Fast Forward audio series

Tomorrow Unlocked’s audio series Fast Forward examines forces shaping technology by looking at the recent past. What can business learn from technology’s past that will shape its future?

Fast Forward audio series

Fast Forward episode previews

Dip into Tomorrow Unlocked’s series examining what tech’s past can tell us about its future.

Selected episodes

View all series

What will future supermarkets be like?
1 min

What will future supermarkets be like?

Which unexpected technological items will we see in the bagging area next?

  • Episode 2
  • 1 min
Welcome to the labyrinth
1 min

Welcome to the labyrinth

To see the future of technology, should we look to the past?

  • Episode 1
  • 1 min
How will cities change in the future?
1 min

How will cities change in the future?

Planning how cities will grow means thinking way ahead.

  • Episode 3
  • 1 min
Can machines outsmart us?
1 min

Can machines outsmart us?

Are we capable of telling machines apart from humans? Some evidence suggests we’re surprisingly easy to fool.

  • Episode 4
  • 1 min
Your future robot colleagues
1 min

Your future robot colleagues

Should you be polite to your AI assistant? Why are we all too trusting of robots?

  • Episode 5
  • 1 min

Tech’s history is its future

Interviews and articles delving into the ideas and minds featured in the Fast Forward audio series.

 

Selected articles

path dependence business innovation

How business can innovate better by escaping ‘path dependence’

  • Leadership
  • min read
    • It's an elaborate story how railway track spacing (and so, the space shuttle rocket boosters) ended up 4 feet 8 1⁄2 inches or 1.44 meters: Mind-bogglingly, the measurement goes back to the width of carriage wheels when pulled by two horses. And unlike many similar stories, it seems more fact than fiction. Data engineer and Associate Professor of English at University of Michigan, Tung-Hui Hu, points out this phenomenon – new infrastructure tending to follow the path of older infrastructure when its relevance is long past – in recent Tomorrow Unlocked audio series Fast Forward. The phenomenon is called path dependence or path tendency. He studied it in writing his book, A Prehistory of the Cloud. Hu says in Fast Forward, "I first noticed the tracks of the Southern Pacific Railroad were where they ran fiber optic cable. It made me wonder what precursors to the Cloud – what older networks – might exist. The highway system in Chicago, for instance, is built on top of old Native American trails. We have the same choke points, in terms of traffic, as we did 100 years ago. It's hard to run a cable through a mountain. We tend to land cables in the same places as they did in the 19th century." Every tech business today wants to be a disruptive innovator like Uber or AirBnB – inventing products that don't just improve what's already there, but fundamentally change how a market operates. Examining how your business is 'path dependent' – or follows practices no longer relevant or necessary – could open the door to disruptive ideas. What keyboards say about path dependence in tech The pattern of keys on the standard laptop, computer and even smartphone is a classic example of path dependence. The layout is called QWERTY after the first six letters on the top line of the English-language keyboard. But why are the letters in this strange order? QWERTY keyboard layouts were designed for the earliest typewriters in the 1870s to address a common problem: Mechanical letter levers close to each other would collide and jam. Many have tried to design alternatives to QWERTY that could be faster to learn and use. The Dvorak keyboard layout puts the most often used letters on the home keys, but whether it's faster, research is unclear. Dvorak, invented in the 1930s, didn't intend to 'disrupt' typing but make it faster and easier. Today, we see features like voice recognition disrupting writing itself, and with AI widely used to predict what people will want next, we may need to communicate our needs less in future. How do organizations stay nimble, notice and adapt to emerging trends, or even get ahead of them? No business wants to be the next Borders, Blockbuster or Polaroid, but it's not always clear how what patterns we have or how to break out of them. Research in the field of path dependence offers insight. Using self-reinforcing mechanisms as a way to change