can bring fresh insights and engaging conversations to our audience.We also love hearing from our listeners! Your questions, comments, and suggestions are incredibly valuable to us. Send us an email at bela.and.mike@gmail.com with your thoughts, and we'll do our best to address them in a future episode. Whether you have a question about a specific topic, feedback on a recent episode, or ideas for future content, we want to hear from you. Your engagement helps us shape the show and deliver content that resonates with our listeners.Thanks for listening,Bela and MikeTom Chi Google X, rapid prototyping, rapid product development, entrepreneurship and innovation, The Unconventional Path podcast, Bela Musits, Mike Wasserman, learning from failure, growth mindset, innovation strategy, Google X founding member, creativity in business, leadership and artistry, fast experimentation, executive coaching.Beyond the Resume: Tom Chi as an ArtistReclaiming Your Childhood GeniusRapid Prototyping and Fast ExperimentationSEO Search Terms

Google is trying to bring back Google Glass - this time powered with Gemini artificial intelligence, and partnering with Samsung and Warby Parker. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Chase Bunker is in for Kristine Bellino. FOX News's Eben Brown looks at the formal indictments filed against former Cuban leader Raul Castro, 94, for events related to shooting down two civilian planes in 1996. Cuba alleges the planes were on a cold war mission, while the indictment claims they were providing humanitarian relief. Announcement of the indictment was met with celebration and enthusiasm in the Little Havana community of South Florida. Whether this indictment will be acted on, or if it will be used for political leverage, remains to be seen. He also updates the latest tech development for Google Glass, as the product is being rebranded and reintroduced with new AI features in cooperation with tech company Samsung, and eyeglass brands Warby Parker and Gentle Monster.

As director of Keyhole, Dave Lorenzini delivered the 3D Earth zooms that ran on CNN during the 2003 Iraq War — netting five million users in a month. Sergey Brin was one of them. Google bought the company and poured in billions to build, fuel, and serve maps. As Google Earth, it forever changed how we relate to space.From there: pioneering work on Google Glass, AR platforms, and running an immersive XR lab in Europe for Draw & Code exploring the future of spaces, places, and faces. Today Dave directs Quantum Studio, building World Agent and 4D ID — the "DNS for real space," an addressing layer where every place, object, and moment gets a name AI systems can agree on. His thesis: the next decade of AI won't run on better maps. AI needs an operating system for reality. Not a map. Not a database. A living, queryable foundation where every place on Earth answers for itself.AI XR News: The OpenAI vs. Musk trial continued with damaging testimony from Mira Murati and Greg Brockman. Anthropic struck an unholy alliance with xAI's Colossus compute. GameStop bid for eBay. Colin Angle is back with Familiar, an AI robot pet. Coinbase cut staff. Ask.com finally died. VRChat hit 100,000 concurrent daily users in Japan.Key Moments:[00:03:34] AWE Long Beach in 30 days: Dave on the board, Snap glasses expected, 400 speakers and 250 exhibitors[00:20:10] 30 AI glasses coming: why the near future belongs to audio-first, AI-powered smart glasses[00:25:34] Keyhole origin story: satellite imagery, $25K/sq mile, Sergey Brin, and a $500M/year acquisition[00:37:30] Google Glass, Luxottica, and why Google blinked when it could have been 10 years ahead of Meta[00:40:00] XR vs. rockets: why building for the human brain is harder than getting to MarsBrought to you by Zappar, the company behind Mattercraft — the leading visual development environment for immersive 3D web experiences. Start building at mattercraft.io.Subscribe to the AI XR Podcast wherever you listen to podcasts. Watch the full episode on YouTube: https://youtu.be/weNANIIo7EASee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

General-purpose AI can answer almost anything, but that flexibility becomes a liability on the factory floor.In this bonus episode, Chris sits down with Angelo Stracquatanio, CEO of Apprentice, a purpose-built AI company for manufacturers and the creator of A1: The AI Agent for Manufacturing Teams.Angelo has spent 12 years building software for the people on the shop floor, starting in the pharma manufacturing suites where a 200-page paper binder sparked the idea for the company.The conversation covers the origin story of Apprentice, the ‘Predict and Prepare' framework behind its biggest pivots (including the COVID response that helped produce 300 million vaccine doses), and what it looks like to become AI-native as a business. Angelo also tells the story behind A1, the AI Agent for Manufacturing Teams.This episode's for any manufacturer trying to separate AI hype from AI that can be trusted in production.In this episode, find out:Why Angelo named the company ‘Apprentice' 12 years ago and why the meaning has only become more relevant in the AI eraHow the product evolved from AR headsets and Google Glass into a full ISA 95 manufacturing stackWhy stacking AI inside a single manufacturing system traps it behind four walls, and what a new layer above the stack can do differentlyAngelo's personal path from writing every line of code himself to CEO leading the company through multiple pivotsThe ‘Predict and Prepare' framework behind the team's COVID response, and how it has guided four or five major business movesWhat Angelo has learned over 12 years about building a leadership team around complementary weaknessesWhy a custom-trained model and a constrained workflow engine are what give manufacturing AI the precision and trust it needs for production useEnjoying the show? Please leave us a review here. Even one sentence helps. It's feedback from Manufacturing All-Stars like you that keeps us going!Tweetable Quotes:“In manufacturing in particular, humans still need to be the driving force. And AI is just a tool to help support them.” “The hardest thing that I had to learn was not software. It wasn't even the entrepreneurship or the CEO stuff. It was building trust and credibility with our customers.” “If we're gonna use AI in manufacturing, it's gotta be precise. Otherwise, no one's gonna trust this thing.” Links & mentions:Apprentice, a purpose-built AI company for manufacturers and the creators of A1: The AI Agent for Manufacturing TeamsLaico's, long-running, brick-lined nook offering an array of Italian cuisine, cocktails, and wine in Jersey City, NJMake sure to visit http://manufacturinghappyhour.com for detailed show notes and a full list of resources mentioned in this episode. Stay Innovative, Stay Thirsty.

