I Want to See What Happens Next

Forget travelling back to the past. I want to see the future, find out what extraordinary inventions we’re yet to imagine, and discover whether anyone ever finishes HS2.

Dark blue ceramic money box modelled on the TARDIS from Doctor Who, with raised doors, windows, and a coin slot above the doors.
A miniature TARDIS that doubles as a money box. Bigger on the inside, presumably.

At some point, you will ask me a hypothetical question about time travel, because people always do. I always have the same answer, and it’s usually not the one people expect. I want to go to the future.

I suppose I understand the appeal of the past. All sorts of historical events would be interesting to observe, and there are people it would be wonderful to meet. But the past has already happened. We know how it turns out. Books, documentaries, photographs, and the entire Internet cover it. Admittedly, none of these would be quite the same as being there, but I don’t want to experience the Black Death firsthand, meet Guy Fawkes, or unexpectedly come across a dinosaur in a swamp. It might be fun to say I saw The Beatles at The Cavern Club before they were famous, but don’t most people from Merseyside over a certain age already suggest that?

The future, on the other hand, is a complete mystery. Isaac Asimov, Douglas Adams, Arthur C. Clarke, and even George Orwell had a go, and you may argue they were on the mark in some ways. But I can only judge those works from today’s vantage point, and I want to know what happens next. Does AI eat us all? Do we solve climate change? Does humanity finally make it to Mars? Do we discover life elsewhere in the universe? But, more mundanely, how do people live in 150 years? What are the gadgets? What’s the work like? I’ll never know.

Two blog posts I read last week brought this question back to mind.

In Why I’m Not Excited by HS2, Diamond Geezer describes visiting Colne Valley Viaduct, a remarkable feat of engineering that will one day carry high-speed trains across the countryside west of London. He’s impressed by the structure, but much less impressed by the idea of actually using the HS2 infrastructure. The project has been so often delayed that he wonders whether he’ll still be around when it finally opens.

At some point in your life, you start reading about the completion dates of this kind of big project and wonder whether you’ll see it come to fruition, even if simply to watch it from a comfortable chair, whether it’s your chair or a nursing home bed.

Meanwhile, Terence Eden has been writing about restaurant menu QR codes. He’s enthusiastic about the convenience of electronic menus, particularly when travelling abroad, and somewhat exasperated by people who complain about them. He points out that we don’t generally demand the return of enormous metal hotel keys, so why are we so upset about restaurants replacing folded paper with something more modern and useful?

The ability to sit down in another country, read a menu translated into English, see pictures of the food, order it and pay for it, all using a device in my pocket, is unbelievable. The younger me would have been astonished and excited. It’s jumped off the Tomorrow’s World screen, but we’ve really been waiting a long time for all the technology to come together to make this possible.

Imagine, back in the late-70s, thinking about everybody owning a telephone with no wires, a colour television screen, a camera, all the recorded music, a map of the entire world, and access to an almost limitless amount of information, in something that fits into a pocket. And if I didn’t think it was real science, I would have said it was fiction from an episode of Doctor Who.

Of course, not everything we imagined about the future has come true. Where are the flying cars, holidays on the Moon, and jet boots? Instead, we have self-service supermarket checkouts that get surprised when I add a tin of beans into the bag.

But that’s why I want to time travel forward. Almost none of the visions that came close to being real from either Doctor Who or Tomorrow’s World arrived as we imagined. They turn up in little increments; each seems a marginal improvement on what came before. One day you buy a mobile phone. Then it has a camera, and one year that camera seems better than an actual camera. Then the phone has the Internet. So, you stop carrying a camera, an address book, a diary, a map and a music player.  And you find yourself standing in a restaurant, pointing the thing at a square of black-and-white dots to discover what the stew is. 

By this point, the future isn’t as futuristic as it might have seemed.

The other thing about the future is that it keeps moving. George Orwell thought the mid-80s were the future. When I was young, the year 2000 seemed far too distant. It was a proper science-fiction date. By the time it arrived, I was 30, working, paying bills, and probably worrying about something else, though there were those few months when the Y2K bug made it sound like it would end the present.

I have no idea what 1980s me would have thought about 2026. Yet, I am here thinking about things that are coming in twenty or thirty years. But the future is 2100, and beyond. What’s that going to be like? Will we finally have jet boots? I’ll never know. I’ll be 130 in 2100, which is probably pushing my luck, even with all future medical advances.