In the journal Business Research in 2020, Johann Fortwengel and Arne Keller ask, how can locked-in organizations regain their scope for maneuver? Past research suggests organizations usually escape path dependence thanks to external 'shocks,' like tough competition entering their market or the price of certain materials becoming uneconomic. But Fortwengel and Keller found "some organizations succeed in escaping from path dependence against all odds." Where organizations took time to understand how they were path dependent, and interrupt the ways the path reinforced itself (for example, in staff onboarding,) businesses could undo old paths and build new ones. One organization Fortwengel and Arne studied, 150-year-old German camera makers CameraCorp, had been a roaring success in the 20th century. "Employees gradually followed the informal principle to treat optical excellence and mechanical accuracy as the fundamental basis for decision-making, and adopted it as the ultimate priority in every aspect of their daily work." When in the mid-90s the Head of Electronics wanted to introduce new electrical features to the lens, he encountered much resistance because the solution was neither optical nor mechanical. The company became 'tapered' in its audience appeal, catering increasingly to the needs of the camera elite and ignoring wider market trends. When the digital photographic revolution hit in the late 90s, CameraCorp realized they couldn't go on building their business purely on past strengths. They established a structurally separate research-based digital imaging group. Although the group made several breakthroughs, staff in the wider organization didn't embrace the promise of change. CameraCorp could then make bold leaps to become a market leader in digital camera tech, whereas several big players in the camera and film market didn't adapt fast enough to survive the industry's digital transformation. Fortwengel and Keller stress the need to understand how paths are reinforcing themselves. "Self-reinforcing mechanisms play a complex role in path dependence. On the one hand, they are the key driver of path dependence, on the other hand, paradoxically, they offer a possible lever to escape path dependence." Making knowledge less sticky In the Oxford University Press-published Strategic Management: State of the Field and Its Future, researchers Henk Volberda, Tatjana Schneidmuller and Taghi Zadeh point to the role of managerial knowledge and strategy in escaping path dependence and achieving innovation. "Knowledge stickiness" describes the tendency of organizations – even within research and development – to rely on existing knowledge rather than seeking new. The three researchers propose triggers for organizations breaking out of their knowledge cycle: Diverse audiences, regulation and regulators, internal strategic misalignment and the strategist's role. Many would understand more diverse audiences can trigger organizations to change, but regulation is often assumed to harm innovation. The researchers argue history shows regulation often spurs innovation, so organizations might consider 'leaning in' to regulation, considering it an opportunity rather than a pain in the neck. They also propose innovation benefits when different parts of an organization are pulling in different directions. "Organizations can thrive by embracing misalignment between internal components and promoting inconsistent mentalities and structures." Misalignment could make organizations more flexible and adaptive. "Firms that can embrace misalignment can steer a path through their technological developments when they do not have a clear view of what the future might hold. They can accommodate differing views of the future among their managers." CameraCorp's story shows how businesses that become too focused on narrow goals become path dependent. It follows that being strategically diverse, or in other words a bit scattered, could be an advantage. All businesses want to innovate, but success is often followed by getting stuck on the same path that led you there. Studies in path dependence give insight on how organizations get stuck and how they can free themselves. When organizations fall victim to their own success, breaking patterns means undoing before building new. How will you start to break down your business's path dependence, allowing disruptive ideas into the light?
fast forward

