Barnes & Noble Hacked In 63 Branches

Barnes & Noble has suffered a serious security breach in 63 of its shops. Payment readers were fitted with a bug, which has harvested details of customers’ credit cards. The firm discovered the breach over six weeks ago, but has kept the matter quiet at the behest of the Justice Department, in order to allow the FBI to investigate the crime.

There are two schools of thought as to how the crime was committed, and they both point to an inside job. Either it’s the work of a disgruntled/malicious employee, or that one of the workers in the store inadvertently clicked on a link to malware. The bookseller has since disconnected and checked out its 7,000 card readers. The New York Times, which broke the story, has published a list of the firm’s 63 stores which were breached.

Customers of the B&N website, app and its college stores, have not been affected.

via Fast Company http://www.fastcompany.com/3002429/barnes-noble-hacked-63-branches?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+fastcompany%2Fheadlines+%28Fast+Company%29

50 Years Ago: The Original Mad Man’s First Esquire Cover

The incredible story behind one of the world’s most famous magazine covers.

via Fast Company http://www.fastcodesign.com/1671009/50-years-ago-the-original-mad-man-s-first-esquire-cover?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+fastcompany%2Fheadlines+%28Fast+Company%29

Apple Rumor Patrol: The Truth About The Long-Promised iPad Mini

We’ve heard rumors of a smaller iPad for a couple of years now.

Steve Jobs himself once dismissed the idea, but he was famous for carefully controlling PR, and even making distracting statements. Now it appears the 7-inch iPad is finally on its way–and soon.

Battery

One of the more intriguing bits concerning the iPad mini’s internal components that have “leaked” is its battery. MacRumors has got hold of a pre-production part that it deems likely to be a match for the final in-production battery–and it’s pretty convincing. It has a capacity of 4490 mAh or 16.7 watt-hours. That’s almost exactly three times the size of the iPhone 5’s 5.45 watt-hours and a third of the iPad 3’s 42.5 watt-hours.

Fishy Chippery

The mini’s leaked battery details are not just trivial data. They implies that the mini may not be as powerful in terms of graphics or computing cycles as the full-on iPad, simply because there’s less room in the battery for energy to drive more powerful chips. But we do know that the iPad 3 uses a double line of LEDs to light its retina screen, and these seriously munch into the 3’s battery life. The mini is rumored to not have a retina screen, and this along with its small size means it may gobble down much less power per hour.

These arguments point to one of two main conclusions. The iPad mini may have a prodigious working battery life, lasting far longer than the iPhone does. Or it may be based on the iPhone 5 chipset (rather than the iPad 2 internals, as had previously been suggested) and thus have a more expected battery life, but deliver a computing performance that’s as good as the iPhone 5 and far better than the iPad 2.

Wi-Fi-Only

A rumor a week ago suggested the new smaller iPad would come only with a Wi-Fi option, lacking the 3G capabilities of the bigger iPad. This rumor didn’t chime with us because Apple has already shown it can design modular hardware for the bigger iPad, with the mobile broadband system slotting into the iPad’s case as a daughterboard to the full motherboard. Why wouldn’t it do the same trick, possibly even with identical circuitry, as it does for the full iPad? Technologically it wouldn’t be tricky or expensive to develop, and it would give Apple the option of selling a more capable mobile device to users who may prefer its smaller screen size over the bigger iPad.

And remember–a mini iPad is going to be much more portable than a big iPad. Apple could make yet more money by letting its users have access to books, music, and apps on the go, and not just when they’re in a Wi-Fi area.

Price

iPad mini SKU information, including price, has allegedly appeared in the systems of Media Markt, a German-based big box electronics retailer with a presence across Europe. The mini is, according to this info, due in 16 individual types: 8 each of white and black, with half of each color being equipped with mobile broadband and memory in capacities from 8GB to 64GB.

At the bottom end it’ll likely cost $323 and the top-end version with broadband will be about $841. For comparison the Amazon Kindle Fire is $159 and the slightly more capable Google Nexus 7 is $199.

iBooks

According to one of the more recent rumors, Apple’s launch even for the iPad mini will have a big element dedicated to iBooks. The 7-inch or so screen the new iPad is said to sport is roughly the size of a large paperback book’s page, and if it features the same in-cell touch sensing as the iPhone 5 this means the display will make for an excellent e-reader.