After a staggering $90 billion loss on the Metaverse, Mark Zuckerberg is pivoting. But this time, he's not building a virtual world—he's buying into a physical one. We're breaking down the strategic brilliance (and desperation) behind Meta's rumored stake in EssilorLuxottica and why the tech giant is using Prada as a trojan horse to get smart glasses onto your face. From the failure of Google Glass to the "aesthetic hardware" revolution, we discuss why tech is finally waving a white flag to the fashion industry.Note- somewhere in this episode I mentioned that Dior is licensed to EssilorLuxottica. I misspoke and was thinking of Chanel!(P.S.- This is our last episode of the season! We are going on hiatus while we work on the next batch of stories. Thanks for your listenership!)--Support this podcast by leaving a 5 star rating and review!Visit ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠the website⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ for newsletter accessJoin us over on ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠YouTube⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Join us over on ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠TikTok⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠and ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Insta⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ (@itsthoughtfulthreads)Support this small creative platform with a cup of coffee ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠here⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Say hi! hello@thoughtfulthreads.co

Explore the latest news on Google smart glasses, concerns over shortages of Apple's MacBook Neo, and Microsoft's shifting Surface strategy. Steven Scott and Shaun Preece dive into the week's biggest tech stories, from luxury AI wearables to the rising costs of PC hardware. This episode of Double Tap Mainstream unpacks Google's renewed push into XR glasses with Project Aura, featuring partnerships with brands like Gucci and Gentle Monster. The hosts reflect on the legacy of Google Glass, the role of fashion in wearable tech, and how Meta's Ray-Bans and potential Apple Glasses shape the market. The discussion then moves to Apple's MacBook Neo, its surprising popularity, and the potential for a future “Mac Neo” desktop. Steven and Shaun analyse why this affordable yet premium Mac is disrupting the PC market, and how Windows laptop makers must adapt. Finally, the spotlight turns to Microsoft: rising Surface laptop prices, the mysterious retirement of Outlook Lite, and the company's strategy amid competition from Apple and Amazon's expanding satellite ambitions. ----Follow on:YouTube: https://www.doubletaponair.com/youtubeX (formerly Twitter): https://www.doubletaponair.com/xInstagram: https://www.doubletaponair.com/instagramTikTok: https://www.doubletaponair.com/tiktokThreads: https://www.doubletaponair.com/threadsFacebook: https://www.doubletaponair.com/facebookLinkedIn: https://www.doubletaponair.com/linkedin Subscribe to the Podcast:Apple: https://www.doubletaponair.com/appleSpotify: https://www.doubletaponair.com/spotifyRSS: https://www.doubletaponair.com/podcastiHeadRadio: https://www.doubletaponair.com/iheart About Double TapHosted by the insightful duo, Steven Scott and Shaun Preece, Double Tap is a treasure trove of information for anyone who's blind or partially sighted and has a passion for tech. Steven and Shaun not only demystify tech, but they also regularly feature interviews and welcome guests from the community, fostering an interactive and engaging environment. Tune in every day of the week, and you'll discover how technology can seamlessly integrate into your life, enhancing daily tasks and experiences, even if your sight is limited."Double Tap" is a registered trademark of Double Tap Productions Inc. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Why does our economy treat environmental destruction as an inevitable side effect rather than a massive design flaw? How can shifting our focus from polarizing "talkers" to practical "builders" literally save the planet? We are repeatedly told that the climate crisis is too vast and volatile to solve, but what if the true obstacle is simply bad design?Tom Chi is a physicist, designer, inventor, and investor whose work has shaped everything from Google Glass and rapid prototyping at Google X to some of the most ambitious climate technologies being built today. He's now the founding partner of At One Ventures, where he invests in deep-tech companies focused on a bold goal: a world where humanity is a net positive to nature.Tom's new book, Climate Capital: Investing in the Tools for a Regenerative Future, reframes economics itself—not as a fixed law, but as a design discipline that can be reimagined to align with the physical realities of our planet. Drawing on science, systems thinking, and lessons from nature, the book offers a grounded, practical framework for moving beyond both climate doom and empty optimism—and toward real, regenerative solutions. Today's conversation is about what Tom calls the 4Cs: Capital, Compassion, Climate, and Community—but also about agency, responsibility, and what becomes possible when we stop treating the future as something that happens to us and start designing it deliberately.0:00) Build Integrity: Choosing Builders Over TalkersWhy prioritizing those who physically create solutions over those who merely debate them is essential for systemic change(1:21) Overcoming Powerlessness Through Creativity, Critical Thinking, Community CompassionUtilizing a specific framework of portable skills to move from climate anxiety into meaningful, iterative action(2:22) Capital Misallocation: Taxing What We Want to SeeA critique of current tax structures that burden labor while under-taxing capital and failing to serve societal needs(3:47) The Volatility Gap: Why Average Temperatures MisleadUnderstanding why increasing climate volatility—rather than just average temperature rise—is the true driver of human distress(6:19) Economics As Design: Redesigning The Global EngineMoving beyond "physics envy" in economics to treat the global market as a discipline that can be redesigned for better outcomes(9:11) Depth Over Breadth: Reforming Education Through Experience(13:30) Local Resilience: How Cities Can Lead The TransformationPractical, block-by-block strategies for urban adaptation, from expanding tree canopies to improving household efficiency(16:33) AI and Robotics in Agriculture(19:12) Human-Centric AI: Flipping The Priority Of Automation(20:18) Thinking In Pictures: A Language Beyond WordsEpisode Websitewww.creativeprocess.info/podInstagram:@creativeprocesspodcast

“In the book I spend a bunch of time basically teaching skills and teaching frameworks of thinking. Not to indoctrinate, it's not a framework like an ideology where you need to believe exactly these things. This is a lot more about how does one use their minds effectively to solve problems that have been solved before. Of course, I work on things that have to do with investment and climate and the future of the economy and automation. The main things I'm trying to teach in the book are skills around creativity, critical thinking, community compassion and frameworks around how to go and use that on problems that should be relatively portable to a bunch of problems that are meaningful to you. The way that education needs to change is that people need to actively be working on things that truly matter to them so that over time they end up being able to go make that difference.”Tom Chi is a physicist, designer, inventor, and investor whose work has shaped everything from Google Glass and rapid prototyping at Google X to some of the most ambitious climate technologies being built today. He's now the founding partner of At One Ventures, where he invests in deep-tech companies focused on a bold goal: a world where humanity is a net positive to nature.Tom's new book, Climate Capital: Investing in the Tools for a Regenerative Future, reframes economics itself—not as a fixed law, but as a design discipline that can be reimagined to align with the physical realities of our planet. Drawing on science, systems thinking, and lessons from nature, the book offers a grounded, practical framework for moving beyond both climate doom and empty optimism—and toward real, regenerative solutions. Today's conversation is about what Tom calls the 4Cs: Capital, Compassion, Climate, and Community—but also about agency, responsibility, and what becomes possible when we stop treating the future as something that happens to us and start designing it deliberately.(0:00) Overcoming Powerlessness through Creativity, Critical Thinking, Community CompassionWhy broad hopelessness about the future is a purposeful tactic to maintain the status quo.(7:16) How average temperature metrics fail to communicate the true danger of extreme climate volatility.(11:54) Economics as Design(17:11) Multi-disciplinary Learning Centered on Real-World Impact(26:12) Local Resilience(31:15) Tax & Capital Misallocation(36:52) Build Integrity(45:32) AI and Robotics in Agriculture(51:08) The First Honeybee Vaccine(56:11) The Entropy Curve of Pollution(1:15:31) Human-Centric AIFlipping the priority of automation to serve the collective good rather than enriching a select few(1:20:59) Thinking in PicturesHow learning to communicate and problem-solve without language fueled a career in deep tech inventionEpisode Websitewww.creativeprocess.info/podInstagram:@creativeprocesspodcast