To succeed in tech innovation, take these lessons from the past

  • Leadership
  • min read
    • Inventor of the audiocassette Lou Ottens' death at age 94 in early 2021 gave the media and technology world a chance to stop and think. In the age of Musks and Zuckerbergs, it's easy to forget how much Ottens changed the game. The home and studio standard of the time, open-reel tape, didn't travel nearly so well. Reels and playback machines were heavy, bulky and easily damaged. Ottens started with the idea of something conveniently carried. He cut a piece of wood to the size of his pocket as a template. From the pocket to the world By the 1980s, we were connecting cassette players to early home computers and telephone answering machines. Before cassettes receded into obsolescence around the late 1990s, the penetration of Lou Ottens' innovation was total. But the audiocassette stayed influential beyond its popularity. Ottens also helped develop the Compact Disc, which stored more data and was more durable. But its use and distribution patterns followed those established by its predecessor, the cassette. Symbols on PlayStation, other game controllers and almost all audio-visual players mimic those introduced with the audiocassette. Past lessons invaluable for future success Frantic pace can distract us from learning from the past. The influence of Ottens' audiocassette beyond its seeming obsolescence is a case in point. New audio documentary series Fast Forward, presented by me for Tomorrow Unlocked by Kaspersky, is devoted to examining trends from the recent past shaping today's technology. It distills practical lessons that might otherwise have been lost in our rapid forward momentum. Clayton M. Christensen and Joseph Bower coined the term 'disruptive' to describe game-changing technologies in their 1995 article, Disruptive technologies: Catching the wave. Although 'disruptive' has since been overused, Bower and Christensen first identified the idea of disruptive technologies by taking the long view of innovation's history. Overuse tends to stretch meaning to the point where the original definition is all but lost. Disruptive technologies, often come from outside an existing system of established firms and products, create new markets that eventually displace that system. The concept can be crushed down to Mark Zuckerberg's infamous (former) motto for Facebook: Move fast and break things. Launching unfinished business The current rush to disrupt in tech industries condemns customers and producers to live in a 'beta' universe where bugs become features to be dealt with later. . But as entrepreneur Andy Budd observed in a recent blog post," Without a clear picture of what you're building, it's almost impossible to predict problems. We're encouraged to learn about the future not by thinking, imagining or researching outcomes, but by launching products and learning from the results." The law of unintended consequences tends to govern the 'beta' universe. Taking the long view can help swing those consequences from negative to positive. It's unlikely Lou Ottens foresaw the deep, long-term impact of the audiocassette while he cut that block of wood to fit in his pocket. Making time for failure a success Ottens was only five in 1926 when Thomas Edison died. Edison invented the phonograph, which made mechanical sound recording and playback possible for the first time. Edison first tried to market the phonograph by putting it inside a doll that recited nursery rhymes and wished its owner a happy Christmas. The doll was a dismal failure, withdrawn from shelves after most were unsold or returned by disturbed customers. Maybe his customers didn't want a talking doll, but they did want to hear a famous operatic tenor like Enrico Caruso in their parlors. "I have not failed," Edison said about his repeated setbacks while inventing the lightbulb. "I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work." Edison's profound commitment to try and try again shows, in times when 'ever beta' doesn't seem to equal 'ever better,' innovators and entrepreneurs may still find the long view offers the most useful lessons.
rocket women interview

