In 20 Years, We’re All Going To Realize This Apple Ad Is Nuts

 

via Fastcodesign

APPLE’S “DESIGNED IN CALIFORNIA” AD INADVERTENTLY DEMONSTRATES THE MOST FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEM OF THE PERSONAL ELECTRONICS AGE, AND ONCE YOU SEE IT, YOU CAN’T UNSEE IT.

“This is it. This is what matters. The experience of a product.”

These are the opening words of Apple’s heartstring-tugging “Designed In California” commercial. Read them to yourself a few times. Then wonder why someone inside the company didn’t insist upon this copy edit:

“This is it. This is what matters. The experience of a person.”

Apple 20 Years Later 

Watch the ad closely for me. As we’re told that products are what matter, we see a series of shots in which people actively turn away from life to engage with their technology.

  • A woman closes her eyes on the subway to soak in electronic music.
  • A room of students looks down at their desks instead of at their teacher.
  • A parent and child cuddle, focused on a screen that’s so powerful it illuminates the kid’s face.
  • A couple kisses in the rain, then immediately turn away to look at a phone.
  • A tourist opts to FaceTime instead of bathing in visceral, smoky yakitori.

In what should be a warm, humanizing montage, people are constantly directing their attention away from one another and the real, panoramic world to soak in pixels. They’re choosing the experience of their products over the experience of other people several times in quick succession. And Apple has a warm voice in the background, goading us on.

This is a crazy world. Please tell me you see it, too.

Now I’m not saying the ad isn’t representative of real human behavior. Indeed, since Apple changed the world with the iPhone’s multitouch screen, the fundamental interactions behind our gadgets are designed to constantly lure us back into the four-inch world, nudging us with vibration, push notifications, and impromptu xylophone solos to almost touch all of the people in our lives doing the same thing on another four-inch screen somewhere else.

My fundamental problem with the ad–why it’s begun to make my shoulders tense and stomach churn every time it comes on TV–is not that it’s lying about how we use technology, but Apple’s consecrating the behavior, and even going on to say that their products, not the lives they serve, are “what matters.“ That outlook is so different from Apple’s other recent, non-advertised piece on design.

Ironically, in Apple’s flag-planting ad about design, their marketing department (and at least a few execs) have shown how fundamentally little they understand about the field. Design is at its heart a service for humanity, it’s crafting solutions for people to live with more security, efficiency, or happiness. So the experience of a product will never be what matters to a great designer. It’s always been about the experience of a person using that product.

It’s the most subtle, most important difference that this ad buries under its own hubris. And the commercial’s own audience seems to agree.

__________________________________________________________________

Mark Wilson

Mark Wilson is a writer who started Philanthroper.com, a simple way to give back every day. His work has also appeared at Gizmodo, Kotaku, PopMech, PopSci, Esquire, American Photo and Lucky Peach.

 

Can Computers Replace Writers?

 

via Stuff.co.nz

Over the years, many a mother, you can be sure, has quietly despaired upon being told by her teenager that a life as a writer was the chosen ambition.

No doubt many of these mothers dutifully (if doubtfully) encouraged their offspring and consoled themselves by concluding, “Well, dear, at least writers will never be replaced by computers.”

Alas, it turns out, mother was wrong. These days there are several programs that, for one purpose or another, function solely to produce text without the involvement of writers.

These programs range from charming to practical to fiendish, but all serve to illustrate brutally that in web-dependent areas of art and commerce, human beings are no longer necessary.

On the charming side of the equation sits JanusNode, a free “user-configurable dynamic textual projective surface” designed by Chris Westbury, a cognitive neuropsychologist in the Department of Psychology at the University of Alberta, Canada.

JanusNode is, in effect, a poetry generator – whack in a pile of prose, or a web address, press go, and the program will fashion the contents into a quirky, modernist auto-poem.

Delightfully, it comes packaged with a button that permits the user to fashion the result in the style of defiantly lower-case late American poet e.e. cummings.

Poetry generators, per se, are common, but what sets JanusNode apart is that it is programmable by the user. Westbury’s highly entertaining instructions explain how to construct code commands – called TextDNA – that govern how, and how often, words, classes of words and verse structures are employed.

