Beò · February 2026
Why I'm Running Research, Not Building a Startup
People ask me why I'm not raising money for Beò. I spent over twenty years building technology at scale for organisations like Abcam, Travis Perkins, JP Morgan, and the UK Government. I know how to ship product. That's precisely why I'm not shipping one yet.
The digital wellbeing space is full of apps built on assumptions. Screen time trackers that assume less is better. "Digital detox" tools that assume abstinence works. Notification blockers that assume the problem is volume. Most of them cite research that doesn't actually predict behaviour (my own MSc data showed this: "addiction" scores had almost no correlation with actual phone use).
I don't want to build another product on bad assumptions. I want to know whether the hypothesis holds first. Can evidence-based microhabits actually shift how people feel about their relationship with technology? The honest answer: I don't know. There's a real chance we find no significant effect. That's what pre-registered research is for.
If the data shows something meaningful, the build-and-operate phase is someone else's job. I'm a technology executive, not a startup operator. My curiosity is about whether the problem is solvable. If it is, the right team to scale it is an engineering and product team, not a researcher with a hypothesis.
Beò is a four-week research commitment. As CTO I set the technical direction, but the research team handles day-to-day operations. The work keeps me honest about what technology actually does to people, which makes me better at the executive roles where I spend the rest of my time.
I'd rather run a study that finds nothing than ship a product that assumes everything.
More at Beò
Beò · February 2026
Why I Stopped Chasing 'Addiction'
In 2020, I ran my MSc research convinced I'd prove everyone was addicted to their phones. I used multiple validated measures and collected actual iPhone Screen Time data. I was ready.
The "addiction" scores showed weak correlation with actual social media screen time (r = .12). But simply asking "how often do you check social media?" correlated well (r = .54). People weren't in denial. They could report their social media frequency fairly accurately. But the distress measured by "addiction" scales wasn't the same as how much they actually used it.
The addiction framing measures psychological distress about technology. But distress isn't the same as behaviour. You can feel terrible about your phone while using it moderately. You can feel fine while scrolling for hours.
In 2023, researchers validated the Digital Flourishing Scale. Instead of measuring pathology, it measures whether technology supports meaningful relationships, authentic self-expression, and sense of purpose. The question shifted from "how broken are you?" to "is technology helping you live well?"
That shift changed everything about how I built Beò. My 2020 self would have built another shame-based app showing scary numbers. Instead, Beò asks whether you feel in control of your digital life, and whether simple microhabits can shift that feeling.
I'm using the latest validated measures (2023, peer-reviewed, published in Journal of Happiness Studies). The older framework led me to findings that didn't make sense. When better tools exist, use them. We're pre-registering our hypotheses, acknowledging our limitations, and sharing what we find, including what doesn't work. That's the kind of research I want to do.
More at Beò