Archiv der Kategorie: Innovation

Apple’s Shyness around Apple Watch

http://www.wired.com/2015/07/apple-doesnt-want-know-many-watches-sold/

Apple Doesn’t Want You to Know How Many Watches It Sold

A display case containing the Apple Watch Sport at the company's flagship store in San Francisco, on June 17, 2015.

Chris Urmson – Leader of Google Self Driving Car Project on TED

0:11 So in 1885, Karl Benz invented the automobile. Later that year, he took it out for the first public test drive, and — true story — crashed into a wall. For the last 130 years, we’ve been working around that least reliable part of the car, the driver. We’ve made the car stronger. We’ve added seat belts, we’ve added air bags, and in the last decade, we’ve actually started trying to make the car smarter to fix that bug, the driver.

0:40 Now, today I’m going to talk to you a little bit about the difference between patching around the problem with driver assistance systems and actually having fully self-driving cars and what they can do for the world. I’m also going to talk to you a little bit about our car and allow you to see how it sees the world and how it reacts and what it does, but first I’m going to talk a little bit about the problem. And it’s a big problem: 1.2 million people are killed on the world’s roads every year. In America alone, 33,000 people are killed each year. To put that in perspective, that’s the same as a 737 falling out of the sky every working day. It’s kind of unbelievable. Cars are sold to us like this, but really, this is what driving’s like. Right? It’s not sunny, it’s rainy, and you want to do anything other than drive. And the reason why is this: Traffic is getting worse. In America, between 1990 and 2010, the vehicle miles traveled increased by 38 percent. We grew by six percent of roads, so it’s not in your brains. Traffic really is substantially worse than it was not very long ago.

1:49 And all of this has a very human cost. So if you take the average commute time in America, which is about 50 minutes, you multiply that by the 120 million workers we have, that turns out to be about six billion minutes wasted in commuting every day. Now, that’s a big number, so let’s put it in perspective. You take that six billion minutes and you divide it by the average life expectancy of a person, that turns out to be 162 lifetimes spent every day, wasted, just getting from A to B. It’s unbelievable. And then, there are those of us who don’t have the privilege of sitting in traffic. So this is Steve. He’s an incredibly capable guy, but he just happens to be blind, and that means instead of a 30-minute drive to work in the morning, it’s a two-hour ordeal of piecing together bits of public transit or asking friends and family for a ride. He doesn’t have that same freedom that you and I have to get around. We should do something about that.

2:48 Now, conventional wisdom would say that we’ll just take these driver assistance systems and we’ll kind of push them and incrementally improve them, and over time, they’ll turn into self-driving cars. Well, I’m here to tell you that’s like me saying that if I work really hard at jumping, one day I’ll be able to fly. We actually need to do something a little different. And so I’m going to talk to you about three different ways that self-driving systems are different than driver assistance systems. And I’m going to start with some of our own experience.

3:17 So back in 2013, we had the first test of a self-driving car where we let regular people use it. Well, almost regular — they were 100 Googlers, but they weren’t working on the project. And we gave them the car and we allowed them to use it in their daily lives. But unlike a real self-driving car, this one had a big asterisk with it: They had to pay attention, because this was an experimental vehicle. We tested it a lot, but it could still fail. And so we gave them two hours of training, we put them in the car, we let them use it, and what we heard back was something awesome, as someone trying to bring a product into the world. Every one of them told us they loved it. In fact, we had a Porsche driver who came in and told us on the first day, „This is completely stupid. What are we thinking?“ But at the end of it, he said, „Not only should I have it, everyone else should have it, because people are terrible drivers.“ So this was music to our ears, but then we started to look at what the people inside the car were doing, and this was eye-opening. Now, my favorite story is this gentleman who looks down at his phone and realizes the battery is low, so he turns around like this in the car and digs around in his backpack, pulls out his laptop, puts it on the seat, goes in the back again, digs around, pulls out the charging cable for his phone, futzes around, puts it into the laptop, puts it on the phone. Sure enough, the phone is charging. All the time he’s been doing 65 miles per hour down the freeway. Right? Unbelievable. So we thought about this and we said, it’s kind of obvious, right? The better the technology gets, the less reliable the driver is going to get. So by just making the cars incrementally smarter, we’re probably not going to see the wins we really need.

4:59 Let me talk about something a little technical for a moment here. So we’re looking at this graph, and along the bottom is how often does the car apply the brakes when it shouldn’t. You can ignore most of that axis, because if you’re driving around town, and the car starts stopping randomly, you’re never going to buy that car. And the vertical axis is how often the car is going to apply the brakes when it’s supposed to to help you avoid an accident. Now, if we look at the bottom left corner here, this is your classic car. It doesn’t apply the brakes for you, it doesn’t do anything goofy, but it also doesn’t get you out of an accident. Now, if we want to bring a driver assistance system into a car, say with collision mitigation braking, we’re going to put some package of technology on there, and that’s this curve, and it’s going to have some operating properties, but it’s never going to avoid all of the accidents, because it doesn’t have that capability. But we’ll pick some place along the curve here, and maybe it avoids half of accidents that the human driver misses, and that’s amazing, right? We just reduced accidents on our roads by a factor of two. There are now 17,000 less people dying every year in America.

