designswarm thoughts

It’s the start of a new year and someone asked me to come in and talk about the internet of things. This has happened countless times but the beginning of the year and the sight of discarded Christmas trees pushed me to take some time to reflect on the last 8 years of work. (I consider it as important to make as it is to write about why I make.)

I won’t go into the details of the full presentation but it seemed that pre-2007 (launch year of Twitter and the iPhone) the market was full of strange and smart exciting products. Not platforms, not hacks, but proper things you could by on a shelf on the high street. Pleo, Aibo, Nabaztag, the Ambiant Orb & Umbrella and the promise of the Hug Shirt. Most of these products failed, were discontinued, or were never developed past the trademark stage. The hacker community took over and the commercial game became about platforms. Arduino spawned endless compatible shields, kits and competing products sold through the likes of Sparkfun or Make Magazine. The community created a design culture of one-offs.

In the last 2 years it’s been about building web platforms for the internet of things. Started by Pachube, the marketplace then filled with companies whose existing business models fit the new mould. We have to do better than that.

As CES is under way and initial reports of the latest dancing robots flood the internet, I think the UK design scene has a tremendous opportunity and can’t afford not to get involved. Most of the people who have pushed the field forward have been hackers, producing on-off products that need support to get to the shelves of the high street.

In the midst of quite a lot of angst around manufacturing in the UK this is an opportunity the UK can’t afford to miss. Bridging links between hackers and manufacturers is an opportunity that won’t suffer from misplaced nostalgia, and will create new business opportunities. In the same way the north of Italy supported most of the manufacturing boom of the 1960s, using the UK’s expertise in manufacturing should enable it to become quickly THE place to get your internet of things devices ready for mass production and onto the high street. That’s something the government should help with and maybe that’s what Tech City should be about…

If anything, 2012 is the time for crazy bold entrepreneurship and enthusism in this stale consumer product space. Austerity periods are often a wonderful time for creativity and we need that boost. The failure in the take-up of smart energy meters have proved that we have to go beyond pure utility to make the internet of things part of our daily lives, and really tap into people’s desires for whimsy and fun (see Homesense if you don’t believe me). People didn’t buy an iPhone because it could make better calls. This is the time to really do something different and make connections that didn’t exist before. Onwards and forward and Happy New Year everyone!

Last summer I reviewed Open Design Now and Leonard Reviews have just published it. If you’re into the same things I’m into, you should read it :)

As part of RIG, I worked closely with Phil, Andy and Amanda (an absolute pleasure, you should hire them, seriously) to launch FRSTEE a few weeks ago. The most interesting thing about this project for me was the opportunity to work with rapid prototyping in a way that made economic sense. To build a micro-business in the heart of the Silicon Roundabout. That’s what Tech City is about no? I was told in 2000, while at my BA, that those technologies were the future of manufacturing. 11 years later, that’s still the message, but I’d like to think our little contribution gets us closer to that objective. Realistically though, rapid prototyping is still incredibly expensive when you want something that is beautiful, of variable size and made quickly. Qualities that DIY solutions don’t cope well with so far. I’m sure that’s only a matter of time mind you.

The design of businesses and the business of design
Building businesses is the kind of design work I find myself doing. It is a design activity in a strange way and my design background along with the experience of running Tinker has been invaluable. The most important skills I think I’ve developed are predicting future problems and handling money. 2 things I wish they would teach in design school to make young people a little more ready for industry. So here are some quick things I learnt in helping build FRSTEE.

Things you need to remember when building a micro-business

1. You need someone to do the boring work
There’s a ton of boring work in a business. In this one, it’s about collecting the orders once they’ve been rapid prototyped (round the corner on Curtain Road at Inition), checking them, tying a festive piece of string through them, looking at orders, putting the right one in bubble wrap, in a box, printing out the address and stamp (using online stamps by Royal Mail) on a label and finally walking over to the post office to send them. Because each piece is unique, that pretty much prevents us from using smart fulfilment solutions like Amazon. All of this incredibly tedious work is done by Amanda. She is a star.