Why business and diverse talent are the future of space exploration

  • Opinions
  • min read
    • Rocketing numbers of women in the space program shows change is happening, but Vinita Marwaha Madill (@Rocket_Woman1,) space engineer and Founder of Rocket Women, says we can do more to support all top space talent. She also sees a crucial role for business in our space exploration future. As part of Tomorrow Unlocked's new audio documentary Fast Forward, I talk with Vinita about her work as a space engineer, how business is changing space and Rocket Women's work supporting women and girls who set their sights on the cosmos. Ken: Tell us about the Rocket Women initiative. Vinita: Rocket Women is a global initiative founded in 2012 that aims to empower diverse young women to choose a career in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM.) In the UK only 12 percent of engineers are women and less than 8 percent are from Black, Asian and minority ethnic backgrounds. The goal of Rocket Women is to reverse this trend by giving inspirational women worldwide a platform to share advice and have their voices heard. Sally Ride, the first US woman in space, said, "You can't be what you can't see." Role models need to be tangible and visible to inspire and empower. We need diversity in space and technology so the professions reflect more of society. Now more than ever, we need all available talent to solve the hard problems facing the world. Ken: Relatively few women seemed to have been involved in the Apollo space program, and their contributions were not fully acknowledged at the time. But now there is a larger number and diversity of backgrounds. What's changed? Vinita: Much has changed since Sally Ride became the first US woman in space in 1983. Many women contribute to the space career program today. In 2016 NASA had its first 50 percent female astronaut class. There are still social and cultural barriers girls experience from a young age that society needs to overcome. One is equal access to education. Ken: In Rocket Women's mission statement, you talk about trying to prevent unconscious bias. What kind of unconscious bias is influencing space exploration? Vinita: Language represents biases that have been there from the early days of the space program. NASA has made some changes to their language, like changing 'manned' to 'crewed.' We're still using space suits designed in the 1970s on the International Space Station (ISS.) We saw repercussions in 2019 with suit design delaying the first all-female spacewalk. NASA has been working on a new suit design that can provide for everyone, from the smallest female to the largest male. Ken: If you think of the old space race – cold war era – versus the new space race, what attitudes and pathways have changed? Vinita: The role of global space agencies is shifting. Working with business has been a great step, such as getting astronauts to and from the space station through Elon Musk's space transportation company SpaceX. We're looking at how the commercial sector will be part of space exploration in future. NASA is working with Axiom Space and SpaceX, who will transport an Axiom-trained commander and three private astronauts to the ISS to live there for just over a week. So we're about to make space accessible to more people. I look forward to the day everyone can see Earth from space. Astronauts call it the overview effect: It reinforces our interconnectedness and shows how fragile Earth is. Ken: Space still feels like the rich people's game: Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk, Richard Branson. It seems you need a few billion in the bank before you can start making space plans. Vinita: It mustn't be just wealthy people who get the chance to see Earth from space. For space tourism, we'll need to develop reusable spacecraft, and that will need funding from business and space agencies. For the first all-civilian space mission, Inspiration4, an investor can buy a flight and pay for a member of the public to be aboard too. As a starting point for space tourism, it's not a bad place. Ken: Why are we going back to the Moon? Vinita: The interest in returning to the Moon is driven by science, technological development and preparing for future exploration. To get us back to the Moon, NASA is developing the Gateway – a mini space station in lunar orbit – with others like the European, Japanese and Canadian space agencies. It's building on the international cooperation that built the ISS. The Moon is also a science destination and port for future space transportation if we want to, for example, go to Mars. It's a platform to overcome the technical challenges of living and working in deep space. The lunar surface has valuable resources like Helium-3. Most importantly, the Moon will be the first place humans learn to live on another celestial body. It's only three days from Earth, and its low gravity and resources make it an ideal place to prepare to go further into space. Ken: There's a challenge in how to live in an environment our bodies aren't designed for. The further we go out into space, the more it becomes clear what it means to be human. Vinita: The further we go out, the more we learn and develop technology that could help on Earth. Many technologies we use today came from the space program. We need ways to communicate with astronauts in deep space and telehealth systems for medical emergencies. That technology could help people on Earth who live in remote communities. If we want to go to Mars, we'll need a way to provide nutrition for a couple of years. How do we develop nutrition for astronauts living on the Moon? It may help us find sustainable ways to feed Earth's growing population. Ken: What do we want from Mars? Why are we going there? Vinita: We need to go to Mars because humans are innate explorers. After mapping all the continents, going to the deepest point of the ocean and the peak of Mount Everest,  humanity's next step is to explore the solar system. The benefits we get from space exploration and the sector's goals are altruistic compared to many industries. With the ISS, many countries are working together. We want to use that cooperation to go back to the Moon and eventually to Mars. Ken: What factors have brought going to the Moon back into our orbit? Vinita: NASA, the European and Canadian space agencies have committed funding. Private companies internationally developing robotic technology to go back to the Moon ignites imaginations. We have political support for the program in the US. Space exploration needs ongoing, sustained effort. We build up our technology over decades: Develop the Gateway program from a smaller space station and add modules, then go back to the lunar surface for a few days at first, then develop a lunar habitat and sustainable exploration. We're looking at that long-term program now, and it's succeeding because everyone is working together. Ken: We have space initiatives in China, India and Israel. What about Russia – one of the original space racers? Vinita: I was lucky to work with Russian colleagues at the European Space Agency (ESA.) We worked on the European Robotic Arm for the Russian segment of the ISS. It will be launched alongside a new Russian scientific module. The robotic arm and the new scientific module will mean increased scientific research capacity on the ISS and help them develop new technology, as well as developing the ISS and supporting cosmonaut spacewalks. Ken: What's one thing about the new space race you most want to emphasise? Vinita: The importance of making sure role models are tangible and visible. For its new human spaceflight program, Artemis, NASA selected a cadre of astronauts with an equal gender split. I can't wait for the day the first woman steps foot on the Moon. It will inspire young men and women everywhere. Listen to an interview with Vinita in Fast Forward Episode 6: The New Space Race Listen to more episodes of Tomorrow Unlocked's Fast Forward audio series
ai ethics

