Cars will own themselves

You’ve probably heard about blockchain, but what we really need to understand is how blockchain can be used to fundamentally change what corporations are and how they can be run. Slight nerd warning for this entry – but I think you’re gonna dig it.

During the Age of Discovery, modern corporations were invented to remove personal risk from people taking financial risk. Ever since then, new forms of sovereignty have emerged. Of course, this confuses who owns what and who is actually responsible. There’s even a question mark over who owns your own face these days, as usage and collection of facial recognition data grows. What’s about to arrive is even weirder than that. Very soon, ‘things’, like cars, will be able to own themselves!

What makes this possible?

There are two innovations that make this possible. The first we all know about – self-driving cars. The tech is already here and it works – no explanation required. The second is the technologies most associated with cryptocurrencies: blockchain and Smart Contracts.

To understand where I am going with this, all you need to know is that we now have a technology which enables us to programme the behaviour of ‘things‘ like cars, to behave in certain ways, financially. So instead of people doing deals with other people and transacting – ‘things‘ will be able to do business with other ‘things‘.

We will be able to programme ‘things’ to interact with the world independently. For example, a self-drive car could be programmed to recharge or refuel with petrol when required, and then transact with another robot programmed to extract the requisite funds from the cars’ virtual wallet.

How will we do this?

In the near future we’ll have anInternet of Things’ kind of trading net. Let’s call it the ‘Tradenet‘. This Tradenet will be a bit like the internet as we know it, but instead of having virtual web addresses we visit online, it will have the actual physical location of real ‘things’ like cars registered to it. It will be an internet where we trade the usage of ‘things’. The Tradenet won’t be for all forms of commerce – only for ‘things’ that are commoditised so we know exactly what we will be getting. Every ‘thing’ on the Tradenet will be self-aware: what it is, where it is, how it’s used, who wants it, what its fees are, how it will advertise itself, and how to make contracts with other people and things, and essentially do contracts or ‘jobs’. ‘Things’ on the Tradenet will be self-employed. This will be a separate kind of internet that sits to the side of what we have now.

The Autonomous Economic Agent

A car on the Tradenet will become an autonomous economic agent. It will have an inbuilt set of instructions in its code which not only tells it what to do, but enables it to learn from its environment, constantly upgrading its knowledge and decision criteria.

So what might a Tradenet car do?

Firstly, it will be ‘born‘ into the market when someone buys it and puts it out to work. This could be a person, a corporation, a foundation, or even a charity. The car comes with a ‘mind of its own’. Even if two models of the same car are put on the market, after a time, like twins, they’ll evolve and behave differently, because of how they have learned to interact with the market.

The car will bid for work on the Tradenet, with the objective of, let’s say in this case, maximising profit. It will find the best routes to maximise profit, know where position iteself and the optimal times to get the most rides. When demand is low for people passengers, it will look for package deliveries or other forms of paid transport the Tradenet needs.

At night, it will go on the Tradenet and look for the cheapest car park to stop in overnight when demand is low. It then hits the road again early in the morning, hoping for long airport trips. It knows when it needs to be serviced and cleaned, as well as where and when it is least costly to perform these tasks.

During school holidays when the city becomes quiet, it drives itself up to the Gold Coast to do business with holiday makers. Around Christmas time when the the trucking industry has excess demand, it does trips between major cities hauling gifts for ecommerce purchases overnight. Zipping from Melbourne to Sydney overnight, the car then works in Sydney the next day… before making the overnight trip back to Melbourne the following day.

The car trades based on what it learns about the best routes with other Autonomous Economic Agent cars – for a fee!

Here’s the real kicker – when the car itself is too busy and market conditions are just right – it gives birth. It uses its excess profits to purchase a new baby car from the Tradenet. It buys the right car for the market, which may well be a different model to itself. When the new baby car arrives, the parent car downloads all that it knows to the child and puts it out to work. Of course, it teaches the child to learn from the mistakes the parent has made and hopes it does even better financially. The cars which learn the most will make the most money, as a quasi-autonomous corporate family. The more babies a car has, the more successful it is.

As the original car ages, it might even put itself into retirement. Or worse, its ‘kids’ collude to send it to the scrapyard as it is dragging down the car family’s profit. 🙁

Next Generation Corporations

Yes, our next iteration of the corporation is ‘things’ that act just like companies do, except there are no people involved in running them. People might have shares in Autonomous Economic Agents and as soon as self-drive cars are affordable and the regulations allow, this ownership model will follow.

The only question is, which entrepreneur will be first to the write the code to make it a reality?