2. You need to worry about the smallest numbers.
Something to remember is that all of this costs money. Amanda’s time, packaging, stamps, boxes, bubble wrap, tape. Stuff you have to buy and cost out for every package you send out to make sure you’re still making some money somewhere down the line. Tricky when you can’t drive the cost of rapid prototyping much lower than it is, again because of how unique each is. Tricky also because charging too much for a bespoke product starts to feel like luxury and in these economically challenging times, that’s not a good idea. A glass ceiling in a way.

3. Never drop the ball
Not unlike launching a web service, you have to constantly be in touch with people. In our case that means our suppliers and customers. I live in a constant flow of emails, ordering supplies and keeping on top of everything. We send out orders every week so far and that feels good, a rhythm is setting in even if it’s a seasonal product.

4. Always work with awesome people who understand technology
Phil implemented a design that was initiated by Ben. He also built the connection between Andy’s ability to script designs in 3D and Paypal. Andy made the rendering easy and connecting it to Inition a breeze. Magic as far as I’m concerned. When you’re working with people who just understand the technologies they are working with and are willing to learn new things, things just get done much faster. After all these years I value a “yes maybe” much more than I value a “no but”. It’s an attitude that gets you through a lot in a business even a small one.

A few months ago, I started exploring a simple idea around keyrings. This turned into material explorations using laser cutting and wood and finally perspex.

The perspex version I built looked a lot more abstract, a little 1920s jewellery, but later it occured to me that what I had designed, through a material exploration was really a digital map recognition system I’ve called Mapcodes.

The idea is simple: why can’t we use maps to link to maps? An abstract, blocky shape, is easy to recognise with the right software as AR projects have shown, but the marker (qr codes, fiducials, etc) often isn’t human-readable or bares little relationship to the content. Mapcodes would present a simplified map which, if you know the area, you could recognise, but more importantly, your mobile device could identify and point to the digital map for that area, the tfl route, whatever. The gap between the representation and the digital tools is bridged.

Interested in helping me develop a prototype? Get in touch darn it!:)

The Internet of Things is now strongly established as a trend, not necessarily a market yet. Most people in the field will agree it usually describes how ubiquitous technologies and infrastructures like Wifi, 3G (5G soon), Bluetooth might help us connect not only technology-centric products like phones, tablets and laptops but a plethora of physical devices that aren’t connected yet like chairs, doors, buildings.

If we have a good, if inconsistent idea (follow #iot on Twitter and you’ll see what I mean) about what the The Internet of Things is supposed to be about we rarely put a face to the people or companies that attempt to create the consumer-facing products that make this trend come to life, the mass market devices and solutions. Things that people want, and desire as much as the latest gadget.

For the KTN Creative Industries workshop last month I identified 5 archetypes of companies that currently produce consumer-facing iot devices or solutions Here are 3 of them.

1.Product companies who find telco partners to bootstrap the business
Another way of enabling the growth of iot products on the market is to form relationships with the companies providing the technological infrastructure. When Rafi Haladjian launched Nabaztag in France, it was offered as part of a France Telecom boardband package. This allowed it to get into the homes of future users very rapidly. Obviously, Rafi’s background as the founder of the first French ISP FranceNet (which he sold to BT) must have helped. GlowCaps, (David Rose’s lastest project) made deals with AT&T in the US to offer connectivity and call support services to their smart medication packaging products. Products like NetSmart, Current Cost’s web extension to their energy monitoring devices (which Tinker worked on initially) is a good example of a company that traditionally is driven by product design, but dipping its toes in the data game. With the knowledge they have about distribution and deals like an initial partnership with Google they have allowed their company to be perceived as a stable service provider.

2.Web companies with prototyping capabilities and enough turnover to deal with some manufacturing
Google’s latest moves in the hardware space are unique and interesting. First their business location NFC-enabled business packages to allow you to “check-in” easily. Then they announced the Android ADK. These are not necessarily consumer-facing products yet, although one can argue the community of hackers is large enough, but I’m curious if they’ll support the production of ideas and projects built with these platforms. Historically the people selling the platforms aren’t the ones involved in product funding or manufacturing.

