Opinion Archives — Jason Michael Perry
  1. Cord Cutting

    From Variety’s “Cord-Cutting Hits All-Time High in Q1, as U.S. Pay-TV Subscriptions Fall to Lowest Levels Since 1992

    Cable TV operators’ rate of decline in Q1 reached -9.9% year over year, while satellite providers DirecTV and Dish Network fell -13.4%. In addition, so-called “virtual MVPDs” (multichannel video programming distributors) lost 264,000 customers in Q1, among the worst quarters to date for the segment.

    “The picture is not one that suggests that a plateau in the rate of decline is coming any time soon,” Moffett wrote.

    It is no surprise that I cut the cord years ago, but two things make me debate that decision every year, live sports and local TV news. I’m a transplant to Baltimore, so my team, the New Orleans Saints, is only available if I pay a ridiculous cost for the NFL’s Sunday package. As the team grew in national fame, I spent more but still could not watch big national games or occasional Baltimore Ravens vs. New Orleans Saints matches because of antiquated TV rights rules.

    In New Orleans’s I know local TV news like the back of my hand, but as a cord cutter, I can’t tell you a thing of Baltimore’s local stations. Why is this when it seems clear that traditional TV has lost the war? Why do holdouts like the local news and sports continue to make it hard to take the leap?

    In 2022, Forbes reported that “Streaming Viewership Surpasses Cable For First Time, Nielsen Says.”

    While streaming will likely remain the dominant form of television consumption, Fuhrer told Forbes that broadcast and cable will likely “see some rebound” this fall, as college sports and the NFL season start up and attract a higher share of viewership to those mediums.

    Outside of the NFL and college football, every other sport has embraced streaming and has worked to make watching games more accessible. American football is stuck with a problem, few companies are big enough to lay out the dough they require, and until then, football has dug in and embraced traditional TV.

    TV news is different but similar. News is stuck with an unclear business model in streaming, but something that, while declining, still pays. CNN pushed hard to grow its online news business only to scale back drastically. Other broadcasters skirt the concept but struggle with reducing the size of their audience or being limited to building their distribution systems. So while traditional TV holds on for dear life to maximize profits and return shareholder value, these companies continue to miss the entire point.

    In 2018 the Guardian reported that “Young people are not watching TV news, but they still want to know about the world,” and why wouldn’t we expect that when in 2012, the Holly Wood Reporter spoke of these issues in “Why Kids’ TV is Scrambling to Stay Afloat“.

    Despite the effort, Nickelodeon and others increasingly compete with their own content on Netflix as their parent companies eagerly make rich licensing deals. In early May, Bernstein analyst Todd Juenger issued a report blaming “drastic declines” in ratings for kids networks in part on repeats of older episodes in homes that subscribe to the streaming and DVD service. The study was controversial because it was based only on data from homes that subscribe to TiVo, which is not necessarily typical of the broad universe of TV homes, but Juenger says “executives should think hard whether they want to sell this content to Netflix. The money looks good in the short term, but if you believe what the data says, as Netflix gets more subscribers and people who use it more get accustomed to it, the impact is going to grow.”

    Local TV, cable news TV, and football are getting the profits today, but both are missing out on establishing a relationship with a digital-first generation they’ve chosen to ignore or force to meet them on their turf. As Netflix begins its cord-cutting tour, do not forget Netflix CEO Reed Hastings’ quote on who they compete with:

    “We earn consumer screen time, both mobile and television, away from a very broad set of competitors,” the quarterly earnings statement read. “We compete with (and lose to) ‘Fortnite’ more than HBO.”

    What will the next generation pick when deciding between Roblox, Fortnite, and the NFL? Guess we will find out.

  2. Is ChatGPT a Big Deal?

    For the last few weeks (maybe months), OpenAI and several of its products have been in the press. If I knew nothing, this was the first time anyone had ever experienced AI or witnessed the immense amount of AI-based products we have consumed as customers for years.

    It’s not as if demos have shown AI ordering food for us. It can’t look at an image and determine the type of plant it is. Can’t it translate words for us in real time? Can’t AI write articles or create music?

    All of the things ChatGPT and recent AI innovations do are old news. We’ve been riding this wave since the video Humans Need Not Apply was recorded in 2014.