Basically, JanusNode lets you make any style of poetry you desire – without having to write a single stanza.

“The interesting thing about JanusNode, and other simple means of generating random text, is how often they actually manage to strike a nerve; how often we actually find ourselves reading the words and thinking ‘That’s true!’ or ‘That’s elegant!”‘ Westbury writes. As a demonstration, he has just published the first book created entirely by his software. It is called You can bring an elephant to a Broadway show, but you cannot make it drink Chablis.

JanusNode is all fun, but another text generator, Quill, is all business – so much so that it provides regular contributions to leading US business journalism website Forbes.

Developed by Chicago company Narrative Science, Quill is extraordinary, and renders business analysts pretty much redundant. The idea behind the program is simple: it receives numerical data – spreadsheets, market read-outs, the massive collections of figures that human analysts require days to sift through. Output – a second after the appropriate button is pushed – is a chosen suite of text documents: client summaries, broker summaries, blog posts, even Twitter announcements. All can be updated hourly, daily or weekly.

These programs range from charming to practical to fiendish, but all serve to illustrate brutally that … human beings are no longer necessary.

Quill – which grew from a university project geared to auto-generating baseball game reports – is used widely in the US in finance, banking and the stock market. Its output, as published in Forbes, is discernibly dry, as befits the genre, but without prior knowledge it seems indistinguishable from human-written text. Witness: “Over the past month, the consensus estimate has risen from 40 cents, but it’s below the estimate of 54 cents from three months ago. Analysts are projecting earnings of $2.87 per share for the fiscal year.”

In June this year, Narrative Science entered into a joint venture with In-Q-Tel, the investment arm of the US intelligence community, to develop a new version of the program. This leads to the rather disturbing conclusion that soon the intelligence reports upon which the US relies when making decisions about, you know, what country to invade or who to target in a drone strike, will be constructed without human influence.

Quill produces highly readable text, but the most common types of text auto-generating programs churn out stuff most people would recognise immediately as gobbledegook. That doesn’t matter, though. Known generically as “web scrapers”, they’re not out to fool humans, only search engines.

“A scraper is basically a bot that will run across the internet and, based on what it’s programmed to do, it will find websites and scrape content from them,” says Phil Dean, of online marketing consultancy Marmoset.

The bot will recombine snippets of keyword-linked text into thematic word salads and post it on its owner’s site.

The idea is to fool Google’s search algorithm into believing the result is a human-generated piece of content, thus pushing the site up the search-engine rankings and thereby increasing traffic and revenue.

For a professional online optimiser such as Dean, scraper-made websites are a constant annoyance. “In the past, the scraper approach has worked quite well,” he says.

“Google has recently cracked down on auto-generated sites, but the story is that people always try to get around the new restrictions, then Google reacts again, and so on.

“But it is getting harder to have success with a site that is completely generated from scratch with no human intervention.”

Google’s successful crackdown on auto-generated scraper sites has the potential to adversely affect “legitimate” self-writing sites that rely on business applications, such as Quill, or even fun programs, such as JanusNode. It’s a curious point at which to arrive: many different software sets arguing among themselves about what constitutes “real” writing.

All human writers can do is sit back and watch. Mother would be grimly disappointed.

 ■ narrativescience.com

  janusnode.com

And so it is written

The following “poem” was generated using this story’s first paragraph and the JanusNode app, in e.e. cummings style.

Over the years m
any
a mother,
you can be sure, has quietly despa
ire
d upon
be
ing told by
her
teenager
that a life as a
writer
was the chosen ambition.

– FFX Aus

2013′s Complex Social Media Landscape in One Chart

I (Jeff Piontek) have used this before and it is amazing to get your point across and showcase how social media has changed the internet landscape and how we do business.

via Mashable

When Brian Solis introduced the first Conversation Prism in 2008, the world was a seemingly simpler place. There were 22 social media categories, each of which had just a handful of brands. (“Video agreggation” had only one brand: Magnify.)