Apple’s already made a big push for e-textbooks and compared to its other content offering systems it seemed that at first iBooks wasn’t quite so well used. In January Apple pushed out iBooks 2 and an authoring tool to let anyone put together a book for the platform and that immediately led to 350,000 book downloads and 90,000 downloads of iBooks Author in the first three days. Perhaps now is the perfect time to remind schools and home users of iBook’s power, and to push a device that seems ideally suited for consuming reading material.

The Future

All of these pieces of the puzzle join pleasingly together, and they don’t necessarily point to a 7.85-inch iPad as being the simpleton, low-price cousin to the iPad. What they may imply is that the mini is going to be a very capable device, possibly among the top in its size class and easily outperforming its immediate peers.

It seems to be priced aggressively. The low margin entry level system–at around $250–is Apple’s version of a “loss leader,” and it’s countered by the bigger units with more memory and mobile broadband units. Apple makes more money on these larger capacity devices, as it has long done so on all iDevices, because it charges a premium for the memory chips.

This strategy is in stark contrast to Amazon’s strategy with the new Kindle Fire, which is sold in a one-size-fits-all capacity and at zero profit to Amazon. Jeff Bezos’ company makes all its money from the Fire on selling apps, books, and other content for it–and can do so because the Fire is running so heavily a modified version of Android that it can basically only access material from Amazon’s digital lockers. Apple’s machine is similarly tied to Apple’s iTunes system, but is also free to run apps that deliver content from other partners. But Apple makes money on both the hardware and the software.

An iPad mini with more power than the iPad 2, perhaps approaching iPhone 5 class power, also makes sense in terms of Apple’s future product portfolio. The iPad 4 is presumably due in Spring, and if it were much more than a generation ahead of the iPad mini in terms of performance then it would make the mini look like a very poor buy for at least the next six months until that product was upgraded.

Will it cannibalize “full” iPad sales, or damage the iPod touch’s sales figures? That’s hard to predict, but Apple seems to have pitched its size far above the iPod and significantly less than the iPad–meaning it’ll appeal to different users.

[Image: Flickr user danpawley]

Chat about this news with Kit Eaton on Twitter and Fast Company too.

via Fast Company http://www.fastcompany.com/3002157/apple-rumor-patrol-truth-about-long-promised-ipad-mini?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+fastcompany%2Fheadlines+%28Fast+Company%29

No Filter: Inside Hipstamatic’s Lost Year Searching For The Next Killer Social App

If Lucas Buick’s company Hipstamatic is on the verge of bankruptcy, you couldn’t tell by the dinner spread. It’s mid-September and we’re at the Isola restaurant in the Mondrian Soho, an expensive hotel-cum-lounge where you’re never quite sure you’re wearing the right style of Warby Parkers. Under the airy space’s glass ceiling and sparkling chandeliers, Buick and “director of fun” Mario Estrada knock back espresso martinis and old-fashioneds, while digging into tuna and pine nut crudos and fennel sausage pizza with herbed ricotta–delicious fare just begging to be photographed, filtered, and shared with friends.

No Filter: In This Series

Part 1
Oct. 9: Hipstamatic explores new products, chats with Twitter, and is tempted by the siren call of social.
Part 2
Coming Oct. 10: Facebook buys Instagram for $1 billion, Twitter comes calling again, and Hipstamatic loses focus.
Part 3
Coming Oct. 11: Hipstamatic chases VCs and last-ditch ideas before committing to lay-offs and a surprising “unpivot.”

“This is it. We’re clearly falling apart,” says Buick, laughing. “If this is the last supper, then I wish we had a bigger table.”

Despite a rough couple of weeks, the Hipstamatic cofounder and CEO is in good spirits. In late July, over lobsters and bottles of Prosecco, Buick told me he wanted Hipstamatic, a $1.99 photo app that takes analog-style photographs on your iPhone, to become the “Kodak for the digital era.” He envisioned a time when his company could be the industry leader for selling digital lenses, films, and flashes, as well as providing third-party camera and printing services.

But then just 16 days later, Buick laid off five of his employees, roughly half the company’s workforce, including its entire developer team and social media and office managers. The decision sparked a swath of bad press and ex-employee backlash, and led many to question the San Francisco-based startup’s viability. “Suddenly I was getting calls from friends asking, ‘Do you still have a job?'” Estrada recalls. “We’re going bankrupt? When did all this happen?”

