To start, what an awesome name we have in Copilot. The word is apt. It neatly captures everything we hope this technology could be for us. A resource that’s close enough, so you don’t feel like you’re going out of your way to reach it. Capable, so that you can trust its abilities confidently. And clear on its role, where you set course, and it supports you. Rather like a Copilot. 

As we converge around this exciting technology that is AI, I don’t know that there could be a better-suited partner to lead the way. That wasn’t always the case. It’s no secret that Microsoft has had to evolve both its process and persona to become the organisation we see today. One that has found and reconnected with its soul. I’m inspired by this. I too am working on myself. From one work in progress to another; well done for going on that journey. Your pioneering spirit and service posture earn you my vote of confidence.

Copilot for Windows is probably the closest to having an AI companion that works alongside us. It’s remarkable how much our sense of what’s possible has evolved in the last 18 months. Something that felt like a utopian dream not so long ago now seems reasonable to expect. In a short time, we’ve gone from asking “How on earth?” to “Why not?” 

This feels like a pivotal moment when we embed AI deeply into Windows, the very platform many of us rely on to deliver our life’s work.

I’m hopeful and nervous at the same time. Hear my thoughts. 

Safety first

Let’s address the elephant in the room, safety.

I take comfort in knowing you’ll spare no effort to safeguard user data. To be sure, I think you’re far more capable in this regard than myself, and the average user. However, it is true that despite our best efforts – yours and mine – bad outcomes are still possible, often presenting in ways we least expect. And it’s this residual risk that calls for special care. To make things more interesting, AI is an especially tricky technology to safeguard. Like the digital marketing sector which has perfected the science of targeted ads, AI works best with full access to user data.

Alas, not everyone wants this level of exposure to AI, especially at this stage. Some users want to dip their toes in to make sure the temperature is right for them. Others are more confident, and happy to start with a deep dive. For good measure, some will gladly venture in and make a splash, but need the assurance that the waters are shallow, and if they have to, they can stand and walk away. You get the gist. Comfort levels differ. How we respond to these individual differences can make all the difference. Pun intended.

Here’s an idea that has resonated with me: letting users tell you their comfort levels. From a user perspective, they would be making a direct tradeoff between their exposure to the AI, and the functionality they get from it. Preferences would range between all and nothing. 

One user may limit Copilot to their local files for example, with no app access. Realistically, the value-add in this context would be more like an AI-enhanced filename search. Adding file content access would allow the AI to surface shared themes across different files. One might ask a question like “What do my files say about ESG?” to discover multiple results related to this broad topic within their files. The benefits are outsized for the user who gives the AI full access. 

Building on the notion that users would want to choose how closely they relate to Copilot, here are some ideas for giving users the agency they need to manage their relationship with the AI. 

Copilot and user-agency

Make it easy

A pet peeve of mine is when important settings are buried in layers of sub-menus. Finding them becomes an endurance test, and most users, myself included, are not ready to go above and beyond. The natural solution is to make it easy. With modern UI/UX design at its current level, this is achievable. 

While there’s no precedent for an AI assistant on an operating system, I see natural parallels (and crossovers) between a web browser and Copilot for Windows. Both plug into the internet as part of their normal use. And in so doing, both create the risk of security breaches. As a result, both require robust security tools and controls to mitigate this risk. 

You’ve had some time to practise with security and privacy settings on the Edge browser. For the most part, I think you’ve nailed it on simplicity and usability. This fills me with hope. I trust you’ll bring the same UI/UX design philosophy into Copilot for Windows, enabling users to easily (and precisely) dial in their preferences. 

In simple terms, you want to make it easy for Copilot users to dip their toes, make a splash, or go all in. 

Default to safety

When users haven’t stated their preferences, you often have to make assumptions about them. In these situations, the assumptions we make about user preferences and needs will impact many, and those assumptions should be informed by the right ideas. 

It’s like planning a party for many people. Do you make it interesting and take liberties with the food menu? Or do you accommodate those who may have special dietary needs? This is not an enviable position to be in, I admit. It requires one to balance the risks to a few, against the presumed wants of many. 

It might be possible to achieve both. If we put everything on the table and label all of it, we empower users to make informed choices that work for them. 

In this regard, my advice would be, don’t serve, educate. Bringing this idea to Copilot for Windows, default settings should prioritise safety, and not make assumptions about which risks users are willing to take. Put the options in plain sight, and give users clear choices.

I realise this may seem counterintuitive, especially when there is a financial imperative in play. Ultimately, users will stick to their own choices in the long term. Helping them make those choices is a win-win and builds trust. 

Be transparent

One criticism of AI at the moment is that it’s not explainable. There are inputs and outputs, but the process in between does not follow simple logic. This makes it hard to know exactly what’s happening under the hood. 

As a user, I don’t need to know the details, I probably wouldn’t understand them. I do believe, however, that it would be useful to know what data is feeding into the AI. This would enable me to gauge how extensive the data is, and how effective Copilot is at using it.

User data can be presented in several ways: cumulatively, on a query-by-query basis, periodically (e.g. in each billing cycle) etc. What’s important is that it strikes a balance between simplicity and detail.

In the same vein, users should be able to delete their data permanently, if they wish to. Clear out the cache if you will. 

These are not entirely new concepts. The right of access and right to be forgotten are among several data privacy protections based on the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and similar laws. Data regulators will be pleased to note a healthy alignment with their values. That can only be good for business. 

But something happened just last week. It feels like an official response to Apple’s dominance. In what looks like a choreographed move, several PC makers announced new devices that promise to rival Apple silicon in performance and efficiency. All these devices share a common denominator, they have one of two breakthrough chips from Qualcomm, a leading chip company known for its presence in the mobile space. 

It’s game on from the competition. To appreciate what’s happened here, it helps to reflect briefly on how Apple came to dominate the space.

A brief recap 

The technology behind Apple’s M-series chips that now power their product line wasn’t always first in class for desktop devices. Based on the ARM chipset architecture that is popular in mobile devices due to its minimal power draw, their earliest attempts to power desktop PCs with it failed to keep up with the performance of Intel processors. Indeed, in 2005, Apple made the strategic decision to put Intel processors into their PC lineup.

But being a mobile-first company, they still had use for the ARM-based chips and continued to power their mobile devices with it. Over the years, the team kept improving the technology through successive iterations, until they felt it was ready for the next big thing, and put the M1, an upgraded version of the iPhone chip, into the Mac lineup in 2021. They haven’t looked back. 