Why does our economy treat environmental destruction as an inevitable side effect rather than a massive design flaw? How can shifting our focus from polarizing "talkers" to practical "builders" literally save the planet? We are repeatedly told that the climate crisis is too vast and volatile to solve, but what if the true obstacle is simply bad design?Tom Chi is a physicist, designer, inventor, and investor whose work has shaped everything from Google Glass and rapid prototyping at Google X to some of the most ambitious climate technologies being built today. He's now the founding partner of At One Ventures, where he invests in deep-tech companies focused on a bold goal: a world where humanity is a net positive to nature.Tom's new book, Climate Capital: Investing in the Tools for a Regenerative Future, reframes economics itself—not as a fixed law, but as a design discipline that can be reimagined to align with the physical realities of our planet. Drawing on science, systems thinking, and lessons from nature, the book offers a grounded, practical framework for moving beyond both climate doom and empty optimism—and toward real, regenerative solutions. Today's conversation is about what Tom calls the 4Cs: Capital, Compassion, Climate, and Community—but also about agency, responsibility, and what becomes possible when we stop treating the future as something that happens to us and start designing it deliberately.0:00) Build Integrity: Choosing Builders Over TalkersWhy prioritizing those who physically create solutions over those who merely debate them is essential for systemic change(1:21) Overcoming Powerlessness Through Creativity, Critical Thinking, Community CompassionUtilizing a specific framework of portable skills to move from climate anxiety into meaningful, iterative action(2:22) Capital Misallocation: Taxing What We Want to SeeA critique of current tax structures that burden labor while under-taxing capital and failing to serve societal needs(3:47) The Volatility Gap: Why Average Temperatures MisleadUnderstanding why increasing climate volatility—rather than just average temperature rise—is the true driver of human distress(6:19) Economics As Design: Redesigning The Global EngineMoving beyond "physics envy" in economics to treat the global market as a discipline that can be redesigned for better outcomes(9:11) Depth Over Breadth: Reforming Education Through Experience(13:30) Local Resilience: How Cities Can Lead The TransformationPractical, block-by-block strategies for urban adaptation, from expanding tree canopies to improving household efficiency(16:33) AI and Robotics in Agriculture(19:12) Human-Centric AI: Flipping The Priority Of Automation(20:18) Thinking In Pictures: A Language Beyond WordsEpisode Websitewww.creativeprocess.info/podInstagram:@creativeprocesspodcast

“In the book I spend a bunch of time basically teaching skills and teaching frameworks of thinking. Not to indoctrinate, it's not a framework like an ideology where you need to believe exactly these things. This is a lot more about how does one use their minds effectively to solve problems that have been solved before. Of course, I work on things that have to do with investment and climate and the future of the economy and automation. The main things I'm trying to teach in the book are skills around creativity, critical thinking, community compassion and frameworks around how to go and use that on problems that should be relatively portable to a bunch of problems that are meaningful to you. The way that education needs to change is that people need to actively be working on things that truly matter to them so that over time they end up being able to go make that difference.”Tom Chi is a physicist, designer, inventor, and investor whose work has shaped everything from Google Glass and rapid prototyping at Google X to some of the most ambitious climate technologies being built today. He's now the founding partner of At One Ventures, where he invests in deep-tech companies focused on a bold goal: a world where humanity is a net positive to nature.Tom's new book, Climate Capital: Investing in the Tools for a Regenerative Future, reframes economics itself—not as a fixed law, but as a design discipline that can be reimagined to align with the physical realities of our planet. Drawing on science, systems thinking, and lessons from nature, the book offers a grounded, practical framework for moving beyond both climate doom and empty optimism—and toward real, regenerative solutions. Today's conversation is about what Tom calls the 4Cs: Capital, Compassion, Climate, and Community—but also about agency, responsibility, and what becomes possible when we stop treating the future as something that happens to us and start designing it deliberately.(0:00) Overcoming Powerlessness through Creativity, Critical Thinking, Community CompassionWhy broad hopelessness about the future is a purposeful tactic to maintain the status quo.(7:16) How average temperature metrics fail to communicate the true danger of extreme climate volatility.(11:54) Economics as Design(17:11) Multi-disciplinary Learning Centered on Real-World Impact(26:12) Local Resilience(31:15) Tax & Capital Misallocation(36:52) Build Integrity(45:32) AI and Robotics in Agriculture(51:08) The First Honeybee Vaccine(56:11) The Entropy Curve of Pollution(1:15:31) Human-Centric AIFlipping the priority of automation to serve the collective good rather than enriching a select few(1:20:59) Thinking in PicturesHow learning to communicate and problem-solve without language fueled a career in deep tech inventionEpisode Websitewww.creativeprocess.info/podInstagram:@creativeprocesspodcast

Why does our economy treat environmental destruction as an inevitable side effect rather than a massive design flaw? How can shifting our focus from polarizing "talkers" to practical "builders" literally save the planet? We are repeatedly told that the climate crisis is too vast and volatile to solve, but what if the true obstacle is simply bad design?Tom Chi is a physicist, designer, inventor, and investor whose work has shaped everything from Google Glass and rapid prototyping at Google X to some of the most ambitious climate technologies being built today. He's now the founding partner of At One Ventures, where he invests in deep-tech companies focused on a bold goal: a world where humanity is a net positive to nature.Tom's new book, Climate Capital: Investing in the Tools for a Regenerative Future, reframes economics itself—not as a fixed law, but as a design discipline that can be reimagined to align with the physical realities of our planet. Drawing on science, systems thinking, and lessons from nature, the book offers a grounded, practical framework for moving beyond both climate doom and empty optimism—and toward real, regenerative solutions. Today's conversation is about what Tom calls the 4Cs: Capital, Compassion, Climate, and Community—but also about agency, responsibility, and what becomes possible when we stop treating the future as something that happens to us and start designing it deliberately.0:00) Build Integrity: Choosing Builders Over TalkersWhy prioritizing those who physically create solutions over those who merely debate them is essential for systemic change(1:21) Overcoming Powerlessness Through Creativity, Critical Thinking, Community CompassionUtilizing a specific framework of portable skills to move from climate anxiety into meaningful, iterative action(2:22) Capital Misallocation: Taxing What We Want to SeeA critique of current tax structures that burden labor while under-taxing capital and failing to serve societal needs(3:47) The Volatility Gap: Why Average Temperatures MisleadUnderstanding why increasing climate volatility—rather than just average temperature rise—is the true driver of human distress(6:19) Economics As Design: Redesigning The Global EngineMoving beyond "physics envy" in economics to treat the global market as a discipline that can be redesigned for better outcomes(9:11) Depth Over Breadth: Reforming Education Through Experience(13:30) Local Resilience: How Cities Can Lead The TransformationPractical, block-by-block strategies for urban adaptation, from expanding tree canopies to improving household efficiency(16:33) AI and Robotics in Agriculture(19:12) Human-Centric AI: Flipping The Priority Of Automation(20:18) Thinking In Pictures: A Language Beyond WordsEpisode Websitewww.creativeprocess.info/podInstagram:@creativeprocesspodcast