Lucas Buick

“It got a little ugly,” admits Buick, who turns 30 this week. With a doughy face and ginger scruff, the former graphic designer carries a soft, seemingly happy-go-lucky demeanor, which juxtaposes his otherwise serious look: black G-Star jacket, black shirt, and black-framed glasses. “I didn’t even like coming to work,” he says. “When you’re the guy who built the company and you don’t even want to work there yourself, something just isn’t right.”

Hipstamatic’s journey over the past year has been tumultuous, to say the least. As Fast Company has learned from speaking to more than a dozen players involved, Hipstamatic has wrestled with ever-growing social competition, internal tensions, and a lack of product vision–not to mention juggling acquisition interest and worsening term sheets in a post-Facebook IPO world.

In late January of 2012, Twitter’s Jessica Verrilli got in touch with Buick regarding a potential acquisition.

But what the startup has most struggled with is remaining relevant in an unforgiving app market dominated by one of the hottest spaces in tech: photos. Photos are considered the killer app of any platform, web or mobile. They’re the driving force behind Facebook’s social success, and the reason for its blockbuster acquisition of mobile photo-sharing app Instagram, which recently surpassed Twitter in U.S. smartphone engagement. They’re why Marissa Mayer is said to be rethinking Flickr as she takes up the reins at Yahoo; why Google recently bought Snapseed; and why a slew of hot Internet startups from Tumblr to Pinterest to Camera+ have gained popularity. Even Apple introduced photo-stream sharing capabilities in its latest version of iOS.

Hipstamatic was one of the first startups to crack the photo formula in the mobile space–then it watched similar services gain ground and eventually blaze by. The company’s experience proves that no startup can rest on its laurels in the age of the iPhone, when the time between innovation and disruption is ever shortening, and when IPOs and fast exits are valued over establishing long-term viable businesses. And perhaps most significantly, Hipstamatic proves that no modern startup can ignore the siren call of social, even if at its own peril.

Hipstamatic CEO Lucas Buick and CTO Ryan Dorshorst

In October 2010, Hipstamatic was booming. Its business model of selling in-app digital lenses and films, which effectively turned your iPhone into an old-school Polaroid camera, was attracting millions of users and millions of dollars in revenue, especially from its fast-growing community of shutterbugs in industries ranging from fashion to media. Soon, Apple would name Hipstamatic the app of the year; not long after, The New York Times’ Damon Winter would win a prestigious photography award for a series of Hipstamatic photos he took on assignment in Afghanistan.

So on Oct. 6, when an ex-Googler named Kevin Systrom launched a photo-sharing service called Instagram, there was no way of knowing that it would mark the beginning of the end of Hipstamatic’s honeymoon. Like Hipstamatic, the iPhone app enabled users to add vintage-era filters to photographs, but there were two key differences: Instagram was free and inherently social; Hipstamatic was not. If Hipstamatic was the camera utility used to enhance your photos, then Instagram was the network where you’d share those photos.

By March of 2011, when Hipstamatic hired its new designer, Laura Polkus, Instagram had already rocketed to 2.2 million users, and was growing by 130,000 users per week. But Polkus says the team largely ignored Instagram. “There wasn’t a whole lot of attention paid there,” says Polkus, who was later let go. “The conversation internally was, ‘Well, we’re completely different. They are a social network, and we are not. Who cares what’s going on with them? We’ll just continue to do what we do.’ But from the public’s perspective, that’s obviously not the way things were seen.”

“As Instagram started to build, everyone was like, ‘You guys should do this or that,'” recalls Buick, who was hesitant to enter the social game at first. “That’s not what we wanted to build.”One former employee recalls leaving for dinner after the company released a new pack of photo filters; by the time he had returned an hour later, the release had already generated high five-figure sales.

It was impossible for Buick to ignore the temptation of social, however. Despite Buick’s resistance toward changing Hipstamatic’s direction, the company embarked on a series of toe-in-the-water attempts at social. The first was Family Album, which launched in the summer of 2011, a product that enabled users to create and co-curate photo albums together. The other, D Series, was an app that aimed to capture a retro, disposable camera experience on the iPhone. Friends could purchase various packs of digital cameras together for 99 cents, and take and share up to 24 shots per roll–before having to buy another pack of cameras. “It was definitely a reaction to the social photography wave,” Polkus says. “The products were in response to people saying, ‘Okay, well we can take pictures, but how do other people see them without using Instagram?’”