3.Advertising agencies who develop products ideas as PR
Being able to make something physical has become a differentiator in a competitive marketplace like advertising. In 2007, companies like Moving Brands worked on physical projects that linked to digital interactions like the Weare scarf . In 2009, Weiden + Kennedy designed a limited edition range of data-driven jewellery that were being sold in Soho. More recently RIG (which I am now a partner in for full disclosure) made a unique series of Christmas decorations that were tailored to your use of online social networks. There are plenty of other experiments like a digital foosball table, and Bakertweet. However, most of these projects were made in small quantities in terms of manufacturing (less than 1K units). They are often experiments to allow those organisations to learn from the process of making, fabrication, retail etc.

These 3 archetypes don’t include one-off products for museums, exhibitions, r&d or academia because they often have a reason to be one-offs. These archetypes also prove there is a tremendous amount of space in the market for partnerships, experiments, diversified funding and business models. It’s a whole new world of entrepreneurship out there.

I am incredibly lucky, I’ve worked with fantastic people and had so much fun. I am also doubly lucky that Paola Antonelli, when she came to see me and Russell at Tinker last autumn, really liked the Homesense Kit and the Big Red Button because she’s decided to include them as part of the Talk to Me exhibition that opens tonight. If you’re interested in the “Internet of Things” go see it.

Homesense in general would never have been possible without the help of Edouard & Charles at EDF R&D who supported our efforts from the get go. The project would have been literally impossible without Georgina‘s strength and tenacity. The kit which is on display, was the work of so many people but I want to specially thank, Natasha and Richard both terrific designers who came down from Lancaster to try to package up technology tools into a fun toy-like kit. I’m incredibly proud of the work and results of the project. Please go and have a roam around.

The Big Red Button was the brain-child of Russell who came upstairs and said “what about it?”. We first had a bespoke version in mind, but in the end, it was Daniel who took up the baton and makes them on order. You should buy one. They’re fun.

So yes. If anyone goes to the opening, send me some pics!

The Knowledge Transfer Network (KTN) for the Creative Industries ran a workshop where participants were invited to think about the barriers to SMEs to apply for TSB funding in their numerous calls. We also discussed and mapped out concerns around how to develop “internet of things” business and market opportunities in the UK. They invited me to come and speak and I decided to focus on looking at the different businesses that end up developing iot projects. I thought this might be useful in identifying their needs, motivations and hurdles.

Brilliant. From Russell of course.

I’ve been thinking about the role of product design in the upcoming flurry of domestic robot solutions that will soon be thrown at us as consumers. Some quick thoughts.

1. Roomba & AR Drone are only the beginning, the latter entering the doors of our homes through the iPhone’s compatibility. There was a lot of “can I control this from my iPhone” type questions at InnoRobo. The iPhone’s role might grow to control all home tech, however small it might be. This might see the universal remote control market completely disappear in the next 10 years as a result.

2. The objective of Homesense was always to try to look at the home as a hyper-personalised space you couldn’t just stick technology in mindlessly. Assumptions about people’s behaviours and habits were kept to a minimum, if only in the choice of technology we gave them to play with. People made a lot of different things. Home is a highly flexible space where technology lives and dies quickly, objects get used daily or once a year. It’s very hard to operate as a designer in that space without taking this into consideration as robotic companions don’t have a single function. They are not like designing salt and pepper shakers.

3. The politics of domestic space and chores is complex (nice paper by G.Bell here also this ) I like the role of Blinky in this short film. The parental and family tensions that permeate that home is a natural part of what makes a home and not a house. It is intimately linked to why we buy some things. A robot cannot hope to avoid being part of those decision mechanisms.

4. Soft Internet connected devices
I’m quite intrigued by the future appearance of wireless devices that don’t have screens on them at all. I’m reminded of my friend Dana Gordon’s Undercover project. A blanket that plays music in an ambient and personal way. That’s understanding what the power of product design is and automation in a quiet, intimate way.