    What has changed is access to this tech. Before OpenAI, using AI required complicated training models and hidden developer-centric tools. You needed product teams to attach APIs and write code. OpenAI is a reflection not of innovation but of what happens when the technology available to anyone becomes easy to access. OpenAI ripped down walls and created a simple interface to showcase the ongoing development for years.

    If LL Cool J were to sum it up, he might say, “Don’t call it a [revolution]. I’ve been here for years.”

  3. You hear me?

    Since StarTrek TOS I have imagined living in the future. Talking with a computer conversationally and using our words to do anything sounds like a dream come true. Amazon Alexa’s introduction gave us that possibility with the first viable form of voice control. Even before Alexa, I’ve been a die-hard speech command lover through tools dragon text to speech for dictation and voice macros on MacOS to talk with Insteon devices and other random commands. Eject CD-Rom! Turn the light on!

    Now we seem even closer to that promised land. Google Assistant, Apple’s Siri, Microsoft Cortana, Amazon Alexa, and Samsung Bixby have begun a relay race to create an AI we can talk with. It feels like we keep inching closer and closer to the promised land, and you know what? Voice is a pretty horrible way to communicate.

    I find myself often tongue-tied and struggling to figure out how best to ask the simplest or most complicated of things. I would wager that sometimes I spend more time thinking about how to state a request then the time the actual request takes. But this is an issue that we can already see that ChatBots and AI are understanding and will become easier. The conversation should become more natural and feel less pained.

    My thoughts have evolved on where a voice request starts and what the natural reaction should be. For example, what time does a restaurant close? Oh, great, it’s open, and I can make it. But was that my real question? If it’s closed, where else could I go? Would I prefer to walk or drive? Will I need the menu? Does it meet my dietary needs? It’s not really a voice command I need but a conversation.

    Even if voice offered the info you need conversationally, would it really scratch the bigger itch? Yes, I want directions, but can I see the map first? I can judge the neighborhood much better by looking than by hearing an address. What is on the menu? Can I view it because we all know that a 1 or even 2 min read out of the menu is not what we want. Sometimes when debating music choices, I ask to hear Jazz but do you have 5 possible playlists I might like? Present me my options on an interface near me or start playing if I don’t respond. If I put down my phone or tablet voice should reengage and continue to help me. Did you want me to book those reservations? Should I send a message to people as an invite?

    Our next evolution in voice is understanding it is not perfect, and that is why we continue to read and write. It is why we take pictures and record videos or audio. The words muscle memory speak to the speed interactions can offer in the physical world that voice can’t replicate. Our future is the ability to connect all of these mediums in a way that truly feels connected and seamless, and I think we all may have missed this point. Give me what I want where I want it, and when I want it.

    What we all want is not a way to reach the world around us but many ways. The future is multi-sensory and tuned to the best combination of equipment at your disposal. If I’m in my bedroom, it may be my voice and my tv. In the office, my laptop (my voice may disturb others around me). On a walk or run, voice and a watch or phone. In the car, well, the car.

  4. The Bank Unbundling

    The big news in the finance industry is Wells Fargo, the number 1 player in the housing market, making a decision to pull back on mortgages and focus on a more profitable slice of the market. This may sound like a sign of a weakening economy, which is true, but this continues a long trend in the disruption of banking.

    Banking, the business of offering checking, savings, and money market accounts, has long tipped from a profit center into a commodity business. For most banks, the actual accounts they offer work as a loss leader to move customers into other, more profitable products. In years past, it was not uncommon for a person to have an auto loan, mortgage, credit card, savings account, brokerage, and other vehicles with just one institution.

    This model has been decimated by the move to best in breed. As a best-of-breed player, start-ups focus on small slivers of the whole to quickly make inroads by offering one product that outclasses others in a category. These days Robinhood is the #1 retail brokerage company. Rocket Mortgage is quickly vaulting to #1 in the mortgage and housing market. Capital One long took the crown for credit cards aimed at middle and low-income families.

    Banks have responded with complicated programs and overdraft charges as they search to find some way to monetize existing customers. In many ways, it is akin to cable companies ratcheting up fees or charging for customer service. The problem is banking is table stakes these days, and banking is more of a free offering, not a core offering. Today almost any company can offer full banking services by outsourcing with BaaS companies like GreenDot. These new companies are bucking the trends of traditional banks by making banking free, offering high-interest rates, removing overdraft fees, and in many cases offering direct deposit days earlier. These new solutions are also making it easier for start-ups to offer innovative financial products with much less regulation than the old guard.

