Great technology should improve life, not distract from it
wellbeing.google
wellbeing.google
1) Most of it is just not very useful.
2) I like opinionated software built by obsessive people. This isn't that. You can smell it.
3) Most importantly, these AI/chatbot/nudge/assistant/automation tools have a critical flaw--they're not predictable. Trying to manage them is like keeping a bunch of state in your head at the same time and it hurts. Which device is going to remind me? When? When will it remind me exactly? An hour before? 5 minutes before? Are my notification preferences saved from my last device that I recently replaced? Are my notifications turned on? Do I have sound turned on or only badge icons?
I think software works best when it has a bounded utility, not popping into your life unexpectedly 24x7, but being lightweight, simple, useful, and predictable for the 30 seconds you need it and that's it.
Sadly, the tendency in tech people seems to be to make things as god-awful complicated as possible.
DOS: Install applications by copying a folder of files to your disk. They include their dependencies, and they can't really conflict. Can be "installed" to removable media.
Modern OSs: Install applications using a package manager that will automatically detect conflicts and grab dependencies for you, except when it screws up and hoses itself then it is time for a reinstall. Can only install applications from managed repositories. Can only install applications to hardcoded paths. Has no concept of installing applications to removable media so you can use them from any computer. Most don't even have the concept of downloading packages and their dependencies for installation on a different computer.
The modern tech solution to the problems caused by package managers? Containerization.
Sometimes I feel like it's a sport to see who can come up with the most convoluted pile of abstractions to solve the simplest problems.
DOS: install program by copying a bunch of files to a directory. Start program, won't work as it needs something in config.sys. Add that something, reboot PC, try again and the program now complains about not having enough low memory. Fiddle with expanded/extended/extruded/exploded memory to get those extra 15 KB which the program needs. Reboot PC, the program now works but that other program which used to work doesn't anymore as the special something in config.sys conflicts with its own very special something.
Modern OS: install portable application, problem solved.
Technically it is totally possible to make portable Windows applications and people do it all the time, but it isn't the way applications are typically built and that causes a bunch of problems. Linux has the same issue, really. Linux users will talk about how silly the registry is, but the file hierarchy full of hardcoded paths is pretty much the same damn thing. It is also technically possible to make portable Linux applications, it's just slightly harder than Windows due to a few factors caused by everyone always working within the distro+package manager paradigm. Where they do have some form of "portable" application, they've over-engineered the hell out of it and use containerization to make it happen. AppImage is ok, it's only slightly over-engineered, but sadly even that doesn't work everywhere because of how much of a mess Linux is.
That's a common problem with Microsoft. One team makes an elegant design but another team doesn't fully understand it and thwarts the improvements made.
Very interesting, and my initial reaction is that I agree. It's like art in that sense.
Now I'm trying to think of cases where it applies and where it doesn't, and maybe generalize that. A game? Of course. Applications? Yes, if the developer's vision embraces a variety of use cases and real world scenarios. Do I want that for my OS? It does give the OS a cohesive design, which is appealing, and predictability, but the dev's opinion better be that the OS should stay out of my way. A video driver? I guess anything could benefit from cohesive vision - it makes the software easier to reason about - but availability, compatibility and functionality seem paramount. ... I haven't yet left my laptop, so there are many more possibilities.
So it seems better to have just one specialized system to manage all notifications.
Like don't act as if we don't see through this--you see how angry people are getting about facebook and all the other manipulative technologies tuned to be as addictive as possible for their advertiser's sake. You see the outrage and you know you've been doing the same thing so you're trying to get ahead of the PR disaster. All of a sudden google's all about disconnecting and not distracting you with AI-tailored bullshit and ads 24/7.
And yeah. Adding an AI assistant to your home and car isn't going in the right direction. Like how do they figure that's going to help you disconnect? I see the justifications but they feel really contrived. Just another way for them to soak up all your data and target you for more and more manipulative and addictive content.