“It was more or less a veiled attempt to take on Instagram, without being blatant about it,” says Stuart Norrie, then a UI designer at Hipstamatic.

Both products flopped. Family Album was incredibly confusing, especially compared to the simplicity of sharing on Instagram or Facebook. (Wrote one reviewer, “One of the biggest problems for Hipstamatic‘s Family Album is understanding what it is.”) When D Series went live in December of 2011, after months of work, the team was excited to introduce a new product before the Christmas break. “But on the day of the launch, we were there until midnight because there were so many complaints and tweaks needed,” recalls Polkus, who was monitoring the social feeds for the company at that time. “The thing I remember is all the people who were so enraged, so angry that they had to pay for these disposable cameras but were only getting a limited amount of pictures. They just kept calling us greedy. Everyone had this pit in their stomachs like, ‘Oh fuck.’”

Inside the Haus of Hipstamatic on Langton Street in SOMA, San Francisco

Whereas Hipstamatic’s user base has peaked at roughly 4 million active users, by January 2012, Instagram had blossomed to 15 million users, who were sharing an average of 60 photos per second. It was clear how much had changed in so little time: Apple gave its app-of-the-year prize to Instagram. By then, in fact, one of the top tags on Instagram was “#Hipstamatic,” indicating a large amount of users were snapping images on Hipstamatic but sharing them on Instagram.

The massive growth of Instagram’s platform only brought more attention to Hipstamatic from outside companies, which were looking to capitalize on the explosion of mobile photo sharing. A knowledgeable source says Facebook expressed “quite a bit” of interest in working with Hipstamatic. (Facebook declined to comment.) When Instagram originally launched, sources say Dave Morin reached out to Buick to work together on Path, his private mobile social network, to collaborate on products. (Path confirms the company did discuss partnering with Hipstamatic, but denies the discussions were related to Instagram’s launch.)

And in late January of 2012, multiple sources confirm that Jessica Verrilli, who works in strategy and corporate development at Twitter, got in touch with Buick regarding a potential acquisition. The two met at Sightglass Coffee in SOMA, outside Hipstamatic’s office. One source says no terms were discussed then, while other sources tell Fast Company that Buick said he wasn’t interested in being acquired. (It wouldn’t be the last time Twitter reached out to express interest in Hipstamatic.) Both Hipstamatic and Twitter declined to comment on this matter.

At that time, the bootstrapped startup’s business was still growing at a fast clip, despite its lack of social capabilities. One former employee recalls leaving for dinner after the company released a new pack of photo filters; by the time he had returned an hour later, the release had already generated high five-figure sales, not an uncommon amount, says the source, who estimates the company has 100,000 core users who “will buy almost anything.” (Hipstamatic declined to comment on specific sales figures.)

But Buick was starting to consider a larger role for Hipstamatic in the social world. “It was right after the launch of D Series–Lucas seemed burnt out, but he was like, ‘I want to make another app,’” recalls Sam Soffes, a former iOS engineer at the company, who would later have a dustup with Buick. “We were sitting around and when I asked him what he wanted to make, he was like, ‘I don’t know. I want to kill Instagram.’”

Hipstamatic denies that Buick ever said he wanted to “kill Instagram.” Buick specifies, “We’ve never really tried to compete with Instagram.”

But one thing was clear: Hipstamatic could no longer ignore its social competitor. Stuart Norrie, the former designer, describes the changing mood inside the company during the early part of 2012. “I barely heard anything about social until the Instagram acquisition,” he recalls. “Then at Hipstamatic, it was all social, social, social, social.”

Tomorrow: Twitter comes calling again, and Hipstamatic loses focus when Facebook buys Instagram for $1 billion, prompting one former Hipstamatic employee to then ask, “Does that mean that [Instagram] won?”

[Top Image: Cameras via Shutterstock]

Sponsored Content: 
No sponsorship


via Fast Company http://www.fastcompany.com/3001994/no-filter-inside-hipstamatics-lost-year-searching-next-killer-social-app?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+fastcompany%2Fheadlines+%28Fast+Company%29

Electric Cars Do More Harm To The Planet Than Previously Thought

New research suggests that electric cars are not the environmental panacea that they are thought to be. A report from a team at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology claims that the vehicles fail on three fronts: production; charging; and their eventual demise.

