When Apple enters into a new market, it attracts a storm of attention, both for itself and the category as a whole. Things were no different following the announcement of the Apple Watch. In the second quarter of 2015, the wearables market exploded with 223.2% growth and Apple is now number two in the category after Fitbit.
With all the noise and excitement, one persistent question remains: “what does it do and why would I buy one?” So far, the best case in favor of smartwatches is that they help you keep your phone in your pocket. When the device is on your wrist, you can stay in the moment, thus avoiding those rude pauses in conversation when you pull out your phone to check your latest call, text or tweet.
But how far can you actually push this idea? How many tasks can you perform on a smartwatch only? At what point does the watch fail, finally forcing you to dig out your phone? Which smartwatch offers the best overall experience?
With so many choices, there is no shortage of reviews and technical comparisons out there, but all they do is compare the specs. Artefact set out to compare the experiences in a head-to-head Smartwatch Shoot Out.
There were four contestants: Tom, wearing the Moto 360, Jon, strapping up with the Apple Watch, Neeti, the control contestant, was working with a regular smartphone and just to keep it interesting, I was using an analog watch.
We were given a set of tasks to complete, which were sent from Artefact HQ via text, voice and email. I had all of my instructions in the form of a printed list and I recorded my tasks using only pen and paper.
We scored 10 points for successfully completing each task. While each contestant could use their smartphone to complete a task, 5 points were deducted from their score each time they did. The person who completed all of the tasks in the shortest amount of time was also awarded 10 bonus points.
Watch the video below to see who came out on top:
This article was first published on Artefact’s blog.
Those of you who know that I am quoting Marty McFly with the above headline, also know that he will land in Hill Valley, California, at 4:29 pm, on Wednesday, October 21st, 2015.
“Our” 2015 is utterly different from the one that Robert Zemeckis sketched out in the “Back to the Future” series: there are no self-lacing sneakers (but kudos, Nike, you’re even more awesome than Zemeckis imagined!), working hoverboards are being sold by Lexus, instead of Mattel, and how on earth could they miss out on predicting Facebook in 1985?
30 years later, we are again – or still – discussing “The Future of the Future” at this year’s IDSA conference that just wrapped up in Seattle. We are trying to anticipate how the role of industrial design can play a role in the future of innovation. We are working to map out the type of skills the next generation of designers will need to bring to the table to advance the state of the art of the objects that surround us.
There is a strong interdependence between trends and design. The former influences both the design profession and the results it produces. By shaping experiences and changing behaviors, the latter in turn sparks new trends. Taking stock of where we are headed, six technological, social and economic trends stand out for their potential to impact design and demand new sets of skills and capabilities that industrial designers must acquire and cultivate in order for the industry to remain relevant in the years ahead.
Building the Internet of each and every thing
Consumer products that we will design – may they target Millennials or other users – are more likely than not going to be part of the ever-growing and much-discussed Internet of Things.
Connected objects have started to help us with tasks that nobody wants to perform, like vacuuming our homes or cleaning our gutters. Some products even “come with skills,” self driving cars promise to operate safer than any person would, smart appliances automatically cook our food to perfection and connected drones act as cameramen, consistently framing and filming their subjects to provide footage from the perspective of a third person… ehm… thing.
Connected products offer much broader value propositions, which means we need to change the processes used to define these objects beyond their immediate form and function. Unlike the old-fashioned toothbrush, a smart toothbrush aims to change behavior, so the design team behind it has to truly understand what motivates us in order to be able to create an object that delivers on its promise in a way that will be considered a positive outcome.
Rethinking everyday objects is a new frontier for technology designers. The Internet of Everything, together with our demand for easy and intuitive experiences with technology leads us to the Design of Everything – objects that fell outside of our expertise area before like furniture, buildings, toys and educational tools, are suddenly becoming a ripe opportunity for us.If someone had told me a few years ago that we would be designing a piece of jewelry, a backpack, a device for the visually impaired, I wouldn’t have believed them. In a way, sensors have become the “Open Sesame” magic that provides access to a bottomless barrel of design opportunities.