The performance of these chips has since given Apple what seemed like an unassailable lead. But that narrative is now in check, with Qualcomm’s newly released chips.

Hello Snapdragon X

In November 2023, Qualcomm’s CEO announced a new ARM-based chip that would establish leadership in the PC device space, with claimed performance benchmarks making headlines. The mobile chip company, best known for its Snapdragon lineup had been building up their capabilities in the PC space. In 2021, they paid $1.4b for NUVIA, a startup founded by former Apple engineers, all of whom worked in senior roles on Apple’s mobile chip technology. A not-so-subtle statement of intent. 

Earlier this week, Microsoft, Lenovo, HP and Dell were among the first to announce products featuring Qualcomm’s new ARM-based chips for PC, the Snapdragon X Elite and Snapdragon X Plus. We can reasonably expect more brands to line up for a piece of the action. It’ll be interesting to see how things shape up once these products start shipping to customers very soon.

Notably, the chips are cheaper to produce. As such, the products they power should be cheaper. That’s a significant detail. Since Apple’s devices are often criticised for being overpriced, a technological breakthrough that could reduce the competition’s price only brings this concern into sharper focus. 

It’s also worth noting that the Snapdragon X series chips boast superior battery life and on-device AI capabilities.

Microsoft plans to leverage these AI capabilities through an AI assistant for Windows called Copilot (currently in preview). In a recent announcement, they referred to new AI-enhanced PCs that can take full advantage of the AI in Windows as Copilot+ PCs.

The scene is set for a major showdown. By tuning ARM-based chips for PCs, Apple showed a proof of concept to everyone, and notes were taken. Now Qualcomm is moving to bring the benefits to the wider PC consumer world. But it’s not all roses and red carpets. There are considerable headwinds to contend with.

Some headwinds

For one, PC makers don’t have the same control over their Operating System (Windows) as Apple does with Macs. This makes it hard for PCs to achieve the level of finesse in the overall user experience that Mac owners know and love. Microsoft admittedly has a leg up on other PC makers with their surface line-up, considering they control the OS and the devices. I’m hoping this integration translates to a better user experience.

Staying on user experience, there might be a more significant technical barrier to scale for Windows on ARM. Several experts note that most Windows software in the market today is developed for the other type of chip, that is not ARM. Specifically, the x86 chip architecture which brands like Intel and AMD are synonymous with. The challenge is bringing Windows apps natively to ARM. 

Microsoft rightly anticipated this need. In their recent keynote, they announced Prism, a new ARM emulator on Windows 11. Think of it as a translation layer that helps ARM-based Windows PCs decode apps that were written for x86 chips. It’s true that developers now have an incentive to do the legwork of creating ARM versions of their apps to run natively on the new PCs. But as long as there are apps that can’t run natively on ARM chips, the ability of Prism to plug this gap and keep x86 apps running smoothly on ARM will be significant to the user experience. 

Final thoughts

When Qualcomm CEO, Cristiano Amon, made the initial announcement late last year, he didn’t mince words. 

I’m very pleased to tell you that there’s a new sheriff in town.

I wonder what the next play for x86 chip brands like Intel and AMD would be, all things considered. Whether or not this threat proves existential would depend on their ability to reposition and pivot. I’m not too concerned though, Big Tech companies tend to have a plan. They’ll invest a bunch and make things happen.

To square with you, I don’t have $1.4b in loose change lying around – this economy is something. But that kind of money can certainly buy a wealth of possibility, and do a world of good. And I’m here for it.

Good morning…

Tim Cook began characteristically, after a rather colourful animation sequence.

Welcome to Apple Park.

What followed was thirty-seven minutes of product information, mostly about their new iPad devices. 

For the first time in a while, the iPads got a refresh. And while some might argue that there was no urgent need, many would say it was long overdue – the heart wants what it wants.

For the competition, the message from Apple was loud and clear: catch me if you can. Let’s unpack some of the announcements, and, more importantly, why they matter. 

The iPad Air

A good place to start is the new iPad Air. It gets the M2 chip, which is newer than the M1 Pro chip in the Macbook I’m currently typing this on. While the beefier M2 Pro and M2 Max chips offer more performance, the base M2 chip is no slouch, so this shouldn’t feel like a concession. It’ll breeze through web browsing and media consumption. It can even support more intensive tasks like gaming and 4K video editing. 

Recognizing that this iPad Air would easily suffice for most users, Apple has made the strategic decision to offer it in two sizes. For the first time, the Air is available in the native 11-inch and the new 13-inch version. The idea is to cater to the light user who may not need bleeding-edge capabilities but still appreciates more canvas. With the additional space, a few more use cases open up. Tack on a keyboard for even more versatility. 

Well played Apple.

There was one more big announcement. 

The iPad Pro

For the more discerning customer, the star of the show was the redesigned iPad Pro. Highlight features are its thinness, an OLED display (a first for the iPad), and the next generation of Apple silicon: the M4 chip. It’s the first time Apple debuted their silicon on the iPad. This fourth-generation chip promises even more performance and higher efficiency. 

Pundits argue that putting this much power into a device which is not typically used for CPU-intensive tasks would seem counterintuitive. Indeed “counterintuitive” is often used to describe many of Apple’s strategic choices. Sometimes, it takes the rest of us a moment to make sense of Apple’s bigger vision – Apple TV is a prime example of this. Other times the vision just doesn’t catch on. The 2013 Mac Pro (aka the trash can) evoked strong consumer sentiments and serves as a cautionary tale here.  

For better or worse, the new iPad Pro packs more punch than most of us could possibly need.

Other Announcements

Other significant announcements include the new Apple Pencil Pro. It features a squeeze gesture which users and developers can customise in creative ways. A newly built-in gyroscope allows the Pencil Pro to support a roll gesture, something that sketch artists, calligraphers, and other users who require a high level of precision would appreciate.

Also announced was the new Magic Keyboard for iPad Pro, with a design that now features a function row, an aluminium palm rest, and a larger trackpad. All for an enhanced, richer, iPad experience.

Final Thoughts

All things considered, it would seem like Apple is intentionally expanding the realm of possibilities which the iPad lineup presents. This aligns with their Blue Ocean Strategy of developing uncontested market space, rather than competing for a share of a finite pie. 