And this is the part I find simultaneously fascinating and a little sad. I have already lived through technological changes that the younger me could never have imagined. But there will be another set of changes, probably even more extraordinary, that I won’t get to see. Somewhere in the future, people will be doing perfectly ordinary things with technologies that haven’t been conceived of today. They’ll take them for granted, complain when they don’t work, and perhaps wonder how we, their ancestors, ever coped without them.

I would love to know what those things are.

I don’t want to live forever. That sounds exhausting; my knees already hurt, and I suspect there would be an awful lot of software updates. But I would quite like the opportunity to pop forward occasionally, and have a look around.

I might make it, but I would love to see London in 2070. That seems a reasonable starting distance. Far enough away for something surprising to have been invented, but close enough that I might recognise the place. I’d want to see what people are carrying around instead of phones, whether artificial intelligence has turned out to be genuinely transformative or just another way of making customer service worse, and what the BBC has decided to do with BBC Three.

Then perhaps 2200. I’d be interested to see whether people still drive cars and whether London looks familiar in any way. What didn’t we anticipate? What social changes can’t we picture, and what problems will seem baffling because we haven’t yet invented the things that cause them?

I suppose the future might be disappointing. It could be worse than the present; there’s no guarantee. I know some of the things we take for granted will have disappeared. I’d love to know what they are. Now I am older; I see a world developing that will, eventually, carry on without me. But it’s still exciting.

So, if somebody ever does invent a working time machine, I won’t be asking to see the dinosaurs or attend the opening night of a Shakespeare play. If I arrive in 2043 and find myself standing on a platform at Euston, waiting for the first HS2 train to Birmingham, I won’t be happy. I’d like to go further forward. I want the jet boots.

When I get there, I would have to resist the temptation to look up the lottery results. Or perhaps I wouldn’t. The rules of time travel are rather vague.

A More Personalised Radio Experience Is Getting Closer

One of the most infuriating things about modern smartphones (and, more specifically, the apps you download to them) is their constant need for love and attention through an endless stream of updates. It’s not really a problem the G20 leaders are keeping themselves awake at night thinking about, but those little icons drive me insane (and I am fully aware some phones allow apps to automatically update, but I refuse to engage in that whole ‘best smartphone platform’ nonsense).

So, yesterday I went through another round of updates. Rarely do I pay attention to the ‘release notes,’ given that the usual excuse for consuming the bandwidth is bug fixes, but, for some reason, I did when it came to Apple’s Podcast app.

Apple more or less created mass-market demand for podcasts in 2005 by including them in iTunes, but in recent years, the format has appeared to have received little attention from them; on i-devices, they were spun out of iTunes into their own app a little while ago.

I suspect it’s that lack of love that spurred me into reading the release notes. And, in those notes, the first item read,

“Create custom stations of your favourite podcasts that update automatically with new episodes” [source]

Podcast App on the iPhone
Screenshot from my phone

which is accompanied by a lovely image of the ‘My Stations’ screen in the app showing ‘stations’ named ‘Morning Commute’, ‘Kids Shows’ and ‘News’ amongst others (the image here is of my phone, with three customised stations).

Six or so months ago, I wrote a piece called “It’s My Radio Station”, which suggested that, at some future point, I would become my own programme controller by setting some basic rules in an app that mixed music and speech to create a customised radio station (which is wholly different from a customised music stream). I genuinely didn’t think it fanciful then, and I think it’s even less so now. Imagine the next iteration of Apple’s app where I can mix an iTunes playlist (from my machine or their rumoured streaming service) with this functionality.

In my earlier piece, I suggested the people best placed to develop this are today’s radio stations because they have experience generating the bits between the music (rather than the Spotify-type music-focused services of this world). So, it’s sort of encouraging to read that American broadcast giant Clear Channel is trying something along those very lines (of course, I can only report this second-hand, not being able to use the iHeartRadio app in the UK). Fool.com reports,

The beauty of Add-Ins is that it’s not just about the local perspective. Add-Ins can be customized. Someone that isn’t hitting the open road may not care about traffic. Someone staying in may not care about the weather. Not everyone cares about local news headlines. [source]

I believe that any radio station with ‘talent’ that is not getting that content out in alternative ways, including some form of regularly updated podcasts (long and short versions), is missing out on a market. More importantly, they’re missing out on an opportunity to learn about how radio will be consumed in the future.

Personalised radio is coming (just as personalised news is already here). I don’t think Apple’s use of the word ‘stations’ can be dismissed, but it remains to be seen if it indicates a direction they’re prepared to take. Nonetheless, it could be either new players in the radio space – or an existing broadcaster – who will get there first.