Consumerization of technology inevitably leads to consumerization in the industrial space, creating opportunities to finally make a difference in areas like manufacturing and industrial automation, where industrial design has largely been an afterthought.
Shaping helpful homes
Home, hearth, heart. We want to come home to a warm house, one where we can enjoy our family lives in safety, a house that is rich with the experiences we love and that is connected to the people we care about, both at home and afar.
Facilitated by broadband saturation and increased connectivity through smart phones and sensors, every major company – from Intel to Qualcomm – showcases their “smart home” at events like CES. Their systems aim to provide improved comfort, energy efficiency, and security in our homes by helping to control heating and air conditioning, lighting, entertainment, door locks, and to monitor things like activity or air quality in the home. Knowing that Alphabet bought Nest for $3.2 billion dollars and squinting at this ever-increasing product landscape, one could be led to believe that home automation has reached its peak, but when you think about it, how many people do you know that have a truly smart home? And what is the overall experience for those who are getting closer to achieving that state? As exciting as the space is, several factors are slowing down adoption:
- Lack of future proof standards: For a lot of us, our home is the biggest investment we would make in our lives. Yet, with strong competition among vendors like ZigBee, Z-Wave, or Insteon, each pushing for their individual standards, none of them is truly future-proof, which limits adoption rates by consumers. Design has to be the advocate for the consumer and in the early stages of product development has to ensure that new systems are created “open” so that new products play nicely with one another, regardless of where they originated from. In this Wild West era of standards, design has to be the advocate for the consumer, ensuring in the early stages of product development that the new systems are created “open”, so that new products play nicely with one another, regardless of where they originated from.
- Early adopter value and price: System components are fairly costly, especially when measured against the value that they propose: replacing 20 light switches in a home with Belkin WeMoswitches would cost $1,000 and allow users to turn connected light bulbs on or off from wherever they are, set lighting schedules, or control them via IFTTT recipes. Yet, none of these features is a “must have” or has a “want” factor for many customers and the high expenses for this type of gadgetry certainly limit the penetration of home automation. As designers, our role and opportunity is to define a meaningful value proposition that will drive adoption. Nest’s thermostat is a great example for such a product. While it may be slightly more expensive than some of the competition, it promises to learn its user’s behavior and can thus reduce the size of their utility bills.
- My smart home is not my castle: The idea that your home is your castle is no longer applicable when it can be hacked and the data it generates extracted and used by others. It is easy to envision a future where everything is connected, while turning a blind eye to the potential abuse that this will inadvertently bring. If big corporations and even governments can be hacked, a connected home that allows remote access can be as well. What happens if someone gains illegal access to your CCTV cameras, your smoke detectors, or your smart door lock? Design, again, needs to be the voice of reason, resisting the temptation to create technology products just because we can. And this may mean that a “physical token” a.k.a. “keys,” may still be the most secure option when it comes to locking our homes.
Traditional industrial design skills around the definition of shapes, colors, and materials remain relevant for the connected home. Yet, to retain the emotional connection and meaning of the home while we bring all this technology in it, we need to develop skills that go beyond traditional formgiving capabilities. We need to help find the answers to the big questions and link products directly to improvements in safety, comfort, or our relationships with family and friends.
Making real wearables
Another subcategory of the “Internet of Things” ripe to shake things up for industrial design is wearables. Wearable devices exchange data with services or other connected objects, and promise to improve your health and fitness, record your life, make work easier, help you find things, communicate more efficiently, etc. Yet, despite claims of personalized experiences and meaningful value, most of the products in this category are still primarily devices, in which technology plays a central and very visible role.
Looking back a decade, when desktop computing became truly mobile with the first smartphones, the instinct was to “just shrink it”. We ended up with miniature keyboards, reduced file systems, and portable pointing devices. Apple heralded a paradigm shift in how we think about mobile experiences, when it removed all these items and created something new entirely with the first iPhone. Looking at wearable technology today, it seems to me that we have forgotten the lessons we learned back then, as we are shrinking screens, interfaces, and information structures once again to create “smaller mobile phones” to be strapped onto our bodies.
