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?

I’m not sure how your snow adventures unfold, but mine usually begin with a vain attempt to coordinate more than two carloads arriving at the mountain at different times, followed by a ride up a lift and a good long stare at the trail map at the top during which we try to memorize a way down, hopefully bumping into our friends without too much grief.

On the way down I frequently veer off onto the wrong run by mistake, sometimes even ending up in the wrong place altogether, annoying my riding companions in the process.

Mobile phones and two-way radios have gone a long way toward helping with these situations but there’s still room for more comprehensive ways to a) not get lost, and b) more thoroughly enjoy time on the mountain with friends.

This goggle concept pulls together a heads-up display, GPS/accelerometer technology, and mobile messaging. Available functions at any given time depend on whether they’re set to Stop or Go mode.

In Stop mode there are several things a wearer can do:

• Read incoming messages from friends as text, or voice converted to text
• Activate an interactive target marker to geo-locate spots on the slopes he wants to find again. Perfect while on the lift scouting terrain to hit on the way down.
• See which three runs are closest or most readily accessible from the top of the current lift or gondola

In Go mode, a wearer can:

• See his speed
• See which two lifts he can most readily reach from the trail he’s on
• Track his set targets

All modes show a compass, live trail map, time, temperature, altitude, current location (trail or lift), song selection, and the locations of up to five customizable friends who have the same goggles or GPS-enabled mobile devices. Any of these functions can be programmed to disable in either or both modes at the user’s discretion for skiers or riders who prefer less of an interface.

Goggle view in Stop mode, targeting

Goggle view in Stop mode, accessing message

Goggle view in Go mode

There are serious talks of money when enhancing “cultural capital” – whole industries (and jobs) in fashion, design, architecture, multi-media, etc – in striving to be become a “global city brand” on par with Paris, New York and London. It is ambitious, no doubt. In other words, design is serious business, as South Korea’s companies have learned. For example, in enabling Samsung to overtake America’s Motorola and become the world’s second-largest cell phone maker (after Finland’s Nokia) in 2007.

What does it take to transform a city? Let’s talk “Culturenomics”. It starts with creating an urban environment where people want to come and live with their businesses and raise families. Creative industries and lifestyle are what drive national competitiveness.

According to South Korean officials, “major companies have chief design officers sitting next to their CEOs. We already have 30,000 design students graduating every year. We have to make the best use of these human resources. Our goal is to have people say that if you want to see the latest design trend, you should go to Seoul. That will be a valuable asset for economic growth. Culture is the key factor that can promote the attractiveness of a country or city. Products we export with a touch of culture will be sold at a more expensive price.” They definitely get it.

Seoul is not without competition. Hong Kong, Shanghai, Tokyo are all trying to be the regional design hub, and all of them have some advantages. Many of Seoul’s (or Hong Kong or Shanghai) visions are top-down planned real estate redevelopment, but underlying all of it is the people or mix of people that drive the creative “Culturenomics”. Top-down is needed, but not enough. It is a co-creation process that involves industries and developers. The creative coalition will need to look at each city and its history, the present situation and possible futures to mobilize people. Often these people are marginalized and their importance is diminished in a city whose economic development is too often focused on smokestack chasing and giving away tax freezes.

There needs to be an understanding of the so-called creative class, in order to identify the essential parts of a creative ecosystem and the investments needed for it. We need to identify the cultural and heritage facilities needed, new ways to build community participation and ideas to attract new creative industries into identified precincts.  We need facilities for artists, writers and performers … but also need to find ways of attracting filmmakers, designers, architects, multimedia and creative technology companies, and all those who create ideas and content. These arts and related creative industries drive new economies. They also help create an attractive and sophisticated city in which to live, work and invest. Every city needs a plan and this will shape the competitiveness of cities in the next 20 years. Designers can help transform them. I wonder if Toronto, Chicago, Bangalore, Boston, Montreal, Shanghai, Zurich and Dublin have plans in place?

Image Source: http://inhabitat.com/wp-content/uploads/seoul2026.jpg; http://inhabitat.com/wp-content/uploads/seoul2026interior.jpg; http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_JpAMkZYKSnM/RhqmYi51nQI/AAAAAAAAAds/5TtOzTpS_IA/s400/Shanghai%2BRen%2BBuilding.jpeg

The relation of conceptual design and social interaction is an important issue that influences the future of industrial design management. The Social Web has made astonishing progress the last two years, while advanced manufacturing technology emerges in an endless stream. The results are an extensive amount of accessible data that can promote endless new ideas for innovation. The environmental effect and social moral concept of design, the manufacturing place and method of product, the materials, function and usages of product, as well as abandonment and recovery of product, have become the new connotative meanings of conceptual design. This goes beyond traditional product design.

From the design of product into the design of service, the design of material object into the design of virtual product and the design of service into social interactions… a completely new mode of industrial design is emerging. The whole world is moving into the era of accelerated digitalization and extended collaboration. Then, maybe we should be training a new breed of design called “Social” Design? Well, that’s sounds like “Anthropology meets Human Factors”.

There’s a NY Times article on Japanese industrial design guru Naoto Fukasawa. It is an interesting story about his design journey. He is being called a later day Charles Eames and is highly respected in his field. According to Brown, “He is able to interpret the relationship between people and objects in a way that is at some level obvious, yet nuanced and sophisticated. His approach to design isn’t intellectual, it’s human.” This is an interesting one, I find that architects can design great things while striving for an unrealistic level of perfection, yet industrial designers are looking for all the human elements or solving little problems of our lives. And, product development folks just want the coolest features they can add to it. Three very different schools and these are just my personal experience working with some of the best people in the business.

The world of industrial design is a great culture consisting of humanistic spirit, appealing aesthetics, human factors, philosophy, science, human interactions, space and technology. The industrial design culture is a product of this period, stigmatized distinctly with times. It is easy to see that the method and means of industrial design needs to evolve. I propose we stop calling it “Industrial” Design. Let’s use “Sustainable” Design and “Social” Design instead. After all, these names are way cooler.

Image Source: http://farm1.static.flickr.com/182/381627583_64915bfae0.jpg ;http://www.bdonline.co.uk/Pictures/web/u/p/p/Naoto_Fukasawa_for_web.jpg