Yes, 3D is kind of fun.  At the Samsung and LG booths I tried out some of the 3D TVs they had there.  It reminded me of Jaws 3D, which was the first 3D movie I can remember watching.  The problem is, it reminded me of Jaws 3D.  Is it just me, or has the 3D experience not really improved since 1983?  It’s not like watching a truly 3-dimensional environment – the “3D” effect is usually only heightened for certain parts, like Jaws jumping out at you or Pinocchio’s nose growing out towards you.

As for e-Readers, most of the e-Readers seemed very me-too-ish – nothing too compelling.  One device that stood out in terms of physical design was Plastic Logic’s Que Reader.  But upon seeing a demo from one of the reps there, I couldn’t help but feel underwhelmed.

And, so, I had been dragging my feet on a blog post that, after a few weeks, seemed silly to try to write anyway.

Then on January 27^th, 2010, a Cupertino company made a small product announcement.

Fast-forward a few more weeks and I now realize that the blog post I had been delaying can now be written.  In hindsight, what was interesting about CES 2010 was not anything that I saw there – it was what I didn’t see there.  Sure there was a lot of cool gadgets.  3D TVs may even become mainstream someday (I sure hope the 3D watching experience improves, though).  And there’s almost no doubt that all TVs will be web-connected appliances in the near future.   But no one had anything that made everyone pause and say, “whoa… I think the game just changed.”

To me, that’s just what Apple has done with the announcement of the iPad.  On the one hand, there isn’t really anything about the iPad that people weren’t expecting in terms of features, capabilities, or performance.  It’s a honkin’ big iPod Touch.  In fact, some said it was underwhelming.

But, for whatever reason, the announcement of the iPad has signaled the start of something.  While the iPad may appear to be less-than-revolutionary and does things that most people pretty much expected it would do months ago, it appears to me that it has, indeed, changed the game.

The iPad announcement has made tablet and mobile computing relevant and exciting.  If I recall correctly, Microsoft, HP, and Lenovo, all had tablet computing announcements of some sort at CES.  But they weren’t really buzz-worthy announcements.  In fact, most people seemed to react to those announcements with “I can’t wait to see what Apple is going to announce.”

But now, an entire category and changing consumer behavior are expected to be introduced.  While Bill Gates had been talking about tablet computing being the next big thing for years (he predicted it would be the most popular form of PC within 5 years… back in 2001), Apple’s announcement seems to have convinced many people of the possibility.

We now see computer and consumer electronics makers scrambling to make devices to compete with the iPad.

And while most analysts don’t seem to believe that the iPad is a Kindle killer, Amazon is already feeling the sting as the iBookstore is (indirectly) forcing Amazon to play ball with publishers on eBook pricing.  And at least one analyst thinks Amazon’s share of e-book sales will fall from 90% to 35% in 5 years as a result of competition from Apple and Google.

Magazines and newspapers may have new life with the iPad (and the entire category of slate/tablet devices).

I’m not saying the iPad is a revolutionary device that will have its competitors playing catch up for years like the original iPod.  And although tablet computing is hardly new, the iPad has created a whole new category, experience, and usage that people appear to be ready to receive.  On the one hand, it doesn’t seem to be anything special.  On the other hand, it’s the 2010 CES story that I should have been writing about.  But didn’t. Because it wasn’t.

What’s your take on the iPad?  Revolutionary device?  Savior to the publishing world?  A new way to consume all media?  The tip of the iceberg that is portable computing?  An overgrown iPod and nothing more?

The lines between science fiction and the world as we know it are certainly blurring. While we don’t have autonomous machines walking among us today, the technologies in both robotics and artificial intelligence are progressing significantly. We may not have cloning machines, but 3D printers have become an essential tool in the prototyping of new products. And while we’re a long ways away from the ubiquitous computing vision presented in Wall-E, where people live their lives with no awareness of the digital environment they live in, our behavioral dependency on ubicomp, even now, makes it seem as though Pixar’s view of the future is a possibility (albeit, a bleak one).