6:01 But if we want a self-driving car, we need a technology curve that looks like this. We’re going to have to put more sensors in the vehicle, and we’ll pick some operating point up here where it basically never gets into a crash. They’ll happen, but very low frequency. Now you and I could look at this and we could argue about whether it’s incremental, and I could say something like „80-20 rule,“ and it’s really hard to move up to that new curve. But let’s look at it from a different direction for a moment. So let’s look at how often the technology has to do the right thing. And so this green dot up here is a driver assistance system. It turns out that human drivers make mistakes that lead to traffic accidents about once every 100,000 miles in America. In contrast, a self-driving system is probably making decisions about 10 times per second, so order of magnitude, that’s about 1,000 times per mile. So if you compare the distance between these two, it’s about 10 to the eighth, right? Eight orders of magnitude. That’s like comparing how fast I run to the speed of light. It doesn’t matter how hard I train, I’m never actually going to get there. So there’s a pretty big gap there.

7:10 And then finally, there’s how the system can handle uncertainty. So this pedestrian here might be stepping into the road, might not be. I can’t tell, nor can any of our algorithms, but in the case of a driver assistance system, that means it can’t take action, because again, if it presses the brakes unexpectedly, that’s completely unacceptable. Whereas a self-driving system can look at that pedestrian and say, I don’t know what they’re about to do, slow down, take a better look, and then react appropriately after that.

7:38 So it can be much safer than a driver assistance system can ever be. So that’s enough about the differences between the two. Let’s spend some time talking about how the car sees the world.

7:48 So this is our vehicle. It starts by understanding where it is in the world, by taking a map and its sensor data and aligning the two, and then we layer on top of that what it sees in the moment. So here, all the purple boxes you can see are other vehicles on the road, and the red thing on the side over there is a cyclist, and up in the distance, if you look really closely, you can see some cones. Then we know where the car is in the moment, but we have to do better than that: we have to predict what’s going to happen. So here the pickup truck in top right is about to make a left lane change because the road in front of it is closed, so it needs to get out of the way. Knowing that one pickup truck is great, but we really need to know what everybody’s thinking, so it becomes quite a complicated problem. And then given that, we can figure out how the car should respond in the moment, so what trajectory it should follow, how quickly it should slow down or speed up. And then that all turns into just following a path: turning the steering wheel left or right, pressing the brake or gas. It’s really just two numbers at the end of the day. So how hard can it really be?

8:49 Back when we started in 2009, this is what our system looked like. So you can see our car in the middle and the other boxes on the road, driving down the highway. The car needs to understand where it is and roughly where the other vehicles are. It’s really a geometric understanding of the world. Once we started driving on neighborhood and city streets, the problem becomes a whole new level of difficulty. You see pedestrians crossing in front of us, cars crossing in front of us, going every which way, the traffic lights, crosswalks. It’s an incredibly complicated problem by comparison. And then once you have that problem solved, the vehicle has to be able to deal with construction. So here are the cones on the left forcing it to drive to the right, but not just construction in isolation, of course. It has to deal with other people moving through that construction zone as well. And of course, if anyone’s breaking the rules, the police are there and the car has to understand that that flashing light on the top of the car means that it’s not just a car, it’s actually a police officer. Similarly, the orange box on the side here, it’s a school bus, and we have to treat that differently as well.

9:49 When we’re out on the road, other people have expectations: So, when a cyclist puts up their arm, it means they’re expecting the car to yield to them and make room for them to make a lane change. And when a police officer stood in the road, our vehicle should understand that this means stop, and when they signal to go, we should continue.

10:08 Now, the way we accomplish this is by sharing data between the vehicles. The first, most crude model of this is when one vehicle sees a construction zone, having another know about it so it can be in the correct lane to avoid some of the difficulty. But we actually have a much deeper understanding of this. We could take all of the data that the cars have seen over time, the hundreds of thousands of pedestrians, cyclists, and vehicles that have been out there and understand what they look like and use that to infer what other vehicles should look like and other pedestrians should look like. And then, even more importantly, we could take from that a model of how we expect them to move through the world. So here the yellow box is a pedestrian crossing in front of us. Here the blue box is a cyclist and we anticipate that they’re going to nudge out and around the car to the right. Here there’s a cyclist coming down the road and we know they’re going to continue to drive down the shape of the road. Here somebody makes a right turn, and in a moment here, somebody’s going to make a U-turn in front of us, and we can anticipate that behavior and respond safely.

