Smart watches are all the rage right now. Every self-respecting consumer electronics company needs to have one. Apple’s been feeling that pressure for quite some time, certainly from pundits and fans and probably even from shareholders. The problem is that there hasn’t really been a compelling reason for owning one beyond health apps and perhaps just looking cool (if you can look cool with a giant light-square on your wrist). Apple knows this, but they also know that they shouldn’t release something without having the killer application that makes a consumer feel as if they can’t live without it. Sure, they’d see fanboy buys and some holidays purchases, but there’d be no sustain for it. So, what can Apple do? Release a product without a market or not release a product that makes them look deficient in comparison to rivals? They chose the latter.
One could infer from the sorts of hiring done by Apple recently that perhaps they don’t have a clear direction at Cupertino for this product. This also dovetails with the lack of intellectual property filed on its behalf. I would think the game plan was to wait it out until the watch’s true necessity presented itself and rally the troops then, much like they did with the mp3 player, tablet and mobile phones. Unfortunately, other firms haven’t been waiting, they’re launching and hoping the platform will summon the devices’ utility.
When pebble came out, they knew there’s a diaspora of possibilities for such a device and elected to launch with a simple, open device. Samsung is known for throwing everything at the market and then iterating on the ones that get a little traction. Asus may have actually made a smart phone stylish. Strangely enough, in perhaps Google’s only hardware win, their watch shows a sort of approachable genius that comes from attentive human-centered design. Into this market, Apple drops off their watch.
Apple’s products have always been about giving a refined solution, so the idea of belching out technology and hoping a random coder will find the device’s purpose goes against the fabric of the company. Apple is supposed to have the answers, and polished ones, at that. They don’t have to fumble about the market for help. Maybe that was because Steve had the answers – but more probably, he knew to take the heat until the time and the device was ready.
Steve is gone now and Apple launches a watch. It has iOS on it and one of the big sell points is health tracking. It has a skeuomorphic dial on the side and vaguely looks like every other smart watch on the market from about a year ago. I’m sure there’ll be a robust spec sheet and easy compatibility with an iPhone and the applications on it, but it just feels… pushed.
Lately, there’s been a few articles suggesting shoppers wait for the next iteration of the Apple Watch. Some cite the inevitable issues with launching a new product, like software bugs. The question that needs to be asked is are these legitimate thoughts about the growing pains of a first manufacturing run, or a polite way of saying the Apple Watch (and to be fair smart watches in general) just hasn’t created a compelling product vision that makes having one indispensable as other Apple products?
What is Modern Design? How do you recognize it? Most people would say it’s a style that’s clean of detail and somehow functionally formed. Maybe some would say expensive, or cold.
It wasn’t designed to be that way. The simplified, pure shapes must have looked like aliens had left them behind when they came out, and the left-field material selections and manufacturing processes didn’t help either. At the time, most people were deciding to buy either that ‘new’ Stickley stuff or go William Morris Bungalow. Comparatively, items by LeCorbusier and Gropious were outrageously Metropolis-futuristic.
Curiously, modern furniture wasn’t designed to elicit this response – its core principles were much more Utopian. If designers could somehow harness this mass-production phenomenon, perhaps they could elevate the underprivileged so as to live a life just as others do. If they could only reduce costs, the designers felt they could make these conveniences and necessities that much more approachable for everyone. Of course, this vision would come at a cost. They’d have to peel out a lot of the extra details, as those processes added cost. They’d also have to source newer, cheaper materials. Perhaps modern companies like these who pump out thousands of bicycles could also pump out furniture just as fast if it were made with the same tube? Prices would then surely be approachable.
Flashing forward through the ages, the concept of Modern, and its aim of elevating the masses was usurped by the fact that only the rich, it seemed, adopted the new looks. They wanted to be ‘modern’ and were the only ones willing to pay for it. Besides, the more cost-effective designs just didn’t resonate with the populace. Modern was re-labeled as the style of the rich. Sadly, only after IKEA made it big did Modern fulfill its pledged goal.
The aftermath is the current definition of Modern. Products with hefty, nearly unapproachable price tags peddled by the designer elite essentially for the elite style connoisseur. It means ‘clean’, ‘detail free’, form-following-function and more pointedly, a wealth of good taste. But just as technology paved the way for this thinking, technology once again is changing our perceptions.
The last decade has ushered in the direct connection between machines that make things and the drafting/modeling programs that design them. No more are we handcuffed by a human element in one aspect or another. Things can be designed and handed right off to the machines that make them – no human hands involved.
