Tomorrow - Episode 30: Matias Duarte Indirectly Manipulates You

Episode Date: November 2, 2015

Matias Duarte is one of the most important and influential designers in technology, particularly when it comes to mobile. He's also a VP at Google leading up some of the company's biggest and boldest design efforts. He joins Josh in the studio for a thorough discussion on his process, the evolution of the smartphone, how you make hard design decisions, what part he played in the recent redesign of the Google logo... and so much more. It would be enough to just hear these two go deep on the way things work (and how they look doing it), but there's even a bit of news buried in this engaging and enlightening episode. Do not miss it. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Hey and welcome to Tomorrow. I'm your host, Joshua Topolski. Today on the podcast, we discuss novels, sidekicks, and direct manipulation. But first, a word from our sponsors. This episode of Tomorrow with Joshua Topolski, which is who's me, is brought to you by Wealthfront. Wealthfront is a low cost automated investment service that makes it easy to invest your money the right way. It works 24-7, that's by the way in case you're wanting, it's 24 hours a day, seven days a

week, to manage your portfolio, keeping it diversified, customized to your risk profile, which for me would be very high risk, and optimizing its trading behavior to keep your tax below, all without ever charging commissions. Whether you've got millions or billions or you're just starting out, wealthfront is the most sophisticated way to invest your money. To sign up and get your free personalized investment portfolio, go to wealthfront.com slash tomorrow. Are you a tech professional searching for a new company to share your tech skills with? I mean, or any skills that you should check out hired, hired connects talent with top tech I'm going to show you how to do it. I'm going to show you how to do it. I'm going to show you how to do it. I'm going to show you how to do it. I'm going to show you how to do it. I'm going to show you how to do it.

I'm going to show you how to do it. I'm going to show you how to do it. I'm going to show you how to do it. I'm going to show you how to do it. I'm going to show you how to do it. I'm going to show you how to do it. I'm going to show you how to do it. I'm going to show you how to do it.

I'm going to show you how to do it. I'm going to show you how to do it. I'm going to show you how to do it. I'm going to show you how to do it. I'm going to show you how to do it. I'm going to show you how to do it. I'm going to show you how to do it. I'm going to show you how to do it.

I'm going to show you how to do it. I'm going to show you how to do it. I'm going to show you how to do it. I'm going to show you how to do it. I'm going to show you how to do it. I'm going to show podcast to sign up, they'll double the bonus1337 bonus when they accept a job too. So what are you waiting for? I mean, seriously, like, what are you doing that's so important that you can't check out hired.com slash tomorrow podcast right now. But the answer, by the way, to that question is nothing. My guess today is a man I've known for a long time and a man I enjoy speaking with on

a regular basis. Semiregular. He is an amazing designer, a fascinating talker, and I like to think of him as a friend. My guest today is Matthias Duarte. Matthias, thank you for being here. Oh, thank you for having me, Josh. How much of that sounded right to you? Um, well, it's very, very sweet.

Yeah, well, I'm very sweet. That's what everybody says about me. They're like, you know, one about Josh, he's a very sweet guy. Let me, so let me intro you for people who don't know who you are. You are, I mean, you're a designer, first and foremost, would you say that's true?

Sure. That's not right. Oh, it's not right. I literally fucked up within 30 seconds. Is that what you, I mean, you're a designer that's your, that is your practice. That is, that is my practice. Right.

And you have been, for many, many years working somewhat exclusively on mobile devices. You were at Helio. That's right. You were designing Helio. That's right. You were designing Helio. I love how I don't remember Helio's it. It was like an MVNO. It was a phone company that also had it.

Was it also an MVNO? It was an MVNO. Right. And we had some hardware that we had a pretty strong hand in creating. Right. And you helped to design the hardware and software? That's right. So then you went famously went to

Palm. Yes. And worked on the PalmPree and WebOS and that line of devices, which was commercially a huge failure, but but from a from a standpoint of design and user interaction, I think a lot of people consider to be very forward-thinking, very revolutionary. Critical and fan success. Yeah, I personally was a big fan. I wrote a 10,000 word review of the Palm Prix, a three-part 10,000 word review of the Palm Prix. And then you left.

And we've been friends ever since. We've been friends. You're like, anybody who spends that much time talking about my product is a friend of mine. And then you left and you went to Google and you started working on Android. And since you've been at Google some, I would say monumental changes have happened in design,

not just on the phones and tablets, but of course very much on the phones and tablets, but across the ecosystem of Google products. Yeah, it was a great time. And it's all you're doing. You know, by yourself, you were an army of one. You went in there. No. My understanding is you went in, you said to Larry and Sergei, by yourself, you were an army of one. You went in there. No.

My understanding is you went in. You said to Larry and Sergei, you said, listen, you may, you may, you may, you may, you may think you're going to do it your way, but I'm doing it in my way. And they were very scared of the, they felt the force of your, that is powers. And they said, whatever you want,

that narrative is almost whatever you want to do rarely incorrect. They were like, whatever you want. That narrative is almost whatever you want to do in orderly and correct. They were like, anything you need, anything you want, we're here for you. Okay, so Eddie, but you have had a pretty major influence on the look and feel of like what Google does in terms of products. And sorry, I just want to adjust this lamp

a little bit, make it a little moody or in here. I was adjusting a lamp in case anybody's wondering if you're listening home, that's what I was doing. You've had a huge influence and there's been from the time that you joined Google, I'm not saying that you did all this yourself. Obviously, there's a big team effort there. But from what Android was to material design into what Google products look like now and the new Google logo and branding. Certainly there's some. There's some.

No, there's some. There's some. There's some. There's some. There's some. No, there's some. There's some. There's some.

There's some. There's some. There's some. No, there's some. There's some. There's some. There's some. There's some.

There's some. There's some. There's some. There's some. There's some. There's some. You know, you get your fingers in there and get to be part of it and contribute something. I think I might have said to you when we were first speaking about the Palm Pre that I felt like it was this incredible, you know, like, I don't know, like responsibility and also kind of joyride feeling to work at a company like Palm and be responsible for You know a big transformation in Palm because when I was young and I went to school and I had looked up to them and And Google was kind of like that on steroids. It's like what's Google? Yeah, it's Google and Android I mean of all the products. I mean obviously Google Google has, can I say holy crap with something?

You can say anything you want on this podcast. I should also tell you, and maybe we'll leave this in and maybe we'll edit it out. If you say something that sounds stupid or awful, we can edit it out. Oh, that's good. So there's gonna be a lot of editing. Let's just say to the people listening,

there's a version of this podcast, which is really raw. Matthias goes completely fucking nuts. And unfortunately, you can't hear it. It was great. We're editing this back in because that's how editing works. This is after the podcast is over. He went completely ballistic,

but you're only hearing the safe part. I promise I'll be good now. Yeah, thank you. Thank God. So yeah, I mean, Google's a huge place, but you've had a huge impact. I mean, it's got a huge presence in the market, but if you look at Android, I'm sorry, if I look at Android as a casual observer.