Rather than incrementally innovating, we have to reinvent the paradigm once again, focusing on small interfaces that provide less information and output. These interfaces should emphasize brevity if touch interaction is used, and can introduce new ways of interacting with technologies, such as in-air-gestures or voice.
Ultimately, for wearable technology to be truly successful, it cannot result simply in “devices,” in that it has to truly emulate other items that we wear – it has to be as timeless as a piece of jewelry, and it has to be small and affordable enough to be embedded into each and every shirt we have in our closets.
Industrial designers must resist the temptation to “objectify” each and every superpower that wearable technology gives us and turn us all into “Batmen of the new millennium.” Rather, we have to learn the skills and adapt the mindset of – gasp – fashion and jewelry designers to truly create “wearables,” that are not simply “devices.”
Building the world of tomorrow with contemporary tools
The emergence of industrial design can be directly linked to the industrial revolution more than a century ago. An increasingly urban population had different consumption needs than its rural counterpart, and industrial manufacture was a set of tools that could be used to satisfy these needs. Industrial design connected the two counterparts and helped to develop a new vocabulary of form and function, one that evolved the output of the craftsmen of the past.
One hundred years later, our needs, wants, and our consumption patterns have changed – the Millennials for one, are not satisfied with aesthetically pleasing, functional objects. And while much of this change cannot be addressed by the industrial design craft itself (more on that later), I find it striking that products are still being manufactured in the same ways as they were decades ago.
Emerging manufacturing techniques, such as CNC machining, laser cutting, and 3D printing have all found a firm spot in our design process. We use them to build proof-of-concept prototypes or one-offs, yet they have not changed how we think about the physical artifacts that we help to ship.
While industrial design has enabled CNC machining to become a process feasible for mass manufacture of consumer electronics, I am still waiting for 3D printing to be used to produce commercial products on a large scale. The advantages could be groundbreaking: mass customization, rapid implementation of improvements over the course of a product’s lifecycle, crowd-sourced adaptations of parts, just to name a few.
Ultimately however, 3D printing has the potential to free the industrial design craft from traditional mass manufacturing constraints; draft angles, and undercuts will be things of the past, and there is – once again – the chance to develop a fresh formal vocabulary, and to shape products exactly the way they should be.
Helping Millennials save the world
In the spirit of user-centered design, let’s start with the people we are ultimately working for – the ones that live, work and play with our creations day in and day out. And now that we are looking at potential consumers, let’s focus on a user group that has sparked the creation of such products as the selfie stick.
“Millennials” are more narcissistic than the Gen X’ers and Baby Boomers before them – hence the selfie stick – but they are also much more optimistic, connected, and most importantly for design, they believe that every individual can make a difference. In Zemeckis’ 2015, they’d be the first to buy a car that runs on a banana peel and half a can of beer.
While it is debatable whether design can change the world, I believe that Millennials and their desire to impact the world is something that Design can capitalize on, by shaping products that connect a vision for a better future with the ones that desire it.
The first step to conceiving such products is to thoroughly understand the context of these consumers, and while younger designers inherently understand the needs and wants of “Generation Me,” older folks will have to practice empathy more than ever before. Thinking about the impact of our designs becomes not only a moral imperative, but a business one, as the next generation of consumers equate the quality of the experience with the impact the product or service has on the environment, culture, and society.
Designing objects to be shared
Riding on the wave of services like Airbnb and Uber that incentivize consumers to share transportation and accommodation capacity with others, similar offerings have been sprawling: Bitlock enables cyclists to share their bikes, and city dwellers in the U.S. are able to take a Breatherin someone else’s space. Elsewhere on this planet, in Sweden, five people can buy and share an Audi and pedestrians in rainy Hong Kong can take a stroll underneath someone else’s umbrella.