The mirror we don’t recognize ourselves in: Talking AI with Dr. Beth Singler

  • Artificial intelligence
  • min read
    • One of many experts appearing in Tomorrow Unlocked's new audio series Fast Forward is Dr. Beth Singler, anthropologist and Junior Research Fellow in artificial intelligence at University of Cambridge. Dr. Singler (@BVLSingler) examines the social, ethical and philosophical implications of artificial intelligence and robotics. She has spoken at Edinburgh Science Festival, London Science Museum and New Scientist Live, and been interviewed by New Scientist, Forbes and the BBC. I interviewed Dr. Singler about AI and the future of work. Ken: In your work, you engage people in conversations about the implications of artificial intelligence (AI) and robotics. What do people think AI is? Beth: For the public, it isn't one thing. People point to examples of AI being implemented, but it has different definitions for people. They draw presumptions from science fiction and media accounts of dangerous AI and scary robots. It's a malleable term – people say 'the algorithm' and mean AI. Many think of AI in the workplace replacing human physical work, but we see AI taking on more knowledge labor and even emotional labor. Ken: What kind of emotional tasks can AI do? Beth: We increasingly see interfaces with AI that give simulated emotional responses. AI assistants do tasks for you but pleasantly and civilly. Call center work is already highly structured and scripted – an AI assistant or chatbot can take over that pleasantry system. How workplaces implement AI will influence how we connect with other humans. Ken: Are we creating a human-machine social world we'll have to learn to interact with? Beth: Yes. We're seeing these human-machine interactions playing out in different places – in the home, workplace, and care settings. We're having to understand that relationship and teach our children to negotiate it. There are discussions on whether children should be polite when using AI assistants. We're coming up with a new social format for interactions with AI. Ken: I thought, of course you should be polite to machines – if only because one day they'll look at everything we've said and done and judge us accordingly. I want to be on the right side of them. Beth: We also see arguments that you should be civil to AI assistants because this is how we should behave to other entities, whether human or non-human – that it reflects our natures. If we aren't civil to machines, it says more about us than their needs. There are many different answers to questions of politeness to AI assistants. Ken: People find conversations with Cleverbot amusing when it asks things like, "Don't you wish you had a body?" or "What is God to you?" They don't consider Cleverbot thinks it's appropriate because a human asked IT those questions. We're looking into a strange, distorting mirror and not recognizing our reflection. Beth: Absolutely. There's a reason the Black Mirror TV series is called Black Mirror – it's a reflective surface for understanding ourselves. AI and machine responses come from data sets, and those involve biases. It's a moment to reflect, for instance, on questions of personhood before we even get to anything like artificial general intelligence (AGI) or superintelligence. Should we be civil? If we say rude or sexist things to a female AI assistant, does that matter? These questions come out again and again. I'm an anthropologist, meaning I study what humans do and think. These big questions are integral to our concept of what AI is. I've seen in my work engaging the public and seeing their sometimes hopeful, sometimes fearful responses that this will be a conversation we'll have for some time yet. Ken: I was at an airport buying a train ticket one afternoon. It was quiet, and the woman behind the counter said, "You should have been here yesterday – the automatic ticket machines had recalibrated and was giving wrong tickets. People adjust. Machines don't." I wondered if this ability to adjust is part of our relationship with machines. Beth: It's interesting how much we adjust to machines. With the airport systems that use facial recognition software, I often have to take off my glasses, change my hair or bob down. We adjust ourselves to be accepted by the system. You see this in how automation is changing the workplace. There are interviews with facial recognition software involved, so we're trying to smile more in a video interview. We're increasingly making changes to fit the machine-based system. Ken: It suggests an element of trust. Where does trust fit in our relationship with machines? Beth: Trust is key. We want to believe software that observes our responses in job interviews is fair and neutral, but we have examples where trust is let down. In the UK in 2020, an algorithm that helped grade student exam papers damaged public trust – it penalized students studying at less high-achieving schools. In my work, I see examples of people trusting too much – they have an image of a superintelligence that doesn't exist yet. Society can only trust technology it understands. Digital literacy – understanding what AI is and isn't – is key to that. Ken: We tend to understand things better as fiction. It's a way to get a grip on the world. But I get the feeling fiction's not a grip anymore, but a stranglehold. Is that fair? Beth: I enjoy science fiction accounts of AI in their many interpretations, fears and hopes. One of the hazards is a strict, negative story used too often. I'm a fan of the Terminator film franchise, but I see how dystopian imagery of robot uprisings shapes people's views of AI. And AI making crucial decisions about our future – whether we get a job or a mortgage, or how we're treated in hospital – may also be overshadowed by Terminator-like stories. Ken: And it stops us noticing when AI does good things, like in medicine and traffic control. The robots are already among us, but they don't usually walk on two legs. They're more likely to be sorting out your airplane ticket. Beth: There's a move toward making robots cuter and replicating child and animal forms to reduce those threatening associations from science fiction. Think of Arnold Schwarzenegger's Terminator versus the therapeutic robot PARO, modeled on a baby harp seal. Ken: Is there an element of trying to make work more fun? Perhaps work becomes more like play if you have an AI assistant who helps with the emotional labor? Beth: Yes. There's a history of trying to gamify the workplace – developing 'third space' options that involve games or places where you can nap. Perhaps how we apply AI is a part of how we make the workplace more enjoyable. If our software chatted back to us, was entertaining and responded to us, it might seem less laborious. Ken: Going back to emotional labor, programs could soften the edges of work relationships, whether online or in an office – I can imagine something like an 'emotional Roomba' (robot vacuum cleaner) allowing for moments of interaction. Beth: We see examples of AI mediating between humans in conversation, like machine learning algorithms suggesting how to respond to emails or warning your tone is too harsh – softening the edges of our interactions at work is a developing space. Ken: After some emails I've had, I see the value in something like that. Beth: I also saw an application for divorced or divorcing couples helping conversations be more amicable for the benefit of any children. A machine learning algorithm warns you things like, perhaps you're being a bit sarcastic. Ken: I'm scared of an algorithm that understands sarcasm. That will be the end of humanity. Beth: There's a wonderful Tom Gauld cartoon about scientists trying to create a sarcastic bot. And the bot says to the scientist, "It's going great. This guy is a real genius." Ken: What thought about AI and the future of work would you most like people to take away? Beth: I'd like people to consider how much we should change our behavior in relation to AI in the workplace. People don't normally interact in purely rational ways. If we curtail that normal human messiness, we're not anthropomorphizing AI but robo-morphizing humans. If we make ourselves smile more to do well in an interview with facial recognition software, we limit ourselves. Although we might see AI as a human simulation, do we become a human simulation in response to AI? Listen to Tomorrow Unlocked's Fast Forward audio series for more expert views
space law