Well, can I just say you brought, this is very nice. You brought a small bottle of champagne to the session, some Moe. Is there any pronounce that? I don't really know how to speak French, so. I think so. You don't sound hard to moe at. I'd be on cool. I don't think so. You don't sound hard to moat. That'd be a cool thing. I don't think so. At any rate, he brought a hotel bottle of champagne. It's what I had.

I think I don't know if I should be worried about you. You're like, I had to make sure there was booze with me. I had to bring a gift. It's very nice. I mean, we're enjoying some delicious champagne while we're doing this. I also have a vodka soda which I think is excessive but I like to. Is this part of your revenue model do you get like? Yes, my.

Myan shan don, one of our advertisers. We love their champagne and they give us money. That doesn't happen, but it'd be cool. Or at least, if they just wanted to send champagne, I'd be happy to talk about how delicious it is. Actually, I've always wanted a liquor sponsor. It's very, for some reasons, never happened. Okay, so here's the interesting thing.

So, you got to Google, actually, let me start further. Let me start further back. How did this start for you? Like, how did you end up as a person who, I mean, you have very particular job. Your job is, or at least has been, you have to think about the way people use things and design interfaces for those use cases, right? Which is a very particular type of design. I mean, you're, obviously you can design many things

as a look and a feel and interactions that are more vague than just like how people do things, but a lot of your work has been, how does a thing do a thing? Yeah, well, this whole field industry practice of making software is pretty new. It's only been around for a couple of decades. And the idea that you would focus on the experience,

crafting the experience of how you interact things, what do things look like, how do they move, how do they make you feel, how many steps it's gonna take, all these factors together, That's also a pretty new practice. I feel like my career and the things that I've been able to contribute to and deeply invest in has been even more specialized and more rarefied, which is I really work on systems. which is I really work on systems. A lot of my work has been on operating system design itself.

What shows up when you turn the thing on? How do you get to the things that you want? How does the software that thousands of different people are going to be delivering to you? How does it all come together to become a singular experience on your phone or your tablet or your laptop? How do the people who are going to make all that software work together? What kinds of things does the operating system provide?

What kinds of building blocks and tools do you give to the people who make software? What is, this is what they call the framework or the widgets of the operating system? And so it's an interesting thing because you're, I talk to lots of designers and I've hired lots of people and one of the things that you normally think about when you tackle a design problem is what is the problem and what is the audience? And if you're doing like a note-taking app for professionals or you're doing a scheduling app for hairdressers or you're you know all of these I like watching you

try to figure out very specific types of apps. Yeah. They all have very finite markets. Very specific users that you can imagine, you can deeply understand how their needs are different than other people's needs. Like, try it out so you're gonna make. Like a database for fly fishers. Sure. Yeah.

That's something that needs to exist. Top of mind, how do you design for fly fishing enthusiasts? Yeah. But when you design a system itself, right like your audience is basically everybody right and so you have to work at this level of Actually have two constituencies like the people who are going to use The end product at the end of the day and they don't care that it's an amalgamation of like there's one company made the phone and it's other companies making this operating system and then like 20 different companies are making individual apps that come into that they don't care about that they just want to use the phone to get through the day. I'm going to get you done. Yeah they want to live

live their lives. Free of annoyances and complications. So you have to serve them, but then you also have to actually serve the people who are trying to make apps, right? So it requires you to think about these problems in a different way and to think about systems and to have a very kind of rigorous, systemic approach to things. I like to think of myself and my team and the types of things that we contribute as making tools or infrastructure, right? It's like, I'm not going to write a book, right?

I'm not going to write the Great American novel, but maybe I'm going to. I'll sell your talents. No, no, no, I think I see you doing the great thing. I'm a loan designer. I'm struggling with the, you know, comfortable with the acknowledgement that I will never write. You don't think you're going to write a great American. I am confident. What about the setup though, a guy, a loan designer in the belly of a huge company.

And really it's a parable, it's really about like the American condition, the, sounds like a city. It's like a post 9-11 American conditions. Okay, I'll read that. Can we design our way out of a way from terror? Are you getting up to leave? I don't look like you're doing it. I'm getting another drink right now. You really should. Yeah. So, okay, so you design, but you design, you're essentially saying that you design, no, I make the paper hammer, right? Yes, so you designed you but you designed you're essentially saying that you design No, I make the paper hammer right. Yes, the paper designed

Yeah, cuz normally when people write a novel I don't know what you're writing process is like the typewriter you've run yeah Publications Most web publications use Most web publications use hammers. It's a secret. I know, I didn't know that. The difference between us, you know, you're thinking about the system of, you know, interaction.

I'm with the hammers, with the hammers, banging out great content. Everything looks like a nail. That's right. Everything looks like a nail to my people, to the people that I associate with. The people of you hammer. We're hammer hammering types of people. Okay, fine. So you make the paper.

Do you make the type you move? Say you make the typewriter. Maybe we make the typewriter. Maybe we make, um, you know, we work on, on the publishing industry or the other way that people distribute books or find books. The ink, um, the ink, the ink. Yeah. Sorry.

I'm getting too wrapped up. I don't know. I can say the ink might be another thing that you do. Yeah. Okay, so how does so how does one arrive at the desire to make the ink or the typewriter as opposed to I mean there are a lot of designers I know a lot of designers who are like very psyched about making the thing like yeah we made this app or we made this beautiful you know layout in a magazine. What do you have at? No, because I'm gonna be honest, I'm gonna answer this and it's a very selfish answer. It's a desire for control.

So. Interesting. Yeah, so we finally get to the core. So if you think about, if I was gonna write that great American novel and I wanted to control every aspect of the experience and I decided, you know what? I hate these portrait-oriented books or I hate the fact that I know right that the portrait

orientation is the worst. Well you know I want a nice landscape format because I'm going to fill it with photographs of I don't know a desolate American landscape. Wow. It seems like a landslides. I'm loving your I'm loving your great American. I'm very dark. You took it there. Very dark. And then you control. If I loved computers when I started using them and I loved the fact that you could, you could do things with them. And you could, anything you wanted.

It's true, basically that's true. It's, it's what's amazing about them, right? It's like first it starts with like, oh my gosh, I can make little things move on the screen and then you're like, oh, and I get this disc from my cousin and I can like load up 20 different things and then you're like, wait a minute, like, people make this stuff.

I was of the, you know, bite magazine generation, my dad would buy the physical magazines with the program list things in them and type them up and you'd save it into a cassette tape. Well, there was no other form of getting that. And then you realize, like, wait a minute, I can change that. I understand what this program says. And instead of like, you know, 20 enemies on the screen,

I can make it a lot easier. I make two and it's like, yes, I'm so powerful. And then you start to like- Kind of cop out those, and you're like, I made it so it's only two enemies. Oh, okay. All right. Wow, check me out. You're gonna take it'm like, I made it so it's only two in the middle. Oh, okay. I beat the game. Wow, check me out.

You're going to take it to the 12-year-old who's learning how to program. Be like, hey, no, it's true. No, I don't. I mean, of course, my experience with that was I'm far less code never, never made sense to me. I can just say like I tried, tried, and failed to make sense of like the abstraction of code.