Flash forward to 2013, and the latest Conversation Prism (click here for the high-res downloadable version) has four additional categories with at least six brands in each. Like other Conversation Prisms, the data visualization attempts to illustrate the array of social media choices available to marketers. Various channels are classified by their function to the end user (i.e. “photos,” “music” and “social curation.”

The net effect: While the 2008 chart looked like a flower, the latest one resembles a kaleidoscope. Solis, principal analyst at Altimeter Group and a prominent social media marketing expert, says redoing the chart this time around has been instructive. “Things are changing so fast,” he says. “We don’t even realize [the landscape] is shifting.”

The chart also points out that, for many, membership in the social media ecosystem is fleeting. While some brands like Xanga, Kyte and Utterz have disappeared, others that weren’t around five years ago — like Path and Banjo — are now among category leaders.

Images courtesy of Brian Solis, Jess3

2013 Version

Altimeter Group Principal Brian Solis says the “you” in this case represents a marketer. The inner wheels are goals for the brand that aren’t related to their position on the chart. (In other words “brand” doesn’t tie in to the “blog/microblogs” category.

First Conversation Prism

This data visualization, from 2008, shows a markedly simpler social media environment. A high-res version can be found here.

Second Version (2009)

For a high-res version, click here.

Third Version (2010)

Should Schools Implement Social Media Policies?

via Mashable

Facebook wasn’t a topic of conversation in high schools 10 years ago — it hadn’t even been invented yet.

One decade and a billion users later, and with the introduction of TwitterInstagram and other social networking platforms, it’s become an unavoidable cultural commodity. If you’re a teacher, your students most likely have profiles, and vice versa.

There are plenty of examples of Facebooking-gone-wrong in the education field so far. There’s the teacher in Pittsburgh, Pa., whose colleagues discovered her photo with a stripper online, and the Boston-area teen who was arrested for alleged “terrorist threats” in a rap video he posted to Facebook.

But the logistics of what is and isn’t acceptable between students and teachers online are still being figured out — and it largely varies by school.

Mashable reached out to a few schools across the U.S. to ask about how they’ve adjusted to the digital era. Our primary question: Should there be an overall policy for social media use?

Hans Mundahl is the director of technology and integration at the New Hampton School, a private boarding high school in New Hampton, N.H. The school is a “one-to-one iPad” institution, meaning every student and teacher is provided with a tablet.

“We have three levels of policies, loosely phrased, when it comes to social media,” Mundahl tells Mashable. “The first is a pretty straightforward policy that teachers are not to friend or follow any of their students on any social media channel. We, teachers and staff, are sort of the ‘parents-plus.’ It’s important to establish great relationships with students offline that are not necessarily ‘friend’ relationships online.”

“I strongly believe this can be used positively. By allowing our teachers to connect through social media with students, we both understand the risks that come with it.”

The second policy has to do with Facebook groups. Mundahl said it’s common for the school to create groups for their sports teams and update them with photos, game schedules and rosters.

“The only policy here is that the coaches work with me, and the rest of the social media team, to set up the right privacy controls,” he says. “It’s a great way for someone — say, an eighth-grader thinking about joining the lacrosse team in high school — to ‘meet’ the current team and get a glimpse at what it’s like to be a part of it. But, even though they’re loosely interacting, the actual players and coaches are not to be Facebook friends.”

The final policy is about respecting students’ personal social media presences. In other words: No online “sting” operations.

“We do [conduct] some passive monitoring for our school’s name using TweetDeck. Usually, the results are about the new Hampton Inn hotel or something else unrelated,” Mundahl says.

“But sometimes we’ll find a student, whose profile is public, who’s raising a bit of a red flag with their posts or tweets. We’ll normally update the student’s adviser, and sometimes send the student an email saying, ‘Hey, by the way, we came across this post where you weren’t representing yourself or the school well — just want to let you know.’ But no punishments are issued,” he says.

Other schools have looser regulations regarding student-teacher relationships online.

Robert Dill, who teaches government, psychology and sociology at the public Forest Hills High School in Sidman, Pa., says it’s not uncommon for students and teachers to be connected on social media.