This, of course, makes total sense in the affluent world we live in. Design can certainly help to identify new types of objects and spaces to be added to the “Sharing Economy,” from leisure equipment to household appliances. But in doing so, we need to consider human nature and our sense of ownership in order to guide the conversation around what items consumers will want to share. We also need to evolve products to really work for multiple users. What, for example, would a car need to look like if it was meant to be shared by five people that happen to live in the same neighborhood?
Much more interesting than the above, however, will be the answer to the question: How will the Sharing Economy shape what we do? We currently live in a world where objects like cars or consumer electronics are designed with an obsession about the most intricate of details.
Enabled by an incredible amount of manufacturing know-how, we create things too delicate and fragile to be shared. Leading manufacturers continue to push the envelope towards ever more sophisticated forms, details and finishes that result in the most amazing products for “me” in the 20th Century. I believe that industrial design will need to become an advocate to “do the right thing” and design for “us” in the 21st Century.
So what’s next for industrial design?
Remaining too attached to the “industrial” part of our profession can be detrimental to our future. While our work will continue to be produced, using industrial methods – old and new – we cannot be overly focused on the aspect of sculpture that our profession has traditionally encompassed.
Consumers and enterprises alike will not purchase objects just because they’re nicely shaped and perform their essential functions: these aspects of industrial design have become table stakes. Regardless of our classical designer training, we need to think about the end-to-end user experience or otherwise run the risk of becoming ”designosaurs.”
More than ever before industrial design cannot exist in a vacuum. Each connected device – from your couch to your fitness bracelet, the hospital room to your wallet – demands we think about connected experiences. The shape and form of our design impacts the object’s meaning as much as the underlying software architecture and the services that can be built on top of it. In a sense, industrial design becomes the ultimate platform on which to build tangible experiences that connect the physical and digital worlds.
Unless someone hands us some sort of 2050 design almanac, we cannot predict the future, so all of this may seem like a challenging task. But unlike Zemeckis’ “Back to the Future” production crew, we don’t have to design for what may be in 30 years, but can instead focus on what’s immediately down the road.
“Roads? Where we’re going, we don’t need roads.”
This article was first published on Artefact’s blog.
Of matchbox cars, wooden toy blocks, and a guiding light for a career
When I was a kid, like most boys, I loved to play with matchbox cars. Unlike most boys, I was not satisfied to simply caper about with the cars; instead I wanted to create roads, and cities, and worlds around them.
Building these worlds out of the square wooden toy blocks that my grandfather – a former carpenter – had made for me, I essentially gave myself “frameworks” to play within.
The only two remaining toy blocks from my childhood*.
Unsurprisingly, when I started out as a designer, I was similarly looking to employ a framing structure around my career. Don’t get me wrong, I focused on the essentials of my job, my clients, and the exciting projects I was working on, but at the same time I was looking to identify how the design profession would develop in order to define and hone a vision for my career.
The many metamorphoses of design
There are some constants to the design profession – think: problem solving, prototyping or aesthetic sensibilities. Yet, the skills to create technical drawings for example, that I acquired in university were obsolete by the time I started my first job and terms like “user experience”, or “design thinking” did not play a major role until a few years into my career: The design craft has always been in a state of flux and will likely continue on this trajectory.
While both the “why” behind the profession and pragmatic definitions of the trade, have become table stakes for the designer these days, I have come to believe that four aspects will be of great importance for the design profession in the future.
Capacity – Responsibility – Process – Content: The four aspects of Postindustrialdesign (PID)
And as I was pondering, reading, and writing, about these facets, I started seeing my work as postindustrialdesign**, an expression that had been defined some 30-odd years ago, and that is yet as contemporary and aspirational today as it was in the 1980s.
“The coming of post-industrial design”
The term was first coined by Nigel Cross in his paper on the progress of design methods. In it, Cross suggests a future for the development of design methods, that is informed by the concept of post-industrialism, and that will see design develop its own methods, rather than refining processes that had been borrowed from the field of science at the beginning of the 20th Century.