    Leading this evolution are solutions like Greenlight, a kid-friendly banking, and investment platform, or robot investment platforms like Wealthfront and Betterment which offer ultra-competitive banking features at a little additional cost.

    This great unbundling has placed banking in an increasingly difficult pickle. In the past, it showed its value in physical branches, accessible ATMs, and a one place fits all offering of diverse products. The reality is those products are no longer individually as competitive as they once were, and customer loyalty is at an all-time low.

    To make things worse, a new bundling is beginning through acquisition that is starting to reshape what we expect in our future institutions. For example, Rocket Mortgage is on a tear with acquisitions that have expanded its footprint as it hopes to increase revenue from its consumers by showing its hand at other services like auto loans and personal loans, all while Robinhood recently began offering IRA and retirement products.

    Every major bank is sitting in the mirror, asking how it will compete 5 years from now, and the writing is very much on the wall. They must adapt, acquire, or ultimately face irrelevance.

  5. CES 2023 Recap

    I last attended CES in 2020; shortly after, doors closed worldwide. After a two-year hiatus, I had no idea what to expect and feared the conference would lack the thrill it used to have. I must say CES did not disappoint and Mindgrub’s return to Vegas was a thrill we will not soon miss.

    CES is a reminder that technology and innovation require painstaking development. Year after year, we see new things, but the story is the evolution you witness as crazy ideas evolve from conference to conference. Ideas begin to settle, companies emerge as front runners, and ideas coalesce into a solid direction.

    Trends I witnessed include growth in technology around assistive devices and accessibility, the evolution of all sizes of electronic vehicles and autonomous vehicles, the maturity of robots, and the development in technology that supports and extends VR.

    Accessibility Tech at CES

    Accessibility technology has been in the limelight lately, and some of the possibilities have offered an opportunity to extend the independence of all types of people. Two product standouts from this year are AR glasses and a sensor to help those with limited eyesight get around.

    My co-worker Shalisa demoed the AR glasses, a device that offers real-time close captioning. With this device, folks who suffer from hearing loss can still engage in conversations and fully participate in everyday discussions.

    The Ara from Strap Tech combined much of the same technology in our cell phones and autonomous cars to create a system for blind or visually impaired users to navigate everyday environments. It uses LIDAR to create the same SLAM data to pass on inputs as vibrations to its user.

    I was, however, surprised at the lack of hearing aids after policy changes opened the door for over-the-shelf assistive hearing devices. Next year I’m hopeful we will see companies look at this new category.

    Electronic and Autonomous Vehicles

    The move to electronic vehicles is no surprise, but the sheer amount of companies investing in EVs was much larger than I expected. Tons of upstarts showed off concept vehicles that felt like the future, and some of these concepts definitely piqued my interest.

    Lightyear’s solar-powered car with an electronic drive train was a marvel. Waymo showcased its self-driving cars with an expanding fleet that included a custom Freightliner. USPS was also on sight with its questionable-looking and controversial new EV platform.

    Littering the vehicle mobility areas of CES were scores of buses, shuttles, and other autonomous transport systems designed to move people around urban environments without a driver.

    The same tech used for bigger devices also showed up in various miniature transportation devices. One company showcased a chassis perfect for a vehicle delivering packages or food on a route.

    And as we get even smaller, multiple companies introduced new versions of electronic lawnmowers or U-SAFE water drones that can save people from drowning in the ocean.

    Virtual Reality, Augmented Reality, and the Metaverse

    Companies continue to search for viable commercial uses, and you could see that on display at CES with the increase in hardware to support the VR ecosystem.

    Two great booths for this include bHaptics and haptx which offered new generations of haptic VR devices. I wish I had the chance to try it, but the second reviews of the Haptx Gloves G1 system were very exciting.

    Some VR ideas focused on live air and combat training that seemed perfect for some of the work by our clients, such as TAK.

    One booth I sadly did not sign up for in time was to check out Magic leap’s glasses. A solid line surrounded the booths, and sign-ups to try out the glasses seemed to disappear fairly quickly every morning.

    To cap off our VR venture at CES, the Mindgrub team signed up for the Deadwood Valley experience at Sandbox VR. Having used many VR devices, I did not know what to expect, especially how the group mechanics might work.