“In the book I spend a bunch of time basically teaching skills and teaching frameworks of thinking. Not to indoctrinate, it's not a framework like an ideology where you need to believe exactly these things. This is a lot more about how does one use their minds effectively to solve problems that have been solved before. Of course, I work on things that have to do with investment and climate and the future of the economy and automation. The main things I'm trying to teach in the book are skills around creativity, critical thinking, community compassion and frameworks around how to go and use that on problems that should be relatively portable to a bunch of problems that are meaningful to you. The way that education needs to change is that people need to actively be working on things that truly matter to them so that over time they end up being able to go make that difference.”Tom Chi is a physicist, designer, inventor, and investor whose work has shaped everything from Google Glass and rapid prototyping at Google X to some of the most ambitious climate technologies being built today. He's now the founding partner of At One Ventures, where he invests in deep-tech companies focused on a bold goal: a world where humanity is a net positive to nature.Tom's new book, Climate Capital: Investing in the Tools for a Regenerative Future, reframes economics itself—not as a fixed law, but as a design discipline that can be reimagined to align with the physical realities of our planet. Drawing on science, systems thinking, and lessons from nature, the book offers a grounded, practical framework for moving beyond both climate doom and empty optimism—and toward real, regenerative solutions. Today's conversation is about what Tom calls the 4Cs: Capital, Compassion, Climate, and Community—but also about agency, responsibility, and what becomes possible when we stop treating the future as something that happens to us and start designing it deliberately.(0:00) Overcoming Powerlessness through Creativity, Critical Thinking, Community CompassionWhy broad hopelessness about the future is a purposeful tactic to maintain the status quo.(7:16) How average temperature metrics fail to communicate the true danger of extreme climate volatility.(11:54) Economics as Design(17:11) Multi-disciplinary Learning Centered on Real-World Impact(26:12) Local Resilience(31:15) Tax & Capital Misallocation(36:52) Build Integrity(45:32) AI and Robotics in Agriculture(51:08) The First Honeybee Vaccine(56:11) The Entropy Curve of Pollution(1:15:31) Human-Centric AIFlipping the priority of automation to serve the collective good rather than enriching a select few(1:20:59) Thinking in PicturesHow learning to communicate and problem-solve without language fueled a career in deep tech inventionEpisode Websitewww.creativeprocess.info/podInstagram:@creativeprocesspodcast

“In the book I spend a bunch of time basically teaching skills and teaching frameworks of thinking. Not to indoctrinate, it's not a framework like an ideology where you need to believe exactly these things. This is a lot more about how does one use their minds effectively to solve problems that have been solved before. Of course, I work on things that have to do with investment and climate and the future of the economy and automation. The main things I'm trying to teach in the book are skills around creativity, critical thinking, community compassion and frameworks around how to go and use that on problems that should be relatively portable to a bunch of problems that are meaningful to you. The way that education needs to change is that people need to actively be working on things that truly matter to them so that over time they end up being able to go make that difference.”Tom Chi is a physicist, designer, inventor, and investor whose work has shaped everything from Google Glass and rapid prototyping at Google X to some of the most ambitious climate technologies being built today. He's now the founding partner of At One Ventures, where he invests in deep-tech companies focused on a bold goal: a world where humanity is a net positive to nature.Tom's new book, Climate Capital: Investing in the Tools for a Regenerative Future, reframes economics itself—not as a fixed law, but as a design discipline that can be reimagined to align with the physical realities of our planet. Drawing on science, systems thinking, and lessons from nature, the book offers a grounded, practical framework for moving beyond both climate doom and empty optimism—and toward real, regenerative solutions. Today's conversation is about what Tom calls the 4Cs: Capital, Compassion, Climate, and Community—but also about agency, responsibility, and what becomes possible when we stop treating the future as something that happens to us and start designing it deliberately.(0:00) Overcoming Powerlessness through Creativity, Critical Thinking, Community CompassionWhy broad hopelessness about the future is a purposeful tactic to maintain the status quo.(7:16) How average temperature metrics fail to communicate the true danger of extreme climate volatility.(11:54) Economics as Design(17:11) Multi-disciplinary Learning Centered on Real-World Impact(26:12) Local Resilience(31:15) Tax & Capital Misallocation(36:52) Build Integrity(45:32) AI and Robotics in Agriculture(51:08) The First Honeybee Vaccine(56:11) The Entropy Curve of Pollution(1:15:31) Human-Centric AIFlipping the priority of automation to serve the collective good rather than enriching a select few(1:20:59) Thinking in PicturesHow learning to communicate and problem-solve without language fueled a career in deep tech inventionEpisode Websitewww.creativeprocess.info/podInstagram:@creativeprocesspodcast

Why does our economy treat environmental destruction as an inevitable side effect rather than a massive design flaw? How can shifting our focus from polarizing "talkers" to practical "builders" literally save the planet? We are repeatedly told that the climate crisis is too vast and volatile to solve, but what if the true obstacle is simply bad design?Tom Chi is a physicist, designer, inventor, and investor whose work has shaped everything from Google Glass and rapid prototyping at Google X to some of the most ambitious climate technologies being built today. He's now the founding partner of At One Ventures, where he invests in deep-tech companies focused on a bold goal: a world where humanity is a net positive to nature.Tom's new book, Climate Capital: Investing in the Tools for a Regenerative Future, reframes economics itself—not as a fixed law, but as a design discipline that can be reimagined to align with the physical realities of our planet. Drawing on science, systems thinking, and lessons from nature, the book offers a grounded, practical framework for moving beyond both climate doom and empty optimism—and toward real, regenerative solutions. Today's conversation is about what Tom calls the 4Cs: Capital, Compassion, Climate, and Community—but also about agency, responsibility, and what becomes possible when we stop treating the future as something that happens to us and start designing it deliberately.0:00) Build Integrity: Choosing Builders Over TalkersWhy prioritizing those who physically create solutions over those who merely debate them is essential for systemic change(1:21) Overcoming Powerlessness Through Creativity, Critical Thinking, Community CompassionUtilizing a specific framework of portable skills to move from climate anxiety into meaningful, iterative action(2:22) Capital Misallocation: Taxing What We Want to SeeA critique of current tax structures that burden labor while under-taxing capital and failing to serve societal needs(3:47) The Volatility Gap: Why Average Temperatures MisleadUnderstanding why increasing climate volatility—rather than just average temperature rise—is the true driver of human distress(6:19) Economics As Design: Redesigning The Global EngineMoving beyond "physics envy" in economics to treat the global market as a discipline that can be redesigned for better outcomes(9:11) Depth Over Breadth: Reforming Education Through Experience(13:30) Local Resilience: How Cities Can Lead The TransformationPractical, block-by-block strategies for urban adaptation, from expanding tree canopies to improving household efficiency(16:33) AI and Robotics in Agriculture(19:12) Human-Centric AI: Flipping The Priority Of Automation(20:18) Thinking In Pictures: A Language Beyond WordsEpisode Websitewww.creativeprocess.info/podInstagram:@creativeprocesspodcast