Cross argues that in a post-industrial society, production of goods is resource-conserving and quality-focused, he believes that design tools will be superior, yet simpler, and cheaper than its predecessors, and that the use of such tools will allow for new processes to emerge.
“My brand” of Postindustrialdesign
Cross’s theories resonate with me and I find his foresight astonishing: eco-friendly industrial design has still not been fully embraced, tools like computers, software, or 3D printers, have become accessible to everyone and the ‘maker culture’ does indeed have an impact on the product development process and the role of the designer in it.
In the future, Postindustrialdesign will see Cross’s framework extended from “product–tools–process” into the one that I mentioned earlier. So here goes:
Nigel Cross put forth an accurate vision about the forthcoming era of industrial design. In the 30 years that have passed since publishing his paper, the profession would be democratized through tools that were cheaper and freer than the ones previously used; mostly due to the development of targeted software.
The role of the designer is largely dependent on his tools, and these tools are not only growing in number, and complexity, but do also impact both process and outcome of our work.
Not unexpectedly rapid prototyping is one of the postindustrialdesigner’s newer capacities. More and more of his tools will be borrowed from neighboring fields such as business and science.
Given our trajectory in this regard it is to be expected that the postindustrialdesigner’s toolkit will include not only sophisticated software, but also an ever-growing set of prototyping methods, among them such techniques as 3D printing, laser cutting, and CNC machining.
The postindustrialdesigner will be able to use these tools not only to improve on the design process, but they will also be able to transpose the utilization of such tools to their final output – in the case of rapid prototyping, this could mean that postindustrial products are also “rapidly manufactured”.
While large producers of goods will still dominate the marketplace in the foreseeable future, the aforementioned tools like crowd-funding will allow for small organizations to develop specialized products on a smaller scale, essentially dismembering large bureaucratic structures in some cases.
On a parallel path to the traditional product development process, an adaptable design process will ripen within these smaller entities. This new process will go from being autocratic to being democratic, from exclusive to inclusive and from rigid to to more flexible.
In his 2005 I.D. Magazine article “A Manifesto for Postindustrial Design”, Jamer Hunt draws inspiration from the open-source mode of software creation and wants to transfer the process to the development of physical products. In the eight years since, open source product development efforts from the likes of Bug Labs and crowd-funding websites such as kickstarter.com or indiegogo.com have proven that there is both the need and the space for such a parallel path to product design.
What used to happen behind closed doors is taken out into the open by the postindustrialdesigner: Scott Wilson shares the prototyping process of LunaTik on Kickstarter.
While I do not anticipate a new product development process to replace the traditional methods overnight, the postindustrialdesigner will leave the romantic “genius-in-a-tower” image behind at times and will go from being creative to being collaborative and from being professional to being participatory, in order to meet new needs.
The postindustrialdesigner won’t think of the two processes as mutually exclusive: he might jump between them or even imagine a design-led and “crowd-funded” product development effort within the confines of a larger organization.
Where once industrial design was concerned with radii, form, and finish, we now deal in behaviours, experience, shifting context, and time.
– Jack Schulze
More than anything, it seems that post-industrial design is both a way of working and a way of thinking about products. It’s a way of working in that it considers the interactive behavior a product should engender before considering its physical form.
– Dan Saffer
While user interface design is not part of the industrial designer’s vocabulary, the postindustrialdesigner is well-versed in this domain.
While I challenge Saffer regarding his assessment that postindustrialdesign sure has “arrived by now”, I cannot but agree with Schulze’s and Saffer’s assertion that the interactive behavior of an object must be an integral part of modern day design.
Beyond that, the postindustrialdesigner will also be involved in the creation of business and design strategies, and the services that frame the physical product and its interaction.
In terms of the designer’s responsibility in the product development process, Cross’s paper is mainly concerned with the scarcity of resources in a post-industrial society. He argues that products move from specialized to generalized, from mass-produced to short-run, and from short-lived to long-lived, all with a focus on quality, so as to conserve resources.