    Other things

    CES was filled with so many other wonderful highlights. As a conference, you have to love the whimsical wonder of it all. The crazy ideas sitting on full display for all to witness and try.

    The Shiftall Mutalk is a device that may draw comparisons to a different type of voice suppression device. That said, the thing really works! I had a full conversation in front of my co-workers without anyone hearing a peep. I can see the utility for those who need to have a private conversation in a public space.

    I’m not sure how to describe the joy of pruning a tattoo right on your body, but I really love Prinker’s body printers. I put in an order for one of these and look forward to the chance to print things on my kid’s faces when they fall asleep.

    But the thing that gave me the best laugh was the u-scan from Withings. I love Withing’s products and will buy this for my own personal bathroom – but who knew the next step in smart home health would be a urine analyzer? My favorite feature of this device is its ability to recognize family members by their unique urine stream. Looking forward to making that one of the MFA options for Mindgrub’s SSO.

    Did anyone know digital wind instruments exist as a product? I wish I had a chance to try the product in person, as the idea of one device that can mimic many wind instruments, like a keyboard, is amazing.

    One surprisingly sparse area was the 3D printing section. Outside of FormLabs, I did not notice another 3D printing company, but it did not matter as they came with a few cool goodies. First was the introduction of Form Auto, a printer capable of print g 24-7 without downtime. From personal experience, this is a big leap and opens the door to more Kinkos-style printing facilities. FormLabs also feature the Hasbro Pulse Selfie Series toys, which scan your face and allow you to 3D print a custom toy. I’m looking forward to holding my personalized Black Panther toy in my hands.

  6. Did Southwest’s Tech Fail?

    Many news sources cite Southwest’s lack of investment in technology at its scale. I’m an outsider here, so I can only speculate how this happened, but I find the finger-pointing at technology to be a bit like a Jedi mind trick.

    What makes Southwest Airlines so unique is the back-of-napkin concept they proudly celebrate during drink service. Southwest runs a continuous loop model that moves a single plane and multiple flight crew across the US by migrating the team from city to city until a plane fully loops around to its start destination. If you fly Southwest often, as I do, it is not uncommon for planes to stop at intermediate destinations with a continued end stop. Usually, a plane loops every 2-4 days, and you can easily find that if you fly a regular schedule, you’re pretty likely to end up with the same plane or crew.

    Nearly every other traditional airline of scale has functioned on the hub and spoke model. Airplanes venture out from a core hub, like Atlanta, and ultimately the majority of airplanes cycle between these hubs that same day. Growth for an airline requires building out infrastructure to add additional hubs around the country or world.

    As you can imagine, spoke and hub reward geographic focus – so airlines with this model tend to favor destinations within short proximity of their hub(s). You can focus on one core operational city to house the majority of flight crews, giving you a greater concentration of people you can tap when a person is sick, or you need to add an unexpected route or plane into the mix.

    Southwest’s model strays greatly from this and creates an amazingly efficient system with high reward and high risk. In the Southwest model crews can live anywhere, but the system can stage them to the desired destinations to serve a route. Planes no longer needing to cycle home to a hub can venture out for days before returning to their “home” destination.

    While hub and spoke airlines have required larger and larger planes to expand the reach of its hubs, Southwest has grown on smaller plans making many, many more stops across a larger loop. This model is amazing and one of Southwest’s core differences – with this approach, it can offer extremely competitive prices and reach destinations that are simply unaffordable for other airlines. So yes, this is how the system works and by design. However, it also means that one airplane needing unexpected service or a call out from the flight crew can cause a cascading delay as it interrupts a plane’s next 2-4 days in its cycle. Something that you can refer to as a cascading delay.

    So my read. Southwest’s unique scheduling structure has required some level of custom development or frankestiening of technology solutions to do what they need to do. These systems also operate at an acceptable level of risk or built-in slack. As they are the only airline doing this at such scale, it has become riskier to manage these operational needs and harder for humans to intervene when cascading issues occur.

    This recent week introduced the triple whammy. Flight crew shortages due to unexpectedly high volumes of sick pilots and flight attendants; Plane delays and cancellations stemming from one of the largest and most nationwide weather disruptions in recent history; and, as mentioned earlier, a model that, when bent too much, becomes unwieldy and nearly impossible to manage or fix manually. At this point, you have two choices manually fix the system (which has grown so complex it would take weeks to unwind) or hit reset, restage all planes and crew and start the cycle a new.