But I do remember with hypercard, which I'll type of hyper. But I do remember with Hypercard, which are hypercards the other way, but I remember with Hypercard, I would take other people's hypercard stacks and tweak parts of them to do different things. And I was always like, oh, wow, now it's a whole different experience. Of course, I was just kidding. And that felt amazing. And you felt powerful. And that is what I would leave after I was done with the Hypercard stack. I would rip my shirt off leave my room and just announce Interested now to whoever was available that I was I was in control that I had the power. It's really he man Yeah, that's too much information. You like that. No, that's well. You'll drop ribbing shirt off

Okay, so anyhow the so you love making fewer enemies. But that's what I, what I love, what I love, yeah, I do love making fewer enemies. I wanna make friends. You're all about, I'm gonna change now the program to make it so that you make friends instead of shoot those guys.

You love, love fewer enemies out there that happier you get. That's true. Okay. I think that's pretty common. So, so then you, so you kind of understood the power of programming. Yeah, and I think that's pretty common. So then you understood the power of programming.

Yeah, and I think intuitively, people get excited about computers when they start understanding how they work because the nature of the computer, the amazing thing about this invention, this machine, and it's actually kind of like language or kind of like writing, is it's potential to be other things. The computer can become any kind of tool you want it to become. Oh my god that is that is amazing that's a super powerful thing. And you start doing that you get excited you program you mess with things right and then you realize actually.

All the time that you're doing that, you're working within constraints. Somebody else set the ground rules. Somebody else decided there's going to be a menu bar at the top of the screen. Or there's not going to be a menu bar at the top of the screen. Or the way you know you're going to have two mice button or you're going to have one mouse button or and I was very excited about working in the space, but I realized I didn't wanna have anybody else tell me what those limitations were. I wanted to call those.

You can't put a limitation on Matthias. You can't put boundaries, no boundaries, that you're interested in. No, it was a very selfish desire to control the entire experience, which is why I got interested in systems. Do you feel like you're very controlling in other areas of your life? Are you?

I'm curious to know. I'm curious to know. Oh, absolutely. I love it. We've had a lot of conversations about stuff like this. I've actually sort of curious, like, when it comes to, okay, so I'm like this. I mean, I understand what you're saying. I wish you ever had to come to the world.

Shake the entire world. I'm curious to know what the Vatias I wish you ever'd come to the world. She's a little bit shaked the entire world. You're a lot of a tease, just gave you. It was a diabolical. It was also one of fear. It was like, it was like, evil and also fearful. Not evil. It seemed evil to me. But for instance, like with your house,

with the furniture in your house, are you the person who's like, this is the kind of chair that I want. This is where the sofa should go. This is, we should put this art on the wall. No, I've mellowed. Really? Yeah.

Interesting. Yeah, no, I mean, I have opinions, and occasionally I'll want things strongly, but I've, I've, this is one of the things that's very interesting as, you said said at the beginning I was a designer. And I kind of think I'm still a designer, but I felt that throughout probably the last 20 years, I've also had to grow to try to be not just a designer, but a creative leader, to try to be not just a designer, but a creative leader,

and the balance of how much I am a designer and how much I am creative leader, whatever that means, has changed. Is the word manager appropriate? No, not manager. I'm terrible at management. You can ask anybody who works for me. Okay, so when you say, that's a good thing to admit.

That's a thing y'all. Part of your success is knowing your weaknesses and finding other tools and people who can help you buttress your weaknesses. I do think at some point, people who are control freaks have to acknowledge the places where their control is not perfect. That's right.

And also to take advantage of not having perfect control, it's actually, I think, one of the secrets to succeeding in anything that's really hard is operating at a higher level. Like you want to have enough mastery of, okay, what is that? Yeah, go ahead. It's like, all right, let's take a simple example of, you know, designing an application, right? And there's a whole bunch of different components to it, right?

There's the interaction design, as a visual design, as a motion design. And you could do all of those things yourself and you could gain mastery in all those fields. Or you could operate at this higher level where you're trying to, where you're able to know enough about those fields to understand what you need to accomplish in each of those areas and create enough room so that somebody else who is just as creative as you are can contribute and own the exact solution in that particular area.

And oftentimes do a much better job than you could do because that's the only thing they're doing. You just described pretty good management, actually. I mean, I think what you're talking about is, as a manager of people being able to do that is like a big part of managing. Well, the management part, I think, comes in on the other side in terms of the understanding

how to keep people fulfilled in doing that and giving them the right kind of attention and feedback and progression and sense of place in doing that. And you know, in the same way that building an app requires a lot of different parts, managing a team requires a lot of different parts, managing a team requires a lot of different parts. It requires a sensitivity to understand how people are doing right now and what they're trying to get out of certain things. It's hard to do all of those things yourself as well. Part of what I've learned to do is in the same way that I've pulled back and Delegated or created room for people to contribute to the product, right?

I've also learned to pull back and create room and get people and and frankly get help in helping having people To contribute to the team and the process right right I just say something is completely unrelated to everything we just talked about to contribute to the team and the process. Right. Right. Can I just say something that's completely unrelated to everything we just talked about? It's your show. You paused for a moment to think about something. You sort of stopped yourself in mid-sens.

You went so still and quiet that for just a second, just like a millisecond, I was like, did something, like, did eight, is there, has there been some kind of disturbance in the space time continuum? It has like, has reality paused because it felt you were just, you stopped on a dime. Magnus, you don't talk about this happened, right? When he was talking, he paused, it was very disturbing. I just want to say that. What? Yeah, he did, right? It was like, for a second, I thought maybe you were having a seizure or something.

Right? And a very, and a very like, and a very sorry, I just want to say, you can't hear, you can't hear Magnus right now, but he's agreeing with me. It was a moment, I honestly question. I can't do some intense bath subconscious process. Yeah, I just, a moment where I question

the nature of reality to see you know. Okay. So, okay used to remember. I used to remember. I used to remember. I used to remember. I used to remember. I used to remember. I used to remember. I used to remember. I used to remember.

I used to remember. I used to remember. I used to remember. I used to remember. I used to remember. I used to remember. I used to remember. I used to remember.

I used to remember. I used to remember. I used to remember. I used to remember. I used to remember. I used to remember. I used to remember. actually, what we didn't get to in that interest, curious is like, you so you decided that you did not want to be constrained by the system. You wanted to be, you know, I could stand being constrained by the system. So when I found an opportunity where I could actually work on the bounds of the system

itself, like I threw myself into that. And the first opportunity I had was working on the sidekick for danger, and that was the first time I worked with. Oh, right, I totally forgot. I totally didn't even mention you're involved in this sidekick. That's OK, nobody remembers the sidekick. No, everybody remembers the sidekick.

Anybody who, I think most people remember the sidekick, it is the fate of most technology to be instantly forgotten? I actually, you have to be a historian of technology to remember things that aren't in active use. I mean, the vast majority of people who know who I am and what I do would have never seen this, but I did a pilot for a show on FX, a talk show.