The length of the vehicle’s life has an impact on its carbon footprint – those with a life of around 200,000 km improve on petrol and diesel engines by around 28 per cent and 19 per cent respectively. Halve the mileage, however, and an EV’s effectiveness decreases by anything between 9 and 14 per cent. But it is the source of the electricity used for charging the car that is the problem. Using an EV in a country which relies heavily on fossil fuels for its electricity will, unsurprisingly, increase greenhouse gas emissions. Using the car in Europe, however, saw benefits of around 10 per cent, compared to traditional combustion engines.

EV production is, says one of the authors of the report, more environmentally intensive than the traditional automotive industry. Breaking a vehicle up at the end of its life is also more hazardous, as the batteries and motors use toxic materials such as nickel, aluminium and copper.

[Image via Creative Commons on Flickr]

Sponsored Content: 
No sponsorship

via Fast Company http://www.fastcompany.com/3001917/electric-cars-do-more-harm-planet-previously-thought?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+fastcompany%2Fheadlines+%28Fast+Company%29

In Defense Of Sitting

If there are two characteristics that define me, they are my susceptibility to memes, and my fear of death. So when a meme arrives telling me my life is in danger, I pay attention.

Over the last few years, the media has come alive with reports to the effect that sitting kills you. You may have seen the stories–in the Times, in HuffPo, on NPR. The gist of the argument is that a life whiled away before a desk wreaks a havoc on your health so great that even regular exercise cannot undo it. If you sit too much, no amount of penance at the bench press will save you. What the summer of 1975 did for sharks, what the fall of 2001 did for anthrax, the last few years have been doing for that seemingly innocuous object: the chair.

As study after study and health pundit after health pundit weighed in, I began to look at my chair in a new light. I had always liked my chair. It’s an elegant black swiveling thing whose seat and back are made out of a rubbery mesh that yields pleasingly when you sit on it. Its black leather arm rests raise and lower, turn inward and out. Passed on from my family, it always seemed a better chair than I deserved, actually–a chair I needed to work hard to earn. Without being entirely certain what this meant, I had been told it was “ergonomic,” an attribute I repeated to other admirers of my chair.

What the summer of 1975 did for sharks, what the fall of 2001 did for anthrax, the last few years have been doing for that seemingly innocuous object: the chair.

All of a sudden, though, the chair was a spidery, dangerous creature lurking beneath my desk. It was one of those seemingly banal objects, like Fitzgerald’s cut-glass bowl, that somehow contained a hex. My sedentary life as a journalist, I was told, was a death sentence. I was getting the chair.

There was a solution, though. A companion to the chair-of-death meme was another meme, one offering hope. If the new axiom was that sitting kills you, then at least there was a corollary: that standing saves you. That was how I first learned about the “standing desk.” A number of other Fast Company contributors became evangelists for the idea, in fact, and in seeking to set up a standing desk of my own (in the end, my dresser wound up being just the right height), I consulted helpful articles by Gina Trapani and Farhad Manjoo. I learned that Philip Roth writes while standing, as did Ernest Hemingway before him. Not only would I be fending off the Grim Reaper, I would also be joining a tradition of Great Standing Writers. I set up my computer atop my dresser, and embarked upon a new adventure in productivity and health.

I lasted about a week.

Because the first thing I noticed about my standing desk was that it wasn’t particularly comfortable. It was also the second thing I noticed, and the third thing I noticed. In fact, I spent so much time noticing how much I didn’t want to be standing, that there was little RAM left in my brain for the work ostensibly at hand–writing. For some tasks–a phone call here or there, a bit of email maintenance or record-keeping work–I was able to stand and deliver the work. But when it came time to really mull something, to marshal all my cognitive resources into a given story, all I wanted to do was take a seat.

So I returned to my chair, and I’m sitting there still. (Leaning back at the moment, in fact, with my feet up on my desk. Maybe this is what “ergonomic” means?) To those of you who haven’t tried sitting lately, I recommend it wholeheartedly. In fact, I find it to be a very natural position in which to work. If sitting is a wrong, I don’t want to be right; call me an unrepentant sitter.

The first thing I noticed about my standing desk was that it wasn’t particularly comfortable. It was also the second thing I noticed, and the third thing I noticed.