One wonders if the competition is happy to be left alone, or jittery at the prospect of being made redundant.

Thankfully, most of us don’t need to do so just yet. Until recently, I haven’t had any real use for ChaptGPT and other chatbot tools. Admittedly, that hasn’t deterred me from spending copious amounts of time being immersed in them – I’ve dabbled my fair share.

Recently, however, I needed to automate a manual spreadsheet task. More specifically, I needed to copy and paste data from different spreadsheets. While it’s true that I could do this manually, I found the repetition to be tedious and draining. That being so, I set out to build version 2.0 of the spreadsheet, with automation to do the heavy lifting.

It was the perfect opportunity to test the waters. Here’s how it went.

A Crash Course In Prompt-Engineering

Using ChatGPT as my tool of choice, I prompted it for a script to “copy and paste data from one sheet to another.” The first few iterations revealed just how vague this instruction was. Some basic questions emerged.

Firstly, the script needed to filter out empty cells before pasting it. This way, I wouldn’t have to delete blank cells whenever the script ran. Also, the content had to go in a specific column. I needed to figure out how to prompt ChatGPT for this in the automation.

These are just two examples of the details I needed to specify in my prompting. I resorted to making a list of steps for the automation to follow. Steps that come naturally to me and are easy to overlook. I eventually got the intended outcome, albeit after an embarrassing number of iterations. I even added other automation features to the spreadsheet. That said, the arduous process of using ChatGPT was quite sobering. It forced me to reflect on the downside of using such a tool.

Not Exactly Flawless

There’s a hard limit to what we can expect from large language models like ChatGPT. While they are remarkably capable, they often fall short in equally remarkable ways. 

In her TED talk titled Why AI is incredibly smart and shockingly stupid, computer scientist Yejin Choi demonstrates how models like ChatGPT and similar LLM tools that have pulled off incredible technical feats, could fail spectacularly in the realm of common sense.

She further explains that language captures only a glimpse of how the world works. Since LLMs are trained on textual and language data, this insight is crucial to understanding why the models have such sizable blind spots. Many unspoken rules of life are not part of our language – such as human norms and values. Hence, training models on even larger data sets will not necessarily result in the human-like reasoning we know and appreciate as common sense.

This concept explains why the situational intelligence needed to translate my basic prompts into detailed instructions was lacking in ChatGPT. I had to refine my prompts, adding more detail with each iteration, to get the desired results. 

That said, we still have an incredible opportunity in LLMs.

Unpacking The Value

Beyond the experiment I shared, there are other ways to extract value from ChatGPT and similar tools. In a recent conversation with an academic, for example, I learned that LLMs are hugely effective at summarising lengthy journal articles, saving researchers countless hours. 

When working with LLMs, we should provide effective prompts with sufficient instruction and context for the best results. Compare this to Google searches, where a single phrase (or sentence) is enough. LLMs need a bit more input. The adage applies: garbage in, garbage out. If you want ChatGPT to write an email, for example, you’ll need to tell it what to write and your preferred writing tone at a minimum. 

What if you’re using the tool to size up a problem or topic? In these situations, the best prompts are clear but open-ended. You want to ask wh-type questions: what, when, who, where and why? I asked ChatGPT to “explain why income inequality is a difficult problem.” The 473-word response featured a brief introduction, 11 well-explained points, and a helpful outro – a great starting point for anyone researching the subject.

In hindsight, I could have applied this idea to my spreadsheet challenge by starting with a better prompt like: 

List the steps needed to copy data from one spreadsheet into another. 

The results would have saved me quite some time. 

AI And You

As exciting as the times may be, they’re just as chaotic. There are uncertainties about how the cards may fall. It is OK to feel anxious about job security and your place in this brave new world of LLMs and Generative AI more broadly.

Regardless of how these concerns may land, it helps to appreciate that the real value lies in what we do next. Channelling that anxiety into curiosity and initiative will help you position yourself to leverage these technologies in profound ways. 

I’m on a journey to learn as much as I can about Gen AI and tech more broadly. As I do so, I hope to see the opportunity it presents more clearly and share it with those around me. 

Your relationship with technology doesn’t need to look like mine. What’s important, however, is to recognise the tidal wave of tech in this moment, and get yourself on the right side of it.

The PC vs Mac debate is probably one of the most divisive in tech. It is specific enough to point us in the direction of a polarised topic. Yet too vague to help us resolve it definitively. Of course, most of the chatter happens in the grey areas. 

Full disclosure, I use a PC at my day job. And at home, I switch between a 14-inch Macbook Pro and an iMac. So I’m well acquainted with the experience of living and working in both worlds.

In this thought, we’ll attempt to unpack why the PC vs Mac question is so contentious. And we’ll tease out how these options represent vastly different propositions.

But first, let’s agree on definitions.

What is a PC? And what is a Mac?

PC is short for personal computer. This includes desktops and laptops but not mobile devices. So technically, all the products in Apple’s Mac lineup would classify as PCs. While that’s true in principle, the real world is more nuanced. The folks at Apple have worked so hard to create the Mac brand. There shouldn’t be any confusion here.

For the rest of this article, we’ll stick to the street convention.

A PC is any desktop or laptop device running on the Windows operating system. And a Mac is any product in Apple’s Mac lineup. Apple’s desktops and laptop devices share the Mac name, a throwback to the Macintosh – their very first PC. Mac devices run on Apple’s proprietary operating system, Mac OS. 

To state the obvious, a PC is not a Mac. The line that separates the two is well and truly present in many hearts and minds.

Let’s explore that separation a bit further. 

Unpacking the PC

A Statista report puts the Windows market share at 74.14% as of January 2023, with MacOS at 15.33%. Microsoft’s Windows OS dominates the market for good reason. 

What’s more noteworthy, however, is the strategy behind this market position, and how that strategy ties into Microsoft’s proposition.

Simply put, Microsoft has partnered with hardware manufacturers to distribute the Windows Operating System. This is why brands like HP, Acer and Dell can sell Windows PCs. They design, build and sell their brand of computers, running on Windows.

It has proved to be a lucrative arrangement for Microsoft, especially during the PC revolution when fierce competition between brands fostered innovation and exponential market growth. Today there’s practically a PC for every consumer, from the price-sensitive to the power-hungry.