I personally think that letting AI assistants into your life is yet another terrible idea. Why are we doing it? Is it really that great? Is a little bit of convenience really worth it? I think people will do literally anything for a slight increase in convenience, no matter how small. Anything. It's crazy.
It shows a browser notification when you spend more than two minutes on certain websites.
Take for example, the feature that allows you to set a limit on the time you spend on YouTube per day and the fact that it works across both mobile and desktop. This would seem to be in conflict with all the efforts they have made up until now with the auto-play and related videos features to keep you on YouTube. Some how, someone at Google has finally recognised that perhaps the person who spends their entire day watching one video after another is actually not as valuable a user to them as the one that watches a healthier 1-2 hours per day is amazing to me.
Edit: I should add that while my hope is that ultimately Google's 'wellbeing' algorithm will align with my own internal one, I can see that the initial implementation doesn't quite go far enough. For example, I have a cronjob on my laptop that shuts it down every day at midnight. Google's equivalent is that the screen simply goes greyscale. I would prefer that my phone simply turns off no questions asked (I know that you can schedule your phone to turn off at a particular time but it gives a 30 second warning which is too easy to dismiss - and when you do dismiss it, no more shut down attempts are made). Hopefully, Google will open enough access to these features to developers so that users can have the kind of control over their own technology that they need.
You are excited that google is going to continue to monitor and spy on their users?
> Edit: I should add that while my hope is that ultimately Google's 'wellbeing' algorithm will align with my own internal one
Why should everyone adhere to your "wellbeing"?
> For example, I have a cronjob on my laptop that shuts it down every day at midnight.
Are you incapable of just going to sleep? Do you really need a cronjob to shutdown your laptop? Why do you assume that your lack of self control projects to everyone else?
Instead of looking to google or tech companies, why don't you develop self-control? Do you leave your TV on and then complain that broadcasters aren't coming to your home and turning it off for you? People like you scare me because you have a tyrannical mindset. The "everyone must be like me or they should all be forced to be like me" mindset.
No of course not. I'd rather they didn't spy on anyone.
> Why should everyone adhere to your "wellbeing"?
I don't want everyone to adhere to my definition of wellbeing. I am simply happy that Google are developing tools that I believe will help me personally. This has nothing to do with my expectations for everyone else.
> Are you incapable of just going to sleep? Do you really need a cronjob to shutdown your laptop?
Yes.
> Why do you assume that your lack of self control projects to everyone else?
I don't.
> Instead of looking to google or tech companies, why don't you develop self-control? Do you leave your TV on and then complain that broadcasters aren't coming to your home and turning it off for you?
Believe me I've tried. I meditate, I see a therapist, I get help from my social group, I have hobbies and relationships to occupy me. That doesn't mean I am not also addicted technology.
> People like you scare me because you have a tyrannical mindset. The "everyone must be like me or they should all be forced to be like me" mindset.
This is such a bizarre conclusion to me. Firstly, I don't really care what Google provide for anyone but me. I think this is exciting because I think I will find it useful. I haven't said anything about how I think it will cure societies ills or anything regarding how it will affect anyone but myself. Secondly, you realise that up until now Google's algorithms are tuned very specifically to increase the time you spend using their products. They use all kinds of psychological tricks to bypass your normal self control. The best thing Google could do for me is to stop using these tricks but unfortunately, that would probably cost them a lot of money. Instead, here they are providing help for people like me who need it while not changing the experience of their services for the rest. I don't see why it's tyrannical to want the services I choose to use to have the features I want in them.
When the products we use every day like Facebook and YouTube capitalize on the same reward pathways in our brain that drugs do by pumping out little bursts of dopamine, we might not actually have as much of a conscious choice whether to use (or stop using) these products as we think we do. [The Hacking of the American Mind][0] is an interesting exploration into brain chemistry and just how addictive some of these products can be. There's some glimmer of hope for me that these addictive products are admitting just how addictive they are and are starting to offer ways to manage the addictions.