Ubicomp is not Black or White

Ubicomp is a vision of the future. But if we think of it as all or nothing, we’re sure to miss out on an incredible transformation of society. The ubicomp vision presented in films, academic literature and Microsoft promotional videos seems to be an “all” – everything, every object, contains computing capabilities and works perfectly in unison with its environment.

If we accept that a full-fledged, overnight transformation to a ubicomp society is never going to happen, then we can recognize that we’ve already taken several giant steps towards integrating ubiquitous computing elements into our every day lives. Behaviorally, we’re already well on our way. We’re living in the gray.

Ubicomp & You

Small ubicomp interactions have been around for quite some time. You probably don’t realize it (that’s sort of the point), but there are hundreds of examples of invisible interactions with sensing, inferring, data transferring machines that have made their way into our lives already. From sensors at stop lights that help manage traffic flows to weight sensors in elevators to the automatic shutoff switches that turn off your iron when you’ve let it idle for too long , simple, single function computing has been making our lives safer and more efficient for over a decade. However, most of the examples we have from the past decade represent little technically-enabled blips in our life line that are the ubicomp equivilent of dipping our toes in the water.

This is not the future but the past.

These days, ubicomp has taken on a significantly more important role in product design, serving as a key form of product differentiation. In fact, it’s difficult to find a category of products that hasn’t in some way been “upgraded” with new computational capabilities.  And with this new form of invention, streams of products are  seamlessly replacing the skills humans have relied upon for thousands of years. It’s no longer about efficiency and safety, but about enhancing (supporting, replacing) skills.

Stop light sensors change the rules of how the world works, today’s ubicomp is changing who we are as a species.

Case  1. GPS & Where We’re Situated

For thousands of years, humans have relied on instincts, heuristics and tools to tell us where we are. Maps & compasses required a distinct set of skills, and in their absence, we relied on the stars to direct our path. Fast forward to today, and it’s difficult to find a car that doesn’t contain a GPS system. Humans have embraced the GPS technology so fully that there are literally hundreds of online stories of “car meets lake,” when enthusiastic GPS owners trus their electronic maps over their own visual skills. This isn’t an evolution of the tool. GPS is a complete overhaul of a skill (and clearly before the technology is perfected). We’re always somewhere, and ubiquitous is fulfilling the need of telling us where that is.

Case  2. Ambient Communications & What We’re Doing

While GPS is causing us to lose a skill, the ability to push status notifications to social networking sites has created a new behavior – updating. The desire to feel connected by letting the world know what where why and how we’re doing everything has created a consumer-side demand for devices that facilitate that process. Mobile phones, often considered the gateway to ubiquitous computing, are currently the tool of choice to provide these updates, but with examples of ovens that automatically update Twitter when fresh bread comes out of the oven, input sensors that update facebook when a baby kicks in the woumb, and shoes connected to communities of runners, there are plenty of examples of trigger-based communications that automatically inform the world when something worth mentioning happens. The demand for updating has demonstrated an interest in ubiquitous computing products that do the work for us. Real time is the new status symbol.

Case  3. There’s an App for That!

Over the past year, Apple has successfully popularized the catch phrase there’s an app for that. Since the iPhone app store’s introduction, more than 2 billion apps have been downloaded (with a half billion downloads in the last quarter alone). The total number of apps in the store currently exceeds 85,000. With an app for every scenario, there is a clear, consumer driven demand for computing to take a more prominent role in our lives. People are appifying every aspect of their lives, relying on a form of ubicomp to do everything for them, from telling them the whether when they’re already outside to calculating their tips to keeping them entertained on the street car in to work.

What’s clear from all of these examples is that there is a consumer driven demand for ubiquitous computing in our lives. While we may not be living out Pixar’s fantasy of the future, the foundation of who we and what we do is changing based on the availability of ubiquitous computing. I’m not here to convince you that it’s a good or a bad thing (I have my own opinions). But no matter how you feel about it, our evolution to a ubicomp world is happening.

Look around a bit and I’m sure you’ll notice.