11:04 Now, that’s all well and good for things that we’ve seen, but of course, you encounter lots of things that you haven’t seen in the world before. And so just a couple of months ago, our vehicles were driving through Mountain View, and this is what we encountered. This is a woman in an electric wheelchair chasing a duck in circles on the road. (Laughter) Now it turns out, there is nowhere in the DMV handbook that tells you how to deal with that, but our vehicles were able to encounter that, slow down, and drive safely. Now, we don’t have to deal with just ducks. Watch this bird fly across in front of us. The car reacts to that. Here we’re dealing with a cyclist that you would never expect to see anywhere other than Mountain View. And of course, we have to deal with drivers, even the very small ones. Watch to the right as someone jumps out of this truck at us. And now, watch the left as the car with the green box decides he needs to make a right turn at the last possible moment. Here, as we make a lane change, the car to our left decides it wants to as well. And here, we watch a car blow through a red light and yield to it. And similarly, here, a cyclist blowing through that light as well. And of course, the vehicle responds safely. And of course, we have people who do I don’t know what sometimes on the road, like this guy pulling out between two self-driving cars. You have to ask, „What are you thinking?“ (Laughter)

12:27 Now, I just fire-hosed you with a lot of stuff there, so I’m going to break one of these down pretty quickly. So what we’re looking at is the scene with the cyclist again, and you might notice in the bottom, we can’t actually see the cyclist yet, but the car can: it’s that little blue box up there, and that comes from the laser data. And that’s not actually really easy to understand, so what I’m going to do is I’m going to turn that laser data and look at it, and if you’re really good at looking at laser data, you can see a few dots on the curve there, right there, and that blue box is that cyclist. Now as our light is red, the cyclist’s light has turned yellow already, and if you squint, you can see that in the imagery. But the cyclist, we see, is going to proceed through the intersection. Our light has now turned green, his is solidly red, and we now anticipate that this bike is going to come all the way across. Unfortunately the other drivers next to us were not paying as much attention. They started to pull forward, and fortunately for everyone, this cyclists reacts, avoids, and makes it through the intersection. And off we go.

13:25 Now, as you can see, we’ve made some pretty exciting progress, and at this point we’re pretty convinced this technology is going to come to market. We do three million miles of testing in our simulators every single day, so you can imagine the experience that our vehicles have. We are looking forward to having this technology on the road, and we think the right path is to go through the self-driving rather than driver assistance approach because the urgency is so large. In the time I have given this talk today, 34 people have died on America’s roads.

13:55 How soon can we bring it out? Well, it’s hard to say because it’s a really complicated problem, but these are my two boys. My oldest son is 11, and that means in four and a half years, he’s going to be able to get his driver’s license. My team and I are committed to making sure that doesn’t happen.

14:13 Thank you.

14:15 (Laughter) (Applause) Chris Anderson: Chris, I’ve got a question for you.

14:22 Chris Urmson: Sure.

14:25 CA: So certainly, the mind of your cars is pretty mind-boggling. On this debate between driver-assisted and fully driverless — I mean, there’s a real debate going on out there right now. So some of the companies, for example, Tesla, are going the driver-assisted route. What you’re saying is that that’s kind of going to be a dead end because you can’t just keep improving that route and get to fully driverless at some point, and then a driver is going to say, „This feels safe,“ and climb into the back, and something ugly will happen.

14:58 CU: Right. No, that’s exactly right, and it’s not to say that the driver assistance systems aren’t going to be incredibly valuable. They can save a lot of lives in the interim, but to see the transformative opportunity to help someone like Steve get around, to really get to the end case in safety, to have the opportunity to change our cities and move parking out and get rid of these urban craters we call parking lots, it’s the only way to go.

15:20 CA: We will be tracking your progress with huge interest. Thanks so much, Chris. CU: Thank you.

Drones for Maintenance

One of the drones used in Nokia’s network testing. Image: Nokia

Nokia has showed off how it plans to use drones to replace some of the inspection and maintenance work on cell towers which is currently done by human technicians.

Amazon hopes drones will one day be used to bring packages to Prime customers, free from the constraints of road traffic and costly human delivery drivers. In the same vein, postal services in France and Switzerland have launched drone trials to see whether the unmanned aerial vehicles could be used to deliver the post in the next five years.

Now Nokia is examining whether it should require human technicians to climb cell towers to inspect them when a drone can do the job faster and without the risk of falling.

For a recent trial of the drones, Nokia teamed up with operator du in the United Arab Emirates. While inspecting the towers, the drones carried smartphones to help with radio planning and line of sight testing between radio towers.

The proof of concept was conducted in the contained environment of the Dubai International Stadium, a sports stadium that seats 25,000 people.

According to Nokia, its telco drones offered a number of advantages over humans, including covering manual walk tests faster than humans. Thanks to a network testing app installed on the smartphones which the drones carried, they were able to automatically send test data for processing at Nokia’s global delivery centre.

The drones could be used to cut down the frequency of technicians climbing up and down a telecoms tower, which Nokia says can be very dangerous in bad weather conditions. In addition, with a single passover the drones could generate a panoramic view of the lattice tower and offer the potential to remotely monitor installations.

The drones were useful for helping engineers design the network, and detecting if trees interfered with a frequency being used, determining power requirements, and latency simulation.

Nokia and its partners employed Secutronic INSPIRE1 drones for network optimisation at the stadium and MICRODRONES d4-1000 models for tower inspection, line of sight testing, and radio site planning.