“We don’t have a ‘policy’ in place, necessarily, but it’s definitely an evolving process,” he says. “Initially, when Facebook and everything started exploding, the school district frowned on teachers using it, fearing there would be a miscommunication or improper use with students.

“Over the years, though, it’s changed. Teachers are still cautioned to not discuss a student’s grades or performance over social media — but really, that’s the only rule of thumb. I know several teachers who are Facebook friends with their students.”

Dill’s not one of them — instead, he interacts with students on Twitter. If someone has a question about an assignment due date, or needs clarification on a subject matter, they’ll tweet at Dill. He’ll respond, usually through email.

“If it’s a quick ‘yes or no’ question, like, ‘Is this due tomorrow?’, I’ll just tweet back at them,” he says. “But for longer answers, I’ll switch over to email.”

Dill follows his students back on Twitter, and occasionally comes across some not-so-great-for-a-teacher-to-see tweets. But, similar to Mundahl, he said he’s not out to play detective on anyone.

“There have been some situations in which a student has tweeted something disparaging, usually about a coach or a teacher — but I don’t comment,” he says. “I strongly believe this can be used positively. By allowing our teachers to connect through social media with students, we both understand the risks that come with it. I strongly believe in the First Amendment, and that this is a good forum for communication, but you just need to be cautious with it — especially with pictures.”

A rule that should also apply to teachers, he adds.

The logistics of what is and isn’t acceptable between students and teachers online are still being figured out — and it largely varies by school.

New York-based business attorney Pedram Tabibi believes social media policies are integral for both businesses and schools to implement — so long as they’re tailored to each individual institution.

“It’s a lot more common in corporations — you know, places saying what’s OK to post, things to avoid,” he says. “But I think you’re starting to see it can be applied to schools as well. Each one is different, of course, so for it to work best they need to be adjusted for each individual school and its activities.”

But there are right and wrong ways of doing so. A handful of employers, he says, have asked their employees and job applicants for their social media passwords: Facebook, Twitter, Instagram — the whole nine yards. Ten states have outlawed the practice, and the SNOPA bill (Social Networking Online Protection Act), introduced in April, is being pushed at the federal level to make asking employees for their social media passwords illegal in every state.

“This is obviously an extreme example, and it’s certainly not the right way to do it,” Tabibi says. “Social media policies are not meant to be some sort of restrictive or privacy-violating blanket. But if you take your community’s culture and values into consideration, you can nail down some sort of structure that will prevent both the staff and students from getting into trouble down the road. You just need to address it from all sides of the coin.”

Does your school have a social media policy? If not, do you believe there should be one in place? Or is it unnecessary? Share your thoughts with us in the comments.

Jeff Piontek commentary about the article, there needs to be a social media policy for our students and to protect them from the “dark side” of the web.

The Differences between “PBL Versus Project Based Learning”

via Edudemic

There’s a big difference between using projects in the classroom versus project-based learning in the classroom. What are those differences, you ask? Lucky for you, friEdTechnology (great name) whipped up this snazzy side-by-side comparison outlining the biggest differences.

In the visual, they describe what ‘projects’ are and how they work in the classroom. For example, projects can be done at home without teacher guidance or team collaboration. They are based upon directions and the folks from friEd say they’re “done like last year” (curious if you agree with that or not!)

On the flip side, Project-Based Learning is a fluid technique to enhance learning that really looks nothing like projects as they’re described below. For example, in a PBL scenario, the teacher’s work is typically done prior to the start of the project, it’s graded on a clearly defined rubric, and has driving questions that keep the learning going.

As you can see, this is quite a slanted look at how projects are different from project-based learning but it’s interesting nonetheless. What do you think of this chart? Is it accurate? Are the descriptions correct? What would you change?

 

projects-vs-pbl

Jeff Piontek commentary on this is that either way these are engaging ways to get our students to look at school/classes in a very different manner. 

Report: BYOD Has the Potential to Expand Greatly in Five Years

via eSchool News

Results from a new survey presented during ISTE 2013 indicate that U.S. schools and universities still strive to expand their technology use, and postsecondary institutions often lead the way in technology integration.

