#design&tech

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. 

Two sessions in one week - we should feel privileged. This session was with R. Shearer the GSA’s Interactive Prototyping Teaching Assistant. Being brutally honest, I didn’t feel that the talk was that worthwhile.

He went through his background, as is the norm, but then never really went anywhere else. His job entails that he helps out students and others with creating models and prototypes, whether they’re functional or for aesthetics. He did go over the reasons why you would create a prototype - how parts fit together, how mechanisms work, to check aesthetics, to check user interaction etc. That was interesting but something we already knew, albeit need to do more of.

What I feel would have been useful, would be to discuss different techniques and methods to create certain models. Like using laser cutting to etch patterns on to a surface or using clay or foam to rough out shapes. The practical side is something which no one in our course has a base level of. Everyone has their own strengths as it is learned through doing with your project and your project is of course unique to you.

Our contact session was with Professor Tom Inns, the director of the GSA. There was no pressure to make a good impression.. He explained his background in the researching the effects of introducing designers/design thinking into a company. In his case, the introduction visually changed the products a company produced. This was interesting in itself as in this course we have never truly had the chance to sit down and discuss design thinking.

The rest of the talk was about product development in general. The risks & success that can come with it and also different strategies that a company or individual can take. A slightly grim statistic was that just under half of all projects fail. I imagine, if it were to take into account all the garage or home inventors that number would be much higher. 

Failure is needed though, failure is good. It makes you try harder the next time and it teaches you to persevere.

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!

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...