[0]: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/34237719-the-hacking-of-...
Some of us choose the blue pill, others the red one.
I feel a sort of embarrassment on account of this marketing angle. The concept of digital wellbeing is a paradox. Yuck.
Some of us see the destruction of this culture thingy as a good thing and are truly rejoycing now, ya know!
No not really. Physical and mental wellbeing is linked to financial wellbeing. It makes sense for Google to want their customers to feel happier and healthier because they can be more productive, earn more money and ultimately spend that money on products that Google advertises.
is this an honest question?
an alcoholic while drunk might "feel happier" while not being happier. a drug addict might "feel happier" while high, but not be happier.
I think great great gp is using "feel[ing] happier" in the sense of achieving higher baseline happiness, not maximizing the "happiness level" of an instant.
I might be misreading who you mean by "great great gp", but I don't think scottie_m thinks that google is raising the happiness baseline. At least that's not how I interpret
> it’s enough for the perception to exist without the reality for Google’s purposes.
Anyway, that's enough speculation about speculation for me for one day.
> It makes sense for Google to want their customers to feel happier and healthier because they can be more productive, earn more money and ultimately spend that money on products that Google advertises.
(emphasis added)
The less cynical view is that Google is made of people, and people generally want to do good. Perhaps there are simply some influential people in the org that are interested in these kinds of things.
Assholes still think they're saving the world somehow.
I agree with other posters saying this is akin to a cigarette manufacturer branding a "smoke responsibly" ad with their logo.
The problem isn't tech. The problem is the industry's rampant need to take over our lives with their own silos.
Wouldn't look out of place. Not that it isn't hypocritical but that's a start.
Sure, I don't think it's actually effective but that paves the road to improvements, rather than flat out denial / don't ask don't tell.
Facebook depresses and alienates people, spreads disinformation and amplifies hate. Uber and Tesla self-driving cars kill drivers and pedestrians. Personal data gets stolen by criminals and hostile nations every day.
We're not going to unplug, and few people will roll their own alternatives.
So Google positions themselves as the safe, secure, trusted and healthy island in a sea of chaos, danger and distress.
While I personally agree, to an extent, and most people on HN at least grasp the idea, I wonder if most people out in the world have any notion of it. In that sad case, I'm not sure they are doing anything to improve their market position.
As opposed to the hundreds a day dying from conventional drivers? There are what, like 2 deaths attributable to self-driving cars so far? Some dystopia.
IMO the real dystopia is being unable to contextualize statistics and news reports, which have become a pervasive part of people's leisure consumption.
That does not justify putting half baked tech in a position where it could kill people.
Just wish a bit more of the punk aspect had survived.
The shamelessness though. It's fucking disgusting. Yet again we gotta watch this awful corporate PR tropism.
* Disconnect at night. Wind Down gets your phone ready for bed by letting you schedule changes to the display. Activating Night Light reduces blue light and Grayscale gets rid of all color, reminding you to switch off for the night.
* Quiet your phone with a simple gesture. Easily turn on Do Not Disturb by flipping your phone face down.
* Manage your time spent in apps. The app timer lets you set limits for how much you use your apps. When you’ve reached that limit, the app icon is grayed out for the rest of the day.
Most people will be able to learn, some will not and they'll get hooked, just like most people learn to handle alcohol or marijuana or exercise or food or... well, all those other things which - when taken to extremes - can ruin lives.
The scenario of the AI-equipped device which tells you it is time for bed reminds me of the space ship in the WALL-E movie where humanoid slugs zipped around on powered chairs from entertainment to entertainment. This is not a future I want to be part of.
So with that said, we already use technology to enhance our intelligence -- reading and writing, for example, or more recently things like wikipedia and google maps. Why not use intelligence to enhance our self control as well, if it leads to more fulfilling lives?