Wearable tech is having a moment. Partly based on early reads about the success of Meta's Ray-Ban glasses, Meta just signed a 10-year lease for a physical store in Manhattan that will sell them. Meanwhile, Apple is set to launch its own competitor smart glasses soon, while Google is teaming up with Warby Parker on a similar product. But wearable tech, especially targeted toward a mainstream or fashion audience, has been hard to crack. For every successful product like the Meta Ray-Bans, there have been expensive flops like Google Glass and Apple's Vision Pro. For the Glossy Podcast, senior fashion reporter Danny Parisi, international reporter Zofia Zwieglinska and editor-in-chief Jill Manoff were joined by wearable tech expert Janey Park to discuss why some products take off and others fail. We broke it down into five rules for a successful wearable tech launch.

“In the book I spend a bunch of time basically teaching skills and teaching frameworks of thinking. Not to indoctrinate, it's not a framework like an ideology where you need to believe exactly these things. This is a lot more about how does one use their minds effectively to solve problems that have been solved before. Of course, I work on things that have to do with investment and climate and the future of the economy and automation. The main things I'm trying to teach in the book are skills around creativity, critical thinking, community compassion and frameworks around how to go and use that on problems that should be relatively portable to a bunch of problems that are meaningful to you. The way that education needs to change is that people need to actively be working on things that truly matter to them so that over time they end up being able to go make that difference.”Tom Chi is a physicist, designer, inventor, and investor whose work has shaped everything from Google Glass and rapid prototyping at Google X to some of the most ambitious climate technologies being built today. He's now the founding partner of At One Ventures, where he invests in deep-tech companies focused on a bold goal: a world where humanity is a net positive to nature.Tom's new book, Climate Capital: Investing in the Tools for a Regenerative Future, reframes economics itself—not as a fixed law, but as a design discipline that can be reimagined to align with the physical realities of our planet. Drawing on science, systems thinking, and lessons from nature, the book offers a grounded, practical framework for moving beyond both climate doom and empty optimism—and toward real, regenerative solutions. Today's conversation is about what Tom calls the 4Cs: Capital, Compassion, Climate, and Community—but also about agency, responsibility, and what becomes possible when we stop treating the future as something that happens to us and start designing it deliberately.(0:00) Overcoming Powerlessness through Creativity, Critical Thinking, Community CompassionWhy broad hopelessness about the future is a purposeful tactic to maintain the status quo.(7:16) How average temperature metrics fail to communicate the true danger of extreme climate volatility.(11:54) Economics as Design(17:11) Multi-disciplinary Learning Centered on Real-World Impact(26:12) Local Resilience(31:15) Tax & Capital Misallocation(36:52) Build Integrity(45:32) AI and Robotics in Agriculture(51:08) The First Honeybee Vaccine(56:11) The Entropy Curve of Pollution(1:15:31) Human-Centric AIFlipping the priority of automation to serve the collective good rather than enriching a select few(1:20:59) Thinking in PicturesHow learning to communicate and problem-solve without language fueled a career in deep tech inventionEpisode Websitewww.creativeprocess.info/podInstagram:@creativeprocesspodcast

Why does our economy treat environmental destruction as an inevitable side effect rather than a massive design flaw? How can shifting our focus from polarizing "talkers" to practical "builders" literally save the planet? We are repeatedly told that the climate crisis is too vast and volatile to solve, but what if the true obstacle is simply bad design?Tom Chi is a physicist, designer, inventor, and investor whose work has shaped everything from Google Glass and rapid prototyping at Google X to some of the most ambitious climate technologies being built today. He's now the founding partner of At One Ventures, where he invests in deep-tech companies focused on a bold goal: a world where humanity is a net positive to nature.Tom's new book, Climate Capital: Investing in the Tools for a Regenerative Future, reframes economics itself—not as a fixed law, but as a design discipline that can be reimagined to align with the physical realities of our planet. Drawing on science, systems thinking, and lessons from nature, the book offers a grounded, practical framework for moving beyond both climate doom and empty optimism—and toward real, regenerative solutions. Today's conversation is about what Tom calls the 4Cs: Capital, Compassion, Climate, and Community—but also about agency, responsibility, and what becomes possible when we stop treating the future as something that happens to us and start designing it deliberately.0:00) Build Integrity: Choosing Builders Over TalkersWhy prioritizing those who physically create solutions over those who merely debate them is essential for systemic change(1:21) Overcoming Powerlessness Through Creativity, Critical Thinking, Community CompassionUtilizing a specific framework of portable skills to move from climate anxiety into meaningful, iterative action(2:22) Capital Misallocation: Taxing What We Want to SeeA critique of current tax structures that burden labor while under-taxing capital and failing to serve societal needs(3:47) The Volatility Gap: Why Average Temperatures MisleadUnderstanding why increasing climate volatility—rather than just average temperature rise—is the true driver of human distress(6:19) Economics As Design: Redesigning The Global EngineMoving beyond "physics envy" in economics to treat the global market as a discipline that can be redesigned for better outcomes(9:11) Depth Over Breadth: Reforming Education Through Experience(13:30) Local Resilience: How Cities Can Lead The TransformationPractical, block-by-block strategies for urban adaptation, from expanding tree canopies to improving household efficiency(16:33) AI and Robotics in Agriculture(19:12) Human-Centric AI: Flipping The Priority Of Automation(20:18) Thinking In Pictures: A Language Beyond WordsEpisode Websitewww.creativeprocess.info/podInstagram:@creativeprocesspodcast