Nokia isn’t the first to think of drones for network maintenance. Fluke Networks last year launched a drone edition of its Wireless Work Advisor with a focus on safety and efficiency.

Source: http://www.zdnet.com/article/nokia-puts-telco-drones-to-work-inspecting-cell-towers/

Facebook Messenger On Android Hits 1 Billion Downloads

Only two companies have apps with over 1 billion Google Play downloads, and the other is Google. Today Facebook proved just how big a business replacing SMS can be, as its leader David Marcus announced Messenger has now been downloaded over 1 billion times on Android. It joins Facebook and WhatsApp, and Google’s Gmail, YouTube, Search, and Maps in this very exclusive club.

Messenger’s strategy of layering modern mobile sharing features over a speedy texting app has paid off, and it looks like Facebook’s just getting started. With VOIP, video calling, stickers, voice clips, peer-to-peer payments, location, and a whole platform of third-party content creation apps, Messenger wants to own every way you communicate. And it partially is for well over 600 million users.

11406840_10155749985835195_5645524173167231589_n

Combined with WhatsApp’s streamlined SMS alternative, Facebook controls messaging in a way that deeply insulates it from disruption. Snapchat and Yik Yak might steal a few users from its social network feed, but Facebook’s already focusing on the next fundamental communication utility.

In fact, Facebook has been subtly baking Messenger munch deeper into its product.

When you graph search for people, like friends who like a certain band, Facebook shortcuts you to ping them on Messenger, not visit their profile. When it’s a friend’s birthday, in some cases Facebook now recommends that you message them Happy Birthday, rather than writing it on their wall.

Messenger In Facebook

Just last week, Facebook overhauled how Messenger handles map and location sharing to lay the groundwork for a slew of new GPS-enabled features. Before, finding where to meet up with people was the domain of Nearby Friends in the main Facebook app.

And Facebook’s secret weapon in the messaging wars is that chat isn’t where it makes its money. Rather than having to cram Messenger full of ads or convince you to buy Sticker packs, it just has to tie people closer to its big brother Facebook where lucrative mobile ads earn enough money to provide for the whole family.

messenger-location-sharing3

Getting to this point wasn’t easy. Facebook had offend the pride of its whole userbase by telling them they were required to download whole other app for Messaging. It wasn’t sweet, but the medicine went down, and Facebook saw engagement rise once chat wasn’t buried in its blue behemoth. Freed from the extra weight, Messenger was thin and agile enough to build out its bells and whistles.

With former PayPal President David Marcus in command and expert product guy Stan Chudnovsky as his first mate, in just the last six months Messenger has:

Meanwhile, the other giant with deep enough pockets to fund a true attempt at owning messaging has spent the past few years distracted by moonshots. Google was late to launch its mobile messenger, which was dragged down by Google Plus. It squandered its Hangouts product’s early lead in video chat, and missed on the chance to acquire WhatsApp, which could have turned this into a two-horse race.

facebooks-family

Instead, Facebook saw that messaging was the center of mobile, the app you use the most times per day. If it’s the reason you open your phone at first, it’s wedged a foot in the door to become the second and third thing you do too. And with China’s WeChat pioneering the chat-app-as-a-portal roadmap, Facebook can just port what works to the rest of the world.

After years of people asking what would be the Facebook killer, Facebook happily provided its own answer.

Quote: http://techcrunch.com/2015/06/09/the-new-facebook

Google und Facebook geben Satelliten-Internet auf

Sowohl Google als auch Facebook haben ihre ambitionierten Pläne für eigene Internet-Satelliten aufgegeben, weil die Vorhaben schlicht zu teuer sind. Doch es gibt ja noch Virgin Galactic und Elon Musks SpaceX, die ebenfalls hoch hinaus wollen.

Facebook hat nach einem Bericht von The Information den Plan aufgegeben, eine Milliarde US-Dollar für den Bau und den Start eines Satelliten auszugeben, der Kontinente mit Internetdiensten versorgen kann. The Information hat die Bestätigung von zwei Personen erhalten, die mit dem Projekt vertraut sind.

Facebook ist nicht etwa allein mit dieser Entscheidung. Google will auch keine großen Investitionen in ein eigenes, satellitengestütztes Internet machen, berichtet die Website. Vorher gab es Pläne, mit kleinen Satelliten eine Netzverbindung für entlegene Regionen zu schaffen. Das wollten die Unternehmen nicht aus reinem Enthusiasmus, sondern aus knallharten geschäftlichen Überlegungen heraus tun, um mehr Kunden für ihre Angebote zu gewinnen. Doch die Kosten scheinen einfach zu hoch zu sein und in keinem Verhältnis zu möglichen Einnahmen zu stehen, so The Information.

Facebook will künftig lieber Kapazitäten von bestehenden Satellitenverbindungen mieten oder mit anderen Projekten sein Ziel erreichen. Facebook wollte sogar einen eigenen Satelliten bauen. Diese Pläne wurden nun aufgegeben. Angeblich wollte Facebook vor kurzem noch ins Satelliten-Startup von Greg Wyler investieren, dessen Projekt Oneweb Hunderte von Satelliten ins All transportieren wolle. Beteiligt an dem Unternehmen sind Qualcomm und Richard Bransons Virgin Group.