The postindustrialdesigner’s most lofty goal: saving the world.
And while this ideal certainly makes even more sense now than it did 30 years ago, there are also political, and sociological aspects that need to be considered. With the content of his work shifting from the mere creation of physical objects to the design of related interactions, strategies, and services, the postindustrialdesigner is concerned with the shaping of behavior for a preferable future – read more on this topic of “21st Century Design” on artefactgroup.com.
So, what does this all mean?
Being a postindustrialdesigner, I am using the above framework not only to make career decisions, but also to inspire and to guide my day-to-day work.
The beauty of those square wooden toy blocks my grandfather gave me as a kid was that they could always be rearranged, and that I could add and subtract bricks as I desired.
So, along the way – as my thoughts and opinions become more refined – I reserve the right to adapt my framework to new developments in industry and society and who knows, one day I might migrate this entire website to its new domain postpostindustrialdesigner.com.
* After we stopped playing with them, my grandpa used the wooden blocks for some of his tinkering and home improvement projects, thus there are now some drill holes and notes on them…
** Yes, I do spell that as one word.
If you are a camera buff, the holiday season for you starts in January, when Las Vegas opens its doors for the 2013 Consumer Electronics Show, where among other things, camera manufacturers show the latest and greatest of their lineups. Simultaneously, at the concurrent PMA conference, photography experts will get together to discuss upcoming trends that will shape the industry.
One of the themes that are bound to become a hot conversation topic is the recent success of EVIL cameras (Electronic Viewfinder Interchangeable Lens) and what it means to the industry. My EVIL primer “EVIL on the Rise: The Demise of SLR Cameras?” explores the origins of these camera systems and takes a look at the opportunities EVIL offers manufacturers, professionals and prosumers.
In the report, I review the lasting advantages of Single Reflex Cameras and conclude with recommendations to manufacturers that will help them master the EVIL opportunity, and give consumers more to look forward to.
This article was first published on Artefact’s blog.
If you do not live under a rock, you know that the iPhone 5 has arrived and that it is thinner, lighter, larger and faster than its predecessor.
And if you, just like me, belong to the growing crowd of nerdy tech-blog followers, you have known this for quite a while. The fact that iOS 6’s new features had already been introduced during Apple’s Worldwide Developers Conference earlier this summer, in combination with the wave of leaks, took a bit of the fun out of the announcement.
In addition, at first glance it seems that the innovation that the iPhone 5 brings is rather incremental. Wired‘s Mat Honan argues that it is a boring device and Forbes thinks that the iPhone 5 is not “the next truly big thing“. There is, however, an interesting nuance that seems to go largely unnoticed and the number “Five” might mean more than one assumes. Here is what caught my attention:
The Incremental Improvements
- The screen: The “biggest thing” about the iPhone 5 is obviously its larger display, using in-cell touch screen for better color accuracy and saturation, and a thinner form factor. While the new aspect ratio is very close to the 16:9 HD standard and thus better suited for the consumption of media, app developers are probably in frantic update mode as I am writing these lines…
- From 30 to 8 pins: The original 30-pin dock connector had a great run of 10 years, but it was time for a change. In an industry where slimness is a key advantage, the size of the dock connector became an obstacle for slimmer products. Apple’s move to provide two types of adapters will salvage the millions of accessories already on the market, even though David Pogue expects some “grumpiness in iPhoneland” and wishes that these adapters came free with the purchase of an iPhone 5. The additional costs will certainly be a consideration for “upgraders” that own multiple accessories…
- 4G: After most of its competition features LTE for quite a while already, the faster wireless standard finally arrived on the iPhone and it comes along with a smaller “nano-SIM” card. If you travel intercontinentally on a regular basis and want to get “the 5″, you’re up for a tricky purchase decision, though, as there are three region-specific devices available… I for one am holding off with my order until unlocked devices become available in the U.S.