By creating the operating system, Microsoft gives PC manufacturers a platform to build on top of. There is, however, a tradeoff between the benefits of partnership and achieving (let’s call it) peak PC. 

Manufacturing brands are making major concessions to align their product vision with Microsoft’s vision of the Windows operating system.

These tradeoffs are seen and felt most in the everyday PC experience. In many ways, it’s simply unpolished. To be sure, the experience has come a long way from the early days when we had to install drivers for every peripheral – that was brutal. Yet still, the PC experience leaves a lot to be desired. We’re at the point where every PC user knows the first step for troubleshooting any issue – a system reboot. It’s a hint at how much the user experience still needs to mature. 

What if the entire production process converged around the ideal user experience?

Unboxing the Mac

Apple’s mission statement is clear:

..bringing the best user experience to customers through innovative hardware, software, and services.

The aim is simple – the best user experience, period.

If you’ve ever used a Mac device you’ll know the feeling of being catered to. Material choice, design and software decisions all feel deeply considered, leading to an enhanced experience. The best part, things just work! No need to tinker here and fine-tune there. That’s the benefit of making both the operating system, and the products that run on them – the Macs. 

But the proposition doesn’t end there. Beyond the Mac lineup, Apple is also behind the iPhone, iPad, Apple Watch, and Apple TV, and a host of services that elevate the user experience into a new stratosphere. For example, Apple Carplay brings features like messaging, calling, music play, podcasts and hey Siri into the driving experience. At this point, I wouldn’t consider buying a car that doesn’t support Carplay. Other services like Handoff and Airdrop make it easy to transition your workflow – including live calls – from one Apple device to another. Dubbed the Apple ecosystem, this growing list of value-added services make for a rather compelling proposition. 

Apple’s stance on the user experience even extends to their customer service posture. I learnt this when I bought an iMac a few years back. There was a strange screen flicker every few minutes affecting a small number of users. The return and replacement process was incredibly smooth, with no questions asked. Contrast this with some PC brands that subject you to extensive troubleshooting to determine if their manufacturer’s warranty would cover it before a replacement is approved. 

Different Propositions

To date, the Windows PC is the de facto choice for corporations. Most productivity apps are designed to run on Windows. Needless to say that corporations like productivity a lot. And Microsoft, the company behind the PC, is not shy about taking a pro-productivity stance. Speaking to the Wall Street Journal on the opportunity that is ChatGPT and AI, here’s what Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella had to say. 

We need something that truly changes the productivity curve so that we can have real economic growth.

This statement captures Microsoft’s central ethos of helping people do more with technology. It’s the same idea that fueled the PC revolution many years ago, making Microsoft incredibly popular and valuable. To be sure, it is still as relevant as ever. What we see Microsoft doing with AI is simply a present-day iteration of this idea. They’re helping us all do more with AI.

Apple, on the other hand, has never been about productivity. At least it’s not the primary focus. Their real obsession is the user experience, and finding ways to elevate it. So while team Microsoft may want to help you 10x your output, Apple just wants to make sure you enjoy creating your best work. They strip away complexity and add relevant features at key pain points. The Apple choice prioritises ease and elegance over productivity. 

It is tempting to pit the PC and Mac against each other for a satisfying head-to-head. On closer review, however, we realise how these options represent very different ideas. And that’s OK.

The chatbot, developed by Open AI, is an advanced language model that pools data from multiple domains to form intelligent, contextually relevant responses to queries in natural language. Its incredible potential has been met with a mix of excitement on one end, and concern on the other. 

Right now, tech giants are in a race for AI dominance. Microsoft has invested heavily in Open AI and is moving to bring the capabilities we see in ChatGPT into their product stack, for an experience that would rival Google search. And Google, not to be outdone, recently announced their AI-enhanced chatbot, codenamed Bard. Among other advanced features, Bard will bring Google’s conversational intelligence into search.

The stage is set for a seismic shift in how we experience search, and AI is at the heart of it. But how do we parse this shift? To clarify what might result from making these advanced capabilities freely accessible, it helps to revisit the beginnings of search as we know it. 

Getting Here

Since the internet took flight back in 1989, we’ve levelled the barriers to information access. This led us neatly into a period of information ubiquity – anyone could share anything at any time. I vaguely recall a time when many of us were finding our voices on WordPress and Blogspot, two of the more popular blogging platforms. Around the same time, we were finding each other on social media – rekindling old connections and making new ones. It wasn’t so long ago that we entered this brave new world. 

That’s how the internet – not the library – became the preferred source of information. And all this information needed finding somehow. Enter Google, the leading search engine provider. Google launched in 1998, just in time for the dot com boom. Over the years, Google has become synonymous with inquiry and is – rather fittingly – viewed as the world’s information catalogue. Suffice it to say that Google’s dominance in the search space has never been threatened seriously.

But Google, and the current search model, are not perfect. 

The Problem With Traditional Search

Search as we know it excels at presenting information that is already online. Think of it as a GPS for navigating the internet. We enter a search term, and Google points us in a few different directions, ranked by supposed relevance. 

The results we get reflect the quality of the input. The model assumes we know what we’re searching for, well enough to represent it in a few characters. That is true most of the time, but not always. Sometimes, we don’t have a search term neatly lined up. Instead, we have real-world questions to answer. Here’s where things get sketchy. 

We are increasingly bringing questions to Google. And these questions are complex and nuanced in ways that don’t map neatly to what’s already out there. That’s exactly where the current search model falls on its face – nuance and complexity. 

An Intelligent Search Experience

I entered a search query into Google to source information on preventing burnout. The results featured what burnout is, how it differs from stress, the harm it causes, and how to manage it. These were all spread across the first 5 results. Then there was the occasional tip for preventing burnout, which was the question, to begin with. 

Here’s what ChatGPT provided in response to the query, “How do I avoid burnout?”

In my opinion, this is a very focused list that is directly relevant to the question. It is also a better starting place for this inquiry than a list of 36.3m results sourced from the web in 0.45 seconds. Each point here represents a thought we could explore individually. 

I further asked ChatGPT to develop point 3. Here’s what I got:

Admittedly this reads like a considered (even well-researched) response. The sentences are well constructed, and the logic is sound. Importantly, the AI’s ability to present a contextually relevant follow-up answer gives this chat dialogue the feel of an intelligent conversation.