Think they’re trying to let us know they product is Amazingly Nice and Just That Easy?

However, yesterday I stumbled upon an application that, while fitting into an incredibly niche market, shows just how useful a tool such a device can be. The ‘Test Rides’ application lets one attempt a sort of virtual test fit of how a bicycle will fit a person. It requires one to take a picture from a profile view in such a manner that the arms and legs are showing. The user is then required to map out the specific joints on the picture so that the application can then use that information to extrapolate measurements and using that anthropometric data will then inform the user of whether or not a certain bike is a good fit or not. In its current state, the application is still in its infancy, and thus fairly limited.

TestRides iPhone App

It requires the user to know certain bike measurements, many of which can be found online with some searching, but is still not readily available at one easy to find source (and some are not able to be found at all). Still, the potential for such an application is unquestionable, if extremely niche. While starting small as they have, it could blossom into an application that houses a database of extensive bicycle information with regards to ergonomics and user fit.

It does not take much for such applications to quickly bloom and become so much more. With the ability for users to submit data and help create a working database of parts and measurements, the Test Rides app could evolve from a primitive amoeba of an application, to a fleshed out, encyclopedic brain on the topic. The creative journey does not have to end at that junction either, as there are many branching off points that the application could take. It could become a resource for those who need replacement parts for a discontinued vendor/manufacturer, helping to prolong lifecycles of bicycles and keeping them out of landfills. Expanding outside of the bicycle market, a similar application could make significant impact in the snowboarding industry as well.

Snowboarding with poorly fitting bindings and boots can cause extreme fatigue early on in a person’s day, causing them to cut short their on-hill activities. Thus having a good fit is essential to having a good day on the hill. Ill fitting boots can cause problems turning on the hill (they drag in the snow as you edge on your toes and heels to turn) as well as causing general foot pain. In addition, not all brands of bindings fit each boot ideally (because of material choice, overall shape and stance

options). What if then, a similar app to Test Rides could be created from manufacturers’ data? Try this scenario: I walk into a snowboard shop and see a pair of bindings I really like and purchase them. But then I go home and use the internet and find a pair of boots that I would like to purchase but can’t find them in any retail stores to try them on and ensure a proper fit. What if I could pull out my iPhone, take a picture of my foot (both profile and from underneath to ensure arch and any other vitals are taken into account) and look up the compatibility of both my foot to the boot, and the boot to the binding.

In a few minutes, I have saved myself money from buying an ill fitting boot, or reassured myself that when I purchase those boots online, they will fit as perfectly as they can. Since clothing and shoes in particular are becoming one of the fastest growing sectors of the e-commerce/online shopping markets, it makes sense that the same principles could be ported over to shoe designers/manufacturers. The effect that such an application could have could be tremendous.

Initially, the Apple App store was mostly filled with either very functional things like organizers and calendars, to the less useful but entertaining games, and the very useless apps like the iPint (you hold your iPhone up as if it were a glass and drink virtual beer). But as people became more familiar and really sought out to create apps that had purpose and thought behind them, apps like Test Rides were born. Apps that may seem niche and useless to some (if not most), but will spawn ideas in another’s head to apply those same creative principles to another area, which keeps the ball rolling. What ideas will be sparked is impossible to say, but it is exciting to see just what new avenues people will take us on.

The mystery surrounding Apple’s next big announcement appears to be up, at least if you follow (and believe) the rumors that are rampant on the internet. Apple will likely be unleashing a tablet product to the legions of Mac faithful. In my mind, this will act as a bridge of sorts, to try to entice those who are willing to buy iPod Touch and iPhones, but have yet to take the plunge on a Macbook or Mac desktop. It seems as though Apple will try to leverage the popularity of the iPhone to get new users to become acclimated to the OS X software. This would be an incredibly smart move from a

Levarging the Success of the iPhone to help a new iTablet?

business standpoint, as the more familiar consumers are with the native Mac OS the more Apple increases their chances of consumer’s purchasing a Mac instead of a PC at the next buying opportunity. Macs are generally known for their ease of use, but it can still be rather jarring to someone who has used a PC for the entirety of their life to jump into a Mac, and the tablet will act as a primer in a sense.

