Latitude and Voice: The impeccable logic of AT&T/Apple’s App Store rejections

AT&T/Apple blocked all Google Voice Apps from the iPhone. I’m an extreme case, but if they were fully able to block Google Voice use from the iPhone they’d cost me up to $70-$90/month (frequent long distance mobile phone calls to Canada plus potential SMS savings).

AT&T/Apple also blocked Google Latitude’s location finder from the iPhone. It’s been less remarked that AT&T sells a competing location find app …

Gordon's Notes: iPhone trouble: Apple rejects Google Latitude, possibly Google Voice

… AT&T's Location Finder costs $15/month for a family of five…

That’s a lot of money for a service Google provides for free.

AT&T is pushing the antitrust envelope in a fierce and rational fight to stay alive. Apple has more ways to make money, but they’re in the game with AT&T and they too face disruptive threats.

AT&T and Apple’s behavior is rational and is very likely in the interests of their shareholders, though Apple’s abuse of the affected developers is over the edge. I’m much more offended by that than I am by the blocking of the Google Voice and Latitude apps; Apple should have found a way to keep these developer’s whole.

AT&T and Apple are behaving rationally in the face of a disruptive market entry. The best answer, after all, to the Innovator’s Dilemma is to identify potential disruptive forces and use economic warfare to destroy them – or, in the case of an opponent the size of Google, slow their advance.

Their interests, of course, are not always mine. In this case, our interests conflict strongly. It's very easy to see, given these precedents, the path AT&T and Apple will (must) take to eliminate competitive threats and maximize their future revenue streams.

So the question for me, and people like me, is how best to adapt. It’s no good trying to argue Google/Apple away from their positions – they are entirely logical. My strategy is to draw closer to Google, the disruptive force currently most aligned with my interests.

What’s your strategy?

Update: see also – Lessons from Apple’s rejection of Google Voice and Latitude. The App Store, from a consumer perspective, has a fatal flaw.

The evolutionary wonder of the high flying goose

The bar-headed goose commutes across the Himalayas, flying at up to 30,000 feet. This seems kind of crazy, but I suppose the roads are uncrowded.

They had to do quite a bit of evolving to manage this. They have the sort of complex interconnected adaptations that old-style creationists used as evidence for active design. Thing is, they didn't have to do it all at once ...

How Geese Get Enough Oxygen Flying Over Himalayas By HENRY FOUNTAIN

The bar-headed goose's muscle cells have evolved to make more efficient use of low oxygen levels at high altitudes....

...He said the changes in the muscle cells probably evolved over a long period of time, perhaps as the Himalayas, one of the Earth’s youngest mountain chains, grew and the birds would have had to fly higher and higher.

Emily compares it to the old story of the boy lifting the growing calf. He did it every day, growing stronger and stronger, until, at long last, his spine snapped.

Apple adds outrage to injury – forced refunds on the removed Google Voice apps

Apple’s handling of the Google Voice iPhone debacle has moved from very disturbing to outrageous (emphases mine) …

Yeah, there's an app for that. But for how long, and at what cost?

As if having to worry whether or not your apps could start disappearing isn't enough, there is another layer of complexity to deal with if a paid app is removed: the users.

… Sure, if a live app is removed, users will likely be upset no matter what happens... but if they've paid for it, and they can't get future upgrades or bug fixes, some of them are going to be wanting their money back. As some developers have already discovered, refunds can get expensive if there are enough of them, because Apple retains its 30% commission, while the developer has to reimburse the full cost of the application to cover the refund -- meaning each refund on an app that is priced $9.99 ends up costing the developer the full $9.99, rather than the $7 in revenue that they actually made from the purchase.

