Blog

Would you buy a celebrity's old phone?

by George Lovell | | 0 comments

In 1961, Italian performance artist, Piero Manzoni, produced and sold 90 tins of his own poop. Merda d'artista (the artist's shit), contained 30g of faeces, dried naturally and tinned "with no added preservatives".

Many of these tins sold for tens of thousands of pounds; worth far more than their weight in gold. I found one auction for tin number 54, which sold for £182,500.



In a letter to another artist, Manzoni wrote "if collectors want something intimate, really personal to the artist, there's the artist's own shit, that is really his."

Some of the tins weren't properly sealed and eventually exploded. Imagine that...

In his book, How Pleasure Works, Paul Bloom describes how an object is special “because of its history, either through its relation to admired people or significant events or its connection to someone of personal significance."

I found many examples of this on the internet, including a story of one man who paid $48,875 for a tape measure that was previously owned by John F. Kennedy, seemingly motivated by a sense that it contained some sort of presidential “essence.”



Wild idea - but perhaps not that different to the value that you or I would place on a wedding ring or a child's stick figure drawing - as though a person's essence exists to some degree within that object. Would you trade such an object for an identical copy, or would doing so drain all feelings of awe and reverence that it had previously inspired in you?

Bloom says that "this history is invisible and intangible, and in most cases, there is no test that can ever distinguish the special object from one that looks the same. But still, it gives us pleasure, and the duplicate would leave us cold.”

Whether it's Conor McGregor's championship-winning glove, Steve McQueen's Porsche, or Jimi Hendrix's guitar, people are willing to pay extortionate sums for memorabilia which does not provide any additional utility to the off-the-shelf version. It's actually very unusual for a used product to be sold for significantly more than an equivalent new product, yet some people make a very comfortable living by selling their used underwear on OnlyFans, apparently.

If anything contains an essence, it would surely be our most important, frequently used possession: our mobile phone. So you would think that a Kardashian's old iPhone could fetch quite a high price. Yet I can only find one case where someone paid above retail price for a used mobile phone...



At a basketball game in 2014, Rihanna was taking a selfie with the L.A. Police Commission president when she dropped and broke his iPhone. She signed the back of the case and donated $25,000 to the L.A Police Foundation. The president then sold the broken phone on eBay and raised an additional $65,000.

But this isn't a case of someone buying a phone for its essence. It wasn't Rhianna's phone, and it was sold to raise money for a foundation.



Needless to say, the data inside a phone could be extremely fascinating, insightful and valuable. To gain access to the inner world of your favourite athlete, artist or entrepreneur; from their business deals to their shopping lists to their spending habits; would give you a deep insight into their life.

But if you were to buy a celebrity's phone at auction, it would certainly be reset to factory settings. You'd only have its essence, and whatever value that brings you, if any.

Alternatively, you might see it as an investment - something that will gain value over time and could later be sold for a profit. Given that the market for such a thing clearly doesn't exist, this does not sound like a wise investment - though I'm sure there's at least one filthy-rich creepy collector out there somewhere...

If you've bought or sold your phone through us, then chances are it's been on a unique journey of its own.

My phone belonged to a good customer of ours, who conducts advertising deals via his phone. It has sailed across the Mediterranean and was dropped and broken on a golf course in Spain before I replaced the screen.

For the past 18 months of my life, that same phone has been my sidekick. It's helped me navigate through the Alps, and has fed me thousands of hours of content. It's covered in my DNA, and still has traces of Glastonbury toilets baked into it. It has delivered both fantastic and devastating news, made me laugh and cry, generated income, answered my questions, and held onto my memories and secrets.

In a way, my phone lived a whole life before me, has been through a hell of a lot with me, and will go through a lot with its next owner.

To everyone else, it's just a phone. To me, it has personal significance. Parting with it - for a newer and better model - will be bittersweet.

Is it possible that our phones contain our essence? I don't think so. The stories we tell ourselves about things, influence how we feel about them and consequently shape the essence that we sense in them. Things can grow to become incredibly meaningful to us.



The feelings experienced when walking through Auschwitz, The Colosseum, Wembley Stadium, or London Museum are difficult to comprehend and impossible to explain. Is there an aura, or some kind of intangible energy that encapsulates the past? Perhaps it's all just a story and a feeling.
Thanks for reading!

See Our Blog for the latest industry news, tech tips, company updates, and anything else we feel like writing about. 