And I had a writer on as the guest, Get Him Josh Barerman, who's been on this podcast. And he, and I asked him to bring something from his past, like from his technology past that was meaning, that had meaning to him. And what he brought was the sidekick, there was a sidekick that had like black and white, like comic or graffiti on it.

Oh yeah. Yeah. Sidekick too, maybe. Yeah, no, it was a special edition of the Psychic One. We did a couple. We did one with Juicy Couture and one with, oh, I can't remember. You really, you really pre-sage the era of Apple doing

or is watches. Yeah. Juicy. Oh, we kind of kind of, Juicy and, anyhow, this was like a collaboration with some kind of, yeah, some graffiti artist or graffiti artist brand I can't remember. I'm so embarrassed

So he had one and he brought it He was like this is actually what happened was he I wish I had one of those he what happened was pretty sweet The reason why I was meaningful to him is that he'd thrown it in a fit of technological rage Something something had happened either like on the device. I can't remember this He told the story but either on the device or or that in his messaging with somebody he got angry, and he chucked it across a room and smashed it, but he kept the smashed device. But then he had lost it in a move,

and I found one, I found that same model and got it, and we talked about it, and he ended up smashing it again on the show. It was a great move, but you say that nobody remembers the side. So remembering, destroying the things that I've worked on is the theme here. Well, I'm just saying that you think you may think people don't remember the sidekick, but I think for a lot of people, and I do know a lot of people who had sidekicks, and it was a very meaningful sidekick was the proto smartphone for an average consumer.

There was this generation of products that were doing this kind of thing. I think the Palm Tree, the Blackberry, and the Sidekick were all orbiting around this fear of trying to make that next leap in technology. There had been a point where we'd already crossed a particular threshold that nobody was expecting, which was the threshold from desktop PC and shrink-wrap software and everything to the web. And that had happened and that had kind of gotten mature and it wasn't really clear what was going to happen next. And there was this pressure that was building up around what would eventually become smartphones and mobile as we know it today, smartphones and tablets and stuff. And there were lots of things that were abortively, trying to go there, but hadn't actually pulled

all the pieces together. It was like their Blackberry, and the RAND, Windows, mobile. And some of the more niche stuff is super interesting. There was a thing called the Moto, which looked like it had a tongue. Do you remember that? It was almost like a pager. It was supposed to. There was a thing called the Moto, which looked like it had a tongue. Do you remember that? It was almost like a pager.

It was supposed to be really low cost. Was that the thing that AT&T did? I think so. And then they had a thing called the Moto. I think it was like a sidekick. I have one of those. It was contemporary of the sidekick, very similar to what the original concept for the sidekick

was. And then of course, it was the Neonode, right? Which, that was a European one. That one, I mean, the Neonode, super important, right? Was that the one with the laser That one, I mean, the Neo node super important. Was that the one with the laser? Was that the one with the laser touchscreen? I don't remember the technology, but they were the ones that did slide to unlock

and they did the multiple pages with the dots to indicate which page you were on. Yeah, I think this is, we're talking about this. Yeah, so it was a super influential, no, it was color. It was color, but it was, it was particularly notable because it was a, it was a cell phone that had no keypad. It was purely touch screen based. Yeah, I remember this device.

It was like a small black. Yeah, so clearly. So they had a four-way controller and a touch screen on top of it. So they used a touch screen technology that if correct me, well, maybe you won't be able to correct me, but I think their touch screen technology was like they basically fanned out like a trick of laser.

Yeah, no, I believe that there is a technology that does that. They have a bezel that basically has to be raised above the screen to do it. Yeah, I think that's the technology that puts in like these restrictions on the industrial design. And also because at the time, multi touch would be sort of impossible, I think, with that technology. I don't remember. I think it's a face-on-breakable.

I've seen demos breaking the laser. From what they do. Sounds insane. But it's true. From years ago where they were like, we've got multi-touch now. We've got like, they do brush recognition. So those guys, the people who did Neonode, they were like, Swedish. It was European. You don't remember the details.

They had, I just, this is like, you just totally sparked a memory from like CES in 2009 or eight or something. They showed me a demo of a device that was like, if you can imagine, it was like their next version of the Neo node, and the home screen of the device was all interlocking widgets, like the way that Android has widgets, obviously, but it was like interlocking like these informational spaces.

And I was like, I wrote about it for EngageIt. I was like, this is the fucking future. Like this is amazing. It was like, you could scroll it and it would have all of these different sort of like, here's your email. Here's the time, here's the weather. And I was like, oh my god, this is the most amazing interface. It never, they never made the device.

I think it went out of business. It would happen because the iPhone happened. Yep. And then all bets were off basically. But there was an era where there was the idea of the smartphone without the perfect execution of the smartphone. Right. Right. And that actually is a good, you know what, we should take a break. I'm going to take a break. So that means more champagne. Yes. We're going to do an ad or two. And then we're going to come back because this actually leads perfectly into some stuff I want to talk about. Excellent.

How we missed it, no one knows. But now, Nikki Tomel and a PhD in linguistics from the University of Chicago is working on deciphering it with a team of cryptologists at a research think tank called cipher. The linguistics scholar, Tom, and his trying to decode a message received from outer space 70 years ago. We think the message is the new podcast from GE podcast theater in Pinopoli, which falls Nikki's work. The new eight episode podcast series will blow your scientific mind.

It will also blow your regular mind just for the record. This new sci-fi series will blur the lines between reality and fiction just as the famous War of the World's Radio broadcast did almost 80 years ago, though hopefully no one will jump out of a window when they hear this broadcast. Through Nikki Tomelon's reports and interviews, we slowly learn more about what this mysterious message from outer space contains. Are we 70 years too late on deciphering the message? Why did the aliens reach out to us?

Where am I? And who's the president? Don't miss out on any of these details. Subscribe to this new modern-day War of the World's Podcast from GE Podcasts The Impinopoli called the Message. You can do it on iTunes or your favorite podcast app. Again, that's the Message from GE Podcasts The Impinopoli. Subscribe today on iTunes or your favorite app.

I'm going to let you in a little secret. You're bad with money. You're bad at investing. Nobody should have ever let you get anywhere near money to invest. But luckily, there's a better way. Wealthfront.com is a better way. You can sign up in just minutes and Wealthfront

goes right to work. Monitoring your portfolios around the clock and taking action as soon as opportunity arises. It's basically taking all of the responsibility of investing out of your hands. Because as I've just stated, you're a dangerous investor and need help, serious professional help,

the kind that only wealthfront.com can provide. With wealthfront, you pay less than $5 a month to invest a $30,000 account. And you don't have to have much to get started either. You can open an account with as little as 500 bucks. So even if you've squandered most of the money that you had in your poor, haphazard investment tactics, you can still get going with wealthfront. 10,000 to 1000 people across the country have signed up already.

In fact, wealthfront manages over $2.6 billion in client assets and has grown over 20 times in the past two years. Go to wealthfront.com slash tomorrow to see your free personalized investment portfolio. You'll see the customized allocation they recommend for your profile. And just for tomorrow listeners, if you sign up to invest, Wealthfront will manage your first 15 grand entirely free of charge for life.