A New, Improved Search Category

ChatGPT and AI bots represent a new search category, both conceptually and experientially. 

The current search model, led by Google, does a great job cataloguing online information and giving it back to us when we search for it. We’ve had access to the world’s information for a while now. Oftentimes, however, our queries present questions and problems that require harnessing this information, not merely pointing to it. 

This is where ChatGPT and AI bots excel over the current model. For the first time, we don’t merely have access to information, we can now wield it in ways that apply directly to real-world needs.

We’ve graduated from having a digital library at our fingertips to having an intelligent research assistant. That’s a big step forward. And we’re still in the honeymoon phase of this new technology, excitedly exploring its possibilities.

As we adjust to this shiny new tool, it’s worth noting that ChatGPT – and AI-enhanced search – are not a magic wand. There are imperfections. 

Known Limitations of ChatGPT

The folks over at Open AI are clear on the limits of ChatGPT. Once logged into the platform, you’re greeted with a screen that features (among other things) these limitations:

• May occasionally generate incorrect information
• May occasionally produce harmful instructions or biased content
• Limited knowledge of world and events after 2021

The first two are especially concerning. Unlike humans, this tool does not quite know how to fact-check its answers. So while we embrace it as an intelligent research assistant, we should know that it’s not always as prudent. Numerous online reviewers have highlighted inaccuracies in the results. 

That reminds us of the obvious – it is a search tool. However seemingly intelligent, ChatGPT does not excuse the need for intellectual agency in our approach to inquiry. We should not take the answers it provides at face value, but have some process for vetting and validating them. 

Despite its limitations, ChatGPT has changed how we search for answers. This marks the not-so-humble beginnings of a new era. 

A Brave New World

Microsoft is not shy about its intentions. In an interview with the Wall Street Journal about new chat features coming to Bing search, CEO Satya Nadella stated that users will be able to “have a full-on conversation around all the search data.”  At the time of writing this article, Microsoft is also beta-testing their new Edge browser, said to have a sidebar with AI-enhanced features like summarising the current web page and writing an email in your preferred style.

It’ll be interesting to see how Google integrates Bard into their existing search experience. As it stands, Team Microsoft has what feels like a clear advantage in this new AI-enhanced search era. But Google search is native to all of us. And conversational intelligence is something that Google has already featured impressively well on their Pixel smartphone. The race is far from over. 

Whatever happens, search as we know it is changing. That change is set to reinvent our relationship with information. The implications for the knowledge worker remain the subject of much debate and speculation.

Technology will do what technology always does: give us a level of agency we haven’t seen yet. What we do with this agency as employers, employees and everyday users, reflect who we are and what we stand for.

This opening remark during Alphabet’s recent earnings disclosure event aptly frames the company’s aspirations. Google and Alphabet CEO, Sundar Pichai, could not have said it better. In many ways, the tech giant finds itself at a crossroads. A misstep could cost them time and momentum – money is not an object. The road ahead is uncertain, and standing still is not an option.

But sharpening focus is easier said than done. It requires clarity around the big questions: what we stand for, and our overarching value proposition. For a company going through what looks and feels like an identity crisis, this is a pivotal question. So much else depends on it. 

This article reflects on tension points the Google group will need to master in finding and leveraging its core strengths, and putting forward a compelling proposition. While it may not be feasible to establish a universally fixed posture – surviving in tech does require incredible agility – it’s worth optimising key product decisions on these dimensions.

Focused versus Curious

A starting point for this conversation is the number of products Google currently supports. At the time of writing this article, there are 101 business and consumer solutions listed on the product page. That’s a large number. More notably, these products do not fall into a single vision. We cannot glimpse an answer to the question of what Google is about by looking at its products.

As a Google consumer, I use about 10 of these products – mostly Search, Gmail and YouTube. Despite my best efforts, I cannot see myself using many of their other products. For example, did you know that Google supports a video editing software branded Google Web Designer? Did you also know that you could buy domains from Google Domains? The product portfolio delivers a broad range of solutions to completely unrelated problems. It gets more interesting.

Take a closer look, and you quickly notice considerable product overlap. Google TV, for example, overlaps with YouTube premium and Chromecast. Similarly, the Messages product overlaps with Hangouts and Meets. While these products are arguably different in some ways, they are similar in their essential purpose. This means Google is effectively pitting their products (and product managers) against each other.

It’s OK to explore different sources of growth. However, curiosity is a two-sided coin. It could either lead to clarity on one hand or (less remarkably) chaos on the other. Sometimes, the difference is not so apparent until we step back and realise there is no big picture to see.

On a more positive note, Google does appear to be taking some corrective measures by shelving overlapping products. Take Google Surveys and Surveys 360 for example. The idea with these products was to help gather the insights needed to make smarter, faster business decisions – in a fraction of the time. The problem was that Google Forms is a great tool that is wildly popular, capable, and free. Surveys and Surveys 360 are being sunset.

There is a product deep clean underway. And that’s welcome. Let’s consider a more structural tension. One that relates to how Google positions itself in the market. 

Integrated versus Insulated

Google has (for the most part) welcomed the idea of working with strategic partners to deliver their products. They’ve built the software and left the hardware to other players. Contrast this to fellow tech giant Apple, whose ecosystem of products and services is often referred to as a ‘walled garden.’

One product that showcases Google’s openness is the Chromebook. It’s a laptop device that runs on Google’s proprietary Operating System, Chrome OS. Laptop manufacturers get to create their versions of Chromebook, catering to different niches from the price sensitive, to the performance hungry. While Chromebook and Chrome OS are a more recent iteration of Google’s open model, they’re not the only ones. Google’s Android Operating System is a more established example of this model in the smartphone market. This type of hardware partnership fosters innovation in the space and enhances the buying options for consumers.

The model is not without its shortcomings. For one, this level of interdependence makes it hard for Google to control the customer experience fully. Hardware manufacturers profoundly influence how we experience Android Phones and Chromebooks. Consequently, Google cannot have a holistic vision of the customer experience.

In fairness, Google has never been a hardware company. But without deep hardware integration, it is hard to achieve the level of fit and finish in the customer experience that comes so naturally to Apple, their main competition. Indeed Apple is widely regarded as the archetype of customer-centric product design. 