By now, you're probably wondering how the refunds fit in with the Google Voice situation. Simple: Apple is now issuing refunds to users of the VoiceCentral application. That's right, Apple suddenly decided that the application should be removed -- after it had already been approved months ago -- and is now giving out refunds for it when users request them, leaving the developer to foot the bills for both refunds and staffing end-user support to answer questions about what happened to the app. Meanwhile, Apple gets to keep their cut of the profits…

This is Apple’s move, not AT&T’s. My Apple hardware and software purchases are now on hold. If you’re a user of products Apple has unjustly pulled there’s a better approach …

… I called up apple corporate offices and told them that I want my money back as “compensation” — NOT as a refund. I was very specific that I did not want a refund on the app; that I wanted APPLE to cover my cost. They ended up crediting my account for 5-free song downloads…

I spoke to Robert Burger @ Apple Corporate care. You can reach him at 512-674-2500 x 40267. Give him a call and let him know how you feel about what happened…

Apple should eat the entire cost of any refunds on these apps.

I’ll be looking for my Windows 7 netbook this fall.

Complain to Apple about the Google Voice fiasco

The author of VoiceCentral (pulled from app store along with all other Google Voice related products) points out that there's a form for iPhone Feedback. Give it a try.

Keep it polite, but it's fair to mention that this debacle is causing you to reconsider your commitment to the iPhone and other Apple products and that you appreciated the value and innovation of the Google Voice offering more than most iPhone products.

Buy.com is on my blacklist

Buy.com was already in trouble for spam, but I’d forgotten about that when I ordered some 2.5mm to 3.5mm adapters. These were supposed to allow me to use my Shure QuietSpot 2.5mm Headset with my iPhone; they replaced some cheap adapters that worked well but had become frayed.

I used the Google Checkout option on my order for the “Metallic 3.5mm Male to 2.5mm Female Audio Adapter for iPhoneiPod  -  Marketplace Item -- Shipped by: Wireless Emporium”.

I knew I was taking a chance when I ordered 3 of these suckers from a no-brand distributor that probably operates under five names. The cost with shipping was $24, and, based on past experience with similar adapters, I gave them only a 50% chance of working.

I lost that bet (they don’t work), but that’s not what got Buy.com on my blacklist. Turns out the package only included two adapters, though I’d paid for three. I used Google Checkout’s email feedback to message Buy.com about the order.

They never replied.

I hardly ever use Buy.com – there’s no advantage really over Amazon. In this case I couldn’t find a solution on Amazon, so I took a chance. They only get one.

During early electrification, did home lighting worsen?

I’m exploring the tech churn meme…

Gordon's Notes: Tech churn and the fall of the Feed Reader – a new meme tag

… In my timeline feed readers went from new and useful to life support in about five years. … Feed Readers are being replaced by … nothing. They haven’t been superseded, they’ve been lost in tech churn white water … Tech churn has a substantial productivity cost … Old technologies are ailing, but new technologies are unready and/or short lived … I suspect tech churn is taking a real toll on our economic and personal productivity…

Of course we’re not the first people to go through some dramatic technology changes. A hundred years ago the changes were intense – and, unlike today, very physical. Electrification, steam engines, combustion engines, lighter than air flight … A hell of a lot, very quickly.

So did my deceased great grandparents experience tech churn? Did their home lighting become less reliable as they pulled out gas lamps and put in early electrical bulbs? What about those who installed DC solutions then had to switch to AC systems? Was transportation transiently less efficient when horses and cars fought over the same roads?

Anyone aware of any historic precedents or articles on this topic?

Incidentally, I thought I’d coined a new term. Not necessarily! For example:

• Technology Churn (c2.com)
• NPR: The woes of technology churn
• IT World – coping with technology churn

I haven’t yet found articles or posts drawing the same implications I’m writing of, but I’m sure they exist. This meme may catch on.

Tech churn and the fall of the Feed Reader – a new meme tag

Today (ta-da) I’m inaugurating a new Blogger “label” (aka a tag) – tech churn.