How space law keeps cowboys and rogue satellite drivers out of orbit

  • Tech for business 
  • min read
    • Space law is a fascinating area. As part of new Tomorrow Unlocked audio series Fast Forward, I'm talking to Assistant Professor and Deputy Director of the International Institute of Air and Space Law at Leiden University, Tanja Masson-Zwaan (@tanjamasson) about the challenges of using space law designed for the old space race in the new world of space exploration. Ken: What have been the biggest changes in space exploration since the Moon landings 50 years ago? Tanja: Nowadays, it's not two superpowers – the US and the Soviet Union – but many more countries and start-ups, companies, even universities. That change raises legal issues because space law is based on states rather than corporations or entities. Under the many space treaties, resolutions and so on, states are responsible and liable, and must perform their activities in certain ways. Companies becoming involved, maybe becoming the main actors, stresses the system. That's why we see new national legislation: States are making sure their companies and entities don't break the principles they signed up to. Ken: Are you saying if I launch a satellite that damages someone else's satellite, my government is liable, rather than me? Tanja: When a private entity launches and operates a satellite, it first needs state authorization and supervision – for instance, through a license from the government. If their satellite crashed into a satellite owned by another state, the state that launched the object is liable, not the private entity. That's different from aviation. If you lose your suitcase, you can sue the airline. If your satellite is damaged, you will go to your Ministry of Foreign Affairs, who would present a claim to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the state that launched the satellite that caused the damage. Ken: What's the legal position on mining and mineral rights in space? Tanja: It's an exciting time with missions to the Moon and Mars. The potential for resource extraction and commercialization is creating a buzz, although it's a scientific and technical challenge, as well as a financial and legal one. Extracting and commercially using space resources is also essential for establishing a semi-permanent human presence on these bodies or for using the Moon as a stepping stone to Mars. You wouldn't have to bring all the water you need from Earth – you could use water on the Moon and transform it into fuel to go to Mars. But whether you can use those resources or commercialize them is a legal question not addressed in the space treaties. The treaties also have a principle that benefits from space must be for all countries. Many conditions must be guaranteed. But how? That's the debate. Ken: When the US planted its flag on the Moon in 1969, did that have legal validity? Did they claim anything? Tanja: The US explicitly said putting their flag on the Moon was an expression of pride about being the first nation to the Moon, not claiming to own the Moon. To claim the Moon is contrary to a cardinal principle of space law: You cannot own any part of outer space – but owning a part of space isn't needed to use it and its resources. Ken: Low earth orbit is getting crowded. There are functioning and non-functioning satellites and all kinds of space junk. What legal space do they occupy? Tanja: If anyone wants to use that space, they must follow rules. For example, states must coordinate with a United Nations specialized agency, the International Telecommunication Union, to get rights to use frequencies or orbits, which they can then give to their satellite operators. The 1967 Outer Space Treaty says the use and exploration of outer space are free, so states can put satellites in space if they follow rules, but they can't claim to own that space. The state must also authorize and supervise if private entities carry out activities. Ken: You mentioned in a blog post the Permanent Court of Arbitration, which could decide on outer space disputes. What kind of issues are brought to the court? Tanja: Over 100 states are party to the Permanent Court of Arbitration. It has special rules for solving disputes about space activities. Disputes could arise about collision damage or signal interference, but also product liability and intellectual property. Diplomacy usually solves space disputes because there are always other interests at stake, like friendly trade relations. So far, no case has been brought to the Permanent Court of Arbitration, nor to any other international