Google has since entered the hardware space with remarkable results. Their Pixel Phone quickly set the bar for what a smartphone could be after it launched in 2016. It is widely regarded as the smartest smartphone in the room. The Pixel takes what Google does best – building powerful utilities – and amplifies it in a smartphone. The Pixel Phone is known for its groundbreaking innovations in image processing, call screening, caller assistance, and voice-to-text functionality among other features.

Google’s integration into hardware is not confined to smartphones. The Pixelbook, Google’s very own Chromebook, has made similar waves in the Chromebook space. We are seeing Google unlock immense potential by stepping into hardware. If I had to call it, Google’s strength is intelligent (not necessarily beautiful) design.

Beyond product clarity and building hardware capabilities, there is yet another tension for the group to master.

Consumption versus Community

The final question relates to the balance between consumption and community. I see this playing out most prominently on the YouTube front. Two strategic priorities avail: Make it easy to consume videos, or make it easy to connect with content creators. The first priority may yield improvements in search result relevance, UI, and accessibility. And the latter could result in features to help YouTubers leverage content to connect with their followers at a deeper level.

Nothing prevents YouTube from optimising for both. But there is a line between what is possible and what is ideal. And finding the balance between consumption and community requires brand clarity. It requires knowing why people gravitate to a brand. The main competition here is not Meta or Twitter. It is Netflix.

YouTube recently informed its channel managers of an interesting new feature launch. According to the communication, handles will ‘make it easier for members of the community to find and connect with each other.’ Viewers who want to leave a comment can now mention the channel using its handle. It strikes me as a great idea. It does, however, feel like a precursor to something larger. YouTube may be thinking strategically about community and connection.

To be sure, YouTube is a place for consuming video content primarily. In some cases, viewers may want to connect with the content creator. Does this warrant a shift in focus? I’m concerned that if YouTube evolves to cater for connection and community, it may deter those who just want to consume content. That is most people. 

As it is, social media is a mature industry. Imperfect but mature. The idea that people are willing and eager to change how they connect online is presumptuous at best. It would take a large buzz to affect consumer patterns at any scale. Speaking of buzz, the group’s prior forays into social media, including Google+ and (lest we forget) Google Buzz, all failed to live up to consumer hype. Making connection and community a strategic focus yet again would be a hard sell to consumers.

The Google Way

This article unpacks all my concerns for a brand that has grown on me over the years. As someone well within Google’s fold – I’m currently writing this on a Google Doc – I think the Google proposition today is the best we’ve seen yet. I’m excited by the possibility. Google’s office suite – Google Workspace – is hands-down the best in the cloud. Google’s Search and YouTube are essentially unrivalled in their respective categories. 

But I’m even more excited by the Google promise. Their stated mission is to organise the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful. I’ll admit, it doesn’t have a gracious ring to it. But for what it lacks in elegance, it makes up in functionality. That to me is the true essence of Google’s brand. It empowers us with the agency needed to access, manage and leverage information.

And that’s a promise which Google is in pole position to deliver.

Image source: Google.

The URL (my wife noted) looked like a random plate number with a .com at the end of it. Nobody clicked through. Also, the message, “Pay now to save up the late fees”, felt unpolished. As it happens, I have the tollway app installed on my phone. A quick browse of my transactions put the legitimacy of this effort beyond question. 

When it comes to cybersecurity, bad actors are increasingly unrelenting. In Australia, $381,256,046 has been reported in fraudulent losses at the time of writing this article. That’s just this year – 2022!

This article features a curation of measures and best practices you can implement, to help mitigate this looming threat and safeguard yourself online. 

Use A Strong Password

The risk is real. And your mother’s maiden name is hardly an ideal password or password recovery question. The same is true for your pet’s name. Indeed pets are no longer as private as they once were. They now have fully-fledged identities and buoyant social lives, complete with park strolls, pet parties and (of course) social media stardom. One might argue that they should also be worrying about these online risks. 

Security.org is a site dedicated to online security. They have a handy tool (linked here) to give you a sense of password security. As you type in a password, the tool calculates how quickly it could get hacked. The page also features a section on How To Create Secure Passwords. You want to have at least ten (10) characters, combining letters, numbers and symbols. A 16-character password is ideal. Most modern web browsers will serve a secure password option when a new signup is detected. 

Here are two important best practices with passwords. Avoid reusing the same password on multiple sites. In the unfortunate event of a breach, this practice limits the risk to the breached website. Also, sharing your passwords with someone else is not ideal. It has nothing to do with demonstrating trust and everything to do with mitigating risk. 

There is a way to check if your details are compromised. The website haveibeenpwned.com searches the email address or contact number you enter against a library of known breaches.

Use A password Manager

Most modern web browsers – including Google Chrome, Safari and Microsoft Edge – offer to save your passwords. Not having to recall and retype these every time is certainly an attractive convenience and one I’ve benefited immensely from. That said, it’s not without risks.

In the unfortunate event that the laptop or desktop device is breached, all the passwords stored on it are exposed. This is handsomely convenient for the hacker. I’ve recently had to rethink storing my passwords on web browsers. 

Password managers like lastpass.com or 1password.com can help you get around this vulnerability. At the time of writing this article, lastpass.com has a free tier that’s limited to either desktop or mobile use. Technology website techradar.com compiled a more comprehensive list of the Best Password Managers of 2022, linked here. Password managers also allow you to store sensitive credit card and other personal details securely. This reduces the need to store payment details on the browser and third-party sites.

Furthermore, password managers feature additional layers of security that make it difficult for hackers to breach the data. For example, 1password.com (which I use) combines a lengthy secret key (known only to the account holder) with the user password to encrypt data. According to their site, they do not keep records of secret keys. This means that if the 1password site was hacked (hypothetically), the perpetrators would not be able to decrypt and read user data.

Two Factor Authentication (2FA)

We’re hearing a lot more about two-factor authentication lately. So what is it? Two-factor authentication combines traditional verification – typically a password – with something else to ensure that the right person is accessing the service. This could be face ID, a fingerprint, or a code that’s sent to the registered phone or email associated with an account. 

The logic of two-factor authentication says You’ve done X to prove your identity. But if you are who you say you are, you should also be able to do Y. When processing transactions online, for example, financial institutions often send a text code to the user’s contact number. Entering the code is required to complete the transaction. 

Many online services have integrated 2FA into their processes. It adds a layer of security to the online experience by requiring an extra verification step at crucial points. And if the user didn’t initiate the transaction, 2FA serves as a timely notification. 