It might work for that part of the population which lacks sufficient self control just like insulin pumps work for that part of the population which lacks functional thyroid glands.
In this case, walking and cycling are like the basic functions of self discipline that almost everyone does like eating and going to the restroom. However, there are a significant number of people who need technological and human assistance with both of those things - whether it be because of age or genetics or poor life choices. All of those people are massively helped by technology.
Just because most people can walk on their own doesn't mean that we should force paraplegic to do so.
The app dashboard is the only major new feature, which will likely be helpful for some but is only a small part of the equation, which Google acknowledges ("The first step toward digital wellbeing is often understanding more about how you interact with technology in the first place").
Siempo launcher (http://www.getsiempo.com) believes the design of the home screen is the root cause of the smartphone addiction problem. Stock and third party launchers have no protections against the persuasive techniques of engaging apps. Wind Down is a step in the right direction here.
YouTube has a "time to take a break?" feature now, but autoplay is still on by default. Android has fancy voice recognition so you can say "Turn on do not disturb mode", but "disturb me mode" is still the default. We wouldn't need these bandaids if the technology wasn't designed from the start to be addictive and distracting.
They're treating the symptoms, but it's not clear they even understand the root cause.
The solution should be technology focused on empowering users. But that doesn't make as much money as abusive tech.
They’re creating distraction, not helping to solve it. They’re driven by profit, why would they vaulanterly make they’re products less addictive or vaunarable people?
Regadles, “Social Corporate Responsibility” has already proven itself to be a sham.
A democratic system in today's world honestly just hands the keys of state to whoever controls these marketing nukes. Of course it's not nearly as bad now as it'll get later. We're about to be treated to a front-row viewing of just how easy it is to mess up every future election.
Trump had a smaller budget than Hillary - so if anything, it proves the opposite of what you're claiming.
I understand that it's upsetting that the candidate you don't like is running the country - it is not helpful to throw reason out the window and cherry pick data that suit your emotions.
This is about the future. Social media moguls will arguably have immense power to choose which candidates can win or even compete in elections by selectively limiting or pushing coverage and managing incredibly insular social circles of people online. Forget superPACs or whatever. People who control a system this powerful don't need to campaign through the old-timey official political advertising system, they just push their agenda on their own network with no rules whatsoever.
And it's not national. It's global. Tons of actors are seeing just how effective it can be, and you better believe that people will be grinding that axe like mad in elections from here on. It's going to be very difficult to even quantify how broad an effect it has. As these algorithms get even more effective than they already are, we're going to essentially see the end of legitimate elections. PAC advertising has absolutely nothing on this new tactic.
(Almost) everyone agrees.
> Great technology should improve life, not distract from it
Google then goes on to offer something superficial.
> Learn more about your time spent in apps.
What about going outside or spending time with your family and people you love? What about inventing something new? What about offering something that will actually save some of your time, by the way?
Nope. This is an ad about a stupid mobile phone app.
> Learn more about your time spent in apps.
No negativity intended here. Sure, it could help to know you are wasting your time with apps—as if you didn't know that. Some apps are indeed useful and improving lives. But offering people to waste their time tracking their own habits on Android comes off as rather patronizing.
> Learn more about your time spent in apps.
I can't help but picture this ad with the missing clock ticking icon or with the inevitable skeleton in a hoodie carrying a scythe...
> offering people to waste their time tracking their own habits on Android comes off as rather patronizing.
I agree it is pretty weird to offer a product that is so good that users are literally addicted to it, and then offering tools to help users limit that addiction. You might imagine it would be pretty stupid for a a slot machine designer to include prompts every 30 minutes asking you to stop playing.
However, the difference is that a person when prompted to stop watching YouTube might decide to spend their time and money building a website on Google's cloud platform, or even realise they need to buy that thing they just saw an advert for and hence the prompts might actually help Google's profits, not hurt them.