court such as the International Court of Justice – the highest judicial organ of the UN. Ken: Is lawmaking in front of technology, for once? Tanja: It's an interesting question, should law precede technology, or should technology evolve and law follow? I think they should follow each other closely. It doesn't make sense to make laws when we don't know how something will work. For example, we don't know if suborbital flights will have horizontal takeoff, vertical drop from a plane or something else. On the other hand, you must look ahead to preserve the future use of outer space. Having a dispute settlement mechanism can prevent disputes because parties are confident there's a way to settle it if something arises. Ken: Growing up with the space race, I don't think many thought about the environmental impact. It seems like laws are needed in that area now. Tanja: When the space era started, it really was a space race – neither side worried about what was going up. Scientists were excited just to be launching things into space. But space is getting polluted. There are also concerns about going to another celestial body and spoiling its pristine environment with bacteria. The Committee on Space Research has established a planetary protection protocol. There are rules about what level of protection you must apply depending on the mission and where you're going. The rules evolve as we gain knowledge. If there will be a sustained human presence, will we have a landfill on the Moon? Are we going to put garbage into orbit around the Moon? We'll have to find a solution to keep it sustainable, now that we're all super dependent on space. Ken: Is there a fundamental question, beyond nations and corporations, about our rights as a species to go into space? Some people feel passionately that we have no business on Mars because it's not our planet. Tanja: And some cultures have special connections with the Moon and other celestial bodies. It's important to respect that. But humankind is driven to push frontiers and to discover. I like the quote: We should go out and explore, but also show respect for other cultures and beliefs, and the environments of other planets. Ken: What is possible within the law to restrain corporate buccaneers from taking advantage of space? Tanja: There are some space cowboys out there doing things that may raise concerns in the community. Is that what we want? I think we should appreciate the good being done alongside the issues it raises. Elon Musk's company SpaceX now operates a third of all satellites, and that happened in a year. If SpaceX launches the planned 42,000 satellites, how will we deal with that? He also says he will provide broadband to places on Earth that don't have it, and that's good. And he's developed reusable rockets, so he's contributing to space sustainability. I think there needs to be a regulatory counterweight. The US authorities should ask those in Elon Musk's position to do environmental impact assessments and find ways to develop their plans without disrupting science and astronomy. It's give and take, but you have to appreciate what these people are doing – they have the money states never will. Ken: What's next in your space law work? Tanja: I've just started a big EU project researching the European position on space traffic management. We don't have rules on space traffic management nor space security and safety, like retrieving objects from outer space. We need these rules for sustainable space exploration. Ken: Is there money to be made in space salvage – bringing satellite components back to Earth? There must be some mineral wealth up there. Tanja: An analogy is salvaging wrecks on the sea. A ship owner can abandon a ship, and a salvage company can salvage it, selling the scrap metal. We have an extra problem in space because space object ownership is eternal – you can't abandon anything. We need to get a space debris-removal industry going, but they'll need approval for every piece they retrieve. The state that launched it will be eternally liable if something else is damaged during space salvage. We also need to make it possible to refuel or repair in space. It's hard to tighten a screw on a satellite without putting the satellite in jeopardy. So as well as space salvage, space sustainability may mean a new industry of in-orbit servicing. Ken: So there are wider benefits to a focus on sustainability in space. Thank you, Tanja, for filling us in on space law. Tanja: You're welcome. Listen to the full Fast Forward audio series for more interviews with featured experts.
phygital business