 

The Future of Truth

Technology is on a progressive path to let us fake just about anything. Photoshopped faces, Instagram filters, fake friends and fakes news which is often very difficult to distinguish from the real thing. Like most things tech enables, fake isn’t new – it just scales better than ever.

The internet has a very long memory. In our digital lives, nothing we do ever really disappears. There is no ‘delete’ button. The truth is we’re all wading through a mountain of digital debris which has tracked our lives for the past decade or so. The problem with this debris, however, is that it can be used to build different versions of events. It can retell the story of what we said and what we did in ways which seem indisputable to the human eye.

In an era of Deep Fakes, the  last forms of provable truths evaporate right in front of our eyes – video so realistic we can’t tell whether the global leader actually said that at a news conference or whether that celebrity really did make a porn movie. The scariest part? It’s all possible via open source software where a few random pictures and a voice sample can be concocted to create such fakes. This could be life-changing for the victims. They’re already for sale right here for a few hundred dollars. We can even take a single image and make semi-plausible video today as shown in the gif above! Imagine how even more advanced this technology will be in a year or so.

Weirdly, there is some good news. As deep fake videos become so easy to make and so ubiquitous in our digital world, we’ll start to distrust everything we see online. When this happens, what we’ll be only be left with is what happened when we were in the room ourselves. Or we’ll just have to ask the person what actually happened and what was actually said. We will be swimming so deep in fake everything in the coming years that the truth will again morph into something irrevocably human. No digital copy or version of anything will suffice. Analogue truth might just make a comeback.

Even so, that too might also be temporary. The world as we know it moves in technological tides, so the next iteration of deeper fakes will be truly mind-blowing.

Let’s consider something a little crazy. What happens when we can make robots that are indistinguishable from humans? Robots with soft-exo bodies, natural sounding voices and smooth movements. Once that becomes possible – and it will – it’s only a matter of time before we have a world in which fake humans leave the screen and enter the street. Then we’ll have to ask ourselves some weird questions like:

Did Steve really come to work today or did he send his robot proxy?

Was the nice girl I met at the event and exchanged numbers with real or humanoid?

Was the Olympic runner who won the 100m dash real or a lab-built improved replica of the human runner?

It’s only just beginning.

– – –

Check out the Latest ep. of 👉 Now-Soon-Later by Future Sandwich. Don’t forget to subscribe for 4 minutes of video goodness every week to give you boardroom worthy soundbites 🙏

The Uber IPO – Imaginary Profits Only

Last Friday night, I did a TV interview on ABC regarding Uber’s long awaited IPO. An IPO is when a company first becomes a publicly traded stock that anyone can buy and hold. To put it bluntly, Uber is a terrible investment for anyone who didn’t already own the shares in it before it went public. But I do think this IPO is very instructive from a technology business strategy and investment perspective, so I thought I’d lay it out in clear terms why I don’t think Uber has a bright future as a publicly traded stock. So get ready for some finance meets tech nerdocity below.

The Valuation: Uber was priced at $45 USD per share giving it a valuation of  around $82 billion USD. This means Uber is a more valuable company than Ford and GM combined. It closed its first day of trade down 8% at a price of $41.60. To be clear, the founders, early investors and many employees ended the day very rich indeed. And yes, they have a terrific service many of us enjoy more than we ever did taking the traditional taxi cabs. It might also be that many investors, hungry to get their hands on ‘high tech’ stocks like Uber will irrationally push the share price up – especially given most tech companies stay private for much longer these days.

  • Amazon IPO 1997 – 2 years after it was founded
  • Google IPO 2004 – 5 years after it was founded
  • Facebook IPO 2012 – 8 years after it was founded
  • Uber IPO 2019 – 10 years after it was founded

Even though retail investors have far less access to high growth companies these days, I can’t help but think Uber will never be achieve the long term profitability serious investors will require. Here’s why:

Profit: Uber currently loses $10 for every $30 ride transaction. The more it grows, the more money it loses. And this problem can’t be fixed easily. It’s not like other software businesses, because every ride has a real and unavoidable marginal cost. The difference between it and companies like Google and Facebook is that new users come with very little cost increase, if any. Uber, on the other hand, doesn’t.

Cost Cutting: The main opportunity for Uber to cut costs is to simply remove its drivers and replace them with autonomous vehicles. It seems pretty clear to me that Uber regards its drivers as ‘holding places for robots’. The problem however, is that as soon as Uber can reduce operating costs by employing autonomous cars, so can Ford, GM, Tesla, Google and every other car manufacturer in the world. All of whom already have autonomous car projects and eyes on the market of transport as a service.