Google hatte kürzlich erst eine Milliarde US-Dollar in Elon Musks SpaceX investiert. Das Unternehmen will Raketen zur Beförderung der Satelliten und wohl auch die Erdtrabanten selbst bauen. SpaceX teilte später mit, dass die Investition und das Satelliten-Internet-Projekt nichts miteinander zu tun haben.

Googles Drohnen-Experiment für die Internetversorgung weiter Flächen läuft zwar weiter, hat aber einen herben Dämpfer erlitten. Das riesige Forschungsflugzeug stürzte während eines Testflugs ab.

Nach Angaben von The Information hätte einer von Facebooks Satelliten 500 Millionen US-Dollar gekostet. Die Technik besitzt zudem eine hohe Latenz, so dass der Nutzen bei vielen Anwendungen auf der Strecke bleibt.

Google verfolgt auch Pläne, einen Internetzugang mit hochfliegenden Ballons zu realisieren. Googles Project Loon, das auf eine Internetversorgung von abgelegenen Regionen mit ungelenkten Wetterballons setzt, wird eifrig weiterverfolgt.

Zitat: http://www.golem.de/news/geplatzte-traeume-google-und-facebook-geben-satelliten-internet-auf-1506-114541.html

Self-driving cars and the Trolley problem

Google recently announced that their self-driving car has driven more than a million miles. According to Morgan Stanley, self-driving cars will be commonplace in society by ~2025. This got me thinking about the ethics and philosophy behind these cars, which is what the piece is about.

autonomousdriveadoptionrate
Source: Morgan Stanley Research

Laws of Robotics

In 1942, Isaac Asimov introduced three laws of robotics in his short story “Runaround”.

They were as follows:

  1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
  2. A robot must obey the orders given it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
  3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

He later added a fourth law, the zeroth law:

0. A robot may not harm humanity, or, by inaction, allow humanity to come to harm.

Though fictional, they provide a good philosophical grounding of how AI can coexist with society. If self driving cars, were to follow them, we’re in a pretty good spot right? (Let’s leave aside the argument that self-driving cars lead to loss of jobs of taxi drivers and truck drivers and so should not exist per the 0th/1st law)

Trolley Problem

However, there’s one problem which the laws of robotics don’t quite address.

It’s a famous thought experiment in philosophy called the Trolley Problem and goes as follows:

Say a trolley is heading down the railway tracks. Ahead, on the tracks are five people tied down who cannot move. The trolley is headed straight for them, and will kill them. You are standing some distance ahead, next to a lever. If you pull this lever, the trolley switches to a different set of tracks, on which there is one person. You have two options:

1. Do nothing, in which case the trolley kills the 5 people on the main track.

2. Pull the lever, in which case the trolley changes tracks and kills the one person on the side track.

What should you do?

Trolley

The trolley problem illustrated

It’s not hard to see how a similar situation would come up in a world with self-driving cars, with the car having to make a similar decision.

Say for example a human-driven car runs a red light and a self-driving car has two options:

  1. It can stay its course and run into that car killing the family of five sitting in that car
  2. It can turn right and bang into another car in which one person sits, killing that person.

What should the car do?

From a utilitarian perspective, the answer is obvious: to turn right (or “pull the lever”) leading to the death of only one person as opposed to five.

Incidentally, in a survey of professional philosophers on the Trolley Problem, 68.2% agreed, saying that one should pull the lever. So maybe this “problem” isn’t a problem at all and the answer is to simply do the Utilitarian thing that “greatest happiness to the greatest number”.

But can you imagine a world in which your life could be sacrificed at any moment for no wrongdoing to save the lives of two others?

Now consider this version of the trolley problem involving a fat man:

As before, a trolley is heading down a track towards five people. You are on a bridge under which it will pass, and you can stop it by putting something very heavy in front of it. As it happens, there is a very fat man next to you — the only way for you to stop the trolley is to push him over the bridge and onto the track, killing him to save five people. Should you do it?

Most people that go the utilitarian route in the initial problem say they wouldn’t push the fat man. But from a utilitarian perspective there is no difference between this and the initial problem — so why do they change their mind? And is the right answer to “stay the course” then?

Kant’s categorical imperative goes some way to explaining it:

Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law.

In simple words, it says that we shouldn’t merely use people as means to an end. And so, killing someone for the sole purpose of saving others is not okay, and would be a no-no by Kant’s categorical imperative.

Another issue with utilitarianism is that it is a bit naive, at least how we defined it. The world is complex, and so the answer is rarely as simple as perform the action that saves the most people. What if, going back to the example of the car, instead of a family of five, inside the car that ran the red light were five bank robbers speeding after robbing a bank. And sat in the other car was a prominent scientist who had just made a breakthrough in curing cancer. Would you still want the car to perform the action that simply saves the most people?