    The reset was the quickest option, and that’s what Southwest did, and I doubt we experience another blip like this again. After all, the system operated like it should and failed when it reached outside of the parameters it was built to handle.

    If I’m right what happens next is regulation or self policing that will mean an increase in the slack the system could handle.

    So is the technology problem? I doubt it. Southwest got caught running its system way leaner than it could support, and it failed. Can tech make it better and help them look at ways to self-heal when these issues happen next time? Prob. But the true question is when is lean too lean for an airline.

    Let’s see what happens.

  7. Migrating

    My friend recently made the big shift from Android to the iPhone. As I celebrated her finally joining the blue text messages club and her ability to join family albums, use share play, and so many other iOS features, we had to start with the very first step. Migration.

    I’m not the average Apple customer. As a developer and tech enthusiast, I read about features before they get released, tune in to every announcement, and regularly run beta versions of iOS. I typically keep a Google Pixel phone around to keep up on Android trends and test applications we build for our customers, but I have never used Apple’s migration application, so I must admit that I was giddy with excitement to see just how well it truly works.

    The process could not have been simpler. The new iPhone presented us with a QR code we scanned with the Android phone to download the Move to iOS app from the Google Play store. Once downloaded, it asked us for a one-time code that appeared on the iPhone. After that, we received a few warnings about the access the move to iOS app requested but other than that, it was a click and wait. The download began at nearly 3 hours but, in reality, took closer to 30 minutes. Once migrated, we chucked the Android phone in a corner (joking!!) and completed the iOS setup process. If you have upgraded iOS on an iPhone you know the standard options like setting up Siri and Face ID.

    The migration was pretty remarkable in how deeply it copied everything over. It moved over messages, loaded contacts, preconfigured email, calendar, photos, pre-downloaded all of her apps, and even managed to maintain the ring tones and text sounds from her Android phone. She was literally able to pick up the phone and begin using it without skipping a beat.

    Once the phone was up and running, I sat, hoping to see how she experienced the dynamics of a much cleaner and easier-to-use phone.
    I tried my best to avoid pressing buttons and jumping in – but I did way too much of that. But what I witnessed surprised me – decades of software updates had made many features that felt normal to me unwelcoming or complex. So much of what I wondered to be intuitive really came from my years and years of using iOS devices.

    Features like swiping to search or control center become things that imagine many users may never really discover. I notice this same dynamic often at Mindgrub when new employees moved from Windows to macOS for the first time. I often take screenshots or use Quick Look to view previews while searching for a particular file.

    Many of these things are both easy and so so hard. As iOS and macOS have grown layers and layers have caked on top of each other, and the layers have made us forget that things are no longer as easy or intuitive as they once were.

    Migrating was a fascinating reminder to stop and think of the long journey all software takes and remind ourselves of the difference between common knowledge or common intuitiveness and learned intuitiveness.

  8. It Wasn’t Me

    Arstechnica has an amazing piece on the dystopian possibilities of AI images and deep fakes. As the article notes – deepfakes have been a reality for years, but AI takes what was a skill and makes the process so simple that anyone can channel its uses for good (or primarily bad). It opens up a world where the art of disruption is limited to our ability to capture a picture in our imagination and transcribe it as words.

    I can remember joking at how insane a song like Shaggy’s It Wasn’t me, when in reality, maybe Shaggy was a sage describing our pending deepfake future. For those thinking the computers won’t fool me try out this quiz. Times are early, and fake images are becoming harder and harder to pick out.

  9. The Paywall

    I share article excerpts with friends and family frequently. Sometimes it’s something fun like a Buzzfeed listicle, but most times, it’s an article relevant to shared interests or recent conversations. Paywalls almost always put a huge wrench in this, to the point that a good friend asked if I could share a synopsis or quote since they can not access the greater article.
    I understand why paywalls exist and the importance of paying journalists what they are worth, but paywalls continue to feel like the wrong solution. I read various publications, many filled with ads, and subscribing to them is not in my budget. Some of my favorite sources of content include places that, regardless of how great an article may be, I avoid sharing or referencing because I know the burden I’m passing on to others.

    As I’m reminded of a great piece by John Gruber what I continue to see is the popular media having a smaller and smaller presence and relevance as they lock more content behind paywalls and inadvertently increase the amount of independent media sources. This is not on its own wrong, but as popular voices become inaccessible, they can’t speak truth to lies spread by more viral and independent sources.