I obviously have more to write on this topic, but I’m going to start with one example – the fall of the Feed Reader …

Alex Payne — Fever and the Future of Feed Readers

Time was, every self-respecting geek lived and died by his feed reader (or aggregator, if you prefer)…

… Today, at least in the web-tech echo chamber, feed reading is quickly falling out of fashion ...

I don’t just like Feed Readers, I love Feed Readers, esp Google Reader (web) and Byline (iPhone). Problem is, they really are dying. In my timeline feed readers went from new and useful to life support in about five years.

Today Feed Readers are being replaced by … by… uhhh … nothing. They haven’t been superseded, they’ve been lost in tech churn white water. The closest descendants might be Twitter clients and Facebook’s news page in that both enable subscription (though both unify subscription with publication, whereas in the Atom/RSS world those were decoupled).

Tech churn has a substantial productivity cost. I personally wasted a substantial amount of time, money, and good will trying to integrate feed reader technology into my corporate world. Just as we started to get to a positive return, the feed readers we relied on went away [1].

It’s not just Feed Readers. I think if you look for it, you’ll see many examples of tech churn. Old technologies are ailing, but new technologies are unready and/or short lived for a multitude of reasons (exhibit A). Often we adopt a substitute new technology that itself will have a limited lifespan.

I suspect tech churn is taking a real toll on our economic and personal productivity. It may even be a contributing factor to the crash cycles of the past decade. It’s not all bad though, if not for the turbulence of tech churn we might be moving even faster to the waterfall.

More examples coming soon …

[1] Outlook 2007 works with Active Directory authenticated feeds, but when I tested prior to SP2 it was flat out horrible. In any case we’re stuck on Office 2003 (money).

Dear iPhone – it’s not going to work, but can we still be friends?

I’m still recovering from the day the iPhone died, still adding to lessons from Apple's rejection of Google Voice. I think I’m feeling the same sort of shock Kindle fans felt when Orwell’s 1984 was pulled from their machines; a realization that a technology platform has a fatal flaw.

In Apple’s case the fatal flaw is the App Store.

It’s commercially brilliant, and it may continue to to thrill, but it gives Apple and its business partners immense power that’s exercised for all markets everywhere. We’ve seen how AT&T (and Apple?) use that power. Now imagine how various tyrannies and Apple will use it in the future.

Sure there are 10,000 Twitter clients on the App Store, but all 10,000 of them weren’t worth 1% of the innovation and customer value of a single well done Google Voice client. A hell of a lot of the value of the iPhone, for me, was being a computer in my pocket. That’s shot now.

I now have to think of the iPhone as a browser in my pocket, with some ancillary software that adds up to much inferior version of the PalmPilot and a quite nice iPod for entertainment. It’s also a decent email platform and there are a few apps I appreciate and games for the kids.

That’s it.

My heart is broken, leaving me a bitter twisted wreck of a geek. That means I’m ready for my Windows 7 Netbook …

An excellent history of the earth

The Earth for physicists. Superb reading, and quick. Via kk.

Did you know the Sun was a T Tauri star once?

O'Reilly is innumerate

He's innumerate ...

Speechless - Paul Krugman Blog - NYTimes.com

...Bill O’Reilly explaining that of course America has lower life expectancy than Canada — we have 10 times as many people, so we have 10 times as many deaths...

So is he illiterate?

The day after: Lessons from Apple's rejection of Google Voice and Latitude

It's the day after The Battle of Google Voice. We're still waiting for Pogue and Steve Lyons to weigh in, but I'm betting this was a mixture of AT&T pushing and Apple jumping.

Even without knowing who drove this decision and why, we can draw some preliminary lessons:

1. AT&T/Apple will use their App Store control to protect their revenue streams. Obvious, but most commentators don't understand how much revenue we're talking about here. It's all about long distance revenue, especially international calling, and SMS. Google Voice is an order of magnitude cheaper than AT&T for international calls and there's an expectation that GV can kill AT&T's SMS business. Since Apple's business interests are very broad, buying an iPhone now seems equivalent to committing to obtaining a wide range of goods and services through Apple.