If you have the option, activate two-factor authentication on your online accounts. It makes it harder for cyber criminals to breach your accounts. 

On Phishing Communication

Phishing is when crooks try to bait you into giving up your personal or financial information. Phishing communications take different forms, including text messages, emails, and phone calls.

If you receive an email or text message from someone you do not have any relationship with, do not click on any links in it. Mark it as spam and ignore it. A legitimate sender will have other ways to contact you. 

Phishing communications typically require a fast response. Attackers present the illusion of a passing opportunity or an imminent threat. It is a mind trick. Criminals know that the best way to rid a victim of their better judgement is to induce a state of panic. A false sense of urgency can achieve this. Here are a few examples:

1. We blocked a $1,000 payment on your card. Can you confirm the card expiry and security pin to secure your card?
2. We noticed suspicious activity on your account and wanted to confirm your details. Please sign in via this link to verify your account. 
3. We’re calling to let you know you’ve won $5,000 in our raffle draw. Can we have your card details to deposit the payment?
4. Your invoice is now overdue and at risk of default action. Click this link to make a payment now. 
5. We’re calling from your utility company. You’ve been overcharged and we’d like to apply a credit to your account. Can you verify your identity details?

On closer inspection, these information requests don’t make sense. However, being in a state of panic can compromise judgement significantly, making it hard to think straight. You’ll often hear people say things like it was my fault, or I should have known better, without realising they were panicked when the compromise occurred. One needs to recognise the false sense of urgency in communication. Once you think it through, the red flags are easy to spot. 

On Online Etiquette

Here are some additional tips you can apply to improve your safety online.

Do not sign up for services you don’t need or plan to use. This just increases your digital footprint and exposes you to avoidable risks. If you must sign up for a service on a one-time basis, consider using a disposable email address.

Delete online accounts that you are no longer using. GDPR rules require the service provider to honour your request in keeping with your right to be forgotten.

When signing up for services, do not provide optional information. Doing so allows for rich user data analytics. It does not necessarily enhance your user experience. It enhances your digital footprint. 

Do not pick calls from numbers you do not recognise. Phishing calls are very popular with scammers because the human connection engenders trust. If unsure, make enquiries through a secure, official channel. iPhone and Android phones now have a feature that silences calls from unknown numbers. Use it.

Finally, do not procure IT support services from third parties you do not know and trust. IT support usually requires physical or remote device access and criminals often pose as support technicians. You want to be sure you know who you’re engaging with. If you must, trust but verify.

As a bona fide consumer, well within the confines of Apple’s walled garden, I take a keen interest in such proceedings. And true to form, the tech giant did not disappoint. Through these enhancements, Apple continues to redefine what technology could be to us. 

In this thought, I discuss the new features (and product announcements) that stand out to me. Being in Australia I’m yet to test drive them – we get the updates a bit later – but I’m keen on these updates all the same. 

iPhone Lock Screen

To start things off, there are some fun enhancements to the much-loved iPhone lock screen. We now get to customise this space in new ways with wallpapers and widgets. Also, you can have multiple lock screens for different use cases. 

Although I’m not one to go the distance with this feature, I like to know that it’s there and that I can play around with it, as and when I please. I think I change my lock screen about once a year. 

Messages

New changes have come to messages. Most notably, undo send, and edit recently sent messages. These are welcome features. I find the predictive text algorithm a bit unpredictable. This is not helped by the fact that I am especially prone to typing errors. I’ve often had to send follow-up messages to correct errors.

Focus Mode

With notifications streaming in from everywhere, focus mode gives you the ability to turn it down, or better yet, mute it. This is what I call, listening to customers. It helps to have control over how many interruptions you’re getting from your device. And the best part, these settings are synced across all your devices. So when you set up focus modes for work on your phone, it automatically takes on your mac. Great idea!

Focus mode is not exactly new, but it got some updates for those wanting even more control over what gets through. Focus filter now allows you to pick and choose which notifications come through, for each app. Examples include tab groups in safaris, conversations in messages, accounts in mail and events in the calendar. Of course, you can have multiple focus modes. 

Developers get to design apps with focus filters in mind too. I’m curious to see if social media platforms will embrace this idea of “mute” controls.

Payments & Pay Later

Now merchants can start accepting payments from customers who just tap their iPhones. So what’s new with this? I looked closer at the accompanying visual and realised both the merchant and the customer were using their iPhones. Hence the merchant does not need any additional hardware. There’s a game-changer. 

Speaking of pay, You may recall that Apple launched their credit card sometime back, so they’ve been making inroads into the payment space for a while. Wonder who else is in this space? There’s VISA, Mastercard and American Express. Yes, Apple is making a mark in financial services. 

And now with Apple Pay Later you can pay for a transaction in 4 equal payments, split over six weeks, interest-free. Very convenient, and hugely significant. It means Apple is literally extending credit to shoppers. Sort of like a bank.

Maps

Apple’s navigation system, iMaps, also got some attention. You can now plan up to 15 stops in a single trip. I see this being handy for tour guides and holidaymakers who need to map out all the stops for the day. What’s impressive is the ability to plan the trip on the bigger screen of a mac device, and then share it with your phone. This saves you from having to enter the information multiple times. 

Still on transport, with the new maps, riders can see public transport fares within the app. This means that you can now plan your public transport route, without having to exit the app for fare details. Apple is working on making it possible to top up your fare cards from within the app.  It’ll be interesting to see if the iPhone can replace the physical transit card altogether.

Medication

The watch OS9 medications app makes it easy to discreetly track medication, vitamins and supplements anytime. Use your iPhone camera to scan and import medications. Once prescription details are entered, you can receive notifications for the medicines you take regularly. Very handy. I’ve used the reminders app in the past for this, so I’m glad to see this feature built-in. Also, the iWatch integration truly elevates this feature to a personal level. 

Here’s another value add. Once you’ve built up your list of prescription and over-the-counter medications, the app can let you know about drug-drug interactions that can cause side effects or diminish the effectiveness of a drug. Of course, the app does not replace your local GP. 

Not sure how I feel about Apple entering this space, but they’ve done it very thoughtfully. 

New Macs

The all-new M2 chip was announced at WWDC22. Naturally, it’s more capable than its predecessor, the M1. I am tempted to get the new MacBook air with the M2 chip. Although I do most of my work on a 27” iMac which meets my needs comfortably, my current laptop is on its last leg, and can’t handle more intensive workloads. There’s also the new 13″ MacBook pro that launched with the M2 chip so it’s a tough decision. 

