Tuesday, February 16, 2016

Study-Group on How iPhone was conceptualized and developed



Look at your mobile phone, and the mobile phone of people around you. Chances are that these devices will either be iPhone by Apple, or Android based phones from Samsung, Xiomi, Lenovo, or Sony. Small differences between the two types apart, they are overwhelmingly similar in overall look, use and feel. Just ten years back, smart phone market was filled with very different devices. Ranging from Nokia N series phones dominating the product category, to Motorola devices, to Blackberry by RIM. What was that which transformed the mobile devices landscape in a short span of 10 years?

Multi-touch technology and software innovations like virtual keyboard were the primary drivers of this world altering change. Taking keyboard hardware out of the picture, and allowing the extra space to be used for better display experience while using the phone. How did these ideas originate? Who were the key people behind these ideas? What were the motivations of these people? What was their background and work experience? How these ideas then transformed into a delightful product?

Study-Group is a powerful medium to get in-depth knowledge of subject, and I invite you to study How iPhone was conceptualized and developed. Having spent almost 5 years in various study-groups, I now move on to understand something that deeply impacts many or all of us. Check out following link to understand how exactly the journey will begin, proceed, and conclude.

http://forum.objectivismonline.com/index.php?/topic/29186-study-group-on-how-iphone-was-conceptualized-and-developed/&do=findComment&comment=340882

OR (if above doesn't work)

http://forum.objectivismonline.com/ -> Browse -> Forums -> The Laboratory -> The Objectivist Study Groups -> BECOMING STEVE JOBS: HOW A RECKLESS UPSTART BECAME A VISIONARY LEADER

Steps are as follows :
1. Signup in objectivismonline.com forum
2. Login
3. Goto the following forum
-------------------
http://forum.objectivismonline.com/ -> Browse -> Forums -> Science and the Humanities -> Engineering & Technology -> STUDY GROUP ON HOW iPHONE WAS CONCEPTUALIZED AND DEVELOPED
--------------------
4. Convey your intent by posting in this thread. The post can be as small as containing the text “I will participate”. However I think if you post your work, education, and personal information (like Hobbies and activism related activities), it will lead to better collaboration with other Study-Group members.

5. Actual Study-Group will take place in this thread starting 11th July for 5 weeks

Please message me if you face any problem in understanding or implementing the steps mentioned.
This is my facebook profile - https://www.facebook.com/rohin.gupta.18

Monday, February 8, 2016

Net Neutrality wins, India and "true entrepreneurs" lose.

I disagree with TRAI guidelines because its NOT the job of government to enforce what it thinks are right actions in market, or classify individual actions as charitable or profit driven. Government is instituted to protect rights of those who choose to deploy resources. As long as businessmen deploying resources are working voluntarily with stakeholders, and none of these stakeholders are complaining of any breach of promised terms, government has no right to ban anything. In fact, in case of free basics, at best government should impose fine IF TERMS OF CONTRACT ARE VIOLATED, and that too through courts, when the stakeholders approach it.

Petitioning government to stop private individuals from collaborating is an assault on Liberty. Fullstop, no but.

I don't consider other ISPs or web platforms as stakeholders, because neither they are providing resources for free basics, or are consumers of free basics. If they think free basics will make them noncompetitive, then like any business they should innovate or sell their assets. Thats what Apple did when it faced existential crisis while competing with Microsoft, which also was market driven(rather than government driven) monopoly.

Multiple alternatives are not the essence of Liberty, but its consequence. Essence of Liberty is to act according to one's rational conclusions. There is no guarantee that these conclusions are full proof. But nobody has right to force you to not act. But this is precisely whats happening. Facebook is being forced not to act according to what its stakeholders think is right.
Possible refutations
>In this case who gets to decide what's good >for the public and what gets to be included in >the free basics:
>1) Is it the public by some up voting mechanism?
>2) Is it the government?
>3) Or is it the businesses?
None. Its the market that decides. Market here referring to complete set. If free basics is pushing useless ads or not offering whats required, then its consumers will either spend less time or switch to paid carriers if they find value.
>Or the next innovative service born out of a >garage project by the next Mark Zuckerberg? >Who may probably not have resources to >compete with the Facebook!
>Would Facebook have even existed today if >the free basics was launched (by Microsoft or >google) before it's inception in 2004, and told >facebook "Resistance is futile. You will be >assimilated"?
Let me give you an example from evolutionary biology. Mammals did not evolve from Dinosaurs, birds did. The ancestors of mammals struggled till asteroid wiped out Dinosaurs. If nature had decided to give equal space to both mammals ancestors and Dinosaurs, then I don't think mammals would have developed such sophisticated skills as perception mechanism or neuro mechanism, which ultimately lead to Humans.
True, if there was free basics at the time of facebook, it would have taken more time. But I think it would then have been even better. Perhaps incorporating features of Quora, twitter, and reddit. An example is Disney. For long it had monopoly over animation films. But once its quality deteriorated, it was forced to collaborate with Pixar for Toy Story. Rest is history. Pixar didn't knock "Department of Justice" saying it wants equal distribution for animation. It improved its story telling, and its technology.
Similarly, if poor do not gain sufficient value, they will opt out or move on, leaving facebook's investments in soup. And here, there still are other carriers, and potential last mile internet innovations like set top box to compete for.

So "survival of the fittest" has to be determined by market. Which is a place where government only protects breaches of contracts. And the players collaborate based on what they think is right.