On June 26, the Software & Information Industry Association (SIIA) released the full report from its 2013 Vision K-20 Survey, the sixth annual national survey to measure U.S. educational institutions’ self-reported progress toward building a framework that embraces ed-tech and eLearning.

For the first time, the 2013 survey asks about “bring your own device” (BYOD) policies in the classroom. The responses varied by education level, with only 20 percent of the elementary segment currently allowing devices in the classroom compared to close to half of the secondary and K-12 district segments. However, this gap may narrow in the next five years if participant expectations are accurate.

A majority of K-12 and close to half of postsecondary participants who report devices are allowed in the classroom also mention that their institutions currently restrict their use. At the K-12 level, restrictions on use can be expected to stay the norm in the near (five-year) future. However, at the postsecondary level, responses indicate two different paths for BYOD: people at institutions that currently allow devices but restrict their use anticipate restrictions are likely to continue in the future, while those who report BYOD with no current restrictions anticipate no restrictions in the future.

Among institutions that currently allow BYOD, more than three-quarters of K-12 educators report current restrictions on their use in the classroom. Among respondents at institutions which currently allow BYOD or expect their institution will allow BYOD within the next five years, a majority anticipate future restrictions on use, although a notable proportion in each segment say they don’t know.

Other notable findings include:

  • Levels of ed-tech integration at schools are holding steady despite budget challenges, while interest in ed-tech integration continues to remain high.
  • Schools and universities continue to rate the importance of ed-tech integration as very important.
  • Postsecondary continues to lead the way in ed-tech integration compared to K-12.

The final 2013 report is available here.

The 2013 Vision K-20 Survey was developed to provide benchmarks against which educators and administrators can measure their institutional progress in using technology to provide 21st century tools, anytime/anywhere access, differentiated learning, assessment tools, and enterprise support.

“Jeff Piontek” as an administrator and as a teacher this is interesting. Being the former Director of Instructional and Informational Technology I have implemented a 1:1 program and it is daunting. This is the way of our students in our schools today.

Become a Teacher (Infographic)

via Certification Map

Teacher certification requirements vary greatly from state to state. Most states have various levels of certification for teachers based on the age group or subject area they wish to teach. Please see our state-by-state breakdown to determine the specific requirements needed to get certified in your state.

 

How-to-Become-a-Teacher1

 

This is pretty amazing as a teacher (Jeff Piontek) I remember going through the process and it was daunting.

The World According to Google

via New Zealand Herald

Google_pipes3SUPP_460x230

 

Jeff Piontek comments: I believe this is a great conversation about “Google” as I have been fortunate enough to be at the “googleplex” in Mountain View and have friends who have been there from the early 2000’s.

It is Monday morning, and 150 “Nooglers” are gathered in a large room on Google’s campus in Mountain View, California.

Jennifer, a woman in her early thirties wearing a pair of hi-tech “Google Glass” spectacles, bounces around the stage welcoming the new starters. She is a compelling mix of preppy California girl and science fiction-obsessed geek that is de rigueur in Silicon Valley.

“I’m a little bit nerd. I love Star Trek. But I also love reading,” she says. “This summer, in fact, I’m reading all of Shakespeare’s works in chronological order.”

Her presentation is interspersed with science fiction jokes and slides of the Starship Enterprise as she tells the assembled audience they are now part of a company with the ability to turn “super-cool” sci-fi ideas into reality.

In the past few months Google has launched Google Glass, which allows users to photograph whatever they can see, or pull up information in their peripheral vision. Then there is Project Loon, which will use giant balloons to connect a billion people in sub-Saharan Africa to broadband.

Outside, self-driving cars navigate the campus. In the next-door buildings engineers are hard at work improving Google’s voice-activated search and translation tools, so that soon even people who cannot read or write will be able to request information in any language and find exactly what they are looking for.

Over the next few days the new starters – or “Nooglers” (for “new Googlers”) – will be drilled in the company’s mission to “organise the world’s information”, its history, and how, as “part of the Google family”, they must keep everything they are working on a secret.

“You can’t even tell your mom,” says Jennifer. At the end of the course they will attend a staff meeting hosted by Google’s founders, Larry Page and Sergey Brin. The glasses and the broadband balloons are examples of what Page, now chief executive, calls “moonshot” ideas, adding glamour and the promise of new growth opportunities to what is, at its heart, a hyper-efficient advertising business.