2. AT&T isn't impacted (much) by the iTouch, but the Google Voice clients were removed from all devices. That's an important lesson for all Apple devices.

3. The iPhone is sold internationally. Google Voice is being beta tested in at least one country outside the US and will be an international solution. AT&T doesn't have an interest in those markets, but Apple removed Google Voice clients from every market. Does this mean that any Apple phone partner can remove apps everywhere? What about the apps China doesn't like?

This story isn't over yet.

As for me, based on what we've learned so far, AT&T is on my blacklist and I'm going to be keeping my distance from Apple too.

 

Update 7/31/09: The impeccable logic of Apple/AT&T’s attack on my pocketbook. As I continue to turn this story over in my head I’ve come to think that the iPhone’s flaw (for me) is the App Store.

 

That’s ironic, because the App Store’s distribution channel and calibrated Digital Rights Management (DRM) have been brilliantly successful, and helped make the iPhone a smashing success. So how can the App Store be such a problem (for me)?

The problem isn’t the DRM or the distribution channel or the usual App Store criticisms (slow updates, no demo versions, etc). All of those criticisms are relatively able to fix. The real problem of the App Store, for a consumer, is that it gives Apple and its business partners too much control.

 

The App Store could keep the things that make it great, such as the measured DRM and distribution channel, even if there was an open option for iPhone app installation that was outside of Apple’s control. The open option would introduce more risk (virus, etc) for users, but it would also provide a distribution channel for products like Google Latitude and Voice. Its very existence would force Apple/AT&T to accept more competition, and would improve the App Store channel.

 

Apple/AT&T won’t create this open option, but smartphone vendors that want to challenge Apple could. Vendors who have a lot of power, and a lot to lose.

The Apple-Google War: The Battle of Google Voice

History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce. Karl Marx.

Steve Lyon’s Fake Steve Jobs captured the Chromestellation start of the Apple-Google war …

.. Sure we're cool, **********. We're cool as a piece of key lime pie. You just keep telling yourself that, and you won't even feel it when the bullet hits the back of your ugly ********** head…

The first skirmish was the battle of Latitude. Apple rejected Google’s long awaited iPhone location app.

That’s about when we noticed that the long promised Google Voice app was showing up everywhere … except the iPhone.

Today the Battle of Google Voice began in earnest …

… Richard Chipman from Apple just called - he told me they’re removing GV Mobile from the App Store due to it duplicating features that the iPhone comes with (Dialer, SMS, etc). He didn’t actually specify which features, although I assume the whole app in general. He wouldn’t send a confirmation email either - too scared I would post it…

I’ve been using GV Mobile for months. It and its GrandCentral predecessor have been saving me about $80 a month. That’s money that used to go to AT&T – and, probably, Apple.

Yeah, there are grounds for War.

We’ve been here before. In the 90s Sun and Netscape promised to create a cross-platform application ecosystem. I was part of a startup that began on that platform. HTML and a bit of JavaScript for forms, client-side Java for big stuff like voice recording. Then Sun decided it was going to be the platform, and Netscape decided to launch “Netscape Constellation” (the precursor to Chrome OS).

That didn’t end well. Java died on the desktop, Netscape died everywhere, and Microsoft’s evil laughter shook hte heavens.

So we’re there again, with Apple playing the role of Sun, Google playing Netscape, and Microsoft …

I’ve got a foot in each camp; for me this Tech War is Civil. My iPhone is my auxiliary brain – if it had a keyboard add-on it would be 8/10 perfect. On the other foot, Google is my daily bread – from Google Apps to Blogger to Search to Calendar to Email to … Basically, I use most of what they provide.

Maybe I should just give up and wait for Windows 7.

In the meantime, our October iPhone 3GS purchase is on hold. I really need to see what Apple does now; cutting off Google Voice is a bridge too far. If Apple doesn’t back down soon, we’re going to have to back out of our iPhone commitment.