Suddenly, the very ornamentation that we loved and that we had to give up with Modernism is far more easy and cost effective to have than it ever was. It’s also more customizable than we could possibly imagine. The end effect is that designers and artisans no longer have to hone economy of line and shape. In fact, the programs and machines can make anything of nearly any possible detail.
As humans, we’ve essentially solved what’s the perfect dimensions for a chair. We’ve solved the structural requirements for a bookshelf and now we can ask a computer to solve both for us. The even more amazing thing is that whatever we draw, we can have made, and quickly. A talented and skilled craftsman does not have to be found. In fact, we don’t even have to actually draw things, we can have a computer do that for us, as well.
All this will come together to once again recast the definition of Modern. The modern that the next several decades will know is one that means extreme ornamentation. It will mean extreme complexity, mass personalization. It will also mean that if one has simple, form following function items, they must certainly not be well-off.
One of the hardest parts about bringing interactivity to the television is not so much getting it on the internet. It’s getting an idea on what exactly TV apps should do.
The graveyard for ‘interactive’ television devices is a very large place, and there’s new residents happening every day. It’s not just third party, flash-in-the-pan manufacturers, either. Some of the tombstones have some pretty big names on them. Why the ongoing tragedy?
The sorrow of it all stems from the fact that the way people interact with a television is so much different than how they interact with mobile devices. Slapping an Android computer on a TV with a revved up tablet UI is not going to work well, no matter what shape you make the box. The problem is that the TV is a fundamentally different product and experience. It’s a social event device.
What do I mean by that? In today’s world, the television is used to share experiences with more than one person. If just one person were going to consume media that would normally be on a television, they would likely do it with another device like a tablet, laptop or phone. We invite friends to watch media on TV together.
This is the big sticking point. The current batch of applications on mobile operating systems are fundamentally designed for interaction with only one person per device. Angry birds? Single user. Hootsuite? Single user. Foursquare? Single user. Their social aspect is derived through the sharing of information across networks to someone else’s device. They are not designed for sharing with others on the same device. The social aspects of sharing a television event on Facebook with the same people who are in the same room as you, seems somehow redundant. Perhaps sharing with others who aren’t in attendance would make this seem useful but that’s just a feint, isn’t it?
The awkwardness of the ‘social’ app issue could easily be distilled down to when there are many sharing one device experience, it’s no longer an ‘I’ event, it’s a ‘We’ event. For whatever the app is doing, everyone is essentially doing it and if something changes, everyone has some sort of hand in the operation (assuming you have courteous friends). Thus, either there are an army of personal accounts invading the device or there is just one person’s account. Redundancy or awkward conformity are in store.
The second aspect that’s been overlooked is that whatever account that your mobile devices are run through contains a lot of information about you, and maybe some information that’s best left within the safety of password-protection. A quick test of this is taking a stroll through your friend’s mobile phone. The experience turns out to be pretty much uncomfortably voyeuristic. The details saved and the personalization of said device is a deep, deep window into the inner workings of a device’s owner. It’ll become uncomfortable to share a lot of these profile details with others. Even relatively benign shopping lists could cause some to blush if shared with the wrong people.
We have different personas – or ‘accounts’, if you will – a public one and a private one. Truly social event devices like televisions need to be ready to handle the line we set between them. This asks an interesting question: do we then have to individually go into every aspect and assign what can be shared and what cannot, a la Google Circles or do we have second, sharable proxies that are neutered for public browsing? Will they be connected somehow?
With both of these aspects in mind, the biggest issue is that the standard apps available for tablets and phones just don’t work for the social aspects of TV viewing. There will have to be a complete set of brand new apps invented to truly capture the utility and the desire to have this capability on televisions. This is where the excitement should build for what would really turn out to be a completely new market for applications where a sort of real-time social app is born. Instead of being all ‘web 2.0’ on separate devices, groups could have that same interaction through one large device in one location. Or perhaps something even more out on the horizon.
It’s time for manufacturers and programmers to see that this change needs to happen, if they’re going to want to keep playing in this space. From user interfaces that are actually designed for the sort of environment TVs are used to the more mundane aspects of creating a sort of sharing profile that has a tuned environment that’s safe to use where others can browse.
If there are actually return readers to this blog, they will probably see that a lot of the stuff on here is focused towards technology and where it may be going. Most of it is pretty top-level stuff.
The hard part about all this tech is that they work really well in a vacuum and sometimes they work really well with items from the same maker and the same time, but we all usually don’t have the opportunity to buy the whole product line at once. This puts us in a bit of a pickle as it certainly doesn’t make it easy to get all the benefit out of everything we buy. Most times, the manufacturers aren’t on our sides so there’s really not a lot of help out there. Thankfully due to the ingeniousness of the third-party manufacturers and relatively open standards, there are a lot of helper items that go a long way to connect the dots.
