The Father of Mobile Computing Is Not Impressed (fastcompany.com)

harrymcc writes: Starting in the late 1960s, Alan Kay envisioned a powerful portable computer that would be a revolutionary learning device, then built some of the necessary tech at Xerox PARC and elsewhere. Today, his ideas are all around us -- but Kay is distinctly unimpressed with the iPhone, iPad, and other modern devices, which he says encourage passivity rather than creativity. Brian Merchant talked to the computing pioneer for a wide-ranging interview on FastCompany. An excerpt from the interview: Google has been around for a long time now. I bitched at [Google] for years: Why the fuck can't we type in a question and get a decent answer? There's all sorts of pre-processing you can do with the computing we have now to put a lot more semantics in there, and look at the shit you're retrieving. And by the way, the stuff that isn't popular -- which is probably what most people need to read, if the thing even knew what the question is -- is buried [in Google search results], and most people won't go past a couple of results or clicks.

Comments

True for any tool

[Gilgaron]

A pen nominally allows more uninterrupted creativity than a quill and inkwell would, but mostly they get used for jotting down the grocery list.

Re:True for any tool

[Anonymous Coward]

True enough, but the pen doesn't send a copy of your grocery list and location back to Apple/Google, and then present you with an offer for slightly less expensive carrots if you join Amazon Prime during your next visit to Whole Foods.

Re:True for any tool

[MightyYar]

But they don't get used to read other people's grocery lists.

Don't blame the tech ...

[Anonymous Coward]

See, the problem isn't the technology, it's the humans.

As much as visionaries come up with things they think will lead to a better world, the reality is cat videos, narcissism, and porn are what people really want. The internet is more about teenagers taking selfies these days than it is about improving the human condition.

Unfortunately, you can't force people to do what you envisioned would be their potential.

Nope.

[Anonymous Coward]

Unconvinced. I don't want computers to answer my questions. I want them to help me answer my own. An answer isn't the mere transfer of data, it's the alteration of my mind into a different state. That can't happen properly if the basis for the transformation exists only in some other system.

It's not a technical reason

[TWX]

Google has been around for a long time now. I bitched at [Google] for years: Why the fuck can't we type in a question and get a decent answer? There's all sorts of pre-processing you can do with the computing we have now to put a lot more semantics in there, and look at the shit you're retrieving.

Because Google already gets into trouble when it prefers its own services or when it editorializes. Alan Kay should note that when one asks Google for what are essentially undisputed facts one often gets Google-formatted answers. Search for famous persons and one usually get the page formatted with an excerpt from their biography, date of birth, place of birth or upbringing, some basic information on what brought the person to prominence, etc. Generally these things are not disputed, so there's no real risk in presenting them in this fashion.

Now, if Google starts answering controversial questions, even correctly, they may face some real backlash that they wish to avoid from people that can't accept the answer. It's even worse if there is some legitimate dispute in a discussion, and appearing to side with one answer or another when something isn't settled can influence the discussion in ways that are not appropriate.

If you want straight answers, look at Wolfram Alpha.

Re:It's not a technical reason

[sinij]

I don't accept this answer. We have https://www.wolframalpha.com/ that attempts to do just that, Google with its unlimited resources could do more and better. I think the real problem with lack of progress in this area is that Google is perfectly happy with staying Digital Yellow Pages, as this provides maximum revenue. If they start answering questions, it will cost them clicks and page views.

Re:It's not a technical reason

[Jerrry]

Google search results always favor sites selling something over sites offering information. That's okay, but I'd like to see Google add a tab at the top of the search results (where the All, Shopping, Videos, Images... tabs are) to exclude all sites selling the object of the search.

I doubt this'll happen, though, as the companies that represent Google's revenue stream wouldn't stand for it.

Complaining is easier than implementing

[Tablizer]

Why the fuck can't we type in a question [in Google] and get a decent answer? There's all sorts of pre-processing you can do with the computing we have now to put a lot more semantics in there...

If he knows how to build a better search engine than Google, then form a company and kick Google's ass. Or, go to work for Bing. Wasn't question answering supposed to be wolframalpha's forte?

AI still lacks what we usually call "common sense" and screws up a lot of things because of that. The tech isn't there yet.

Inventor's remorse

[rmdingler]

I imagine Edison, Marconi, and Tesla may have had loftier ambitions in mind for their technological breakthroughs.

Exceptional individuals are rare by their very nature, and it seems likely they're prone to misunderstanding the minds and motivation of the regular folk.

Still, the technology is there for someone who wishes to use it to access the collected knowledge of mankind, so the misuse by the many doesn't completely negate the original intent.

The difference is stark

[jandrese]

Apple used to ship the best starting programming environment ever developed, Hypercard, for free on all of their machines. The same company doesn't allow programming on iOS except in very limited (in-game typically) ways. There is absolutely a sense that you should be a consumer, not a producer, on modern devices and it drives me crazy.

Re:The difference is stark

[tlhIngan]

Apple used to ship the best starting programming environment ever developed, Hypercard, for free on all of their machines. The same company doesn't allow programming on iOS except in very limited (in-game typically) ways. There is absolutely a sense that you should be a consumer, not a producer, on modern devices and it drives me crazy.

Well, get a Mac and program on iOS. Since iOS9 (or 8?) Apple has allowed users to deploy their code to personally owned iOS devices without paying $99 a year, and without Apple's approval.

In fact, there's a small underground open-source community of people who use this to put "unapproved" apps on their devices. Stuff Apple will never let in the store, yet you can deploy it to your devices and use it. And yes, it has to be open-source. Apple actually frowns on people using this method to distribute binaries.

Re:Spoiler alert: most humans are not very creativ

[k6mfw]

Reminds me someone (yep, a repost!) said "it is the cow theory" and explained it as a herd of cows in a corral. It only takes one cow to figure out how to open the gate, then the entire herd can leave the corral.

Misdirected rage

[argStyopa]

Sounds like he's complaining more about human nature than anything to do with mobile computing or google.

Just like every other technology

[Shotgun]

And the father of TV thought it would be used for education and to bring symphonies to the masses.

Instead, we have exposed the dregs of the human soul.