Update: Voice Central was also pulled.

Update 7/28/09: I wonder if Google will be able to use this Apple/AT&T action as a defense against antitrust litigation if, say, they buy Sprint. Conversely, I wonder if the EU will use it as evidence in their antitrust litigation against Apple. Lastly, as well as reevaluating purchase of our 2nd iPhone, I'm now more likely to but a Windows 7 netbook (of course eventually this will be a Chrome netbook) rather than another MacBook.

Blog reports also claim that Apple's VP of marketing, Phil Schiller, had personally intervened to approve GV Mobile for the App Store -- pointing towards AT&T as the villain. Perhaps, but that was before the launch of Chrome OS and before Apple denied the Latitude app. I suspect Apple and AT&T are aligned on this one.

Update 7/28/09: Related articles ...

The Guardian's article has an excellent summary ...

... Apple has rejected the Google's Voice application for the iPhone saying that it duplicated features in the popular smart phone. The move has called into question the control that Apple exerts over approving applications and whether the rejection and others constitute anti-competitive behaviour...

A Google spokesman told TechCrunch:

We work hard to bring Google applications to a number of mobile platforms, including the iPhone. Apple did not approve the Google Voice application we submitted six weeks ago to the Apple App Store. We will continue to work to bring our services to iPhone users — for example, by taking advantage of advances in mobile browsers.

As Apple rejected Google's own official Voice application, it also pulledGoogle Voice apps from third party developers, such as GV Mobile, VoiceCentral and GVDialer. iPhone developer Sean Kovacs, the creator of GV Mobile, wrote on his blog:

Richard Chipman from Apple just called - he told me they're removing GV Mobile from the App Store due to it duplicating features that the iPhone comes with (Dialer, SMS, etc). He didn't actually specify which features, although I assume the whole app in general.

... if you really want Google Voice on a mobile phone, it's available on for smartphones running Google's Android operating system or Research in Motion's Blackberry.

Gruber weighs in: basically he agrees with my intuition -- this is an Apple move as much as an AT&T move "Google Voice doesn’t just interfere with the carrier’s business model, it interfere’s with Apple’s iPhone business model. Not just AT&T but all iPhone carrier partners pay Apple a hefty subsidy for every iPhone sold, and that subsidy is based on assumptions about how much the average iPhone customer is going to pay in monthly service charges for voice, data, and SMS." Gruber calls this "reasonable", I'd have used the word "rational". He declines to point out how big a problem this is for users; the reason the move is rational is that it blocks competition.

GMSV report

Some further thoughts of mine ...

• I agree with those who feel this was a Steve Jobs move.
• The iPhone is now ready for the Chinese marketplace, and Apple has become Singapore.
• I'm pretty confident I'll be buying a Windows 7 netbook in the fall.
• I definitely won't be buying an Apple tablet if, as expected, it's a bigger iTouch.
• I need to start following the gPhone
• In this Civil War, I side with Google.

Update: DF says he (and I) were wrong - it was AT&T that drove this rejection. Business Week responds (indirectly) - "why haven’t the Blackberry and Android versions, which would cause the same headaches for carriers, [been] banned?"

The NYT quotes analysts speculating that AT&T pulled the trigger and Apple is contractually obligated to obey. So does this mean that any of Apple's partners can eliminate an App everywhere in the world?

Update 7/29/09: Tech Chrunch - AT&T can't handle the iPhone. There's a plaintive note that AT&T might allow Google Voice if they lost iPhone exclusivity. That was sweet.

Also, the VoiceCentral removal. The transcription of "Richard's" dialog exposes Apple's transparent lies. At the very least they should say "We're removing your app and we aren't going to give you a reason".

Update 7/30/09: Excellent Lifehacker rant.