Apple is likely to offer a few variations on the model, likely to accommodate different user needs with different size displays and likely storage capacity as well. It would not be surprising to see 2-3 different models (9″, 11″, 13″ displays) to begin with at launch. One of the main differences between this and existing tablet competition will be the software and the resolution of the screen. I feel as though Apple will go with a HD ready display (for High Def video playback), capable of 1080p for their 13″ model, and 720p for their 9″ and 11″ models. This in conjunction with the capacitive touch software that the iPhone is known for, will be the key to their success. The user interface will make extensive use of the high resolution with the easy zooming that the iPod Touch and iPhone have pioneered.

Given that the screen display is such high resolution, there is the ability to have many different programs / tasks on the go at once. However, given that the screen size itself is rather limited, seeing the entirety of the ‘desktop’ would require a zooming out. This would allow the user to organize their windows, zooming in and out between them, or using the rocket dock below. In a sense, it would be like zooming in on a map to do something specific, but then zooming back out, to get the big picture.

The Mac iTablet would function by touch, but also with a pen that is stored inside the main body of the tablet, so that it avoids being easily lost or left behind. The pen would offer sensitivity and precision that finger usage can not duplicate, and would largely serve for creative purposes (sketching, quick notes, etc). Since the Mac OS Leopard has built in hand writing recogition, that function would obviously help play a key role in making ‘on the fly’ note writing into full fledged text documents with minimal effort.

There are reports that an Apple commercial for an upcoming product was shot in a retro 50’s diner, and that many believe it to be either a new iPod or the iTablet.   It is highly unlikely that there will be any momentous changes with regards to the iPod Touch and iPhone as Apple does not want to break compatibility with all the Apps, which is a big part of what sets them apart from the other companies.

So if the setting of a retro 50’s diner was used for a new product, and it was unlikely to be an iPod, then how would the iTablet fit in to this setting? What if upon entering the diner (or even before), a user’s iTablet was asked (via built in wi-fi) whether they wished to view the menu? So now the users are able to view the menus on their own personal tablet, potentially view detailed pictures of what certain foods are, etc.. What if the waiter / waitress isn’t writing down your order as you say it to them, but rather selecting from the list on their own iTablet? Furthermore they could be scribbling any custom handwritten notes that are necessary with the iTablet’s pen. If the customers are waiting for their meals, they could peruse the digital jukebox’s song list and submit their own choices to enter the song queue to play next over the loud speakers at the diner.

While these are all very small examples of potential functions of the iTablet in the diner setting, it becomes easier to see that such a device has very real potential in all different environments. Think of the person maintaining inventory at retail stores getting live updates on what is being sold and the quantities remaining, or the construction worker building a skyscraper who needs to inform his boss of a problem on the ground. He simply takes a picture or uses the video conferencing to show his/her boss the problem in real time. Such devices usually take some time for people to really sort out the frivolous from the legitimate uses, but once designers and consumers begin to discover the uses that can make a real impact in people’s lives, the power of the device grows exponentially. What potential uses do you see for such a device?

I find myself noticing what seems to be an increase in the amount of successful attack advertising in the past few years – where one firm or another in a highly competitive market calls out a rival directly. It’s a risky move – the idea is to polarize middle-of-the-fence consumers to your side, but can damage your brand if not done well.  I have included my three favourites for your consideration below:

1. Mac vs. PC

No-one, and I mean no-one, has taken the p*** with a competitor as much as the iconic PC vs. Mac ads, first aired in 2006, with a succession of follow-up spots. Can you remember such a devastating competitive attack- either before after this campaign?

Going much deeper than a technical comparison of products, Apple attacked the very brand identity of its rival – and managed to imply that any user of a PC was frumpy and out-of-touch. Windows , representing the PC market, has struck back with multiple efforts trying to shift this image, but has met with varying success. The strength of the initial attack was so strong that it will take both time and investment to overcome.

