What if they never existed?

If Steve Jobs had never lived, would we still have the iPhone and iPad today? Similarly, if Walt Disney, George Lucas, and Pete Diamandis had all taken jobs on Wall Street instead of living their lives as true innovators, would we still have Disneyland, Star Wars, and the X-Prize Foundation today?

To put it more succinctly, if the visionary never existed, would we still have the industry?

Certainly, if Edison hadn’t invented the light bulb, someone else would have. In many cases, inventors have lost out on a patent because of mere minutes separating the timestamp on a patent. So the invention was destined to happen regardless of whose name showed up on the patent, right?

Not so fast.

The systems we create help define the kind of people who will naturally rise to the top. And these leaders of innovation have decidedly different approaches for making things work. So what would a new system for innovation look like?

At the DaVinci Institute we have some ideas for a new system brewing, one that will serve as an enabler for a new breed of visionaries. Over the coming weeks I will explain in far more detail, but for now, here is a rough overview:

Read the rest of this entry »

Many dental offices today use a device called an intraoral camera to show patients why they need a root canal. With little more than a camera on the end of a lighted wand, the technology gives people a new insider perspective into one of the least observed, yet most used, parts of the human body – the mouth.

Even though the mouth is only a couple inches below the eyes, people have very little understanding of what’s happening inside their own mouth simply because we haven’t had a technology like this designed for personal use.

Recently, a number of wireless intraoral cameras have made their way onto the market paving the way for people with smartphones to view their own teeth. So far none of the app developers have picked up on the possibility of turning these wireless intraoral cameras peripheral devices for smartphones, but this will change very soon.

Once we discover “eyes” for looking at parts of our body currently not viewable – inside our ears and the back of our heads – we will witness the next evolution of introspective human voyeurism that includes ingestible pill-cams that give us a video analysis of our own digestive tracks.

If all this line of thinking about next-gen videocams is beginning to sound a little weird, we’re just getting started. (Pics)

Read the rest of this entry »

It’s amazing how a single newscast can set the world on fire.

The very second Standard & Poor’s announced they had downgraded the U.S. Credit rating, communications systems around the world began to boil. Reaction time was critical and those who could react the quickest were able to position the negative news into something less negative, perhaps even a positive.

Reaction was fast and furious. At the same time, over-reaction was even faster and furiouser. Few people were able to gauge the proper response to the events unfolding.

Our always-on, always-tuned-in society was instantly aware of the crisis, and at the same time, instantly aware that everyone else was instantly aware. There can be no better breeding ground for panic.

In a matter of seconds, Wall Street had become a series of digital flashmobs competing with other digital flashmobs.

We have entered into a new age of hyper-awareness where reaction times have dropped from minutes to seconds, and in the case of computers that make trades based on mathematical models, the time is now measured in milliseconds.

This new level of awareness is still a crudely refined capability that we are only now beginning to understand.

Read the rest of this entry »

American TV personality Ryan Seacrest has a grim look on his face as he walks briskly across the stage. Turning to the camera, he pauses briefly before saying, “You have heard the arguments, listened to the experts, and seen the photos. But now it is up to you to decide the fate of Mr. Howard Cullens.”

On the lower part of the television screen a pair of voting numbers are listed, one to call for “guilty,” and the other to select “innocent.”

Mr. Seacrest continues, “For the good people of America, the decision you make here tonight will determine not only the outcome of this trial, but who we are as a people, as a society, and as a country. Do we have the resolve to make the hard choices, and more importantly, do we have the determination to make the right decision?”

People were drawn to this show because, as a trusted and impartial host, Ryan Seacrest adds just the right amount of charm and charisma to attract fair and objective people to judge his cases.

Concluding the broadcast, he ends with, “Tune in tomorrow morning on “American Courtroom,” and we will announce how the country voted in this trial, and whether Mr. Howard Cullens will remain a free man, or one who spends the rest of his life in prison.”

Read the rest of this entry »