Update 7/31/09

• Michael Arrington quites the iPhone and pays his AT&T termination fee. He's going to and Android phone enroute to the Pre (but if the Pre has a closed App Store, won't Sprint block Google Voice?).
• Dan Moren of MacWorld writes a cogent response. Apple may end up with the world's greatest collection of fart apps. The story isn't dying and may yet break mainstream. Pogue has been curiously silent however.
• Stephen Frank (co-founder, Panic) quits the iPhone. He's (emphases mine) ...
  

  1) Converting my iPhone SIM into a DataConnect SIM for use with a laptop...

  2) Switching to a Palm Pre for voice and light data usage. I looked at the Pre and the G1. The Pre is (very) slightly better at what I need. They are both lousy in comparison to the iPhone.... (Palm’s app store is still in a beta lock-down — they haven’t had a chance to screw it up yet. If they do, it’ll be time for Plan C.)

  3) Not buying any future iPhone OS based devices, including the “tablet”, should it ever surface, until the issues with app store policy are demonstrably improved.

My later related posts:

• Latitude and Voice: The impeccable logic of AT&T/Apple’s App Store rejections
• Apple's appalling treatment of independent Google Voice app developers
• Lessons from Apple's Voice and Latitude rejections (App Store control is the worm)
• Using iPhone feedback form to complain to Apple
• iPhone, can we still be friends?
• Buying my Chrome OS (XP) Netbook
  

Update 7/31/09b - The FCC sends letters. See also - Enter the FCC

Best You can Be responds to Scientific American’s anti-Ritalin screed

A SciAm article beats up on Ritalin (methylphenidate), and BBYCB finds the article wanting …

Be the Best You can Be: Scientific American goes nuclear on Ritalin

Edmund Higgins, a clinical associate professor [1], has written a blistering attack on Ritalin, and gotten it published in Scientific American – a magazine that’s presumably sharing the industry’s revenue problems.

Dr. Higgins compares Ritalin (methylphenidate) to methamphetamine. This is the rhetorical equivalent of comparing a human to Hitler; it’s chemically correct but it’s the mark of a crank. It’s a Godwin’s Law violation…

..when I strip out everything else, the bulk of Higgins’ article is coming from 3 animal studies in 2003, 2008, and 2009. All of the studies involved injecting methylphenidate, which is not how it’s used in humans. Injecting Ritalin is a mark of abuse with pretty different pharmacology from oral use.

The most interesting of these articles is Nestler et al in 2003 [2], an article with a rather strange title…

…On review I’m left with several only mildly related conclusions …

1. I’m happy the animal studies are being done. I’d like to see fewer fishing expeditions, and more replication of results. For example, repeat the Bolanos study with a larger group, maybe a different clonal line, and see if the same results appear. These need to be registered studies, so we don’t get messed up by publication bias (which is a huge problem in the low cost animal studies domain). I would really like to see more studies of tolerance effects in rats.
2. Higgins may turn out to be correct (lots of people are suspicious that stimulants can be used so long, including me) but I think he’s got a crank agenda. His article is more inflammatory than the evidence supports. A more sober article would have been welcome.
3. You shouldn’t put children on psychoactive medications without a very good reason. Of course that was always true.
4. Don’t assume any other medications are in any way safer – Ritalin has been studied far more than, say, Stratera.
5. Scientific American is running out of money. We’ll know they’ve hit rock bottom when they do an article on the scientific evidence for Creationism. They should have known better than to publish this article in its current form.

Imagining the Singularity in 1965…

John Markoff has written yet another essay on the rise of the machines. This time Markoff is reporting on an Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence conference organized by Eric Horvitz, a Microsoft researcher and president of the association. The conference took place at the Conference Grounds on 2/25, but the report isn’t due out until late 2009. Supposedly they weren’t looking at longer term super-human AIs, but rather near term issues … (emphases mine)

Scientists Worry Machines May Outsmart Man - NYTimes.com - John Markoff

… They focused particular attention on the specter that criminals could exploit artificial intelligence systems as soon as they were developed... also discussed possible threats to human jobs, like self-driving cars...