That means in addition to never paying commissions or any hidden fees, you also won't pay any management fees to have that first $15,000 invested. claim your offer today at Wealthfront.com slash tomorrow. For compliance purposes, I have to tell you that Wealthfront Incorporated is an SEC registered investment advisor. Brokage services are offered through Wealthfront

Brokage Corporation, a member FINRA and SIPC. This is not a solicitation to buy or sell securities. Investing in securities involves risk, and there is the possibility of losing money. Past performance is no guarantee of future results. Please visit Wealthfront.com to read their full disclosure. We're back with Matthias Duarte, and a lot of stuff to talk about. We got to cover a lot of ground here.

Okay. We were talking about the evolution of the smartphone. Yes. I'm going to go through a bunch of stuff to talk about. We gotta cover a lot of ground here. Okay, so we were talking about, we were talking about the evolution of the smartphone. Yes. I'm gonna go through a bunch of things really quickly. Okay. I'm gonna try to. So the evolution of the smartphone opened up. I know I can think we're gonna get stuck.

But there was a point where you went from the sort of immature ideas about how we would interact with a more mobile computer to a much more mature concept, which Apple really, I think we can say, is the the central instigator in a new model for interaction, which is touch screen, multi touch, so multiple fingers on a capacitive touch screen interacting with in a very physical way with very digital things like we have Traditionally had layers of abstraction between us and the thing like when you use a computer You have a keyboard a mouse those are representation those represent help you to represent things that are happening on the screen like you are Manipulate things are happening on screen, but like when you move the mouse

You're not moving the screen, you're moving something that moves the screen for you. It's a tool, very much a tool, right? When you use the keyboard, you're not typing on the screen, you're not putting the letters on by hand, you're putting them on by hand and then this thing and then it goes up on the screen. What we talk about is the distinction between direct manipulation and indirect manipulation. That's a direct manipulation.

My favorite style indirect manipulation. That's a direct manipulation. My favorite style of manipulation. Well, direct manipulation is better because that's what your brain is wired for. Indirect manipulation works. It's similar enough to what your brain is wired for. I'm going to challenge you on direct manipulation being like, I mean, sounds like you're saying that's a preferable environment. Yes. Then indirect manipulation. Well, it depends what you're optimizing for. Well, this actually is perfectly laced into what I wanted to bring up. So, you've been working on smartphones for a long time. Like let's just say, sidekick, Helio, that was Helio.

There's no ass on the end, right? No, okay. It's been so long. But when you get into the palm, obviously, the is the palm tree and WebOS is very much in the world of Direct manipulation and in fact like playing into this idea that Within direct manipulation, we will need to learn Methods of interaction that are new to the new to us But very germane to the form

Well, that's always been the case right like pinching you know using the mouse in the first place new to us, but very germane to the form. That's always been the case, right? Like, using the mouse in the first place was very new to us. When you have things like Blackberry or even the sidekick, the idea of using a scroll wheel was very foreign to us. Yeah.

You know, there was a time where it was very interesting back in those early days. Like, we had a very strong Anti-touch screen bias. We felt like okay, well palm and and Newton they tried that touch screen thing that pen stuff It's both that stuff just you know, it's terrible. I love that. It's so much. It's so much more efficient to use this wheel your way off You know to scroll through stuff well now it's that attitude In certain cases, it is.

And people still long for that dial on the side of the black and they, yeah, well, because it's, even though it's indirect and in some ways it increases your cognitive load, when you have become proficient at it, right? In certain ways, it can be more efficient, right? And that's a trade-off you're constantly making. It's like, do you optimize for steep learning curve efficiency,

or do you optimize for low learning curve, low stress, low cognitive load, et cetera, right? So this gets me to my thinking. My point about this, we've gotten to a point where smartphones are very evolved. I mean, I think they're very mature in terms of their, they feel mature in terms of what we can do with them now. We've learned the direct manipulation, we pick up on the cues for the most part.

I mean, I do want to make the point that I think we take for granted that we would have converged on these models that we've converged today, these capacitive touchscreen technology with this type of direct manipulation. That's not necessarily the case, right? Technology constantly settles on particular configurations that are not necessarily the optimal configurations, but once they reach a critical mass, they become a local macchema.

And then it's very hard to move away from it. But that's the real way. I mean, we're very lucky that Apple was able to procure the technology to do the capacitive touchscreen stuff and push that in the way that they did to get this type of very accessible direct manipulation out there at the time that they did. Because it's just as credible that there would have been

another world that would have been another world that would have been much more like the palm or the blackberry world, but with higher resolution, fast screens, and the animations and everything, but which would have had a higher barrier of accessibility, would not have had that moment of like, oh, here's my three-year-old on the tablet, swiping through things, I am able to manipulate things

with I totally manipulate the real world. I totally agree with you, but this is where I'm getting to, which is sometimes when I'm using my phone, I feel like I want to scream. And like not sure how you got there from home. I want to tell you, I see something amazing on the phone and it makes me want to scream.

No, I feel like doing things that are complex, we've actually gone backwards in some ways. Like the indirect manipulation, like what is available to me when I want a laptop for instance? The combination of the trackpad with its multiple gestures. I mean, that's that whole myth.

And the keyboard, I mean, you're talking about that whole myth of like, oh my God, tablets, they're gonna kill PCs. And people are gonna stop buying PCs. And no, but if anything tablets have made me feel, like I need a regular computer more. When I use a tablet, I feel like, this is how I actually physically feel

when I'm using a tablet or a smartphone to do something that is even a little bit complex. I feel like somebody has like chopped my arms off. And I, and I'm using my like, I'm using my like, shoulder stumps, I'm using my shoulder stumps to like, to do something, okay? Like, but this is real, I think it's real.

I was screaming if I had to use my shoulder stumps to do it. I think we would all be enraged about the shoulder stumps situation. But when I get to my computer with my, all of my digits, my fingers, and like a big view of things, like multiple things on the screen at once,

I feel like I can do more faster, more efficiently, and more naturally than I can do it on a phone or a tablet. Well, naturally is a dangerous word, right? Well, what feels natural to me, I guess. But no, it's one you're efficient at and what you've been trained and is culturally acceptable enough to me, I guess. But no, it's what you're efficient at, and what you've been trained and is culturally acceptable enough

to have proficiency in. But this whole thing about language, right? Like, we're so blind to technology once it's old, right? We don't see, we don't look at the highway system and think, oh my God, what a fucking amazing piece of technology, right? We don't look at the alphabet and say like, holy fuck.

I do not shit. Sometimes I'm like, look at these letters. Yeah, no, seriously, like this idea of being able to type on a keyboard and turn that into symbols which correspond to words, which correspond to ideas, right? You've invested a lot in learning how to write and learning language and learning how to articulate ideas through language. And then you've invested more in learning how to use your digits to type up, to pick on this little keyboard to do that.