- Camera: Being the photography geek that I am, I was interested in seeing how Apple would improve what is the most popular camera on flickr. Except for the scratch-resistant sapphire glass, the hardware seemed unchanged and it looked like improvements were made only with the inclusion of a panorama mode and better low-light performance. DPReview has, however, found that Apple is also using an updated image sensor that is slightly larger and improves on the minimum light sensitivity. Altogether, this seems to offer an all-around better experience of the industry-leading feature.
- 600 people to test and develop the EarPods: To me – and to many other users that gave the iconic white earphones a measly 2.5 star rating in the Apple Store – the redesigned EarPods are merely righting a wrong. They never really did fit or sound too great and I hope that all that testing, did bear fruit – pun intended.
Five: What’s In The Name?
Apart from these “boring” improvements to the class leader, ASYMCO’s industry analyst Horace Dediu was quick to point out that the iPhone 5’s name holds an important clue as to how Apple views its halo-product. Prior to the event invitation that revealed the product’s name, there had been speculations on whether Apple would move away from a number-based naming for the iPhone.
After changing the iPad naming to the brand-subbrand scheme (iPad 2 vs. “the new” iPad) that the rest of Apple’s hardware follows (e.g. “MacBook Pro” and “MacBook Air”, “iPod Touch” and “iPod nano”), the iPhone is now the sole hardware product in Apple’s line-up that still bears a number in its name and this means two things:
- There will not be an iPhone “nano” or “mini,” and tiering the product line will continue to be achieved through several generations of the product being sold at the same time. Currently these are the iPhone 4, iPhone 4S and iPhone 5.
- More interestingly, the nomenclature could indicate that Apple sees the iPhone more as a platform, much like its operating systems iOS6 or OS10.6. The platform could play host to an increasing portfolio of software and services, like Siri.
This could be a disruptive shift, creating new interesting opportunities for the iPhone and even more so for its users. Here are four hypotheses of what could lie ahead for the iPhone:
- Apple Maps could see extensions with Apple-proprietary or third-party location-based services and augmented reality.
- Apple’s Passbook service could develop closer ties with e-commerce websites and other forms of payment to become a true digital wallet.
- With the addition of sensors and wearable technology, Apple could develop the iPhone platform into the leading hub for Digital Health & Wellness.
- Along the same lines, the iPhone could become the gateway into that elusive Internet of Things, and connect not only to the personal computer and TV, but to pretty much everything one owns.
With these – and many more – potential additions to the platform, I do not think that the iPhone 5 is boring at all and while it may not be “the truly next big thing” itself, it might well be what the next big thing for Apple will be built upon.
This article was first published on Artefact’s blog.
I have been part of the team that won the Silver German Design Award for a collaboration between Carbon Design, Artefact and Panasonic… very proud of the FlightPath project – and it was a fun one, too!
On top of it all, I was the lucky one to travel to my hometown Frankfurt and pick up the trophy…
As one would expect from any self-respecting creative consultancy, Artefact has a deep interest in photography. For some of us it is a hobby we are passionate about, for others it is a social or creative tool, some actually earn decent income on the side with it.
This leads to a lively conversation (and sometimes spirited debate) about the topic and we thought we’d let you in on our conversation. We will do this in the form of a series of blog posts: We aim to assess and analyze both the history and the status quo of photography, discuss areas of opportunity for the industry and – after having outlined our point of view on the topic, share our thoughts on what we consider could be a compelling product for the aspiring hobbyist in the year 2013.
Cycles of Disruptive and Sustaining Innovation
Invented nearly 200 years ago, the camera industry took it’s first series of experimental steps during the 19th century. After William Fox Talbot invented the positive/negative process in 1816, the first color photograph by James Clerk Maxwell was shown in 1861 and the Kodak Brownie made photography accessible to the masses at the end of the 1800′s.
