For What We Are Is What We See

So what is all the fuzz about the announcement of Alphabet, you may ask. Here are some good links to get you started:

“ Google turns a page with new Alphabet parent “ - Yahoo  “Google to reorganize as Alphabet to keep its lead as innovator.” New York Times “ The Tech Behind Each Letter In Google’s Alphabet “  Techcrunch

Formula One has been the ultimate frontier in terms of racing cars, at least that’s what most of us thought until recent years.  The shear amount of money that goes into developing state of the art cars is enormous. On the other hand, the never ending changes of rules that supposedly are meant to help make the grand pix more exciting, are in fact destroying the so much loved F1 racing brand. 

Ferrari North America made an statement earlier this year, probably reflecting on the state of the F1 world, giving a hint of hope for change. Unfortunately it wasn’t enough to shake up things at FIA, but it was probably enough to get people thinking about an alternative. Andries van Overbeeke’s MacLaren - Honda concept car are probably another call for change.

This is part of  'Echoes of a Nearby Future’ series, where Andries Van Overbeeke explores and reflects on the regulations, proportions and design of F1 cars. 

As Formula E is emerging, there is a possibility that F1 will no longer be the elite in the future, it will no longer be the hub for groundbreaking ideas. 

That’s why IDEO partnered up with Studio 360 to come up with quite interesting solutions to mitigate this.

The Lolzzz above is my favorite. It’s an alarm clock that rocks back and forth while waking you up with sounds of a child laughing. You can even make it louder by tickling the belly button to wake up not only yourself, but your partner, or even the evil neighbor.  The giggle sound is not arbitrary. “ Studies have shown that our brains respond to laughter by lighting up in the premotor cortex, the same area of our brain that prepares our face to smile” according to wired. 

Current stats show that phones are being changed, “upgraded” every 18 months and laptops every 2 years. Sustainable?  You might think, “yeah but these things can be recycled right?”

Without doubt, better than throwing them away, but it is not as efficient as you might think it is: Almost 1/3 of the material content is lost, and most importantly the rare earth materials that every electronic component has its non-recyclable. Solution? Last resort? But , what is even most important, is that the majority of products are not designed to be repairable... People used to repair their stuff all the time, because it was cost efficient, because it was time efficient, because they were able to repair them. Ifixit is a website I found, that is trying to give the consumers the right to repair things than can be repaired. Through tutorials, and articles it’s great source of knowledge for everyone!

I was looking at a luminaire by Sebastian Bergne for Luceplan when I stumble upon this very interesting piece of calendar. 

The 3D physicality is what fascinates me the most. Because it needs commitment from the user to work,  it could be refreshing to start to think about dates again, in a digital era where all our deadlines are stored in bytes. It also doubles as a 30 cm ruler. 

In the last session of D&T lectures, Hugh Pizey, our tutor gave a talk on the aesthetics of design. Quite interesting and thought provoking, it was rather a session of questions than a set of guidelines to follow. The subject was introduced by watching a short take from the 1960s classic movie - 2001: A Space Odyssey.

Why? Because of how technology is portrayed: minimalist, clear, featureless white almost ascetic style. A lot more familiar to our current views of advanced technology.  But, let’s take a peek at another classic from the 1980s -Blade Runner

Here, advanced technology is dark, more “industrial”, highly functional features depicted as cyberpunk. Harsh contrast between the two indeed. Both are visions of the future, where technology plays a great part in the life of  humans, but differ greatly in their visual values. We can safely infer that visual values change, be it as a result of our views, expectations or current standards. Thus, the question is not whether Design aesthetics in technology is relevant or not. Rather, how aesthetic values change technology, and vice versa. (in my perspective) Form, colour, shape, texture, proportions, symmetry all affect our perception of a product. If it looks ( or smells, tastes, sounds) high tech according to our standards, then we perceive them as high tech whether this is the case or not. Moreover, they not only change our perception, but they can inspire technologies likewise.

So, there is a role for aesthetics in technology, and I think it is important to deal with it now more than ever. The reason? the rise in wearable technologies and the development in robotics. 

Another film I think will be prominent and relevant in future developments is Ex Machina. I haven’t seen the film yet, but based on the trailer it seems to raise important questions about robotics, and the fate of human progress vs technological progress.  In terms of wearable technology, it is inherently important to deal with the aesthetics since we are attaching, implanting stuff to our bodies. Whether we like it or not, people take a huge attention on their looks, and whether it is correct or not wearable technology will have(or has) the same attention. Luxury fashion brands are already incorporating Tech.

Following my previous post, let’s see what can be deducted from Apple’s  more recent new product launches: - In 2001 the iPod was launched,  - In 2007 the iPhone was released,  - In 2010 the iPad appeared - and now, in 2015 the Apple Watch is released. The time gap between new product categories seems to be more or less 5 years. Now, each product so far has been successful but let’s not forget about failed attempts such as the Newton:

That time lapse seems to be very big but, let’s not forget that Apple is one of the few companies that tries to design almost every aspect of the product, from the inside out.  What is more interesting is that non of the products were entirely new in their own right. ( Yeah I know, a lot of people are going to contradict this.) The portable music player, or the “smart” multitasking phone, or even tablets existed in the market before Apple entered with their own product. But, what Apple seems to be good at, is to offer a more comprehensive approach based on the struggles from early adopters.  So this begs the question: Does Apple employ a Reactive Strategy or a Proactive Strategy?  It’s hard to say, From one hand they do develop their own new technologies ( like the scroll wheel on the iPod) more likely to be based on their R&D.On the other hand, they do identify problems in their competitors product and search for ways to improve those. All in all, I would say they have a mix of strategies, which are predominantly Proactive, but they take care and time using Reactive strategies to success. 

For the Apple Watch the scenario is very similar: fitness wearables and smart watches have long been on the market. It is up to the consumers now to judge whether the Apple Watch is the next leap for Apple or not... 

At the very heart of any new product development (NPD) process there needs to be a strategy.  A couple of weeks ago, I attended a talk from Tom Inns the Director of Glasgow School of Art, which centered around how companies formulate their strategies in order to succeed. We had a talk about Apple among other companies, and their new baby: the Apple Watch.

I’ve been reading reviews and looking for stats lately, so I decided to do a post trying to figure out what was the strategy behind this new wearable; Apple is after all one of the biggest tech companies in the world, so they must do something the right way, right?

Back in January, Apple reported a record profit with $18 billion earnings on $74.6 billion in revenue. Safe to say: they are milking it the right way...

Before, trying to figure out Apple’s strategy and what the fate might be for the Apple Watch let me introduce you to some concepts and thoughts to have better understanding of the matter. 

So, what are the success drivers? What differentiates successful projects from failures? As Prof Tom Inns discussed, some attributes at a company level have been identified as follows:   1.) Strategic Approach  2.) Portfolio Management and Resource Allocation  3.) New Product Development Process  4.) People, culture, climate, teams & senior management team Although, I don’t have sufficient knowledge about this, some of the drivers mentioned in the lecture that I reckon are indispensable are a good understanding of customer/user and High levels of support from the top management.

Sure, there are a bunch of guidelines to follow and there is a large amount of research into the success factors, but despite this knowledge the translation into actual pragmatic steps of action have largely failed.  On the other hand, during the talk two different approaches to New Product Development were distinguished, which more or less reflect how companies work:  -Reactive Strategies, dealing with pressures as they occur (like Tesco offering some deals on the groceries that you buy the most) and