And yet, it's worth it because you are so efficient and proficient at getting ideas across. Well, how much faster is it to, okay, so I use a helper app on my computer called Alfred. Alfred can be triggered with a two-stroke key command and it brings up a window that lets you, it's a search box essentially. And from that search box, you can search for applications. Silverlight. For, yeah, it is.

It's like you can search for applications, you can do a Google search, you can do essentially a kind of very dumb down command line, I can find something almost instantaneous. To do the same thing on a phone or a tablet is in any way is like, is like pulling teeth. I mean, it's just not as efficient. It really isn't. And like, I assume that there are people who are like, oh, this is my platform, and I can just rock this thing. But I see the interactions we've created for tablets and smartphones, and I see the openness of laptops and desktops and the OS, which is boundless

or as limited as you want it to be. And essentially, I could create a layer for that OS that is super limited. I think there's two things that are happening at the same time. One is what are the capabilities of the OS? And the OSs that you have on the desktops do tend to be more ambitious and more open and less restrictive.

And then you have those limitations that are imposed by the form factors and the desire to make things more manipulable. And they're both happening at the same time but they're actually independent. But I think I find this topic absolutely fascinating because one of the things that Andy Rubin said to me early on when he was talking to me about Android,

he was describing like what he was doing. He was like, what am I up to now? And he asked me this question. When you're at Palm. No, I think this was before I was at Palm. This might have been at Helio or going to Helio. I don't remember the exact time. Just think you were at Helio.

It was very early on. I don't think Android was announced. And he posed this question to me, which at the time I could not appreciate. And he asked me this question, which was, what's the perfect mobile device? I was like, oh, oh, that's exciting.

Let me tell you the perfect mobile device. And he's like, no, no, really? What's the perfect mobile device for everybody? I was like, why is that a different question? And at the time, I couldn't appreciate it. But in retrospect, I've grown to really appreciate what he was getting at, the idea that there are so many different people and so many different situational needs

that it's not just about the hardware, but also everything about the experience of how you interact with the computer. There is no one size fits all solution. You know, I had grown up. Oh, Apple that. Well, really? Well, I mean, they do have two sizes of,

several sizes, but the solution is the same. And it seems to be doing very well for them, actually. I mean, Andrew, I can take like, to different forms. I can't see a stronger admission of the reality that different people have different needs than the fact that there are two iPhone sizes. And that was the blindness that I had brought to the problem myself. I had grown up...

Do you think size is a negligible? I had grown up in a environment where this whole practice of designing software and understanding usability and interaction was nascent. And part of it was delivered through, you know, actual education and science and backed by things, but part of it was received authority, right? And during that period of time, there were a few icons of how to do things right. And Apple had for a long time been one of those icons. And I just, you know, I had internalized it. And I just assumed, well, of course, there is one right solution for everybody. And even at that time,

you know, I just assumed that. Now I realize like that's just so not the case. And I think Andy was really on to something with that. And we can talk about all the ways that maybe the Android ecosystem or the Android platform has a platform hasn't lived up to that or has created other problems that counteract that. But I think that's a really important insight when you think about the problem of computing,

the problem of like, you know, we all call ourselves, it's like, you don't wanna call yourself a rocket scientist, like we were not computer scientists, but if you think about computer science problems, I mean, technically, yes, I have a degree in computer science. Okay, it's sort of like people work for you

are computer science. Yes, no, according have a degree in computer science. Okay, it's certainly people who work for your computer science. Yes, no. According to a university, I should be, but don't look at my test scores too closely. Or the programs that were the night before you had to turn them in. Not very good, I get it. Well, you know, we can talk about education too. That's a whole different topic. We got to blow up the education system.

But the world. But it is a real serious problem to be considered when you think about computing, you have to think about the human interface side of computing. And when you think about the human interface side of computing, not just like, okay, how are we going to deal with certain computational limitations or how are we going to advance technologies around storage or communication or whatever, how are we going to advance a state of certain classes of algorithms or certain ways for people to write software. There's all these very valid fields for computer science, right?

And this is why people write languages and why they create new things like databases and why, you know, things like encryption. Like a database for a file. You know, are created, right? There's all these meaty problems in computer science. But one of the meaty, very serious problems of computer science is how to make this tool, this thing that can become any other tool, right? And it used to be that it was just

a tool to process information. So it's like, the computer is an information processing tool that can transmute itself into any conceivable information processing tool. That's a heavy concept. But now with the inner, all the interfaces that we're giving to computers to operate on the real world, right, through robotics and 3D printing and, you know, just the incredible array of sensors that we have out there. We are. Basically, you know, a computer has the potential to be a tool that can become any tool, right, which is even heavier as a concept.

But one of the problems in that sphere is the question of how do people actually interface it? Right, and I'm saying we've gone backwards in some way. In some, in many ways, we have. I mean, we've reduced our, I'm not saying this is a bad thing, I'm saying it's a thing, we have decided certain things work. Like pinch to the zoom is a really good example to me. When I think about pinch to the zoom,

amazing idea, totally natural makes total sense. Like it just feels right, except most people, I feel like most people are walking around using their phone with one hand. And when pinch to zoom and one hand get together, it's a fucking disaster. It's a fucking disaster. Do you see people like these people who are desperately trying to find a way

to pinch the Zoom, or have you ever been in the situation where you need to pinch the Zoom on something? And you have one hand for you and other hands carrying a hot coffee. There's your nose. And you're doing this, you're gonna pinch the Zoom with my nose.

And I thought, have you not done that? I've not done that. I mean, you've got the hot coffee in one hand. And I'm not trying to be the Andy Rooney here, like all these people, they're hot coffees in there. but that is a place where we think we made a leap.

But that's a, that's a perfect example of the idea that there is not one solution for all context, for all people. And that it makes sense in, in every other domain and every other tool, we have gradients, multiple ways to do things. We offer a set of things, right? You can, you know, who we were talking about paper and brushes and ink and everything earlier, you know, you can get a watercolor set for your kids and they can do pretty good stuff with it, right? But if you're going to do like some serious painting or some serious water coloring,

you're going to invest in better paper and better brushes and you're going to be able to do different things, that your kids can't take advantage of because it's going to take more training and investment on your part. Right, right? So I've grown to believe that that there is not a one-size-fits-all solution, but at the same time, I've also grown to believe that you need to try to make as much of a consistent underlying universal foundation for all of your solutions. So it's not like, unfortunately, because software doesn't impose any rules on you today, rather than having kind of a scaffolding type world where you can learn how to use a pencil, which might teach you some skills, which eventually

apply to using oil paints later on if you're going to paint the Great American novel. Yes. To really stress this. That's how it works. That's okay. With software, because it can do anything, it could be the case that you learn one tool and the next level, the more proficient tool, it's like all of a sudden now, gravity's upside down, right? Nothing carries forward, right? There is no underlying consistent

firmament. And that stresses out your brain. Your brain's not built for, like, you walk into the next room, next over, and the laws of physics are inverted, right? And your brain is built for... I'll speak for yourself. Refine that to me. It's not anything new. That's just a, not a day at the office. Okay, so what you're saying is, we have created more options, and that is a problem. For the human brain, for the pathetic human brain, which can do very little.