I presented my controversial thesis–that sitting is comfortable, and that you should do it–to Dr. Hidde P. Van der Ploeg, a senior researcher at the Department of Public and Occupational Health at the VU University Medical Center in Amsterdam (you’ll find his name atop one of those studies warning of the dangers of sitting). He was surprisingly reasonable. “I fully agree that sitting is darn comfortable,” the professor wrote me. “The problem is that many of us are doing more of it than is good for our health.” He doesn’t advocate standing to the exclusion of sitting–“standing all day is not recommended either and certainly not necessary for better health”–but rather a judicious mix of the two. Some people purchase unwieldy and expensive sitting-standing desks for this purpose, but I preferred another suggestion of Dr. Van der Ploeg’s: he mentioned friends from the IT sector who conduct standing meetings at work. “They find them much more efficient,” he said.

Next I called up Peter Galbert, a member of that now-maligned profession: chair-making. How did he sleep at night, I asked, knowing that he created these murderous devices?

“I know plenty’s been said about them being bad for your overall health,” he said, “but about them killing you? Gosh, that’s a little bit of hyperbole, I’d say.”

But it was in the Times, I told him.

“Right now I’m sitting,” he said. “Are you sitting?”

“I am,” I admitted.

“Shocking,” he said. Galbert, who makes custom chairs from wood, launched into his philosophy of making and using chairs. “I’m sitting in a porch swing right now, but I’m moving–I’m pushing my legs, I’m moving around. I’m a big advocate of moving and sitting.” The real culprit, he said, wasn’t so much sitting, as sitting still. Try sitting in one of his rocking chairs, he said, and you’ll always be shifting, almost imperceptibly, but enough to rotate rest and exertion among different muscle groups. He referred me, further, to the innovative work of the designer Peter Opsvik, whose unusual chair designs often foster a sitting stance similar to a standing one–with the pelvis tilted forward and the spine therefore in a more natural, stacked position.

My daring, controversial thesis–that maybe sitting was kind of okay–was seeming less and less daring and controversial. A standing advocate allowed that sitting was permissible, at least in measured doses, and a chairmaker had shown how sitting could be much like standing, if done properly.

If sitting wasn’t living on the edge–if clinging to my chair wasn’t a defiant act, like Chistopher Hitchens refusing to throw away his cigarettes–then what was? My mind flashed to a memory of a college professor, the poet J.D. McClatchy, reporting that he did all his reading and writing in the most zeitgeist-flouting posture of all–lying down in bed. I wrote him to ask if my memory served.

He confirmed that his workplace was, indeed, the bed. “I have never, in my 67 years, been able to find a comfortable chair” in which to read and write, he wrote (presumably from bed).

But what about Hemingway, I asked? Major writer: he must have been on to something, after all. “Hemingway and others used standing desks,” McClatchy conceded. “I always assumed it was because they had bad hemorrhoids.”

[Image: Flickr user LOLren]

Sponsored Content: 
No sponsorship


via Fast Company http://www.fastcompany.com/3000635/defense-sitting?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+fastcompany%2Fheadlines+%28Fast+Company%29

Why Too Much Data Disables Your Decision Making

Quick, think back to a major decision. You know, the kind that compelled you to read everything on a topic and lead you to spend hours devouring every last scrap of data.

How’d that work out for you?

We like to think that more information drives smarter decisions; that the more details we absorb, the better off we’ll be. It’s why we subscribe to Google Alerts, cling to our iPhone, and fire up our Tweetdeck.

Knowledge, we’re told, is power. But what if our thirst for data is actually holding us back? What if obsessing over information actually reduces the quality of our decisions?

That’s the question raised by Princeton and Stanford University psychologists in a fascinating study titled On the Pursuit and Misuse of Useless Information.

Their experiment was simple. Participants were divided into two groups. Group 1 read the following:

Imagine that you are a loan officer at a bank reviewing the mortgage application of a recent college graduate with a stable, well-paying job and a solid credit history. The applicant seems qualified, but during the routine credit check you discover that for the last three months the applicant has not paid a $5,000 debt to his charge card account.
Do you approve or reject the mortgage application?

Group 2 saw the same paragraph with one crucial difference. Instead of learning the exact amount of the student’s debt, they were told there were conflicting reports and that the size of the debt was unclear. It was either $5,000 or $25,000. Participants could decide to approve or reject the applicant immediately, or they could delay their decision until more information was available, clarifying how much the student really owed. Not surprisingly, most Group 2 participants chose to wait until they knew the size of the debt.