Google is trying to make smart glasses a bit more stylish through a new partnership. This comes after Google Glass failed to catch on and was discontinued. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Could smart glasses replace the smart phone as the number one consumer device? If you're like me, you probably remember the failure of Google Glass, which ended in 2015. Google may have exited the space early considering in 2025 global shipments of smart glasses hit 8.7 million units, which quadrupled 2024's level. Meta currently holds 85% of the market but realize that Apple, Alphabet/ Google, and Samsung are expected to launch AI equipped eyewear soon. I do wonder if this will hurt or help Apple since people may be buying more smart glasses and less high-end iPhones? There are concerns about privacy and data collection. Currently Meta is facing a lawsuit in the US that is seeking class action status. Seems like Meta can't get out of the news or the courtroom, but they do state that what the glasses collect stays on the user's device unless they choose to share it with the company. The smart glasses can see what you see and hear what you hear. You can have a conversation with the glasses the same as if you're talking to a person. Which means you may look like a crazy person standing there talking to yourself if people don't realize you have smart glasses on. Companies that would benefit from an increase in manufacturing of smart glasses, excluding the big companies I already mentioned, would include companies such as EssilorLuxottica, which is the owner of Ray-Ban and Meta's manufacturing partner, Qualcomm, which provides the central processor or the brains of the glasses, and Global Foundries. which takes care of the display technology. It appears this time; smart glasses may become as common as a smart phone in the next few years.   Is the market too expensive to buy the dip this time? With the increasing cost of oil and the turmoil in Iran the markets did see a correction, which is a drop of 10% or more from the peak. People have become so accustomed to just buying the dips without knowing the valuations of what they're buying, and many will probably do the same thing this time. Unfortunately, dip buying does not always work and given the current valuations, investors could be in for a bad surprise. Even with the recent pull back, the forward price/earnings ratio for the S&P 500 sits at 20 and is still 20% higher than the 20-year average. So even with the dip you're not buying companies on sale at these levels. Earnings can be adjusted and moved around with accounting rules, which means you're probably paying more than you believe if you don't understand accounting. Another indicator to look at is the forward price to free cash flow. This indicator takes out all the accounting craziness of how much some tech companies are spending on capital expenditures for artificial intelligence. Often, I find these two measures converge once the accounting catches up to the heavy capex spending and understanding both earnings and free cash flow is an important balance. The index currently has a forward price to free cash flow of 27.4 and that is nearly 40% above the 20-year average. Smart investors really should stop and think. They should realize they're paying a lot more for the S&P 500 than they thought. Free cash flow is not an accounting measure, and companies are not required to compute it for you. It's not that hard to calculate though as you start with cash from operations and then deduct all the capital expenditures. This is where the devil is in the details because this is where you will see how overvalued many tech companies are because of the billions of dollars they're spending. The big risk here is the return on investment will likely not come very quickly and maybe not at all. This doesn't mean you shouldn't invest in stocks as you can still find good quality equities that are generating very good cash flow and that you're not overpaying for the earnings or the free cash flow. Personally, those are the types of businesses I'm looking for when investing for myself and my clients.   Consumer prices spike in March due to Iran war While it was in line with expectations, the headline CPI rose 3.3% compared to last year. This was the highest annual rate since April 2024, and it was substantially higher than February's reading of 2.4%. The obvious reason for the increase was the change in oil prices. Energy showed an increase of 12.5%, largely due to a spike of 18.9% in gasoline prices. Month over month gasoline prices climbed 21.2%, which was the largest monthly increase since 1967 when the series was first published. Outside of the energy spike, prices did not look problematic considering core CPI, which excludes food and energy, saw an increase of 2.6% on an annual basis. This was relatively in line with recent months and was 0.1% below the forecast. While the Fed may be able to look through these inflation numbers, if energy remains elevated the concern is it will start to impact core CPI as well. Companies will need to start raising prices to offset their higher expenses due to energy costs. For example, airline fares, which rose 14.9% over the past 12 months would see further pressure. Deutsche Bank estimates that if jet fuel prices stay near current levels for a full year, airlines would have to increase ticket prices by about 17% to offset those cost pressures. Transportation would also be problematic with companies like Amazon, UPS, and FedEx needing to pay more to move goods around the economy. We have already seen the introduction of fuel and logistics surcharges and those will likely climb further if problems persist. On a positive note, the shelter index rose just 3.0% on an annual basis, which was tied for its lowest level since August 2021. As I have mentioned before, I anticipate shelter inflation will continue to decline as the year progresses. Overall, the main takeaway is if this Iran war can be contained and energy prices start to decline, which I think they will, inflation should not be a problem in 2026.     Financial Planning: Reporting a Backdoor Roth IRA Normally when income is above $236k for joint filers or $150k for single filers, the ability to make Roth IRA contributions is phased out.  A backdoor Roth IRA is a strategy that allows high-income taxpayers to fund Roth IRAs, but it needs to be done correctly.  It is a two-step process that involves making a traditional IRA contribution and then converting that contribution into a Roth IRA.  This can only be done if the account holder does not have any other pre-tax IRAs.  When the initial contribution is made to the traditional IRA, it needs to be reported as a non-deductible contribution.  When the funds are converted, a 1099-r is generated, and as long as the initial contribution was reported correctly, the conversion is not taxable.  The end result is a Roth IRA that can grow tax-free.  While this can be a benefit, it is crucial that everything is reported correctly to prevent filing errors, overcontributions, and amended tax returns.   Companies Discussed: ServiceNow, Inc. (NOW), NIKE, Inc. (NKE), RH (RH) & Invesco Ltd. (IVZ)

“I give them a lot of credit because they use that so frequently, and that's why they have so much success. I mean, it is an iconic melody in and of itself, but it's that repetition and that usage, you know, whereas I feel like a lot of sound logo projects that come in, we'll get to the finish line and they'll be excited to use it, and then a month or two later, they'll be like, ‘We're not seeing quite the results that we'd hoped.' It's like, A, you're not going to see it after a month, and B, you've got to use it consistently, you know, and potentially in multiple places. State Farm does it right.” – Connor MooreThis episode is the second half of my conversation with founder and creative director of CMoore Sound, Connor Moore, as we talk about where AI voices might be taking sound design, how he became a juror at the International Sound Awards, and how sonic logos are making a comeback.As always, if you have questions for my guest, you're welcome to reach out through the links in the show notes. If you have questions for me, visit audiobrandingpodcast.com, where you'll find a lot of ways to get in touch. Plus, subscribing to the newsletter will let you know when the new podcasts are available, along with other interesting bits of audio-related news. And if you're getting some value from listening, the best ways to show your support are to share this podcast with a friend and leave an honest review. Both those things really help, and I'd love to feature your review on future podcasts. You can leave one either in written or in voice format from the podcast's main page. I would so appreciate that.(00:00) – Current Trends in Sound DesignThe second half of our discussion starts as Connor talks about neural voices, the latest breakthrough in AI voice clones, and how popular they're becoming with clients. “It's a very interesting space,” he says, “having a customized brain and voice that can constantly adapt, you know, and so we're seeing a lot more of that come through.” He talks about his work on Google Glass and how he might approach its UX design differently in today's world, and how he helped reshape the famous State Farm sonic logo. “'Here's a simple tweak at a foundational level,'” he recalls saying, “'Take away the square wave and use a sine wave at a base level.' And they were like, ‘Oh.' And we're already 65% there.”(10:47) – The Importance of SimplicityWe discuss his work with the International Sound Awards and the insights he's gained from seeing nominees from all over the world. “Most of the work I've reviewed in the last four years has been more kind of traditional sonic branding,” he tells us. “It's just great to be a part of that community and to hear all the cool work coming, because it's at a global scale.” He talks about the resurgence of sound logos in today's market, and the lesson to be learned from State Farm's branding success. “The iconic nature of that example is the melody,” he says, “the melody that's been around for so long. But I think that what I would say is just, you know, use it lightly. Be careful with overusing it.”(24:47) – The Future of Sonic BrandingOur conversation wraps up with what he's working on now, and the trends he's seeing in branding and audio UX design. “Industries that you might not expect,” Connor explains, “old school industries that are becoming more tech focused, for example... which I think is interesting, because I think sound as a technology [is] starting to touch industries of old that are modernizing.” He tells listeners how they can get in touch, and shares his perspective as someone on the forefront of sonic branding. “I'm working on very emerging technologies,” he says. “I'm working on older industry segments that are stepping into new technology, I'm working in automotive... it's a good balance that keeps me engaged.”Episode SummaryOur discussion on the rise of wearable technology and voice-driven experiences.Exploring how simplicity impacts sound design and brand perception.Connor's predictions on the evolution of audio branding and its applications.Connect with the Audio Branding Podcast:Book your project with Voice Overs and Vocals by visiting https://voiceoversandvocals.comConnect with me on Instagram - https://www.instagram.com/jodikrangle/Watch the Audio Branding Podcast on YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/c/JodiKrangleVOConnect with me on LinkedIn - https://www.linkedin.com/in/jodikrangle/Leave the Audio Branding Podcast a review at https://lovethepodcast.com/audiobranding (Thank you!)Share your passion effectively with these Tips for Sounding Your Best as a Podcast Guest!https://voiceoversandvocals.com/tips-for-sounding-your-best-as-a-podcast-guest/Get my Top Five Tips for Implementing an Intentional Audio Strategyhttps://voiceoversandvocals.com/audio-branding-strategy/Editing/Production by Humberto Franco - https://humbertofranco.com/This podcast uses the following third-party services for analysis: OP3 - https://op3.dev/privacy