Oh, for the, for the time. Why do you gotta put words in my mind? For 10%. I mean, I feel like what you're saying is, and I quote, people are awful. And they have tiny brains. I think you're going to attribute that to Matias to our tech.

I think we're awful to people. And we spend too much time putting their brains through exercises that if we had a little bit of consideration and respect for them, we wouldn't. You think in interface design we do that? Yeah, all the time. I think in platform design we do that too. I think that's one of the biggest things that we don't talk about is the impact on the effect that all of the types of works that we do have on people's lives in the way that, so across the street from my hotel, they're building a new building.

I look at that building and I think of all the regulations that are in place, all the unions and their rules and the architects and their codes of conduct and the structural engineers and their best practices and engineering tolerances and the building permits and the regulations that are all there to make the experience of people in that building not just safe but healthy, right? It's like it's not just good enough that the building doesn't crush you as soon as you walk into it, right? It's like it's not just good enough that the building doesn't crush you as soon as you walk into it, right?

Like people, the man's in walls, why don't you do that? But if the building is mediating your experience of being in physical space and how you live in the physical space, why is it that all of our experiences in our digital space are such a complete crapshoot, right? There's so many things that we know about how our software can manipulate people

or can impose demands upon their attention or create stress, and there are dark patterns that people explicitly... I mean, we ran a piece... Exploite, right? When I was at the first time. And yet nobody talks about this. We ran a piece on dark patterns at the verge

about the sorts of like, the way you're cornered into doing certain things in interfaces. Right. Where like you want to say no, but you end up saying yes. Or we have this whole thing of like, oh, we want to give you, we want to expose what permissions your software has so that you're responsible for them. And yet we create these environments where like everybody is using every art of persuasion that's

known to human society for forever to be just like, well, just click that button. It'll be okay. They're going to ask you to click this button. Don't be scared. It's really important that you click this button, you know, and have a cocktail. Why don't we talk and consider our responsibility to people in these ways? Why aren't these things regulated? Why aren't we talking more about it? Well, I'm trying to start conversations about the vice-spec. Where's the session at Google I.O. about dark patterns? Does it exist?

No, I have to show my back to you to a corner. Well, I'll back you into a dark corner. Does it exist? No, perhaps it should. I'd like to do a corner. Well, I'll go back to you into a dark corner. Oh, I'm supposed to chill things, right? I'm here in New York because we're having this conference where we're getting designers together to have conversations about designary stuff. And one of the things that I am going to encourage the people there to talk about is these questions of what are our ethical and code of conduct responsibilities and what are the things that we do need to consider having codes and particularly potentially regulations

around because of the impact that our work has on people's lives. I don't want to smash people in the building when they walk in. I aspire to a lot better than not just crushing them to death. You want to have a building that makes them feel really good about themselves. That's right.

We're talking about something that's very relevant to what you're doing now. So this is like a little bit of a piece of information. I don't know if everybody knows. You are. I like the face that you're making. You're bracing for something to say, something horrible.

You're not working, you're not working on Android. Is that correct? That is correct. You are currently responsible for Material Design at Google. Your focus has shifted from like, yeah, at the beginning of this year, we took kind of the material design effort, which had been kind of a informal ad hoc effort, or a quiet revolution from the trenches, if you will, effort, depending on how you feel. How do we feel?

How do we feel? Is it a quiet revolution from the trenches? Well, I think we want to make it a loud revolution. I don't know. You're talking about the designers. Is that revolution within Google or within the industry? And within Google I'd say. Anyways, we took this thing that we'd kind of like created in this very grassroots way and we decided to formalize it and make it a thing inside Google function.

And so yes, and that's what I'm doing now. So, you've moved away from, so essentially, if I have some gripe about Marshmallows, that the latest version of Android, if I'm like, how come this thing? I actually will say this, like, when I, I said on Twitter, you're gonna come on the podcast and we're gonna talk. There's a Reddit forum, a Reddit subreddit,

which is all about Android, and they are big fans of yours, apparently. Yes. And people are like, oh, ask him why, ask him why the notifications are like iOS now. Like if I was going to, can I ask you that question? Sure. Can I, okay, why the notifications are like iOS?

Why instead of like being discrete little like, hey, here's a thing, if you want to look at it, check it out. This was, this was a design that we started trying to implement in Android back last release, and it's gotten a little bit better this release. Has it? And the... You can turn it off. It's called P-Kane, is that what it's called?

Yeah. And the idea was, we introduced the concept of actionable notifications. The idea that a notification could be more than just a text payload or an icon payload and I could actually let you do things. Right. A couple of releases ago now. Wow. I think actually, that's like four, like Android four or something. And so for things that were really high priority, we felt like, you know, wouldn't it be great

to have those things be able to actually come in, barge in, I think, was the colloquial term, although I don't think that's a technical term. And give you the opportunity to do something with it right then and there. And the first implementation of that was kind of a one size fits all, so that it only came in at a fixed size, but you could take actions on it if you wanted to engage with it. We didn't get everything we wanted in it. I think it was a little more difficult to dismiss. And it also is, it is one size fits all covers the top.

Yeah, covers a little bit of the UI. And I think in Marshmallow, one of the things that we had wanted to do initially, the ability to tuck it away or dismiss it immediately if you don't want it to cover any of the UI. But you added that in there. But you can also turn it off, right? You can turn it off, but that's not the point. Nobody, like, real people don't fiddle with their settings, right? But real people talk. Real people also hate when things cover the place they're trying to touch.

Yes. Don't you think? Or real people, kind of say this, I don't want to, I don't want to, no, I want to get to say this. Please. Please. Please. Please. Please. Please. Please. Please. No, I want to get a little bigger than this. And we don't have endless amounts of time. There is some real mistake when you ask me to take action on every single

notification that comes into my phone because I actually will say this on Android, I think notifications to me are much more the interface of the actual OS than like the home screen or the app page, whatever kind of like these like intermediary general states that you end up in. Notifications are a very reactive user. Well, notifications are very, they are extremely useful in Android because of the functionality that you gave to them. But they're also in their, and they, and they, they, they group in the right way, they stack in the right way, they are like,

collapsible in the right way. They're except like, except like, I don't want them to are like collapsible in the right way. They're except like, except like, I don't want them to impede my use in the middle of something else. Right. Like, so to me, that feels like an aggressive user. It was decision. So this is one of the things, you know what I was talking about, local maxima earlier.

I don't know if people know what I mean, but by local maxima, local maxima is the idea that sometimes to get to a better place, you have to step away from a place that's pretty good. And stuff gets a little bit worse on the way to a better place, you have to step away from a place that's pretty good, and stuff gets a little bit worse on the way to the new place. Sure, it's like you gotta break some eggs, make an omelette. Kind of like that. No, no.