In light of that, I’ve decided to put together another sort of blog that will talk to more of the “dirty hands” portion of the march of technology. Sure, there’s a lot of places out there talking about the next new thing in mobile devices, laptops and such. I’m not going to throw out more of the same. Instead, I’m going to focus on looking at all the items and techniques that link together our devices and really enhances our total experience with them.
I think I’m going to focus on the more standardized methods of connection, like USB, HDMI, Bluetooth and Wifi. There seems to be a lot of green shoots in the adapter industry around these methods and there looks to be a lot of trick stuff that promises interesting results. Of course there may be a bit more esoteric posts as well. Perhaps in the future, there may also be some posts about software interactivity, but I’m not sure. To make things easier, I’m also going to post where I got these things from and focus on getting everything from Amazon – as there’s nothing worse than reading about something and then not being able to find it.
The new blog is EclecticTechConnector.com and I think the name really goes a long way at describing what it’s all about. That focus is on all the little connectors and helper devices that makes it easy for all our toys to work together or just work better. I’m going to sort of document my journey through all these helper devices and share what I’ve learned along the way. Hopefully, it will help all you out there as well.
Oh, and if you have some ideas on what to try next, go ahead and email me, or leave them in the comments!
In today’s world of product design there seems to be a lot of emphasis placed on homogenizing the shapes of things. Obviously this looks rather nice and makes for a pretty good looking ‘system’ of things that sit on the shelf well. Then along comes a project like this to remind us that we need to consider other aspects besides congruent shapes when thinking of functionality.
I am not sure if this was the main reasoning behind Vanessa’s shapes ( yes, I did not really read the article), but my takeaway from the images is that the set of in-congruent shapes would certainly have a benefit for a user in recalling what is on each of the drives.
Today, we have a lot of data. Although the cloud is coming, we still carry and store a lot of it on devices that are physical to us. Many times this data can’t be held on just one chunk of media for a variety of reasons. Just like days of old with floppy disks, it becomes hard to recall what exactly is held on each drive. Having a drive with a distinctive shape goes a long way to circumvent the issue.
Designers usually try and attack this sort of thing with a visual design or some sort of handy color-coding. But these devices are usually quite tactile in use and the project here seems to go a long way to treat this aspect. Seeing this implementation makes me think that in this day and age we haven’t really utilized the capabilities touch gives us in a conscious way. Being able to quickly reach for a media drive and understand generally what their content is without taking eyes off of other things is really a benefit that makes this project quite strong.
For many reasons (which I am sure I will revisit here) I think that designers get into the bad habit of forcing things into systems even though the functionality is obviously sacrificed for style. It would be nice to see a movement where we look at projects like this to truly address function before shoehorning things awkwardly into shapes that merely look good. Oh, and also to consider more deeply tactility as a legitimate form of communication and utility.
Does the tablet-Entertainment-mobile arms race force Amazon to acquire RIM? Does it also force it to buy Nintendo? These are very serious questions and while there’s been swirling rumors for the phone aspect of it, the notion of why not both is something to look at.
Why would Amazon feel the need to buy? The answer comes from how you perceive their competition to look like. Obviously, Amazon doesn’t sell phones or electronics, well they do but that’s not their real business. Their real business is the business of providing a market for commerce and from that vantage point things look different. Who competes with them in this market? Google, Apple and Microsoft.
Buying into phones, and even more so into home entertainment, is nearly a must. Amazon has put considerable investment into the online delivery of media, and not just books. They are one of the largest players in mp3 sales and they even have their own app store. With Apple and Microsoft closing the loop on media delivery and the devices to use it on, it must be scary for Amazon. What position would they be in if they end up being an app on someone else’s system? Things don’t even look that safe from the Android world, what with Google having Play, expanding YouTube and dabbling in music sales.
Much like Microsoft, the win for Amazon is not selling a phone, it’s guaranteeing the capability to solely sell content through it’s own devices as well as the opportunity to sit at the big table for at least another 5 more years on customer experience lock-in.
The purchase of RIM is tantalizing for a number of reasons. Firstly, they get a large (but crumbling) user base. Mature (perhaps too mature) technology, supply chain and branding to build on are all features that make this a great move for Amazon. These details alone makes it an easy decision over building from scratch. RIM is also looking to get its groove back and what better than to have the full capability of Amazon’s vast media offerings coursing through it’s circuits?
The phone makes sense, sure, but why Nintendo? The answer is pretty close to the same. The Wii gets them on the TV. TV is a vast market that hasn’t been executed properly…yet. Streaming Movies right from the Amazon store to your TV guarantees longevity. The customer base for the Wii is also more similar to the Amazon cloud than Sony’s Playstation, as well.