Three things fascinate me about how this plays out. Firstly, will a broadcaster be prepared to take a risk on this kind of development, or will it need to come from outside broadcast groups to truly allow people to mix-and-match the content they want? Secondly, given that it’s proven people like to time-shift television, is radio content sufficiently compelling and/or useful to put the time-shift effort in? And, thirdly, can audio producers generate revenue from such personalisation?

Time will tell. But we’re going to rapidly see innovation in this space. I wonder who’ll get left behind?

It’s My Radio Station

Today’s best music, for Jon. Visions of a personalised radio station.

I’ve been meaning to write something for quite a while about radio services in an age of connected devices and multiple music services. But news of Apple being awarded a patent to enable “seamlessly switching media playback between a media broadcast, such as a radio broadcast, and media from a local media library” and the subsequent Media UK discussion finally got me to start writing.

I’ve been a radio fan for most of my life, but lately my love affair with the medium has turned into a marriage where we don’t speak much anymore. So much radio seems to be back-to-back music (which my phone does better, thank you) or back-to-back Big Brother chat (or back-to-back songs with Big Brother chat breaking them up) that I normally work with iTunes running. I listen at breakfast for an hour or so, and that’s about it. Perhaps that’s fine with the industry; I would hope not.

I read, occasionally, an argument from radio people that the only way to compete with music services – such as Spotify or Pandora, or personal libraries like iTunes – is with the bits between the songs (the entertainment that I don’t store on my iPod). That seems a reasonable position. So, I’ve been wondering what would happen if there was a ‘mashup’ between radio (for the entertainment bits) and my music player (for the songs I really like)? The technology can support it; Apple’s patent just reminded me about it.

Simply put, my radio station would allow me to set preferences allowing me to opt-in to news (say, every hour); to add local travel news every 20 minutes (between 0700 & 0900 if there was something to report); to add sport (every 2 hours except during the Olympics when I’d change it to more often) and to add celebrity news (once per month). The rest of the time music is coming from my local music library of tunes I want (sometimes I select individual tracks or albums; sometimes I pop it onto random). The content is downloaded in the background and inserted between the songs I’m hearing. Of course I could opt in to a bunch of other things if I wanted to (one new music track every 90 minutes; breaking F1 news as it happens; interviews with artists in my library or a ten-minute blast of a phone-in). All of these things could be surrounded by an ad break or sponsors (as they are today), but the station pays no music royalties, bandwidth costs are limited to updating content only, and if the connection is down, the music keeps coming.

Take it a stage further and my news comes from LBC; travel news direct from Transport for London, sport from Sky and, perhaps, a film review from 5Live. If the content is what I want, I’d choose it and hear supporting commercials (or promos, if it’s the BBC). I don’t need a presenter telling me what I just heard, my phone shows that to me quite happily so the entertainment is more than being successfully able to ‘hit the vocals’ with station name-check.

I don’t see that it would be hard for Spotify or Pandora to add these services in now (perhaps they already are and I’ve missed them) but experience with this kind of content is certainly at radio stations today (and, if we’re honest, RDS has been allowing it for years if you’re in a car and listening to your own music).

Of course, radio’s real advantage is that there’s no effort involved to turn it on and start listening; this would be an effort to set-up and configure. If I wanted live presentation then I’d still switch to radio services but, this way, I get news & entertainment on a schedule I want and it really would be a station playing today’s best music mix (just for me).

 

 

 

Elsewhere: New Apple Patent Could Kill Commercial Radio

Over at Media UK’s radio discussions section, there’s a thread about a new patent issued to Apple that allows for “seamlessly switching media playback between a media broadcast, such as a radio broadcast, and media from a local media library”. It reminds me that I have some thoughts brewing on this (update: my thoughts are now written up here), but this is what I added to the thread (with the typo seen at Media UK cleaned up).

An obvious use of this tech would not just be for targeted ad insertion but also for some kind of content switching when a user’s streaming connectivity drops. Using Apple’s Genius functionality & a station’s playlist, an app could store a list of station-appropriate tracks that are already on my device and seamlessly switch to them. Let the station cache a few idents in the app, and I may never notice I’d lost connectivity driving through the tunnel again.

Take it a stage further; could a station save on music royalties (and the listener on bandwidth costs) if it only provided the links and all music tracks were sourced from the user’s local music library (of tracks they own)?

The future of radio is at an interesting point. Even as a self-confessed radio geek I am finding that I spend more time listening to music and entertainment services that could not traditionally be called radio. More to come on this.