5. Non-essential goods.
In all this, we have to keep in mind how we treat technology in the home. It’s not about publicly showing off, in the same way we buy phones and clothes. The tensions are different, and the expectations are different too. To close with a comment from a long-time Roomba owner:

A Second Vacuum is a Must
Don’t expect to have any Roomba operate as your only vacuum. They do a great job of keeping the mess down, but we still rely on our Dyson to do it’s weekly job.

It’s gonna get interesting all this.

CBC’s Spark program and the lovely Nora Young interviewed me about robots and internet of things. Listen here.

Look for the speakers notes for details. I’ll write a separate event report on RoboLIFT tomorrow.

Was interviewed by Caleb for Mobile Behaviour here if you have the patience.

It took me a while to digest Janne’s post on why ubicomp is a broken concept, mostly because on principal I tend to disagree. It’s also a bit in response to Tom Coates’s altered version of his talk with Matt Jones that he gave at Foocamp called “Personal Informatics”.

Firstly I think the starting point for thinking about ubiquitous spaces, objects etc is not necessarily that they are meant to be smarter, but perhaps more that they are meant to report better. Not smart, just less dumb :) Andy’s house is the obvious example of this. I think there is tremendous interest at the moment about being able to gather more efficiently stuff that is just lying around, invisible and not particularily useful. Innovation often comes from taking things we know and mashing them up with things we didn’t know we didn’t know. Someone pointed out the other day that we’re ultimately creeping towards AI with all these “clever” systems, but I think it might just be the reverse, we still hold the brain, we’ve just outsourced the synapses.

Also I think there are plenty of areas to think about in regards to the results of ubiquitous systems, information and data. One of the most important things, in my opinion has to do with evaluating the amount of behavioral or operational change based on the digestion and synthesis of all this data. It’s no use collecting the temperature and light levels inside a building if it isn’t with the aim to perfect your heating system or prevent collective seasonal depression for eg. Even on a personal basis, its no use me being able to monitor my heartrate everyday, because it only puts me in the “now”, an ephemeral place of thought and decision-making. One thing about technology, is that it tends to make people generally lazy about their levels of commitment. Perhaps we should push instead for the development of technologies and applications that encourage people to invest time and effort in an activity (think Honey we’re killing the kids).

Furthermore, what’s interesting about this idea of personal ubiquity is that some of it could possibly be shared online, so no longer relying on a sturdy and professional infrastructure other than the internet itself. Seeing people play around with Pachube and the Ethernet Arduino shield, makes things really exciting.

All in all I think the ubicomp ideas of the future will be more personal, more persuasive and lighter than what we’ve seen so far.

I never thought ubicomp would come out of an iPhone app. If anything, Exposure has the power to connect us with objects and lives that were lived around us in the past, as long as they’ve been geotagged first. Matt and I had a look, sitting on our couch at home, and found pictures of people who are probably our neighbours having a bbq, portraits, etc. There was something uneasy about seeing pictures of people who cease to become strangers yet aren’t familiar at all. A whole future of perception lies ahead.

Random thoughts triggered by Nicola’s link.

What if what was going to be a major roadblock to ubiquitous computing is the idea that as users, we want to be able to point to where a “technology-enabled” object lies? That we cannot live with the idea that we no longer have an on/off relationship like the one we have with our phone or laptop. Can we come to accept the implications of “ubiquitousness” and give up the ability to encapsulate technology in our hands, inside a thing we can kick, curse or accuse?

Can we accept that we may no longer be able to see where exactly technology operates because it’s unevenly distributed and invisible? For John Doe, questions will arise like how much technology is ubiquitous technology? How distributed and where is it distributed and for what purpose? It’s not only going to be a preoccupation of the systems but of the urban human psyche, it will affect how we relate to technology in general and our perception of it as something that is controllable or something much closer to Big Brother: controlling, everywhere and impatient.