… Dr. Horvitz said he believed computer scientists must respond to the notions of superintelligent machines and artificial intelligence systems run amok.

The idea of an “intelligence explosion” in which smart machines would design even more intelligent machines was proposed by the mathematician I. J. Good in 1965. Later, in lectures and science fiction novels, the computer scientist Vernor Vinge popularized the notion of a moment when humans will create smarter-than-human machines, causing such rapid change that the “human era will be ended.” He called this shift the Singularity.

This vision, embraced in movies and literature, is seen as plausible and unnerving by some scientists like William Joy, co-founder of Sun Microsystems. Other technologists, notably Raymond Kurzweil, have extolled the coming of ultrasmart machines, saying they will offer huge advances in life extension and wealth creation...

... Tom Mitchell, a professor of artificial intelligence and machine learning at Carnegie Mellon University, said the February meeting had changed his thinking. “I went in very optimistic about the future of A.I. and thinking that Bill Joy and Ray Kurzweil were far off in their predictions,” he said. But, he added, “The meeting made me want to be more outspoken about these issues and in particular be outspoken about the vast amounts of data collected about our personal lives...

I was pleased to see that Bill Joy isn't being mocked as much, the poor guy took a terrible beating for stating the obvious. (Personally I'm expecting that, while it’s true that we're screwed, the end-times of superhuman intelligence will be pushed out beyond 2100.)

So the conference doesn’t sound terribly interesting, but I was interested in Markoff’s reference to IJ Good. This pushes the basic idea of the Singularity, exponential recursion, back another thirty years. I suspect thought Markoff got the reference from this Wikipedia article (but he didn't, see update) …

… Irving John ("I.J."; "Jack") Good (9 December 1916 – 5 April 2009)^[1][2] was a British statistician who worked as a cryptologist at Bletchley Park.

He was born Isidore Jacob Gudak to a Polish-Jewish family in London. He later anglicized his name to Irving John Good and signed his publications "I. J. Good."

An originator of the concept now known as "technological singularity," Good served as consultant on supercomputers to Stanley Kubrick, director of the 1968 film 2001: A Space Odyssey…

Yes, he was alive until a few months ago. I don’t need to remind any of my readers that the main character of 2001 was an AI named Hal (though Hal came from Arthur C Clarke’s book, not the movie). The article concludes with the story of Good’s Singularity premise …

… In 1965 he originated the concept now known as "technological singularity," which anticipates the eventual advent of superhuman intelligence:

“Let an ultraintelligent machine be defined as a machine that can far surpass all the intellectual activities of any man however clever. Since the design of machines is one of these intellectual activities, an ultraintelligent machine could design even better machines; there would then unquestionably be an 'intelligence explosion,' and the intelligence of man would be left far behind. Thus the first ultraintelligent machine is the last invention that man need ever make…”

Good's authorship of treatises such as "Speculations Concerning the First Ultraintelligent Machine" and "Logic of Man and Machine" (both 1965)…

I gather he was still in decent shape when Vinge’s “Singularity” materials made news over 10 years ago. He must have read them and recognized the ideas of his earlier papers. The book The spike : how our lives are being transformed by rapidly advancing technologies / Damien Broderick (Amazon) provides some additional historical context …

… Nor is the idea altogether new. The important mathematician Stanislaw Ulam mentioned it in his “Tribute to John von Neumann,” the founding genius of the computer age, in Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society in 1958.13 Another notable scientific gadfly, Dr. I. J. Good, advanced “Speculations Concerning the First Ultraintelligent Machine,” in Advances in Computers, in 1965. Vinge himself hinted at it in a short story, “Bookworm, Run!,” in 1966, as had sf writer Poul Anderson in a 1962 tale, “Kings Must Die.” And in 1970, Polish polymath Stanislaw Lem, in a striking argument, put his finger directly on this almost inevitable prospect of immense discontinuity. Discussing Olaf Stapledon’s magisterial 1930 novel Last and First Men, in which civilizations repeatedly crash and revive for two billion years before humanity is finally snuffed out in the death of the sun, he notes…

It’s a shame Professor Good isn’t around to do an interview, he gave quite an impressive one in 1992 (in which, by the way, he tells us Turing claimed to have only an above-average IQ, which is rather curious).