2. Audi vs. BMW

Audi: “Your move, BMW”
BMW: “Checkmate”
Pretty much anyone who saw these signs: “Oh, Snap!”

These duelling billboards appeared in Southern California- with the BMW ad appearing not long after the AUDI version went up. Note that the BMW response is that of a local dealership toward the national Audi Campaign. The social media space  is where the damage was being done, so that was the arena where Audi planned a comeback, where they recruited participants to the AUDI facebook site- and asked them to photoshop an appropriate response.

The success of this comeback campaign was not clear…..while the internet certainly picked up on the BMW Checkmate damage that was done to the AUDI brand, it was an interesting way for AUDI to use social media in an interesting way to try and  mitigate the impact of the negative word of mouth.

In terms of the consumer decision making process for automobiles, automobiles have both an important technical element, as well as a strong brand identity element, which means comparative/attack ads aimed at these components are fairly commonplace.

3. Rogers vs. Bell:

In some cases, the attacker actually subverts the advertising images and messages of a rival – as recently seen in the recent Rogers (top image), and Bell (bottom image) tv and print ads:

In this case, both have launched integrated marketing campaigns battling for share of the ‘couch’. Part of this bitter rivalry is founded in the nature of the two businesses…..Rogers started as a cable company, and moved into mobile/home phone. Bell started as a home phone company – and moved into cable. As such, both have expanded into each other’s home territory….meaning that hostilities are high.

Sadly reader, I think most of my posts will involve Japan in some way (reflective of the substantial percentage of my life that was spent there). I can say that this kind of comparative advertising in Japan is VERY rare….extolling the virtues of your own product is one thing, but directly bashing your competitors is another story. Trying to promote shame and embarrassment in others is a social taboo.

Also, speaking as a guy who has some experience in personally selling both products and services, I can say that this full-contact approach can be risky- and seems to work best only when there are very cut-and-dried technical or price-point differences which are directly related to the customer’s purchase decision criteria. Saying “Ours is better/best” seems to be ok, but “Company B has terrible XXXXXX” can backfire – it implies that you recognize them as a real threat that needs addressing. .

In terms of an integrated marketing campaign, the comparative approach provides free advertising to your rival, as you are essentially paying to increase the brand awareness and recall of every brand you mention.

Having said all of that that, it is difficult to argue with the relative success of the campaigns outlined above, as all have been at least mildly successful in our North American markets (at very least, it has prompted plenty of people to blog about it). So, I would ask the reader:

• What are the risks of taking this approach?
• Why are they successful/Why do they fail?
• Can you find any examples where this approach did not work?

Thankfully for us, along came this humorous and useful upgrade chart to demystify the process. If only our friendly neighborhood carrier could be so transparent about the process – it would save a lot of folks a few hours on hold when calling in to customer service.

Thanks for the link @krestivo, care of @seanmcdonald

• Sure I’m upset that the smug not-so-genius bar told me the problem was my fault.
  [Poor Customer Service]
• Sure I’ll have to spend 30 minutes on the phone negotiating to fix the problem with Apple Care – who, from all accounts is basically useless unless you push them to the edge. (As an aside, I’ve seen Dell’s warranty program in action – next day product replacement – no questions asked) [Poor Product Support]
• Sure Apple’s being irresponsible by not owning up to this obvious manufacturing defect and at the end of the day, I may need to shell out $800+labor+tax for a new screen[Poor Corporate Policy]

But to top it off, this issue exposes such a fundamental design flaw in the Mac Air that they are unwilling to take responsibility for [Poor Product Design]. Oh Apple – can your ego really be that inflated you can do no wrong?

Let’s have a look at Apple’s environmental policy taken from their site:

“Protecting the environment is critical to the conservation of precious natural resources and the continued health of our planet. Apple recognizes its responsibility as a global citizen and continually strives to reduce the environmental impact of the work we do and the products we create.”