The ultimate play to maintain relevancy in this competition is to get on the TV—which means in the living room—and get mobile. Obviously, there are some other plays that would get them close to this scenario – and probably cheaper at that. First is to look at another handset maker. It would be hard to steal Nokia away from Microsoft, but HTC would be a nice buy. They’ve had some good successes and have got a nice presence on carriers and in stores, but not having the capability to close compatibility to just Amazon’s system might be less than palatable and that holds for the rest of it’s Android kin.
It gets a little more interesting with the TV play. There’s an army of set top boxes that would be ripe for purchase, TiVo has been ailing for a while, and Roku would look good as well. All Amazon needs is a device that plugs into the TV that can stream media and be capable of running apps. Even more useful is established consumer buy-in and sell-through. I am unconvinced that any of these boxes’ cheapness would offset the brand power the Wii has. Then again, with games pushing mobile, that support might be crumbling as well.
Whatever the choice is, grabbing both device platforms would put Amazon nearly on the same turf as Microsoft or Apple and bests Google because the power is in the synergy of the components. This is the same awesomeness that Apple enjoys with the iTunes-iPad-iPhone and soon to be Apple TV as well as Microsoft will enjoy with their Windows 8 phone, tablet and Xbox triumvirate.
All of a sudden, that Amazon Cloud-thing could make a lot of sense, huh?
Microsoft launching their own tablet is big news. Lots of people talk about how this is a bad idea. The weirdness of a software company toying with selling hardware leads folks to usually bring up Zune as a rationale for why. The thought here that most are missing is that it doesn’t matter is Microsoft sells any Microsoft-branded tablets, but it does matter that Microsoft got to launch the first Windows 8 tablet.
Being first is very important. By taking the time to launch their product on the exact right hardware to show off all the features allows Microsoft to set the appropriate bar for where OEMs will need to start to make sure that Win8 becomes a viable tablet product at the onset, rather than playing a continuous game of catch-up like Android is having to do. Since the level has been set, it leaves OEMs no choice but to launch their Windows 8 tablets at the same bar or exceed it just to play in the market.
Thinking of Android tablets is a very good example. When Android tablets were first introduced, they were underpowered, over-priced and lacked a lot of the critical features that made the ipad great. A mess of short-sighted, noncompetitive products flooded the stores, and then glutted Woot. Second attempts at creating something competitive (aside from Samsung) have basically fallen flat. It is plainly obvious that most tablet OEMs have not understood where to be in terms of technology to be competitive. Microsoft could not take the chance for the same lackadaisical product work to happen with the launch of their tablet operating system. Vendors now can’t take the cheap route. They’ll have to create at least competitively spec’d products with the Surface.
The move is very sly and one that shows Microsoft learns from others’ mistakes. Coming out with the best possible spec machine forces OEMs to start competitively rather than to have the occasion to start at perhaps a less than optimum level—which is what had essentially doomed Vista (not to mention all of the Android tablets) when it was sold on under-powered machines to the masses, causing the OS to be sluggish, amongst other things.
Further, by putting out their ideal specs to the market before the OEMs , they’ll also get to set the price schedule for Win8 tablets. If pricing is done well, the Win8 tablets can price itself to be more than competitive with the ipad. For instance, if MS places the price of the Intel tablet within $100 dollars of the iPad, it will force the iPad to battle against something far more powerful (Intel-based full-version Windows), while the ARM tablet would have to price in lower, outside of competing against a more powerful and entrenched iPad. A pricing format like this would force Apple into competing with essentially a desktop-powered tablet and diving into a commodity market or watch its market share recede into the 5% niche it was in before the iPod. Not to mention, this creates the beginnings of the tiered pricing scenario seen in laptops and an entry point to essentially commodity tablet market that has gone nearly untouched.
Let’s not forget, Microsoft’s profitability is not based on one single product no matter how well this tablet sells and it may not make any difference if it never comes to market. Microsoft may even see it a shrewd move to sell it at a loss. A classic example of this is Amazon’s Kindle and even more indicative is Microsoft’s own Xbox platform. The hardware is sold for essentially a loss and it doesn’t matter as the profits come from the sales of the software. For the tablet, this may hold true as well. Proving that Win8 is a viable tablet operating system that can compete on an even footing with Apple’s is insurance in Microsoft’s viability for the future. Owning the tablet space with Win8 ensures Microsoft’s dominance in the OS world, and especially in enterprise, as a win for Win8 is a win for continuance of all of the other platforms MS has like Office, Outlook and so on. So watch out for the future, Microsoft is on the move and they may know exactly what they’re doing!