Well maybe because the pitch is different from what they actually offer. In effect you are going to spend ages monitoring shiny graphs that will not tell you anything of substance, as opposed to free more time for you to do something more interesting.
For example, suppose said Google app shows that you have spent 3 hours watching Youtube that day. Well that's pretty bad for your productivity, right? Except if you were writing a novel or working on something while quietly listening to Vivaldi. You didn't even watch it—many Youtube "videos" are just sound recording, with static images or slideshows that you wouldn't bother to even look at.
Again, we can (almost) all agree that
> technology should improve life, not distract from it
This is a very good pitch, great copy.
Not to mention the irony of using apps to make you spend less time using apps.
This would encourage users to ration their time, making the decision of which videos to watch far more conscious and deliberate. Given a small enough ration, users will demand higher quality videos from content creators (whether directly or indirectly). Just take a look at all the click-baity content-farms out there pumping out listicles and "you won't believe...!", not to mention the new phenomenon of "YouTube Face".
If I'm watching a video of yours and you don't cut to the chase, fluffing up the video length in hopes of more favorable ad-revenue treatment, it's going to waste my ration and I'll switch to someone else.
Economics teaches us that value comes from scarcity. Life is short, so you better spend your time wisely. Money is valuable because you don't have unlimited wealth -- instead each purchase is an opportunity cost. We should bake that concept into modern social media and content platforms.
It may play out well for YouTube if users in this experiment end up more happy and more engaged with the content they're watching, and therefore ads are more effective. I question whether ads are as effective as they could be when people are just droning on through hours and hours of clickbait and low-quality content-farm material.
In this age of information over-abundance, maybe artificial scarcity can help.
been out for 7 years! :)
I see these apps becoming more and more useful as we build more and more distractions for ourselves - from KFC, to Social media apps, etc.
But this only works for commoditised, well understood tech
For everything else - where we are still getting to grips with the right metaphor for the tool, the right approach is not configuration - it's API and openness.
All of the Facebook privacy issues go away if there's is an ecosystem of API providers and scripts to manage the problems - look at how eu banking is expecting the Payments directive 2 to go
[#] handwave on nuclear weapons technology etc
I wonder how many of the people claiming this is a PR stunt by Google will say the same thing when Apple introduces their version. Apple also benefits from addiction to their devices, even if they don’t run the addictive mobile services (exception iMessage) that create the constant demand to use them.
I view showing people where their time is spent as the same as showing them calories consumed. Whether for PR or not, it is useful information to have.
It would be less dishonest if they just used health data to notify the user about things like missing sleep etc, and letting him choose what to do. The way it's presented as a digital nanny is kind of infantilizing.
That release seems to add some late but useful ideas (launcher with useful action for the selection, really worthy in real life). The timers, the shush or fade out feature. Technically simple, but really valuable as a user IMO
Might be marketing or reality but clearly the messages.
Relatedly, does anyone know a way to block websites on android? It seems impossible without a rooted phone.
Google is putting in place this claptrap, but yet hasn't done anything to curb it's illegal advertising to children.
I'm sorry, I don't trust google to have my well being in it's best interest. There must be some hidden angle.
In the US, other than YouTube, google has very little in the way of dopamine as a service, like Facebook, Twitter, Snap, IG, etc. This feels like an attempt to get in on the technology addiction by feigning to be anti-addiction.
The people who get distracted too easy won't reproduce, so only the rest remains ;)
The only thing I found was about how broadband internet affects fertility.
And the effect was positive, because at least the better educated women could work from home now which makes having a career and kids simpler.
They don't want "daddy google" but yet they want "daddy google" to tell them how much youtube to watch, what to search, when to go to bed, etc.
When google starts talking in a paternalistic manner, I worry. And my skeptical side just sees this as google's ploy to justify monitoring people. "Hey, we keep your private information and monitor you for your benefit.". Yeah right.
Google Bans Bail Bond Ads, Invites Regulation https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17020444