The Secret Sauce of the Goto Experience And What It Will Bring Us In Copenhagen This September

Over the last couple of years I have attended Goto conferences and always thought they were one of a kind. I always came back with a lot of things I didn’t know and a lot of new thoughts on things I already knew. I will of course go again this year. Looking through the program, it struck me that there is actually a basic pattern that goes through all Goto conferences. I think I have deciphered it and unlocked the secret code of the Goto experience.

Like a good recipe you have to start with good raw materials and Goto always have class a speakers from all the most interesting companies. The same is the case here. They have speakers from Netflix, Uber, Pinterest, New York Times. They also have people who invented the stuff and wrote the textbooks, like Martin Fowler, Devlin Kenney, Jez Humble and Tim Bray.

Something provocative
At goto conferences we always find something provocative. This year Tim Bray asks “Does the browser have a future?”. It reminds me about 10 15 years ago when I saw a comedian asking the question “Is TV here to stay or is it just a fad”. We were all laughing our guts out (or ROFL as it would later come to be known) because it was so evident that TV, was here to stay. But asking provocative questions sometimes is an eyeopener. Consider asking the same question today? It could even be the theme of a serious op ed in New York times. No one would be laughing. So, try to control your ROFL and listen to the provocative questions.

Something agile
It is no secret that agile has always been at the heart of the goto experience whether it is continuous delivery, scrum or kanban. In later years much of the agile interest has turned towards the lean start up movement (as I documented a couple of years ago). This is also the case this year where the lean enterprise is in the program.

Something about UX
One thing that I have enjoyed a lot on Goto conferences has been the uncompromising focus on user experience and usability. This year Chris Atherton has an interesting talked called “UX for mobile: It’s all about attention” which I am looking a lot forward to. She combines a software design with cognitive neuroscience, which is another thing you often see at goto conferences: the courage to dig a bit deeper and look at cognitive, physical or neurological foundations of what is a basic computer problem.

Something about massive scaling
There is no denying the geeky heart of goto. One year for example it was about the data collection at CERN. This year we have Architecture at Uber to satisfy quench the scaling thirst.

Something incredibly nerdy about new languages or frameworks
A couple of years ago Anders Hejlsberg chose the goto conference for the international announcement of Typescript. There is always stuff about the most obscure and up-and-coming new languages and frameworks at the goto conference. One example this year is “Idioms for building distributed fault-toleratn applications with Elixir”.

Is Google Glass the Next Segway and What Can We Learn From It?

About a decade ago one of the most hyped products in Tech was the Segway. It promised to revolutionize public transportation. The hype was almost hysterical. It was impossible to get your hands on one, unless you were especially favored and it was overprized. The hype for google glass is similar today, only a select few can get it and it is overprized. Google glass could have a similar fate to the Segway confined to a niche domain like mall cops or tourist excursions, although it has yet to find this niche. This niche could be internet porn, surgery aid or factory repair.

However, the reason is not the overhyping, price or lack of accessibility. It is a much deeper problem. Something as simple as product market fit. Let us look at a couple of reasons for this.

Product market fit
The Segway was by all accounts an impressive innovation and well thought out idea. It was just not thought out for any particular person or problem. It was technology for technology’s sake. It seems that at no point did the product manager/designer/inventor stop to test whether this product actually addressed an existing pain in any significant customer group.

The reports of google glass is similar. We frequently hear that this is cool technology. People ask and are interested in people wearing them. They want to try it. It works very well. But people have a hard time imagining what they would use them for.

“Glasshole” – how one feature can overturn the whole product
Lately google has been catching a lot of bad press around glass due to its camera function. A new term has even appeared already before it has been released, namely “glasshole”. There is actually only one function, which is the reason for this, that is the camera mounted on the glasses.

It appears that people other than the google glass users do not appreciate the possibility of being taped by the glass wearer. This one function is now threatening to take down glass with it. This problem could have been detected much earlier and addressed if someone had bothered to listen to someone other than the over exited test users.

What to do?
A product has to exist in an environment beyond its immediate users. Analysis of this environment and the humans that live in it could have revealed the emotional reactions. The solution by google has been to ban certain types of application of the camera. Which is a good idea, but most people don’t know that and therefore it won’t make much of a difference in perception.

Google could have considered two other options that are even more simple and would have an immediate effect in the environment where the product would be used. Since the basic problem is that people don’t want to feel that they can be monitored covertly, that is, taped without their knowing it. The first option is to introduce a visible light that is turned on when the camera is recording. This would make it possible for people to know when they were being filmed similar to when people with cell phones film. That is not a problem because it is out in the open. You can go to the person and complain.

The second option is to get rid of the camera altogether from the core product. It could be a visible add on, like a go pro camera, that could be taken off at the request of other people or just courtesy. Again it is important that the immediate environment can see that it is there. The problem here is that one controversial feature has been embedded within the product.

With out the camera google glass would still be an impressive product, that could show you the way, notify you of appointments and emails while driving etc. Sometimes taking out a feature may actually increase the market potential.

Anyhow, I love the google glass idea because it shows that somebody out there has the courage to dream and build products that are beyond what we know. I hope that google glass will find its niche faster than the Segway though.