How ‘phygital’ tech could save post-pandemic retail stores

  • Future tech
  • min read
    • COVID-19 has had a monumental impact on retail worldwide. While everyone has found lockdowns and social distancing challenging, stores are working hard to adapt to shifting consumer expectations and a new reality. It's make-or-break for many bricks-and-mortar outlets. How will savvy stores stay safe from the crumbling façade of face-to-face shopping? One way is by using interactive shopping experiences that combine physical and digital – or 'phygital' shopping – to keep, win and wow customers. Storefronts shutting, ecommerce booming In the UK in 2020, according to research by professional services firm PwC (formerly PricewaterhouseCooper,) around 10,000 more chain stores closed than opened – that's around 27 closures every day. The US fared better within this downward trend, with Coresight research finding 5,437 more stores closed than opened in the same year. Meanwhile, the Office for National Statistics reported UK ecommerce grew by 46 percent in 2020 – its strongest annual growth since 2008. The global picture was similar, with eMarketer estimating worldwide ecommerce sales grew 28 percent in the same year. Adding interest to physical shopping Phygital retail isn't entirely new. Stores have been experimenting with these new technologies for a few years. The 2021 opening of 'frictionless' grocery store Amazon Fresh in London shows the potential of phygital technology to change physical shopping beyond recognition. Customers at Amazon Fresh scan a QR code when they enter, place items in a basket and leave when they've finished shopping. In-store cameras and sensors track what's placed in the basket, and the shopper is automatically charged. Forget lines and self-checkouts announcing "unexpected item in the bagging area." Neil Saunders, managing director and retail analyst at GlobalData Retail, thinks more consumers will want both ease and inspiration from their shopping experience, post-pandemic. "Technology can make the shopping process more convenient and enhance it with the likes of augmented reality or location-based push notifications with offers." Starting the phygital journey doesn't mean an overnight transition to fully digitized business. It may mean introducing relatively simple tools that enhance the consumer experience. Letting shoppers check when their order will be ready to pick up or alerting customers when their favorite item is on sale can go a long way to making shopping more convenient. New audio documentary Fast Forward by Kaspersky Tomorrow Unlocked explores more phygital experiences in retail, with analysis from expert technology futurists, in episode 2: Scan purchase for maximum score. Not just for the biggest players More ambitious retailers who have embraced technologies like augmented reality can expand their digital horizons by giving customers new ways to understand products. Sportswear brand Adidas launched three augmented reality experiences at their flagship store on Oxford Street in London, letting shoppers use their smartphone camera to explore new product features. While high-tech retailers like Samsung and Amazon undoubtedly pioneered digital in physical retail, small and medium-sized businesses and non-tech firms can benefit from this emerging trend – if they ask the right questions. Bart Veen, Founder and Creative Director of event company BART, has created technology-led events for brands like Tommy Hilfiger and the Mall of the Netherlands. He believes technology shouldn't be used for technology's sake. There must be a well-defined understanding of the impact the technology will have on the business. Improving the customer experience is more than a nice-to-have for high street stores – it may give a much-needed edge in a competitive market. According to Salesforce's 2020 State of the Connected Customer report, 80 percent of customers think the experience a company provides is as important as its products and services. But the same research found two in three customers felt impersonally treated in their interactions with stores. There's a fine line between using technology to refine customer experience and overusing digital tools that take away the personal touch shoppers want. On their phygital journey, stores should work with experts in tech who know how to avoid crossing the line. "Innovation is doing something that hasn't been done before, and it's all about collaborating. If you have the best experts together and you all have the same goal in mind, you can create something extraordinary," says Veen. Post-pandemic retail Like many industries, the banking sector doubled down on digitization as COVID-19 limited access to face-to-face banking. But as online banking keeps growing, branches are still vital to many, especially older people and small business owners. Yet, most provide few services beyond the traditional offering of paying in cash and checks, activating cards and buying foreign currency. The UK's Barclays bank saw an opportunity and converted 25 closed branches into Eagle Labs: Spaces for co-working, mentoring and networking, as well as getting banking advice. They also used digital technologies to enhance start-ups' experience and make services faster and more convenient, while bank staff offered valuable personal customer interaction and support. As retail bounces back after COVID-19, there's a need to reassess what physical stores do. Barclays is just one of many companies looking to move beyond its traditional services. Fashion, grocery and electronics are all accelerating their digital transformation to meet customer expectations better. Mark Thomson, Director of Retail and Hospitality Solutions for Europe, the Middle East and Africa at retail technology provider Zebra Technologies, believes the most effective phygital solutions enhance the physical experience with digital benefits. An effective shopping experience blends in-store and online. "Customers measure an in-store experience against an online one, so it needs the right technology to let retail staff host an experience rather than just attend," says Thomson. "Physical stores have a future, but as part of a more digital world." As the lines between physical and digital retail blur, retailers in all industries can capitalize on recent tech innovations that make in-store shopping less stressful and more convenient. From cashier-less shopping to augmented reality to location-based push notifications, future retail will pair the best of technology with personalized experiences.

Listen to Fast Forward

The audio series that explores tech’s past and asks, what we can learn about tech’s future?

Listen now
About Tomorrow Unlocked

Thought-provoking stories about how technology helps us create a better future. From real-life cybercrime to defending our online lives.

  • For all other countries