I mean, I think you're also talking about that model. That model only makes it as collateral damage. Like, some people get killed when you're trying to get to peace. No, is that what we're talking about here? What I'm talking about here? What I'm talking about is the fact that there are trade-offs. And if you're looking at a graph on just two axes, there might be, there's only negatives

as you get to your next maximum. But you're usually optimizing across many, many axes, right? And so there's some things that get better, and some things get a little worse. There's absolutely nothing incompatible about the idea of notifications being actionable elements that can be different scales depending on how important they are and how actionable they are and could have a different degree of disruption on your experience. Right.

And so the question is, like the chat heads and the Facebook chat heads, like they've closed the corner. There may be other examples in the past that some of your fans might be able to reference. But I'll be able to. But you're constantly forced of this choice of like, would you not make any progress towards that end state or would you not start going towards that end state because you know that maybe there's going to be some compromises on the way there. And it's always a judgment call.

There's never an easy, an easy call to make. So you say we decide to state is like an in-between step towards something. Everything's always an in-between step. Everything is in-between. Everything is in-between. Everything is in-between step. I just wanted to give you shit about notifications

that I like. And I was using a Reddit user to allow me to give you shit about notifications. Like, and I was using a reddit user to like, you know, allow me to do that. Thank you. I don't know. Every two, one thirty seven. They are very angry. Trust me. But here's what I actually want to get in when I was saying about the Android, about

where you're focused. Things get better within Google. It will, it will be better. Yeah. It's a promise. Although you won't be directly responsible for those things getting better in Android because you are focused on a much larger task at hand at Google, which is. I wouldn't say it's much larger, but it's a different task, right?

So we're working on the Sergey and Larry. This is the most important thing that can happen at the company at this point. No, I don't think that's okay. I made that up. But the, yeah, no, I'm focused on. So tell me, so you've gone away from, I'm just saying like you've been working on interfaces for phones and tablets and developing that. And that was material design sort of came out of that. At least, you know, if I'm wrong, correct me. But it sort of bubbled up out of like trying to. Yeah, material design was was kind of looking at kind

of those framework aspects. Like what are the building blocks, what are the ground rules you set for developers? The regulations. How can you make, it's actually less about the regulations and more about just the laws of physics. Yeah, a wall has to be at this level. You actually have to put bricks on top of each other. You can't just kind of flip them out over space. It's very inconvenient.

Well, I guess you're gonna play Minecraft. Yeah. Actually, I guess Minecraft doesn't allow you to flip bricks. Oh, well, it could with the right hacks. I don't really know what I don't play because I have a lot of other stuff I don't worry about. Because you're not 12. Because I'm not 12 and I'm not the future of technology.

That's right, okay. But anyway, at any rate, so you started to put these material design was born out of the fact technology. That's right. Okay. But anyway, at any rate. So you started to put these these material design was was born out of the fact that we were working at this level of building blocks and laws of physics for for developers. And we wanted to create a coherent system that would create a consistent set of rules and laws of physics, not just for Android, not just for phones and tablets, but to see, could we create this set of rules, this way that people would learn and understand how to use things without having to relearn how to walk every time and do that across the board.

And that is how it was born. And that expanded out to cover lots of stuff at Google not just any way. So the scope of that today is Android and iOS and the web. Right. And so now we want to keep making that better. So your focus, just so I understand it, your focus at Google is not like,

let's make Android great. It is, let's make the language of design at Google great across whatever screen you're gonna interact with it on. Oh, I like that. Yeah, I'm gonna write that down. That's good. I'm gonna make that our mission. I'm, I mean, am I right or am I wrong?

Yeah, no, that's great. So it's like, it's like, it's like, it's a TV interface, if it's the web, if it's a phone, if it is a laptop, whatever it is, there's, you're designing a system. We're very much interested in that system. What is that, that language that we use in that space? And as you alluded to earlier, that's one of the reasons why we were involved in the project to rebrand Google.

Well, that's, yeah. So that was going to be, so how much much does that you were involved in fairly heavily? I'm assuming yeah, so you're responsible for destroying the Google logo. Is that am I right insane that? Partially partially responsible shared responsibility. I don't know. Yeah for destroying the beloved icon of millions The beloved you know, soibid, Seraph, throw it together. Don't say that. Come on, you have to admit. You have to admit, you have to admit,

the original Google logo, even the more evolved Google logo, pretty gross. Pretty gross, you don't gonna say it. You're not gonna say it, but your eyes are saying it. That's all I need. I am, you know what I think this is a great place. I think this is a great place. No, this is not a great place. You're a terrible person, Justin. What? Oh, I got it. I'm very proud. Try, try to make me say something. No, no, but you

were involved in the rebranding of the, I was, yes, we were involved in the rebrand. You decided to put that, um, the one, uh, the, the, the, the slant, the slant, the slant in the end. No, although, your personal, no, no, although slant, and we get an aim. That's your personal sensation. No, although I was involved in that discussion, it was a fun discussion to have because it was actually a whole sense of, like, how do we push the logo type in particular? Because when we think about the new Google brand system, the logo, we think it's really interesting

because it has multiple parts. It has an icon, it has a logo type, and it has these animated dots and they're all The logo they're all part of the brand system and that's pretty pretty interesting and exciting and we look at that the logo type itself the word mark Google We had concern of like Have we we knew we needed to push it into a place that was different and that might be uncomfortable But like did we push it too far? Did we get too cold? Did we get too, you know, analytical, too, artsy, too, you know, whatever? And so we actually came back and that tilt at E came back as part of

this sense of exploration of like, okay, we all feel like the colors carry a lot of the exuberance and childish, childlike wonder that childlike. Well, okay. So the original Google logo. Of the original Google logo. And we felt like also like the schoolbook. The testing thrown together Sarah for first. She's been we're all happy to have seen gone to see go away.

I mean speaking that's Josh to post that's speaking. That's how you speak. I'm well, I don't work for I don't like I'm glad you feel good about the new thing that we've got. I love it. Well, I'll say this it just nice changes good. I think change is good. I think it like I think if you're if you have a problem with change, you

are not built for the age that we live in. So if a problem of change, I don't think you're built for life. Well, no, that's true, but I think especially now, we are in just a constant state of upgrade. And I think that if you're not built for the upgrade or the alteration, it's very, very difficult to survive in today's society, in today's world. it's very, very difficult to survive in today's society, in today's world. And yeah, we have to wrap up, unfortunately. Of course, I don't want to leave. I don't want to get you out of vodka. There's a, I am out. But that was very upsetting. And you're out of champagne. And so it's a very dark time for all of us here. There's a million things I want to

talk about. We did not get to all of them. I'll always be next time. You have to come back. I'm sure it will end up talking somewhere somehow. But this is great. Thank you for coming and doing this. Thank you for taking the time. Thank you for bringing this delicious champagne. No, you're welcome. And thanks for having me.

Until next time. Yeah. We're just going to have to have this conversation privately. Okay. Good night. Good night. That's our podcast. We'll be back next week with more.

And as always, I wish you and your family the very best But I have to say I am watching your family and I'm waiting I'm waiting for the right moment You won't know when you won't know where that it's coming The The famous razor blade, who would do that? Also, who's eating apples so hard that they don't even notice the razor blade? Like, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, you