“Too much sound complicates things, it confuses things, and it causes annoyance and fatigue, too much brain power needed. Too much cognitive load, and it's a known fact. So oftentimes companies will come to me and say, ‘Hey, we have, you know, sixty sounds we want to create.' And I go, ‘Okay, cool. Let's take a look at the list. Let me understand your product a little better and let's try to find ways to strip it back.' Because, you know, that can be very overwhelming for users.” – Connor MooreThis episode's guest is a leading expert in audio UX and audio branding. As the founder of CMoore Sound, he's shaped how major brands like Google, Uber, Peloton, and Airbnb use sound to enhance their products and connect with audiences. Over the past fifteen years, he's helped define how sound influences everything from brand identity to user experience, and he's been featured in The New Yorker, NPR, and Google's Design series. He's also a fellow judge for the International Sound Awards, which is how we met. His name is Connor Moore and his work shows how sound isn't just decoration, it's a powerful tool that shapes how we feel, navigate, and interact with the world.As always, if you have questions for my guest, you're welcome to reach out through the links in the show notes. If you have questions for me, visit audiobrandingpodcast.com, where you'll find a lot of ways to get in touch. Plus, subscribing to the newsletter will let you know when the new podcasts are available, along with other interesting bits of audio-related news. And if you're getting some value from listening, the best ways to show your support are to share this podcast with a friend and leave an honest review. Both those things really help, and I'd love to feature your review on future podcasts. You can leave one either in written or in voice format from the podcast's main page. I would so appreciate that.(00:00) – Connor's Audio Eureka MomentOur conversation starts with Connor's early memories of sound, and how quickly he came to realize in college that audio branding wasn't really a thing in marketing. “It really begged the question for me of why aren't brands thinking about sound and music like they are for their visual branding,” he explains. “So that, to me, was a bit of a eureka moment and really kind of set me on my path.” He talks about how both old-time jingles and current audio brands like Netflix get it right when it comes to repetition, and his process for getting clients what they need to establish their audio brand. “With my business,” Connor tells us, “I'm involved at every stage… that's a big value add. Having a veteran in the industry in the room at all times and really guiding the work, that is really the biggest differentiator.”(12:23) – The Evolution of Sonic BrandingConnor tells us about some of his current projects, including a major car company that needs a creative approach to sonic branding. “They're a product first company,” he says. “It's an automotive company. Without the product, you don't have the brand. So that is the biggest touch point for their customers. And you can do the audio branding process through UX. It's really the same process.” He shares the insights he gained from working with companies like Samsung and Lucid Motors, and tells us about the early days of audio-first UX. “Back then they were just very simple kind of ringtones and alarms,” he says. “And what I did is I went in and really crafted really long form compositions that gradually pick up over time, you know, with volume, percussion, harmonics, [and] complexity.”(26:15) – Creating a More Thoughtful SoundscapeAs we come to the end of the first half of our discussion, Conner tells us how he balances the functionality of UX with the distinctiveness of audio branding. “There should be a level of cohesion across the experience,” he explains. “But there should also be levels of distinction. So a welcome sound for an in-car experience could be very soft and inviting, whereas, like, for a collision sound, it can't be soft. You know, it has to be kind of in your face.” We talk about the value of silence, and how knowing when not to make a sonic impression can be as important as making one. “There's a lot of power in simplicity and silence,” he says. “That is the biggest takeaway of my time in this space.”Episode SummaryConnor discusses his first experiences with sound and sonic branding.We explore how sonic branding has become more intentional over the years.Our discussion turns to the need for thoughtful, pleasing soundscapes.Tune in for next week's episode as we talk about the latest developments in AI-driven neural voices, Connor's pioneering work at Google Glass and on State Farm's famous sonic logo, and how companies that don't necessarily need a musical jingle can still take advantage of an audio brand.Connect with the Audio Branding Podcast:Book your project with Voice Overs and Vocals by visiting https://voiceoversandvocals.comConnect with me on Instagram - https://www.instagram.com/jodikrangle/Watch the Audio Branding Podcast on YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/c/JodiKrangleVOConnect with me on LinkedIn - https://www.linkedin.com/in/jodikrangle/Leave the Audio Branding Podcast a review at https://lovethepodcast.com/audiobranding (Thank you!)Share your passion effectively with these Tips for Sounding Your Best as a Podcast Guest!https://voiceoversandvocals.com/tips-for-sounding-your-best-as-a-podcast-guest/Get my Top Five Tips for Implementing an Intentional Audio Strategyhttps://voiceoversandvocals.com/audio-branding-strategy/Editing/Production by Humberto Franco - https://humbertofranco.com/This podcast uses the following third-party services for analysis: OP3 - https://op3.dev/privacy