So may be we fix that by making the definition of Utilitarianism more intricate, in that we assign a value to each individuals life. In that case the right answer could still be to kill the five robbers, if say our estimate of utility of the scientist’s life was more than that of the five robbers.

But can you imagine a world in which say Google or Apple places a value on each of our lives, which could be used at any moment of time to turn a car into us to save others? Would you be okay with that?

And so there you have it, though the answer seems simple, it is anything but, which is what makes the problem so interesting and so hard. It will be a question that comes up time and time again as self-driving cars become a reality. Google, Apple, Uber etc. will probably have to come up with an answer. To pull, or not to pull?

Lastly, I want to leave you another question that will need to be answered, that of ownership. Say a self-driving car which has one passenger in it, the “owner”, skids in the rain and is going to crash into a car in front, pushing that car off a cliff. It can either take a sharp turn and fall of the cliff or continue going straight leading to the other car falling of the cliff. Both cars have one passenger. What should the car do? Should it favor the person that bought it — its owner?

Project Fi – Google degradiert die Mobilfunker weltweit

Lesen Sie den ganzen Artikel unter: http://www.zeit.de/digital/mobil/2015-04/google-project-fi-mobiles-breitband-netz

google-project-fi-mobile-network

„So richtig überrascht sein dürfte eigentlich niemand, dass Google nun auch einen eigenen Mobilfunktarif vertreibt. Ständig macht das Unternehmen irgendetwas mit Raketen, Drohnen oder zumindest selbstfahrenden Autos. Warum also nicht auch eine neue Art von Mobilfunk? Klingt im Vergleich doch sogar eher bieder. Doch das ist das Project Fi mitnichten.

Im Rahmen des Projekts verkauft Google in den USA seit Mittwoch einen Tarif, bei dem Nutzer ständig zwischen verschiedenen Netzen hin- und herspringen, ohne es zu merken. Je nach der aktuell zur Verfügung stehenden Verbindungsqualität wählt sich der Dienst in die Netze von Sprint oder T-Mobile US ein. Und wann immer möglich, nimmt er einen von rund einer Million drahtloser Hotspots, die Google landesweit ausgesucht hat. Um an Project Fi teilzunehmen, braucht man eine Einladung von Google und zudem zwingend das Google-Smartphone Nexus 6. Dass der Dienst in Zukunft auch mit anderen Geräten nutzbar sein wird, ist aber abzusehen.

Für Project Fi sollen Nutzer monatlich zwanzig Dollar zahlen. Darin sind aber nur die Kosten für Telefon, SMS und Datenverkehr im WLAN enthalten. Jedes Gigabyte an Daten in den Netzwerken von Sprint und T-Mobile kostet weitere zehn Dollar. Die Pakete buchen Nutzer im Voraus. Nicht verbrauchtes Datenvolumen wird auf den nächsten Monat angerechnet. Das ist in den USA in dieser Konsequenz einzigartig. Project Fi wird es US-Nutzern außerdem erlauben, in mehr als 120 Staaten Daten-Roaming ohne Preiszuschlag zu nutzen. Google liegt mit Project Fi insgesamt unter dem Preis von US-Konkurrenten wie AT&T.

Über den Preis allein will Google seinen Dienst aber nicht verkaufen. Das Versprechen von Google geht weiter: Mit Project Fi sollen Nutzer künftig flexibler und breitbandiger kommunizieren können als andere. Je mobiler das Internet wird und je mehr tragbare Geräte es gibt, desto wichtiger wird das.

Telefonnummer ist nicht mehr telefongebunden

Bislang mussten sich Kunden für einen Tarif bei einem Provider entscheiden, der Telefonie und mobiles Internet abdeckte. In den USA haben die mobilen Datennetze aber teilweise erhebliche Funklöcher. Ähnlich ist die Situation in Deutschland. Nur etwa 91 Prozent Abdeckung erreicht etwa die Deutsche Telekom als bester Netzanbieter. Dieser Wert gilt allein für Großstädte. In der Kleinstadt sind es 86 Prozent, auf dem Land dürfte es noch schlechter aussehen.

Solche „Funklöcher“ oder „weißen Flecken“ will Google mit Project Fi vermeiden. Sein Konzept nennt das Unternehmen „Netzwerk der Netzwerke“. Ein Meta-Netzwerk sozusagen, wie es auch das Internet selbst ist. Der Wechsel zwischen den Netzwerken soll auch während eines Anrufs funktionieren. Verlässt man etwa das Café mit Hotspot, verbindet sich das Telefon automatisch mit dem Mobilfunknetz, das die höchste Verbindungsgeschwindigkeit bietet. Das Gespräch läuft dabei weiter. Die teilnehmenden Provider werden dabei zu Gelegenheitsanbietern degradiert.

Project Fi wird Nutzer mittelfristig nicht nur von einem einzigen Netzanbieter entkoppeln, sondern auch vom Endgerät. Das funktioniert mithilfe einer Project-Fi-fähigen SIM-Karte. Künftig wird die Telefonnummer der Nutzer in der Google-Cloud liegen. Man kann die Nummer dann von jedem internetfähigen Gerät aus nutzen, nicht mehr nur vom Nexus 6.