     

You might think VR headsets are dumb, but you'll have one soon enough

by George Lovell | | 0 comments

I haven't tried the Apple Vision Pro, but I can see why it's blowing people's minds.

The visual clarity, eye tracking and gesture controls look absolutely insane. 


For a first-gen product, it's remarkable.

Very few people bought the first-generation, iPhone, iPod or Apple Watch. Have you used one recently? They suck. But at the time, they were the business.


Now that we have some solid hardware from Apple, it will be very interesting to see what third-party software developers can come up with. Just as the iPhone really came into its own when it opened the App Store, headsets will take off when all the super-smart coding nerds have something to work with.


Apple, along with a handful of other established brands, have a strong foothold on the smartphone market. This is different. This is a new product; a new industry; new technology - and with it, comes huge new opportunities. 8 Billion people are waiting to purchase their first headset. The doors are officially wide open.

There's no shortage of opportunities for new, small companies that you've never heard of to disrupt the market and progress it forward.

OpenAI - a small startup founded in 2015 - has just recently come along and blown Google out of the water. They've now partnered with Microsoft, and are currently leading the hottest industry in the world right now: Artificial Intelligence. Google, not looking quite so untouchable all of a sudden, has responded - releasing a ton of awesome new products in very a short space of time. These companies are greedy (in a good way), and with the stakes at an all-time high, you can bet they're working harder than ever to get their piece of the pie.

This level of breakneck competition is unprecedented, and will accelerate progression in new tech at rates that we've never seen before.


What if augmented reality and artificial intelligence could be combined to create genuinely immersive experiences?

It's a very exciting time.

What I'd give to have a glimpse into the year 2030...
Thanks for reading!

See Our Blog for the latest industry news, tech tips, company updates, and anything else we feel like writing about. 

     

Will technology play a role in population collapse?

by George Lovell | | 0 comments

The UK birth rate is currently just 1.56. For the first time ever, over 50% of women aged 30 do not have kids. We're having fewer children, and they're going to have even fewer children.

Gen Z/Zoomers - those aged 6-24 - is our smallest generation ever. Depending on which reports you read, we have about 20-30% fewer Zoomers than we had Millennials at the same age. This is partly because their parents, Gen X, were also a small generation.


Zoomers are the first generation to be raised in the era of digitization. In other words, they grew up with an iPad. In the past decade, kids have spent increasingly more time online, and less time socialising.

A more socially awkward generation will presumably go on fewer dates, have fewer partners and therefore fewer children. The data suggests that this is what is happening.    


These days, most relationships are formed via dating apps, which have a lower success rate than alternative methods like being introduced by a mutual friend.

High rates of social media usage are correlated with increased feelings of loneliness. Most kids keep up with their friends over Snapchat; spending more time with their phones than their peers. It's no surprise then that loneliness scores are at an all-time high. 

Constant checking of feeds, being unable to disconnect from work, and notifications about all the terrible things going on in the world might be why Gen Z is labelled the most anxious and stressed generation ever.

Gen Z spends an average of 9 - 11 hours consuming online content every day. The online world seemingly meets our every need, albeit on a shallow level. When boredom is no longer an option, going outside can feel like a waste of time, and forming in-person social connections can feel like an unnecessary stress.



One UK report revealed that 46% of Gen Z do not plan on having kids. Add to that all the people that do plan on having kids but won't (80% of women who didn't have kids, didn't intend to not have kids); fertility rates are dropping; more women are pursuing careers over motherhood; the fact that these stats are trending up, and we could have a real problem.

Population decline is a significant and looming prospect, with potentially severe social and economic consequences. Who will work, pay taxes, and look after this generation when they're old?

Technology is just one of many contributing factors. It's too complex of an issue to determine exactly to what extent technology is/will be to blame, but it's incredibly interesting to think about. How big a factor do you think it is?


This generation will ultimately determine how we integrate all our current and new technologies into our culture. Hopefully, they can do this whilst raising families.

Thanks for reading!

See Our Blog for the latest industry news, tech tips, company updates, and anything else we feel like writing about. 

     

Designed to Deceive

by George Lovell | | 0 comments

Psychological engineering is generally slower and more difficult to change and measure than technological engineering. Hence we still have Push doors with Pull handles. They never just fall off their hinges or fail to open, but they do frustrate us and waste time.



Many websites are poorly designed. Government websites for example, always make it hard to find the information you're looking for. This is because there is no incentive to create a better design. You're going to pay your car tax, regardless of how frustrating and time-consuming it is.