The way this laptop is designed, this little hing issue requires a complete replacement of the LCD screen. This one design flaw, negates all their talk about lower carbon emissions. Cradle-to-Cradle? More like Cradle-to-Dump. The back half of the life cycle hasn’t even been considered. This is not environmentally sustainable. Another highlight from their history of environmental achievements:

“In 2008 MacBook Air is the first product to use mercury-free back light technology with arsenic-free LCD display glass.”

Great – so when my perfectly functional screen ends up in the dump, at least there won’t be any mercury leaking into the soil. Who thought it was a good idea to attach a constantly moving part to a major (expensive) part of the computer? This machine needs to be redesigned. Message to the industrial designers at Apple – think, prototype, build and test before you send your machines into the market. While some have had their airs fixed with a brand new screen, and others have put knives through theirs,

to save one more perfectly perfectly good LCD from ending up in the Apple graveyard, you’ll find my air fashionably affixed with duct tape.

Thank you Apple.

Architectural shot from Chase Jarvis

I have recently re-ignited my interest in Photography in a big way, by going (almost) all out and buying a big expensive camera. I’ve also immersed myself into learning all that I can about the craft and practicing as much as time allows. The process thus far has been rewarding. Learning a new craft usually is, at least for me.

There is one issue. Kinda. Carrying around a DSLR and a couple of lenses, can at times be inconvenient for those times where you are walking about, and see something that catches your eye that you just have the urge to capture. Sometimes, by the time you get the camera out, what you wanted to photograph is gone. You missed the moment. It’s also a psychological commitment. In many ways you have to prepare yourself, and go through a thought process before taking the shot. Now, mind you, this is the way I believe it should be, but one is not always in “photography mode”.

Enter the iPhone. A few months ago, I started noticing some buzz on Twitter coming from the photographers I follow, as some of them started to experiment with iPhone photography. One photographer in particular stood out. That is Chase Jarvis. Every week, sometimes more then once a week, he posts a new iPhone photograph to his twitter account and by doing so, has inspired a slew of photographers to stand up and notice what might be possible to do with a little iPhone camera and a good eye. Have a look at his portfolio of photographs taken with his iPhone. Now, Chase Jarvis is a very talented professional photographer. He obviously has some mojo going on. But, his creative outlook and hunger to stay creative even when he cannot be, inspired him to start experimenting with his iPhone camera.

He ignores the status quo. He ignores the common perceptions that most people see as handicaps. “The iPhone is not a real camera”, “The resolution of the sensor is garbage”, “No control over exposure, or selective focus”, etc. Instead he sees the potential that these perceived handicaps enable, turns them around, and uses them to create art. And the results thus far, are awesome and inspiring. A slew of other photographers are now following his lead, and are now looking at the iPhone and other small mobile cameras, as creative tools. As a result, there is a proliferation of new creative photography popping up online, that up until a few months ago, simply was not there.

And yes. It has inspired me as well. The awesome part about it for me, is that it presents a different way to look at the world. It’s quick, it’s small so its not obtrusive, and with a couple of little apps, you can actually create some pretty decent photographs. As well, it keeps my desire to make photographs alive when typically I would not be able to.

So what is there to take from this? A few things I believe. Creativity can come from anywhere. Don’t limit yourself to just one way to look at the world or a problem. Use tools that are readily available. Innovation can have unintended consequences, which in turn can create other innovations.

This is a kick off post to a series that will be exploring the shift from touch to feel as both context and concept for the design of new products, services, systems and experiences.  The series will question “touch” and the touch context from a variety of perspectives; and mix, muse, and compare as to why “feel”, feelings, and “feelback” will emerge to compliment, enhance, and surpass the “touch sensation”.

The first/next post in our series will begin with some general musings about the “Touch Sensation” relating, from one perspective, to the explosion and popularity of touch interfaces brought on by the success and attention paid to the latest round of Apple devices and their competitors follow up.  Question: As if touch were new? And what is it with touch anyway? Following up, from a second, lets say “sensational approach” the post will introduce, or set up, a broader perspective on touch, interaction, the senses, human experience, and exchange.

Please stay tuned.