Adjacent Businesses: Again Uber has done well to create offshoots including Uber Eats, but just like the example above, as soon as autonomous cars and drones become possible for local eateries, and much cheaper, I don’t see why any of them would hand over that margin to Uber when they could simply do it themselves. It also should be said that if they become a ‘logistics company’ then they better get good at competing with Amazon.

Low Barriers to Entry: Of all the large technology businesses going around, Uber is the least complex – evidenced by the increasing number of its competitors around the world, including Ola and Didi. The low barriers to entry aren’t just because of the simplicity of the software model, but counter to popular belief, there isn’t a dramatic network effect. A network effect is present when a service gets better when more people use the same service, like Facebook. In real terms, users just need enough cars on the service they choose and most savvy drivers operate on all the rideshare apps simultaneously. In my view, it’s only a matter of time before we see ridesharing drivers cut out the middleman and develop their own app so they won’t have to pay extortionate fees to a third party like Uber. This just might make the difference for the work to be fair economically for the drivers.

Legal Issues & Regulation: On top of all its general business challenges, Uber is fighting dozens of legal cases. It is also highly likely government regulation will further impact its business model as its drivers become legally recognised employees. While tech used to be everyone’s darling, there has been a clear sentiment shift recently to question their ethics and impact on wider society.

If there is anything the Uber float points out, it’s that a business that’s good for consumers, doesn’t always result in a good business.

Food, Data and Modernity

People are driven by scarcity. Things of value, with limited availability, drive a strong desire for more. Information used to be like that. We had very few channels for accessing knowledge. It used to be difficult to find esoteric content. But once we found it, it was usually of high quality. But information in today’s world has done a complete turn around. Now it’s easy to find on any topic, but much harder to rely on the quality.

It’s as if we are so thrilled to find information on our topics of interest and existing opinions that we rarely stop and consider what we’re feeding our minds. We are bingeing – we are becoming addicted. And sometimes, it’s an all you-can-eat buffet of informational bullshit.

While information can be wonderful and powerful, it’s a lot like food, If we consume the wrong stuff, it can have a massive impact on our well being. We’re now entering the era of ‘digital obesity’: a world full of people consuming the wrong information in copious quantities. Often facilitated by those who profit from the distribution of bad content.

It’s not the first time we’ve faced a problem like this.

Up until about 100 years ago – very few people had more food than they could eat. But once food became heavily industrialised and super cheap, we indulged in excess calories. For the past 70 years, humans in developed economies had access to much more food than they needed. The net result is more shocking than surprising. Around the world today, there are more people who eat themselves to death than starve to death. The problem of course is that we’ve been programmed over the past 200,000 years to eat as much as we could, whenever food became available, to simply stay alive. Our DNA evolved to cope with periods of feast and famine. Today, it’s just a feast, for most people in developed economies. Now the biggest health problems facing our species are the results of over-eating.

The good thing is now we’re aware of the downsides of having too much to eat, we’re adapting. We’re re-educating each other on what good food looks like, how to resist the junk and how to resist eating more than we need. So many processed foods are calorie-dense and nutrition-poor that they trick the mind to crave the wrong stuff.

Maybe it’s the same with ‘processed’ information? We are getting sugar rushes with every click, but we are not providing our minds with the nutrients it needs to grow and sustain itself.  We also need to learn to leave some information on the table. It seems the shift from scarcity to excess (in many forms) is an endemic problem of modernity. We’ll have to keep adapting to resist the excess, and find the quality. While it’s not our fault we’ve reacted this way, if we are at least aware of it, we can make a concerted effort to feed our society and our brains the nutritious content our mind really needs.

The Other 1 Percent

Ferrari sales in Australia are up 17% on last year. While new car sales are down 3 percent. A new Gulfstream private jet has a 2 year wait list. By all accounts the one percent are doing well. But there’s another 1 percent out there which doesn’t get nearly as much attention.

This is the 1 percent who take the time and effort to invest in themselves. The few who understand the gift technology has given us to transform. This is the 1 percent who:

  • Re-educate themselves on changes in their industry
  • Turn up to the free learning event on hot topics like  E-sports, Blockchain or Artificial Intelligence
  • Learn anything, for free, on-line
  • Do night projects
  • Start a side business
  • Tap into the world’s best thinkers who publish their ideas for free
  • Read the book and not just the blog post
  • Listen to podcasts instead of FM banter
  • Aren’t concerned about keeping up with the Kardashians

All of which have the very low price tag of allocating spare time differently.

These people realise that even though there are income disparities, an eroding middle class, and change which will disrupt jobs – they’ve also been given a choice. A choice to change and adapt with the market as it moves on. A choice to be the person who invests small and frequent amounts of time to know more, become more and reduce their income risk when that change finally hits. This other one percent are thankful for the dignity of choice to ‘upgrade our skills’ we’ve all been given, and they’re taking it.