Here’s where the study gets clever. The experimenters then revealed that the student’s debt was only $5,000. In other words, both groups ended up with the same exact information. Group 2 just had to go out of its way and seek it out.

The result? 71% of Group 1 participants rejected the applicant. But among Group 2 participants who asked for additional information? Only 21% rejected the applicant.

To say the findings are surprising is to state the obvious. After all, everyone had precisely the same information. So why would the rate of rejection be three times higher in Group 1?

The answer underscores a troubling blind spot in the way we make decisions. One that highlights the downside of having a sea of information available at our fingertips, and just might convince you to ditch your iPhone the next time you’re faced with an important choice.

Cliffhangers: Great for Television, Disastrous for Decisions

Remember Seinfeld and Friends? Fifteen years ago, a handful of television shows ended on cliffhangers. Daytime soaps were among the first to regularly end on a climax, and 24 made the practice a fixture of mainstream television. Today, most dramas are loathe to end an episode without one. Even comedies like The Office and Modern Family now rely on cliffhangers to draw viewers back.

There’s a psychological reason cliffhangers are so effective. The human mind hates uncertainty. Uncertainty implies volatility, randomness, and danger. When we notice information is missing, our brain raises a metaphorical red flag and says, ‘”Pay attention. This could be important.'”

Generally, that curiosity is useful. In our evolutionary past, knowing whether that rustling in the bushes belonged to a tiger or a mouse could have meant the difference between life and death. We’re wired to reduce uncertainty because our minds were adapted for another, more hazardous, time.

Seeking out information comes with a downside, however, which accounts for the intriguing difference between the two groups. When data is missing, we overestimate its value. Our mind assumes that since we are expending resource locating information, it must be useful.
Participants in Group 2 couldn’t help but ask for additional data. The mind, after all, hates information gaps. And because their attention was focused on whether the debt was $5,000 or $25,000, their thinking about the loan had shifted. They no longer saw the big picture–that the applicant had a history of defaulting. They were simply too fixated on a relatively minor detail, the size of the debt.

The Seduction of Data

The research underscores a sobering message: We’re fascinated with filling information gaps and that obsession can lead us astray. Especially today, when reducing uncertainty has become all too easy.

What’s the forecast for Friday? Pick up your iPhone. What’s Lindsey Lohan up to? Type in TMZ. Wonder what that girl from 10th grade drama now looks like? Facebook!

And it’s not just trivial information that’s easily accessible. It’s data that drives major business decisions. There’s always one more report, one more analysis, and one more perspective that’s a click or two away.

Neurologically, information is addicting. Learning is associated with the release of dopamine, the same as powerful drugs like cocaine. It’s a why we are so vulnerable to an Internet rife with attention parasites that leave us worse for the wear.

In a world where every click brings the promise of a discovery, we are all at risk of becoming addicts. The challenge lies in differentiating between questions worth exploring and questions best left unasked.

[Image: Flickr user JacobFG]

Sponsored Content: 
No sponsorship


via Fast Company http://www.fastcompany.com/3000676/why-too-much-data-disables-your-decision-making?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+fastcompany%2Fheadlines+%28Fast+Company%29

With Reblorg, Tumblr Embraces Its Apocalypse GIF And Bespectacled Panda Penchant

Last January, Fast Company’s Neal Ungerleider described Tumblr’s strategy for 2012 as “More Original Content, Less F*** Yeah Memes.” But who says Tumblr can’t have its cheeseburger gifs and eat them too?

Enter Reblorg, the latest experiment from Tumblr’s six-month old editorial department. Like Storyboard, which Tumblr launched in April, Reblorg curates original content created by the Tumblr community. But where Storyboard included feature reporting on creators and their work, Reblorg’s homepage is a raw sensory assault of head-spinning gifs and image mashups; in other words, the kind of homegrown art Tumblr is perhaps best known for. In a fitting partnership, Tumblr recruited Next Media Animation, the Taiwanese production house famous for its gonzo news recaps, to explain what Reblorg is all about. Standby for bespectacled pandas:

It’s a far cry from most of Storyboard’s content, best exemplified by this tasteful look inside the New York Times’ photo archive. But although Tumblr had grown up a bit, increasing its contributor base to over 60 million blogs and letting go of its long-held reluctance to sell ad space, Reblorg proves the site is still unafraid to embrace the chaos of its community, instead of trying to reign it in.