Google’s slick web search engine helped to pull in US$50.2 billion ($64.4 billion) in revenue last year, more than US$40 billion of which came from display advertising. Its profit stood at US$10.7 billion.

Its shares may have slipped from their May peak of US$920.60, but at US$887.88 they have still climbed more than 50 per cent in the past 12 months, making the entire company worth US$295 billion. More than one technology analyst has bet their reputation on Google stock topping US$1000 within the next year.

But as Google’s near neighbours, Facebook and Apple, can attest, investors grow nervous at the hint of a slowdown or absence of a new growth story, never mind that the main machine is going full throttle.

Last year Google investors took fright at a 20 per cent dip in profit and a decline in the revenue it receives each time a user clicks on one of its ads. The balloon project might be inspirational, but it is also there to do the basic job of stimulating demand and keeping the foot on Google’s gas.

Shareholders are also concerned about the company’s outgoings – not least the cost of its enormous appetite for Nooglers. Google had nearly 39,000 staff at the end of the last quarter, a figure which is steadily growing.

Much has been written about the free food and the zany decor of Google’s HQ – the slide in reception, the treadmill desks, the sleep pods and the colourful bikes on which employees get around campus. Less well documented are the free dry-cleaning services, the complimentary buses to work, the on-site doctors, dentists and hairdressers.

The pay is also considerable. According to the jobs website Glassdoor, the average Googler – the company’s favourite term for its staff – receives US$110,000 a year, before share awards or bonuses. Even Google interns reportedly receive the equivalent of US$69,000 a year. And if an employee dies, his or her partner can collect half their salary for the following decade.

Just like on a university campus, staff are invited to join groups that reflect their interests. There are the “Gayglers” for gay employees, and “Jewglers” for Jewish staff.

Google and its staff are almost relentlessly upbeat, which can make some people uneasy. As the first British journalist to be allowed into the Noogler session, I couldn’t help but recall Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World.

The company, as Jennifer tells the Nooglers, goes to some lengths to hire “the smartest people on the planet”.

Google’s prowess in search technology depends entirely on the quality of its engineers, many hired from Stanford University where Page and Brin met. The company’s entire campus is designed to make them want to stay.

“It’s the revenge of the nerds,” says one analyst who has followed Google since it started. “These were not the guys who were popular at high school. They don’t have a girlfriend waiting for them at home. They don’t have a life outside work. This is it. But life is so easy for them, they feel they have the last laugh.”

That stereotype may be a little extreme. There are certainly enough charismatic characters to balance the geeks. JOB CANDIDATES sit through four interviews with executives they may never work with, who are looking for four things. The individual’s skills are the least significant. The most important, says Lazlo Bock, Google’s senior vice-president of “people operations”, are the candidates’ cognitive ability; evidence of “at least a tiny, tiny bit of humility”; and their “Googliness”.

Humility is not a trait many people would associate with this company but Googliness is a word used often at the Mountain View campus. Some employees say they found it cringeworthy at first, but have now adopted it to describe a certain mindset. It means “comfort with ambiguity”, says Bock.

Sunil Chandra, who, as vice-president of “people technology” and operations, heads Google’s recruitment machine, defines it as people who are 100 per cent themselves at work. “They are people who are really inquisitive and want to do what’s right by others. You’ll find that they’re unbelievably down to earth,” he says.

Whatever it is, Page must be personally convinced that new recruits have it. He signs off on every single hire – upwards of 200 staff, week in, week out.

There is an argument to say that this focus on hiring people in a certain image can distance Google from public feeling, particularly over issues such as its tax bill in Britain or the privacy of its users.

But Chandra argues that the obsession with how staff “fit in” has been key to preserving its innovative start-up culture, even as it has developed into a multibillion-dollar machine.

Managing this evolution has been difficult. Page has made it a priority to slash the number of projects on which Google spends time and money. It has shut down – or “sunsetted” – at least a dozen operations in the past three years.