Einen ähnlichen Ansatz wie Googles Project Fi verfolgt Apple mit seinem Betriebssystem OS X. Damit ist es möglich, auch von einem Macbook aus zu telefonieren. Das funktioniert allerdings nur, wenn das eigene iPhone samt SIM-Karte in der Nähe ist, und auch nur von Apple-Gerät zu Apple-Gerät.

Google geht mit seinem entkoppelten Telefonieren weiter. Noch ist unklar, wie die Margen zwischen den Netzanbietern und Google aufgeteilt sind. Auch ist nicht bekannt, nach welchen Maßstäben Google die Netzanbieter und vor allem verifizierten Hotspots auswählt. Eines immerhin verspricht Google, wenn auch mit wolkigen Formulierungen: Mit den Hotspots sollen sich Project-Fi-Nutzerüber einen sicheren „Tunnel“ verbinden. Damit könnte ein sogenannter VPN-Tunnel gemeint sein, mit welchem man verschlüsselt im Netz surfen kann.

Project Fi sorgt für mehr Wettbewerb

Netzanbieter, die beim Projekt mitmachen wollen, müssen sich auf einen harten Wettbewerb einstellen. Denn wer das schnellste Netz hat, der bekommt nach Googles Modell auch die meisten Nutzer und dementsprechend am meisten Geld.

Dieser Wettbewerb beginnt nun in den USA: Google kooperiert dort erst einmal mit kleineren Anbietern, die sich mehr Nutzer erhoffen. Sowohl T-Mobile als auch Sprint haben ungefähr 15 Prozent Anteil am US-Markt für mobiles Breitband. Verizon und AT&T teilen sich mit jeweils 34 Prozent die Spitze. Sowohl für T-Mobile und Sprint bietet Project Fi also die Chance, mit einem hochwertigen Angebot zusätzliche Kunden zu gewinnen – auch wenn es sich bei diesen nur um Teilzeitkunden handelt. John Legere, CEO von T-Mobile USA, ist dennoch begeistert: Er liebe die Idee von Google, schrieb er in einem Blog-Eintrag.“

Lesen Sie den ganzen Artikel unter: http://www.zeit.de/digital/mobil/2015-04/google-project-fi-mobiles-breitband-netz

Top Dogs The Secret to become an ‚extreme success‘

Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Elon Musk, Richard Branson

top-dogs

The Secret to become an extreme success?

Extreme success results from an extreme personality and comes at the cost of many other things. Extreme success is different from what I suppose you could just consider ’success‘, so know that you don’t have to be Richard or Elon to be affluent and accomplished and maintain a great lifestyle. Your odds of happiness are better that way. But if you’re extreme, you must be what you are, which means that happiness is more or less beside the point. These people tend to be freaks and misfits who were forced to experience the world in an unusually challenging way. They developed strategies to survive, and as they grow older they find ways to apply these strategies to other things, and create for themselves a distinct and powerful advantage. They don’t think the way other people think. They see things from angles that unlock new ideas and insights. Other people consider them to be somewhat insane.

Be obsessed.

Be obsessed.

Be obsessed.

If you’re not obsessed, then stop what you’re doing and find whatever does obsess you. It helps to have an ego, but you must be in service to something bigger if you are to inspire the people you need to help you (and make no mistake, you will need them). That ’something bigger‘ prevents you from going off into the ether when people flock round you and tell you how fabulous you are when you aren’t and how great your stuff is when it isn’t.

Don’t pursue something because you „want to be great“. Pursue something because it fascinates you, because the pursuit itself engages and compels you. Extreme people combine brilliance and talent with an insane work ethic, so if the work itself doesn’t drive you, you will burn out or fall by the wayside or your extreme competitors will crush you and make you cry.

Follow your obsessions until a problem starts to emerge, a big meaty challenging problem that impacts as many people as possible, that you feel hellbent to solve or die trying. It might take years to find that problem, because you have to explore different bodies of knowledge, collect the dots and then connect and complete them.

It helps to have superhuman energy and stamina. If you are not blessed with godlike genetics, then make it a point to get into the best shape possible. There will be jet lag, mental fatigue, bouts of hard partying, loneliness, pointless meetings, major setbacks, family drama, issues with the Significant Other you rarely see, dark nights of the soul, people who bore and annoy you, little sleep, less sleep than that. Keep your body sharp to keep your mind sharp. It pays off.

Learn to handle a level of stress that would break most people.

Don’t follow a pre-existing path, and don’t look to imitate your role models. There is no „next step“. Extreme success is not like other kinds of success; what has worked for someone else, probably won’t work for you. They are individuals with bold points of view who exploit their very particular set of unique and particular strengths. They are unconventional, and one reason they become the entrepreneurs they become is because they can’t or don’t or won’t fit into the structures and routines of corporate life. They are dyslexic, they are autistic, they have ADD, they are square pegs in round holes, they piss people off, get into arguments, rock the boat, laugh in the face of paperwork. But they transform weaknesses in ways that create added advantage — the strategies I mentioned earlier — and seek partnerships with people who excel in the areas where they have no talent whatsoever.

