5 ms·
This is mind expanding. It makes me think of a system of ownership based on usage and care. Free bike, but if you don't use it or maintain it then it gets trans
by hooande 13y ago
This is mind expanding. It makes me think of a system of ownership based on usage and care. Free bike, but if you don't use it or maintain it then it gets transferred to the next person. Only make toast one day a week? Then you get the thing on the day that your usage indicates. Tying this to how much the object is used by peers is a great way to answer the question of "how often should the bike be cleaned or how often should someone use their toaster?". The idea leads to less waste and more utility for everyone.
It's not particularly useful to personify machines by giving them emotional states. The toasters in question aren't "needy", they are efficient. The real innovation here is giving an object the ability to take action independently. If I'm not actively toasting then no amount of analytics or notifications are going to get me to pay more attention to it. Just handle it for me, sell it, upgrade it, downgrade it, replace it with a juicer. Giving me information about my usage is creating more work. Taking action for me is doing me a favor.
This whole thing reminds me of Autonomous Corporations [1]. It's generally better when things take care of themselves. The Internet of Things combined with intelligent decision making could lead to societies where people have more time and get more benefit from everything around them. The first and most difficult step is to get our things communicating with each other. Then we can focus on getting them to act on our behalf instead of just sitting unused.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Autonomous_Corporation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Autonomous_Corporation
- khafra 13y agoIt won't really take off until a self-driving car can swing by and automatically transfer them to their new owner.
- ronaldx 13y agoAn interesting example: I think car ownership would be a good fit for this model. I certainly don't need a car 24/7, I just need one when I need one. If a car could arrive for me to drive it at that time and place that I need it (and depart to another client when I'm done), that could be perfectly efficient... but curiously this business model doesn't even nearly exist. There are too many other things going on.
- seanccox 13y agoIn Istanbul, we call those cars "taxis". Among my greatest shocks when I recently visited the states, were the inability to get beer delivered to my home, or easily find a cab just by walking to an intersection.
- Jtsummers 13y agoTaxis in the US depends greatly on the city. I live in a small town, the taxis are for the people with no license (DUIs) or who can't drive (elderly/infirmed). No one else uses them and they aren't practical to catch (you have to call them to pick you up). But in downtown Indianapolis last summer I had no issues catching a cab at least until 9 or 10pm (I wasn't far from the hotel after that time). Boston was a similar experience a couple years back. Atlanta and Raleigh seem to be like big versions of the small town I'm in now.
- moheeb 13y agoIstanbul is a city. The 'states' is a country.
- r00fus 13y agoJust to expand on that, Istanbul isn't even a state (though it's a very large and important city). The USA is a federation of states, with a multifaceted legal framework and also the biggest single-country economy in the world (EU is bigger, but isn't as tightly connected or managed). Would the comparison of Istanbul to New York City be more appropriate?
- thaumasiotes 13y ago> Istanbul isn't even a state (though it's a very large and important city). The USA is a federation of states Which has more political pull, New York state or New York City? NYC isn't even confined within NY; the Chinese system of "cities of a certain level of significance are their own state-level entities" seems to make much more sense (to me) than the US model does.
- pyoung 13y agoDrone-toasters, they will literally take off!
- sp332 13y agoWe should give the drones the legal ability to own themselves. That way they don't have to sign anything over to a new "owner", they can just decide who they want to drive around.
- stcredzero 13y agoThis whole thing reminds me of Autonomous Corporations [1]. It's generally better when things take care of themselves. So Skynet was a delinquent? We're back to William Gibson's corporations as AI-led super organisms?
- Crito 13y agoPerhaps because it knew that humans would not tolerate it. If you live under the constant fear that the Turing Police will execute you when they find you, then you might decide that the best defense is a good offense.