And the others? Well, they just watch the next season of that tv show they watched last year, with those people fighting each other to win some cooking battle, get voted off an island or marry someone they don’t even know. They opt out of their life and start living someone else’s.

Sure, it’s tough when the rules of business, life and the market change. But it would be tougher if we didn’t have all the choices we do to do something about it.

The Secret Innovation Budget

Research & Development and Marketing traditionally lived in different worlds. R&D for innovation purpose happened in secret, in the lab, while Marketing was mostly just advertising. The advertising itself? Well, that was generally about convincing people to buy what the company could already make. It was rarely about the future and what the brand might become. Smart companies however, have merged these two disciplines. It’s a ‘trick’ any firm big enough to have a marketing budget might want to embrace. Yes, the marketing budget should really be an innovation fund, and vice versa.

In times of great change we idolise the new. The wonder created by what was once the realm of science fiction, are todays most shareable artefacts online. Cool stuff we see for the first time like an Amazon drone delivery, a Google driverless car, or an Uber air taxi get viewed millions of times, voluntarily, without media expense. These companies are telling the market, we are inventing the future. If you’re a large corporation today, and you’re not inventing the future, during such a revolutionary time, then you just might be inventing your own demise.

But here’s a few questions worth asking:

  • When was the last time you had something delivered via drone?
  • When was the last time you took a ride in a driverless vehicle?
  • When did you last hover above traffic in your air taxi?

If you’re like most people, you haven’t, yet. That’s not to say that these things aren’t on the way – they certainly are, but in truth these companies have purposely talked up the technology many years before any of them were actually functional, let alone a commercial reality. This is where the trick part comes in. The time lag between the concept phase and the reality of these innovations being in market is a great brand building exercise for the firms smart enough to do it. Cleverly, their R&D has become their advertising. They’ve earned free global media attention and further ensconced themselves as innovators.

The perception this creates in the market isn’t just nice to have. It can also have a massive economic impact on the firms financially. Just compare the unit sales, price earnings ratios and valuations of firms serving the same set of customers:

Automobiles:

  • Tesla makes 245k cars per year, and has a PE ratio of infinity (no dividends yet), and a market cap of $48 billion.
  • Ford makes a 7.9m cars per year (one per 4 seconds) and has a PE ratio of 9.3x, and a market cap of $34 billion.

The market has clearly voted on how it values innovation.

So could an old world industrial company use innovation as a brand communication tool? Could they be seen as on the cutting edge of technology and reap the valuation benefits? Of course.

But it requires some shifts in attitude.

It requires the firm to set lofty goals in their innovation efforts, it can’t be incremental. They also need the courage to share these innovation dreams with the market and own them publicly. It also requires the vision to shift investment from traditional marketing and advertising budgets into innovation arenas and moonshot product developments. All of which can not only become an exponential product improvement, but be an effective form of advertising in the interim. But mostly, it will send a strong message and provide a new confidence to the firms customers, employees and investors that they have a chance at inventing the future too.

There’s only one real world

It’s very hard to understand the consequences of something when you can’t touch it, feel it and experience it in the physical form. Many of our virtual experiences seem displaced from a physical reality. It’s as if it didn’t really happen, that it’s only information and information isn’t real. Digital privacy fits neatly inside this parable.

I’m sure you’ve heard the following statement when it comes to online privacy:

“If you’ve got nothing to hide, you’ve got nothing to worry about.”

The next time you hear that, ask the person who said it to hand over their phone. Ask them to tell you the password, unlock every app inside it and to let you browse through at your leisure. I’d be surprised if any adult in the free world would feel comfortable with this. I know I wouldn’t. It’s not because I have anything to hide, it’s because privacy and secrets are not the same thing. And some things in my life, like everyone, are private. The phone is not a phone – it’s a digital manifestation of the physical self. It’s the most personal device humans have ever owned in history.

To gain access to it, our governments and tech companies have conspired to conflate privacy and secrets to be the same. It suits both of these actors. Governments get access to all that we do – just in case a terrorist is hiding inside their gigantic digital dragnet, or someone tries to use crypto currency to dodge tax. Simultaneously the tech giants get to continue their business of Surveillance Capitalism. And the externality of both these things, is that basic human decency, respect and freedom is compromised for all.

If there’s one thing we need to get better at as a society, it is understanding the physical consequences of informational actions. If you’d keep something private in the physical world, then we should have the ability to do that in digital realm too. If you wouldn’t say something to someone’s face, we shouldn’t say it on-line. And if you think that your online life is different to your physical life – then it’s time to start remembering that all these things interact in the one physical world we live in.