    I would easily argue that paywalls and preventing access to content are behind the rise of false viral content being spread on social media. When the source is not available, you are limited to finding a new voice and message to trust.

    In addition to trust, paywalls must also fight subscription burnout. I’m from New Orleans and have lived in many cities beyond my hometown. As such, I struggle with the choices on which local news authority to subscribe to and commonly find myself disregarding articles shared by my parents or friends because I looked at my 3 articles that month for a daily that is no longer a daily for me. Like all subscriptions these days, I need to choose the options that bring me the most value, and sadly that limits me and prevents me from reading all the news sources I so wish I had regular access to.

    This situation baffles me because many governments hope to save our traditional media with fines targeted at aggregators and social networks like Facebook. Facebook is right. Why should they pay for this content? Others will duplicate, replicate, or write their own content and continue to diminish the value of the original source or quickly supplant them with a more modern Instagram or TikTok view of the media.

    In this post alone, I passed up several publications links because those would require you to subscribe to view. Something has to change, but time and time again, we have found that locking up content and preventing access is a recipe for decline. After all, when was Howard Stern last relevant?

  10. Alexa

    The recent layoffs by Amazon targeting its device unit have sprung up many articles on Amazon’s inability to monetize Alexa – especially knowing that Amazon’s strategy has long focused on selling devices at cost and making revenue from its greater ecosystem. While sold at a cost, Kindle is a gateway product to Amazon’s extensive library of ebooks.

    Alexa as a product felt like the future was released into everyday consumers’ hands. This is not something that happens often, but the echo was a genuine awe-inspiring product.

    But looking at Alexa after ten years of constant development and iteration, it’s hard not to think of it as less of an awakening to a new way of interacting with computers but a few trick ponies. I long ago gravitated to Apple’s Siri for my house voice AI needs, not because I disliked Alexa, but because Apple has me very tightly in the grip of their entire ecosystem. Even with that, I rarely use a voice AI to do more than a few mundane tasks: Check the weather, play music, and control other smart home devices. I wish I could do more, but the promise of devices like Star Trek’s computer still feels very distant. Heck, using the word “and” is still impossible for the lion’s share of smart speakers or home AI.

    Many imagined that voice would become a new interaction stream regarding monetization. Instead, we have learned more about different devices’ values and the interactions’ pros and cons. Speaking has a ton of limitations. It requires a generally quiet location, privacy is limited to people who can hear, and listening takes more concentration than we realize. How often have you asked about the day’s weather only to not remember and ask as soon as your smart speaker is done?

    I love my smart speaker, and I still find Alexa a fantastic device, but I wonder what we all collectively want in Alexa 2.0.

  11. The algorithms did it

    Over the weekend, I read a piece on algorithms running the city of Washington DC. Articles like this frustrate me in their ability to take a word that once felt clear and make it crowded and confusing. Algorithm even when used correctly represent such a broad and vast definition that using the word necessitates a pause.

    I can write an algorithm that lets you determines if a number is even or odd:

    `function isEven(x:uint):Boolean{
      if(x!=0 && x/2==2){
        return true; 
      } else{ 
         return false; 

    That is an algorithm, a set of instructions that solve a problem.

    Guess what? Alexa, Siri, and Google Search are built on algorithms. Do you know what else is? A calculator, a light switch, a TV remote. The number of algorithms we interact with daily is so massive that it may be uncountable. Pointing to a algorithm is like pointing to a singular and in a colony of millions.

    Any large system includes millions and millions of lines of code, many almost certainly rely on code written by other third-party developers, all focused on solving different types of problems.

    Articles that cite algorithms feel incorrect and morph the meaning by making the nature of math or development to be the issue. Developers write code that make simple and complex decisions based on product plans and designs. Those designs say what we anticipate a system to do and provide criteria to determine if it does what we ask. Code written and designed well will not lie. Could the code or a rouge programmer cause issues? Yes, but many times the true design decisions are made on purpose.

    If I want an application to find me, candidates, I need to establish criteria for a good candidate. To build a search engine that returns excellent results, I must first define what makes a great search result. This criteria is always subjective, and this is the actual question. Should we fear the mountain of algorithms or acknowledge that company-designed software is purposefully built to do something?

    Let’s not blame the algorithm and ask if the results we see may be as we configured or designed.