“We want more wood behind fewer arrows,” says Bock, borrowing his boss’ favoured metaphor. “Instead of launching 1000 arrows at our enemies, we launch one or two big ones.

“You used to very much have a system where anyone could work on anything on the technical side. You got a lot of creativity and innovation, but what you also got was a lot of pet projects which didn’t have a big impact on the world. Or, quite frankly, you got things where we were trying to do something and someone else was doing a better job.”

One of these was Knol, a crowd-sourced encyclopedia launched in 2007, six years after Wikipedia, a similar and superior service. Knol was shut down just over a year ago.

In recent weeks reports have emerged of a Google smartwatch and a Google videogame console. It also has plans to expand its Streetview project to include hiking and biking trails, as part of its ambition to create a detailed 3D map of the entire world. But all these are accessories to search, which remains its core.

Google already has an iron grip on the search market, but the way it views things, there is still huge change ahead.

“Google search is not done. It is far from done, in fact. I’d say it’s maybe 20 per cent, 25 per cent done,” says Jon Wiley, head of user experience for the search operation.

Users have become used to modifying their search criteria so they extract the best results from Google, he says. The company wants them to be able to ask questions using normal speech, to have discussions with Google’s technology and to use it to find answers to subjective issues.

If you asked an interior designer what color to paint your bedroom, they would not shoot back “red” or “green”, Wiley explains. The first thing they would do is ask questions back, about the size of the room, its aspect, what colors the person happened to like.

“When we look at that class of problem, we say here is an opportunity for innovation for the types of problems we could try to solve. What kind of artificial intelligence could we create that could help people actually have a dialogue about what colur to paint their bedroom?”

Wiley also hints at how the new technology will help Google harness enormous new markets in the developing world. Voice-activated search, coupled with sub-Saharan broadband, could transform education and economic growth in those regions.

“People can ask a question, get a response, and ask again, and go back and forth and have a dialogue of information, in their native language,” he says. “I look at that as a goal, to be able to have that kind of experience.”

But Google is not relying on organic growth. Its appetite for acquisition has steadily increased over the past few years.

In 2011 Google paid US$12.5 billion for Motorola Mobility, to get its hands on valuable patents. Last month it signed a US$1.3 billion deal for Waze, a traffic-mapping tool set to transform Google’s maps service, widening its lead over Apple’s rival product.

Against this backdrop, Google’s “Googliness” can cause problems. The company has had to tread a fine line as it has expanded overseas, coming up against cultures which take a dim view of the amount of data it collects about users.

Users in Europe, in particular, have been riled by projects such as Streetview, Google’s mission to photograph and map every street in the world by driving down it with a camera, or Google Glass, which enables people to discreetly take photographs without James Bond-style hidden cameras.

Last month Google was one of nine technology giants accused of routinely handing information over to the US Government as part of the Prism surveillance project. Google claims it has done no such thing, and asked the authorities to be allowed to publish statistics about the number of information requests it has pushed back on.

But even with the categorical denial, the episode remains incendiary for staff as well as the public. Google employees demanded answers from Brin and Page at their routine meeting that week. In Britain, anger has also rumbled around the company’s tax contributions. Google paid just over £10 million in corporation tax to the Treasury in the past five years, on revenue of £11.5 billion.

Eric Schmidt, Google’s executive chairman, has argued that the company has a moral duty to shareholders to pay the tax that the laws of each country say it owes, and no one has accused it of breaking any laws.

Many would agree, but the row over Google’s financial contribution has tarnished its reputation. Last year Britons identified Google as the fifth most desirable brand in the world. In the same survey this year it had tumbled out of the top 20. Senior Google staff privately admit the episode has taken a toll on morale.

It remains in Google’s nature to constantly push the envelope. Its modus operandi is to experiment, get products out fast and fix any problems on the fly. “Launch and iterate” is a phrase used often.

Allied to Google’s fearless ambition, and its increasingly strategic approach to investment, is also the fleet-of-foot behavior that will underpin its future growth. Google might shoot past the US$1000-a-share mark before the year is out.

Being that I have also visited New Zealand and I am amazed at how things have changed for the better in New Zealand and how fast Google is pushing.