The introduction of standards like the 35mm format and the 135 film cartridge after the turn of the century led to market growth and a commoditization of the technology started in the 1950’s with the release of cameras like the Agfa Optima and Kodak’s Instamatic. In most recent years, the industry changed from film to digital.
During this history one can clearly see alternating waves of disruptive and sustaining innovation: times where the introduction of new technology opened up photography to new users, followed by periods of more sustaining progress, where incremental improvements and price drops dominated the market.
The digital age has caused a major shift in the industry. It has fundamentally changed who the major players in the industry are by wiping out film. It has taken photofinishing out of the (specialty) store and brought it into our homes. Since the cost per picture has been reduced to zero, the volume of pictures we take has increased by an order of magnitude which gives rise to new tools. Where we used to share pictures only in person, we now share them online.
Yet for all these changes, digital photography has not sparked the transformational change it could have brought for the photographer. It has not yet changed how we take photographs.
Product Architecture and Technology: The Status Quo
Over the years, different form factors have been explored. The industry has now settled on two stable architectures: cameras with and cameras without interchangeable lenses.
The former segment is comprised of single lens reflex cameras and the – currently very “hot” – EVIL systems.
For the most part, cameras with non-interchangeable lenses could be categorized as point-and-shoot devices, even though that term does not do justice to cameras such as the Leica X1 or the Fujifilm FinePix X100.
Today’s digital cameras feature sufficiently high resolutions and the technical challenges of the past (such as low-light capabilities, vignetting, etc.) are constantly being improved.
Author and camera expert Erwin Puts sums it up nicely in his review of the recent Photokina 2010: “We have now the situation that every camera produces image quality that is better than what you need and even a small EOS 550 can create quality that is not that far removed from what you get with a 1Ds.”
All in all, the manufacturers work on incremental and predictable improvement of proven systems bringing these closer and closer to perfection, yet hesitate to truly innovate. We cannot but agree with Puts who provokingly states, that “A vision for photography would be nice too.”
Digital Technology’s Impact (and Lack Thereof)
Critically looking at the past two decades in which the photographic medium has gone through a tectonic shift from film to digital, it is somewhat surprising that the impact on photography as a whole is not as vigorous as it could be: While the post-processing has been altered with the advent of digital technology, the act of taking photos has remained the same for the past 100 years. The most significant change is that photographers are now looking at an LCD screen instead of through a viewfinder.
We find this rather disappointing and think that there are both technology potential as well as untapped user needs that could spark a disruptive change.
The Grass on the other Side of the Fence
Where do the camera industry’s prospects lie? On the search for a point of view, some might say it is too easy to point to other industries, but let’s go there just for clues: mobile consumer electronics have embraced new technologies and opportunities more enthusiastically than the static camera industry.
Mobile electronics leverage wireless connectivity and make extensive use of sensors (e.g. location, proximity). They take advantage of the integration of software and hardware, and blur the boundaries between still and video functionality.
For these reasons today’s smart phones are in many ways the better image capturing device. Traditional camera manufacturers will face greater pressure and threat of obsolescence from increasingly capable camera-enabled mobile devices. Not surprisingly, mobile phone giant Nokia has been the world’s largest producer of cameras for the past number of years.
To sum things up, based on our observations, we see missed opportunities in three main areas:
- Product architecture: To date, the shift from film to digital has created merely incremental changes – what other opportunities still exist?
- Connectivity: most of our electronic devices are connected, why not the camera? The digital camera of the future will be linked in multiple ways, allowing for photography devices to communicate with each other and with “the cloud”.
- HW/SW integration: In most technology areas, hardware and software combine to produce better results and better experiences. Camera manufacturers cannot afford to continue to only use software as an “afterthought”. Going forward, hardware and software must be integrated into a tightly knitted system and great user experience.
“Now what does all this mean?” you might ask. The three areas highlighted above will enable exciting new possibilities and novel use scenarios for photographers. And we will get back to these after looking both at the user needs and wants, as well as guidelines for an ideal camera in the next part of this series.
This article was first published on Artefact’s blog.