Hand Off

Let’s say hello to hand off. It’s a great example of how Apple is creating deep integration across their devices and services. The feature allows for seamlessly switching devices during FaceTime calls. To put it differently, you can start a video call on your phone, and “hand it over” to your MacBook without dropping the call. I see a lot of use for this feature and I’m personally keen on it.

Continuity Camera

The continuity camera allows you to use the rear camera on your iPhone for video conferencing on other Apple devices like the desktop or laptop. It’s a great value add because iPhone cameras are arguably the best in class. Desktop and tablet front-facing cameras on the other hand consistently underwhelm. So there’s a real need for this innovation.

Indeed the proof of concept for this use case was long established by third-party software providers who created apps to use the phone camera in this way. A google search of “how to use your phone as a webcam” will show that this concept is not new. Bringing it into the Apple ecosystem is a clear value add. It’s sad to note, however, that this move to bring Continuity Camera into the Apple ecosystem, casually dismisses a sizeable fraction of the competition. This trend was explored quite elegantly by Marques Brownlee in his video, aptly titled: Apple vs The Paradox of Choice. 

iPad Desktop Support

For the longest time, Apple critics have accused the tech giant of limiting the functionality of their iPad devices by not having support for external displays in the OS. The presumed reason was to avoid hurting sales of Mac devices. With iPad OS 16, we now have built-in support for an external display.  I’m excited to see how this looks and feels with daily use. It will certainly go a long way towards extending the usability of the already very capable iPad devices. 

It wasn’t always like this. I remember the early days of consumer internet.  A mobile service featuring 200 megabytes (not gigabytes) of data for the month was top of the range. It really wasn’t that long ago. Those were simple days when having internet at home was still a luxury. We only peeked online when we felt curious. And then we’d return to our normal lives when that itch was satisfied. Tracking existed back then, but it wasn’t a fully-fledged industry. 

Things are different now. According to my iPhone, I’ve been online for a daily average of 5 hours and 11 minutes this week. In my defence, the screentime utility combines desktop and iPhone usage. It still dwarfs any amount of time I would have spent online not too long ago. The web has evolved from a place I visit occasionally, to one I inhabit. I don’t recall ever making that choice. It’s just the way things are. My work, network, communication tools, the information I consume, and many more necessities of my daily life all plug into the online ecosystem. I’m sure you can relate. But the digital migration wave is not without its shortcomings. 

Some Privacy Please

I recently made an online purchase, a pair of running shoes. It should have ended there. But over the coming days, I would receive targeted ads of the same product on every site I visited. I’ve heard stories of people receiving targeted ads on a topic they conversed about. If this ever happened to me, I missed it. But these realities highlight where we are with the online privacy topic. The fact that we now live much of our lives online accentuates the need for privacy. This deeply personal issue raises several thorny questions: How much personal information is a reasonable trade-off for the online services I receive?; If anything, what can I do to protect myself in the event of a data leak?; Will my information will be removed from a site after I discontinue its service? All these questions are rooted in legitimate fears that stem from real-world events. We find ourselves in this precariously vulnerable position. We practically live online but lack the agency to control our personal information, and we don’t exactly trust corporations to handle it with due care. 

There are ongoing efforts to address this issue. Easily the most concerted is the EU’s GDPR.

What is GDPR?

In a bid to arrest the chaos around personal information online, the EU parliament enacted the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) which came into effect in 2018. The headline feature of this act has been the steep penalties for non-compliance – up to €20 million or 4% of global turnover, whichever is higher. It’s not all talk, there have been substantial reckonings here. The regulation applies both to EU institutions and non-EU entities that store personal data on EU subjects. That’s to say it’s far-reaching. 

The regulation sets out provisions for collecting, storing, using, and disposing of data. It also sets out provisions that enable the user to engage with institutions by affording them certain rights. Such as: 

1. Right of access to their data
2. Right to rectification
3. Right to be forgotten
4. Right to object to intended use, and more

The goal here is not to turn everyone into crusaders, but articulating these rights and responsibilities helps establish core tenets on personal online data. In essence, institutions and humans can now speak the same language on the subject. 

This is by no means a perfect solution. Its provisions are arguably prohibitive for small businesses and better suited to multinationals who, owing to their outsized customer base, pose the greatest risk to personal online data. And so as rules tend to, the GDPR has attracted its fair share of criticism. But it’s the best we have yet.

It does have another deficiency. Like most regulations, it doesn’t incentivise right thinking but deters wrongdoing. For the undeterred organisation, it’s an invitation to seek out and exploit grey areas in the regulation. Here’s an example of a grey area. Cookies are used in conjunction with other non-personal information to uniquely identify online users. The data is aggregated to yield detailed insights for highly targeted ads, but because it’s not tied to a name or email address it’s near impossible for an individual to exercise their rights on this mountain of data. 

So there’s a case for a more conceptually robust approach to online privacy. There’s also no shortage of ideas. One is particularly noteworthy. 

New Thinking

Pitching to a panel on a popular entrepreneur TV show, Dragons Den (UK), Sam Jones shared a novel business idea for solving the privacy problem.  

Premised on the notion that individuals deserve an opportunity to share in the financial benefits from monetising their data, this new web browser gives users clear choices: Privacy mode and Earning mode.  

As he spoke to the panel of dragons, their faces showed curious interest and then outright optimism. The validation came at the end when almost all the dragons said yes to the pitch – the dragon that said no praised the idea, acknowledging that it’s not her skill area. To sweeten the deal, one dragon even threw in free office space and accommodation for six to eight staff for a year. The reason why this outcome is truly remarkable is that dragons are there as sceptics primarily. They stress test the model to assess its viability and expose flaws. That’s the show. So it was astounding to see how quickly this pitch turned would-be critics into competing converts. 

That’s what happens when a compelling idea takes flight.

In Summary

There’s still tension between the need for online privacy and the commercial interests that erode it. As always, regulation helps identify shared priorities when approaching issues. But it often falls short, sometimes spectacularly so, when applied to the real world. Hence the need for constant revision. But regulation is not the only solution, and the online privacy issue continues to attract audacious and novel solutions that are more in sync with the needs on the ground.