Mac買い替えからのバックアップ環境再構築や余剰ChromeBoxの再利用。後半は一番欲しいガジェットに「タチコマ」と即答しつつ、新旧ARグラスや調光レンズの罠などメガネトークへ02:29 Mac買い替えで印影画像が消滅、紙に押印して写真を撮り直すという作業再び04:01 NASやTime Machineでのバックアップ「当たり前をやっとけよ」な環境を再構築中04:48 Mac miniの新型より先にまさかのStudio Displayが先に発表されて困惑07:15 余っているChromeBoxをLinuxマシンにして実験環境にする予定07:44 でもChromeBox（Intel i7・GPU非搭載）はローカルLLMには非力すぎた09:34 ポッドキャスト編集自動化：室内反響音や絶対に許せないリップノイズを低減する機能も含めたい10:03 ポッドキャスト編集自動化：Claude Codeで3人別々の音源の無音部分カットと間詰めがうまくいかない12:31 攻殻機動隊のタチコマ（みたいなパーソナルアシスタントAI）がほしい13:24 冬山用と普段用でレンズを簡単に付け替えられるSWANSの度入りサングラス17:03 丸顔に合うメガネフレームを衝動買いするも、肝心の度が入っていないカラーレンズ19:00 Google Glassを度入りレンズに換えて日本で実際に使用していたという秘話19:58 M社のスマートグラスはなぜいつもかっこ悪いのか？21:06 ARグラスはエンタメで使ってほしい場面、使い方がたくさんある！（ユーザーの要望）24:50 調光レンズの罠：車内では色がつかず、外から山小屋に入ると色が戻るのが遅くて真っ暗テック業界で働く3人が、テクノロジーとクリエイティブに関するトピックを、視点を行き交わしながら語り合います。及川卓也 @takoratta プロダクトマネジメントとプロダクト開発組織づくりの専門家 自己紹介エピソード ep1, ep2関信浩 @NobuhiroSeki アメリカ・ニューヨークでスタートアップ投資を行う、何でも屋 自己紹介エピソード ep52上野美香 @mikamika59 マーケティング・プロダクトマネジメントを手掛けるフリーランス 自己紹介エピソード ep53Official X: @x_crossing_ https://x-crossing.com

Tom Chi was a founding member of Google X — the team behind self-driving cars, Google Glass, and deep learning AI. At the peak of that career, he watched a coral reef die outside his home in Hawaii. In eight weeks, it was gone. That moment changed everything. Tom founded At One Ventures to fund companies building that future.In this episode, Tom breaks down why the climate crisis is not a political debate — it's a physics problem. And physics doesn't negotiate.⭐ Sponsored by Podcast10x - Podcasting agency for VCs - https://podcast10x.comWe cover:- The calculation Tom ran in 2012 that predicted mass fires, floods, and displacement by 2022 — and why nobody was talking about it- Why "green premium" is a myth, and how AT1 Ventures finds climate tech that is cheaper than the incumbent- The physics framework he uses to evaluate every deal: matter, energy, time, and space- Why Venezuela is a live case study in what the petrol-first worldview actually produces- The difference between sustainable, net zero, and net positive — and why only one of them is the right target- Why freshwater scarcity is a management problem, not a supply problem- What ancient civilizations in Hawaii and South Asia got right about working with nature — that we've completely forgottenTom is also the author of Climate Capital: Investing in the Tools for a Regenerative Future (Wiley, Feb 2026).Timestamps:(00:00) - Why Tom Chi left AI and robotics to focus on climate change.(00:32) - Disagreeing with Bill Gates' "green premium" concept.(01:09) - Introduction to Tom Chi's background and AtOne Ventures.(02:54) - Tom Chi on his career and the mission of AtOne Ventures.(03:58) - The personal story of watching a coral reef die and how it changed his career path.(08:00) - Using physics to predict the rise in climate volatility a decade ago.(10:45) - The realization that climate change is a time-sensitive problem that can't be delayed.(12:38) - Discussing global inaction and the influence of the fossil fuel industry on geopolitics.(14:32) - Contrasting the US's fossil fuel policy with China's dominance in green technology.(18:25) - Why climate change is a physics problem, not a political debate.(20:47) - The thesis that green technology must be cheaper, not more expensive, to scale.(21:54) - The investment framework: Using physics to find economic advantages in green tech.(26:08) - How green energy can compete against the policy influence of the cash-rich oil industry.(29:15) - The difference between "sustainable" and "net positive."(31:52) - Is freshwater scarcity a real and urgent global risk?(32:11) - Reframing the water crisis as a mismanagement of hydrological cycles, not a scarcity issue.(36:08) - The real choice: Deciding the level of human misery, not "saving the planet."(39:34) - Rapid-fire round: Investment sectors and regions.(41:19) - Typical stage and check size of investments.(42:23) - How to get in touch with Tom Chi and AtOne Ventures.(43:16) - Final thoughts on the "category error" of treating scientific truth as a political debate.

The Arizona Cardinals inform Kyler Murray they plan to release him, a new study suggests you eat 15% more when dining with your smartphone, Will's new truck, the origins of our names, Google Glass, fans spark a fast-food debate after Burger King's president throws shade at McDonald's, Jack in the Box is ranked the worst burger chain, and the average woman spends $1,600 a year on wellness — plus the latest news and sports. 

Investor lessons from working at three billion-dollar companies and mentoring 200+ founders.

New Book: Climate Capital — Investing in the Tools for a Regenerative Future | An Interview with Tom Chi | An Analog Brain In A Digital Age With Marco Ciappelli What if the economy isn't broken — just badly designed? Tom Chi, Google X founding member, inventor of 77 patents, and venture capitalist at At One Ventures, joined me on An Analog Brain In A Digital Age to discuss his new book Climate Capital: Investing in the Tools for a Regenerative Future. From the streets of Florence to the strip malls of Silicon Valley, from the mechanics of attention capture to the physics of ecological economics, this conversation goes far beyond climate. It's about how we design the systems we live inside — and whether we have the will to redesign them before it's too late.

Decisions outsourced, chatbots for friends, the natural world an afterthought: Silicon Valley is giving us life void of connection. There is a way out – but it's going to take collective effort By Rebecca Solnit. Read by Laurel Lefkow. Help support our independent journalism at theguardian.com/longreadpod

If you like the show, ⁠⁠follow the Version History feed⁠⁠ to make sure you get every new episode as soon as it drops. ⁠Subscribe to The Verge⁠ for unlimited access to ⁠theverge.com⁠, subscriber-exclusive newsletters, and our ⁠ad-free podcast feed⁠. We love hearing from you! Email your questions and thoughts to ⁠vergecast@theverge.com⁠ or call us at 866-VERGE11. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

The moonshot factory X is home to some of Silicon Valley's boldest inventions. CEO Astro Teller reveals how the secretive lab tests crazy ideas that can change the world... even when they fail. TED Radio Hour+ subscribers now get access to bonus episodes, with more ideas from TED speakers and a behind the scenes look with our producers. A Plus subscription also lets you listen to regular episodes (like this one!) without sponsors. Sign-up at plus.npr.org/ted.Learn more about sponsor message choices: podcastchoices.com/adchoicesNPR Privacy Policy