Scam websites are often on the opposite end of the spectrum. I've seen plenty of web pages which have been perfectly designed to trick very young, very elderly, tech-illiterate and gullible people into handing over money or personal details.

Their victims cannot navigate complex sites, so scammers are incentivised to create clear and concise websites.

The landing page often features a clear call to action: "Click Here" - in bright, bold text in the centre of the page. They capture key details as quickly and efficiently as possible. They use stock photos with cheerful, competent human faces, as well as fake reviews, testimonials and accreditations to assert their credibility. 

They create a sense of urgency to trick users into sending money so that they can fix their security problems, redeem a special offer, or claim their prize. An "urgent" problem gives people less time to think and act rationally. And if it only takes a few swipes and taps, they'll do it instinctively, just as they'd Pull a door with a handle, even though a sign tells them to "Push"

Over £1.2 Billion was stolen by fraud in the UK last year, and 98% of this was online, by phone or email. 

Surveys suggest that 84% of people targeted by a fake shopping website engaged with it, and 47% of all targets lost money. Over 50% of total losses are accrued by over 80's.

Using proper password management along with two-factor authentication, whilst being extremely vigilant and cautious with your data online is perhaps more important than locking your car, bike or front door, or keeping your wallet in a zipped front pocket. These are non-negotiable behaviours and habits for the times we live in. 

Don't fall for scams because the website is well-designed. Don't assume that your parents know the difference. Don't push the door with a handle.

Ready to waste your Tuesday morning? Check out these neat little observations on how designs - from advertising to fashion to signage - could be improved:
https://jamesrobertwatson.com/ - part inspiration for this post.


Thanks for reading!

See Our Blog for the latest industry news, tech tips, company updates, and anything else we feel like writing about. 

     

Gen Z wants government surveillance cameras in their home

by George Lovell | | 0 comments

Does that shock you?


In George Orwell's infamous dystopian novel, 1984, citizens are placed under constant surveillance, enabling the government to monitor people at all times, even in their homes. The story offers an extreme example of what can happen when a government gains too much power, and we would assume that most people would be strongly opposed to such surveillance in the real world.

But that assumption is unravelling.

In a new study, 2000 Americans were asked whether they “favour or oppose the government installing surveillance cameras in every household to reduce domestic violence, abuse, and other illegal activity.”

It wasn't too surprising to see that most participants (75%) opposed the intervention.



However, 3 in 10 of 18-29 year-olds were in favour!



The authors suggest that young people today are less exposed to examples of expansive government power, and are therefore less aware of its dangers. Those over 45 are significantly less open to the idea of in-home surveillance. These Americans would have been old enough to remember the Cold War, during which they would have seen many news reports on the Soviet Union surveilling their own people and the dire consequences that ensued.

They tie this into Jonathan Haidt's theory that the younger generation generally prioritises safety (from possible violence or hurtful words) over ensuring robust freedom (from government surveillance or to speak freely).

I suspect that this difference is largely due to the fact that the younger generations have grown up with the internet and social media. Early exposure to these platforms has made it normal (required) to forego privacy in exchange for access to digital services. A significant chunk of our social lives is drip-fed to us by online platforms, and we accept that they will track our behaviours, habits and preferences as a result.

Perhaps also the pandemic expedited this process, with people becoming more accustomed to government, employers, and tech companies exercising authoritarian control over their personal lives.

On the other hand, I have, in recent years, observed an increase in the use of privacy tools such as VPNs, and an overall growing distrust in big tech and governments alike. It's difficult to integrate this observation into these findings.

I found the other demographic factors quite interesting also. African Americans and Hispanic Americans were more likely to support in‐home government surveillance; Democrats and liberals were more likely than Republicans and conservatives. Men and women were roughly equal.



Here's the study report.

I'd be very interested to see this study replicated in the UK. Do you think the results would be different?

Whilst the rather creepy scenario in the study was hypothetical, it does give pause for thought. Why are people becoming more open to the idea of government surveillance - and is it a bad thing?

It's near-impossible to live a "normal" life in a country like the UK or the US without a degree of compliance; and without surrendering a degree of privacy. To an extent and applied appropriately, this probably does make our lives better and safer. But where should we draw the line; pinpoint the equilibrium between sovereignty and autonomy in such a way that maximises our collective welfare? It's a long, convoluted social experiment. We are all participants, whether we like it or not, and the consequences are real.

Thanks for reading!

See Our Blog for the latest industry news, tech tips, company updates, and anything else we feel like writing about.