They do not fear failure — or they do, but they move ahead anyway. They will experience heroic, spectacular, humiliating, very public failure but find a way to reframe until it isn’t failure at all. When they fail in ways that other people won’t, they learn things that other people don’t and never will. They have incredible grit and resilience.They are unlikely to be reading stuff like this. (This is *not* to slam or criticize people who do; I love to read this stuff myself.) They are more likely to go straight to a book: perhaps a biography of Alexander the Great or Catherine the Great or someone else they consider Great. Surfing the ‚Net is a deadly timesuck, and given what they know their time is worth — even back in the day when technically it was not worth that — they can’t afford it.

I could go on, it’s a fascinating subject, but you get the idea. I wish you luck and strength and perhaps a stiff drink should you need it.

Further Reading: http://mashable.com/2015/04/22/how-to-be-great-jobs-musk-branson/

 

 

Whatsapp Calls on Iphone

Further Reading: http://www.forbes.com/sites/amitchowdhry/2015/04/21/whatsapp-voice-calling-ios/ and http://www.macrumors.com/2015/04/21/whatsapp-gains-voice-calling/

WhatsApp, the popular mobile messaging service owned by Facebook, has released a major update to its iPhone app today. The update includes the highly-anticipated WhatsApp Calling feature, which rolled out to every Android user late last month. The WhatsApp Calling feature is comparable to Skype and the FaceTime Audio service on iOS. Data charges may apply while using the WhatsApp Calling feature.

“Call your friends and family using WhatsApp for free, even if they’re in another country. WhatsApp calls uses your phone’s Internet connection rather than your cellular plan’s voice minutes,” said WhatsApp in its app update description. 

Unfortunately, The WhatsApp Calling feature is rolling out slowly so you may not see it right away. The new calling feature should be available for every iOS user within the next few weeks. Prior to launching WhatsApp Calling for Android, the messaging company ran a lengthy beta test.

WhatsApp version 2.12.1 also includes an iOS 8 share extension, a quick camera button in chats, the ability to edit your contacts right from WhatsApp and an option to send multiple videos at once. You can also crop and rotate videos before sending them. The iOS 8 share extension lets you share photos, videos and links to WhatsApp from other apps. And the quick camera button lets you seamlessly capture photos and videos or choose a recent camera roll photo or video.

WhatsApp Update For iOS / Credit: WhatsApp

How does WhatsApp Calling for iOS work? If someone calls you through WhatsApp, you will see a push notification from the messaging service showing who the call is from. Once you answer the call, you will notice that there are options to mute the call or put it on speakerphone. You can also send a message to the person calling you. If the WhatsApp Calling feature for iOS is similar to the Android app, then you will see a Calls tab that has a list of your incoming, outgoing and missed WhatsApp calls. Personally, I do not have access to WhatsApp Calling for iOS app yet.

Launched in 2009, WhatsApp started out as a simple group text messaging app. Four years later, WhatsApp added a voice messaging service. And then Facebook acquired WhatsApp for $19 billion in February 2014. Several months ago, WhatsApp launched a desktop client called WhatsApp Web — which you can activate with an Android, BlackBerry, Windows Phone or Nokia S60 device.

Earlier this month, WhatsApp hit 800 million monthly active users. WhatsApp has been adding about 100 million monthly active users every four months since August. In January, WhatsApp hit 700 million monthly active users. WhatsApp now has more users than every other messaging app, including Facebook Messenger. It took Facebook about 8 years to hit 1 billion users. Facebook now has about 1.4 billion monthly users and Facebook Messenger has roughly 600 million users.“

„After promising to deliver voice calling capabilities back in 2014, WhatsApp has finally delivered, introducing voice over IP features in its latest update. With the new version of the app, it’s possible for WhatsApp users to call friends and family directly within the app using a Wi-Fi or cellular connection at no cost.

The introduction of voice calling to the Facebook-ownedWhatsApp app puts it on par with Facebook’s other messaging app, Facebook Messenger, which gained voice calling back in 2013. It also allows the app to better compete with other iOS-based VoIP calling options like Skype and FaceTime Audio.

Today’s WhatsApp update also brings a few other features, including the iOS 8 share extension for sharing videos, photos, and links to WhatsApp from other apps, contact editing tools, and the ability to send multiple videos at one time.

What’s new
-WhatsApp Calling: Call your friends and family using WhatsApp for free, even if they’re in another country. WhatsApp calls use your phone’s Internet connection rather than your cellular plan’s voice minutes. Data charges may apply. Note: WhatsApp Calling is rolling out slowly over the next several weeks.

-iOS 8 share extension: Share photos, videos, and links right to WhatsApp from other apps.

-Quick camera button in chats: Now you can capture photos and videos, or quickly choose a recent camera roll photo or video.

-Edit your contacts right from WhatsApp.

-Send multiple videos at once and crop and rotate videos before sending them.

WhatsApp can be downloaded from the App Store for free. The new WhatsApp calling feature will be rolling out to users over the next few weeks.“