Update 7/29/09: Per comments, John Markoff tells me he learned about the I. J. Good story from an interview with Eric Horvitz.

Update 8/8/09: Per comments, today a description of the panel's mission is on the AAAI website main page. There's no persistent address, so it won't stay in its current spot. For the record, here's a copy. The official mission is more ambitious than the impression left by John Markoff's article ... (emphases mine)

The AAAI President has commissioned a study to explore and address potential long-term societal influences of AI research and development. The panel will consider the nature and timing of potential AI successes, and will define and address societal challenges and opportunities in light of these potential successes. On reflecting about the long term, panelists will review expectations and uncertainties about the development of increasingly competent machine intelligences, including the prospect that computational systems will achieve "human-level" abilities along a variety of dimensions, or surpass human intelligence in a variety of ways. The panel will appraise societal and technical issues that would likely come to the fore with the rise of competent machine intelligence. For example, how might AI successes in multiple realms and venues lead to significant or perhaps even disruptive societal changes?

The committee's deliberation will include a review and response to concerns about the potential for loss of human control of computer-based intelligences and, more generally, the possibility for foundational changes in the world stemming from developments in AI. Beyond concerns about control, the committee will reflect about potential socioeconomic, legal, and ethical issues that may come with the rise of competent intelligent computation, the changes in perceptions about machine intelligence, and likely changes in human-computer relationships.

In addition to projecting forward and making predictions about outcomes, the panel will deliberate about actions that might be taken proactively over time in the realms of preparatory analysis, practices, or machinery so as to enhance long-term societal outcomes.

On issues of control and, more generally, on the evolving human-computer relationship, writings, such as those by statistician I. J. Good on the prospects of an "intelligence explosion" followed up by mathematician and science fiction author Vernor Vinge's writings on the inevitable march towards an AI "singularity," propose that major changes might flow from the unstoppable rise of powerful computational intelligences. Popular movies have portrayed computer-based intelligence to the public with attention-catching plots centering on the loss of control of intelligent machines. Well-known science fiction stories have included reflections (such as the "Laws of Robotics" described in Asimov's Robot Series) on the need for and value of establishing behavioral rules for autonomous systems. Discussion, media, and anxieties about AI in the public and scientific realms highlight the value of investing more thought as a scientific community on preceptions, expectations, and concerns about long-term futures for AI.

The committee will study and discuss these issues and will address in their report the myths and potential realities of anxieties about long-term futures. Beyond reflection about the validity of such concerns by scientists and lay public about disruptive futures, the panel will reflect about the value of formulating guidelines for guiding research and of creating policies that might constrain or bias the behaviors of autonomous and semiautonomous systems so as to address concerns.

They're taking this seriously. I'm impressed.

How Google can enable iPhone location tracking

I share Google's grumpiness that Latitude will work on a crappy BlackBerry Pearl but not on my iPhone. That's a multitasking limitation but, worse, Apple also blocked Google's Latitude app because it's too much like the bundled Map App (as it should be). So Google's got a useless web app instead. You need to run it to get the iPhone to update its Latitude location, and even I'm not crazy enough to bother with that.

Happily, there's a workaround.

Google can use other people's applications as a Latitude Trojan Horse.

In my case, I use Byline quite frequently. What if Byline, a few seconds after startup, pinged my location to Latitude? What if many of the non-Apple apps I used did this?

It's a rhetorical question of course. The result would be a reasonable approximation of how Latitude should work.

Of course why would Byline and other Apps do this? Because Google would provide the code, and would pay them for their troubles (transactional, flat, whatever -- the key is that it adds up and isn't too easy to game).