Glenn Fleishman “YAHOO’S LOGO REVEALS THE WORST ASPECTS OF THE ENGINEERING MINDSET” (via peterspear)
Do first, think later. Maybe it is an advantage, but I see it more as a problem. By doing first, you end up with a lot of bad products, services, anything out there.
While I agree with the core point being made, this creates a potential problem. By positioning the designer as the other against everyone else. With the permeation of design, does that mean the democratization of it? Is this something that can be shared and understood by many?
The idea of ‘elevating the practice’ is potentially alienating. While designers would certainly be positioned as the expert, they would be farther removed from the communities they are trying to serve.
“Big data is a term describing the storage and analysis of large and or complex data sets using a series of techniques including, but not limited to: NoSQL, MapReduce and machine learning.
The Method for an Integrated Knowledge Environment open source project. The MIKE project argues that big data is not a function of the size of a dataset but its complexity. Consequently, it is the high degree of permutations and interactions within a dataset that defines big data.
The National Institute of Standards and Technology. NIST argues that big data is data which: “exceed(s) the capacity or capability of current or conventional methods and systems”. In other words, the notion of “big” is relative to the current standard of computation.”"
The new definition of Big Data.
What has your research taught you about wearable computers?
The idea of wearing technology is hardly new. There’s armor and swords and many other things that we’ve worn on our bodies that were the technologies of the day. That can help us think about the current obsession and where these things are going.
The technologies that we have put on our bodies over the last multiple thousand years tend to have two functions. One of them is literal. They’re doing some kind of work to extend our physicality, or reach. The other is always symbolic, what they say to others. The armor and the coat of arms on it say “I’m on his team, keep away.” Watches from 200 years ago said, “Not only do I have the money to have a timepiece, but I believe in punctuality.” I’m interested in how you start to weave those two things together, the functional and the symbolic.
Does that hold true today for wearable computers?
Absolutely. The challenge at the moment is that we’re just dealing with the literal piece, not the symbolic piece. The choices about what you have on your body are entirely personal, but how they’re read by others is slightly out of your control and it’s a symbolic transaction. At the moment we’re still very much in the “task” piece of wearable computing, not in the symbolic “how do we make sense of it” piece."
Again we come back to the “just because you can doesn’t mean you should” problem that ‘innovative’ technology is encountering. We have the capability to make all these new devices like Google Glass, but we have not taken the time to think about why someone would want that beyond the literal capabilities, beyond its novel function. And the fact that it is on your body.
While a very valid point, there are several pieces of this that bother me. First off, Twitter has not been a startup for sometime. Twitter is indeed a media, communication and entertainment company now. That mission of transparency lingers from the days when it was a social network, of sorts. A way to communication 140-characters of random thoughts or events with anyone who would listen. That was then.
The IPO is the symptom of a larger shift that has been happening within Twitter for years now. They are no longer a social network. That is not a plausible business option for them. Yes, Twitter is inherently social, but it is not Facebook. It’s currency is information, news. That is Twitter’s business now. It is a smart business decision to keep the news about their IPO under wraps because of that shift.
Ben Thompson arguing that we’re getting a lower priced iPhone now because the internals of the iPhone 5 (which the iPhone 5C will reportedly use) are finally “good enough”:
In fact, the primary mistake Apple has made, if they made one, was in determining exactly where the “good enough” line is at. The iPhone 4S is arguably “good enough” and could have been the basis for a mid-range model last year. Apple thought otherwise though; I would imagine a not insignificant factor is that the iPhone 5 is the first iPhone with a fully Apple-designed SoC, the A6.
The big question mark for tomorrow remains what price this iPhone 5C will come in at? Thompson makes the case for $450 (unsubsidized) and $99 (subsidized) — with a $0 subsidized price point being possible as well (matching the current iPhone 4). That doesn’t seem cheap because it’s not. But it is still $200 cheaper than the current (unsubsidized) iPhone 5.
Remember also that the 32GB iPod touch currently costs $299 (unsubsidized, of course). If you think Apple is going to sell the iPhone 5C for a cheaper price than that, you’re crazy. It’s a higher-end machine. $350 may be possible (well, $349 in Apple parlance) if Apple really wanted to be aggressive. But I agree that $450 would be more likely. We’ll see tomorrow.
We are paying for the high-end brand. It is all about the name, the symbol because, let’s be honest, other phones do more and offer more.
'Build it and they will come' as a business strategy does not work. Not just for the business, but it does not create a strong brand representation and voice that goes along with their offering. The value proposition is not just the product, but the cultural, meaningful value that goes along with the brand.
These startups that are ‘making’ and ‘hacking,’ many trying to solve a weak problem with flashy design and MVP design to get something out the door and an article in Fast Company. They don’t last. They are fad-based because the goal of them all along was not to solve a crucial problem or even designed that way. If the product and business are not designed to last on their own, then they will quickly fade from the collective consciousness.
What is missing is the holistic perspective from innovation and how creation of a product or service depends on everything in the organization working together for a common goal, not their own independently.