It should come as little surprise that one of the guys responsible for Reblorg is Christopher “topherchris” Price, who first made his mark on Tumblr not as an employee but as a user (you can read his story here). Price knows the Tumblr community because he came from it, but he also understands the challenges of translating personal social media success to a large media company. And when the community is the source of your site’s content, keeping them happy is crucial.

“I’ve been thinking for a long time about the best way to take the community engagement I do on my personal Tumblr and move it into a larger space,” Price said. “At the same time, we realized that a hub for showing off new creative work from the Tumblr community was a smart thing to try. Combining those two areas is, to me, one of the core values of Tumblr. Creative plus community.”

Users can submit their work by using the #reblorg tag on Tumblr. The editorial team then looks at each submission and posts what its likes. Anything goes, from profane haikus to ice sculptures. But Price admits his own tastes certainly come into play.

“I’m personally fascinated by what I call Internet art–that is, stuff that couldn’t have existed until there was technology to make it and an Internet to put it on–and that’s visible in the content so far. The recent resurgence of the GIF format as an artistic medium, for example, has led to new forms of work that defy description, and a great deal of that experimentation happens on Tumblr.”

Price isn’t alone in his appreciation for animated GIFs. Once the scourge of ’90s web design before being resurrected on message boards and social networks, GIFs are back in a big way. Today, not even the New York Times can escape the hypnotic pull of the GIF, its popularity ushered forth in large part by its use during the London 2012 Olympics. But while the timing couldn’t be better for the kind of art highlighted by Reblorg, Tumblr’s editor-in-chief Chris Mohney emphasizes that the project is about more than driving traffic to Tumblr.com.

“It’s a way to get creative work we like in front of more people, both inside and outside of Tumblr,” Mohney said. “Ideally it becomes a major source of content for accomplished curators and aggregators like Reddit, Buzzfeed, etc. Not to drive eyeballs to Reblorg, but to drive eyeballs to the work itself. Just like with Storyboard, it doesn’t matter to us if someone sees the work we highlight on our sites or on someone else’s. What matters is getting maximum attention for the work, everywhere.”

That may not sound like a recipe for higher revenues, and indeed Mohney emphasizes that, like with Storyboard, Reblorg isn’t looking to feature sponsored content (Tumblr leaves that to its Radar and Spotlight programs). But consider Tumblr’s larger strategy for monetization. In May, Mohney said Tumblr was looking for advertisers to launch creative projects on the site, as opposed to merely buying a few pixels worth of real estate for static ads. If Reblorg can become a destination that people look to for top quality content, and a launchpad that helps creative content go viral, it could be a valuable tool to recruit advertisers who are looking for wider reach and a richer experience than, say, Facebook banner ads have to offer.

When it comes to social networks and search engines, people often say, “You’re not the user, you’re the product.” In a sense, this is no less true for Tumblr than it is for Google or Facebook. But hearing Price and Mohney talk, it’s clear that what their community wants is the same thing they want: more original creative content. Price and Mohney also understand that users don’t care whether that content was made by experts or amateurs. Nor do they care whether they see it on their friend’s Tumblr or CNN’s homepage.

“The mix of curation and creation, premium versus user-generated content … these lines are blurring a lot faster than most people think, especially on the consumer side. Young people especially often don’t distinguish between them, or don’t care about the distinction. Whether or not this is a rich opportunity or a sign of the apocalypse depends on your perspective. Again, I think it’s a little of each. Insert funny apocalypse GIF here.”


via Fast Company http://www.fastcompany.com/3000358/reblorg-tumblr-embraces-its-apocalypse-gif-and-bespectacled-panda-penchant?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+fastcompany%2Fheadlines+%28Fast+Company%29

The Creators Of “Workaholics” On Keeping The Stupid And Weird In Your Creative Process

The creators of Comedy Central’s “Workaholics” discuss the importance of “weird, random brain farts” and how not to be an idea cop.


via Fast Company http://www.fastcocreate.com/1681397/the-creators-of-workaholics-on-keeping-the-stupid-and-weird-in-your-creative-process?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+fastcompany%2Fheadlines+%28Fast+Company%29

Infographic: A Gargantuan Map Of The Internet

196 countries. 350,000 sites. 2,000,000 links. 1 giant picture.

via Fast Company http://www.fastcodesign.com/1670422/infographic-a-gargantuan-map-of-the-internet?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+fastcompany%2Fheadlines+%28Fast+Company%29