Will it be, or Won't it be?
2015-Jan-17, Saturday 10:11 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
chebeI'd be surprised if this hasn't been done before, but as wearables, or at least the knowledge of them existing, becomes more mainstream I find myself increasingly having to explain why I think this or that device won't be a runaway success. I have come up with a taxonomy of sorts, for personal tech.
1) The fad. These are typically novelties, interesting ideas that may lead somewhere, but after an initial burst of interest the current form just doesn't seem to work well for most people. Things like the Segway.
2) Labour-saving. These are the classical improvement in work processes (computers instead of typewriters and filing systems, robotic arms in manufacturing plants), or that free up time domestically (washing machines, dishwashers). These make peoples lives easier, and succeed if relient, and affordable.
3) Filling emotional needs. This is probably one of the harder ones to guess at. Things that often seem like toys end up meeting a need in people that they often didn't know they had. Prime examples are gaming consoles, personal/portable music systems, and cameras. People can get very attached to these devices.
4) Connecting people. Anything that connects people in a practical, meaningful way seems to do well. Perfect examples are the phone, and the mobile phone. Mobile adoption went a bit like this;
"What do you need that for?"
"Okay, use this for emergencies."
"Now, just let me know where you are and when you'll be home."
"I will call you every five minutes."
Smartphones took this successful model and loaded it with emotionally fulfilling functionality like music players, cameras, and games. Make it affordable and how can it not work?
There have always been limits to our tech usage though. Even if we forget it often, we are social creatures. Deeply ingrained in us is that survival itself depends on being part of the group. We end up with a great many social norms, that don't necessarily welcome tech.
Perhaps an example will explain better. The smartphone. Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, telling friends and family (and strangers) all over the world about the lunch you just had. Good. Head buried in phone while the person you are having lunch with is largely ignored. Bad. It says, you're less important/less worth talking to than the people on the other end of this device. When the tech becomes an actual barrier between communication, social norms act against it. This is why headphones, saviours from the noisy creep behind you on public transport systems, are not acceptable headwear at the dinner table. Whereas spectacles are perfectly acceptable, even encouraged.
And it's this gulf I think many of the new wearables are falling down. Everyones favourite kicking horse, Google Glass, is the best example. It literally puts a computer between your eyeline and other people. Quite apart from the privacy aspects, this puts you at the same social disadvantage as always checking your watch, and being head-down in phone. I'm not sure if it's the tech, or the social norms, that need to change, long-term. But I do know which one is easier to change short-term.
One of the interesting features of this whole wearables/IoT/big data world is that I may need to add a fifth category; healthcare. While there have been great advances in medicine, surgery, and hospital care, very little of it was consumerable (perhaps spectacles, hearing aids, walking aids, wheelchairs). But will it continue to be a specialised market, or will everyone have a few devices hanging around?
There are a great many questions right now, but it's still largely predictable. I look forward to the next unforeseen development.
1) The fad. These are typically novelties, interesting ideas that may lead somewhere, but after an initial burst of interest the current form just doesn't seem to work well for most people. Things like the Segway.
2) Labour-saving. These are the classical improvement in work processes (computers instead of typewriters and filing systems, robotic arms in manufacturing plants), or that free up time domestically (washing machines, dishwashers). These make peoples lives easier, and succeed if relient, and affordable.
3) Filling emotional needs. This is probably one of the harder ones to guess at. Things that often seem like toys end up meeting a need in people that they often didn't know they had. Prime examples are gaming consoles, personal/portable music systems, and cameras. People can get very attached to these devices.
4) Connecting people. Anything that connects people in a practical, meaningful way seems to do well. Perfect examples are the phone, and the mobile phone. Mobile adoption went a bit like this;
"What do you need that for?"
"Okay, use this for emergencies."
"Now, just let me know where you are and when you'll be home."
"I will call you every five minutes."
Smartphones took this successful model and loaded it with emotionally fulfilling functionality like music players, cameras, and games. Make it affordable and how can it not work?
There have always been limits to our tech usage though. Even if we forget it often, we are social creatures. Deeply ingrained in us is that survival itself depends on being part of the group. We end up with a great many social norms, that don't necessarily welcome tech.
Perhaps an example will explain better. The smartphone. Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, telling friends and family (and strangers) all over the world about the lunch you just had. Good. Head buried in phone while the person you are having lunch with is largely ignored. Bad. It says, you're less important/less worth talking to than the people on the other end of this device. When the tech becomes an actual barrier between communication, social norms act against it. This is why headphones, saviours from the noisy creep behind you on public transport systems, are not acceptable headwear at the dinner table. Whereas spectacles are perfectly acceptable, even encouraged.
And it's this gulf I think many of the new wearables are falling down. Everyones favourite kicking horse, Google Glass, is the best example. It literally puts a computer between your eyeline and other people. Quite apart from the privacy aspects, this puts you at the same social disadvantage as always checking your watch, and being head-down in phone. I'm not sure if it's the tech, or the social norms, that need to change, long-term. But I do know which one is easier to change short-term.
One of the interesting features of this whole wearables/IoT/big data world is that I may need to add a fifth category; healthcare. While there have been great advances in medicine, surgery, and hospital care, very little of it was consumerable (perhaps spectacles, hearing aids, walking aids, wheelchairs). But will it continue to be a specialised market, or will everyone have a few devices hanging around?
There are a great many questions right now, but it's still largely predictable. I look forward to the next unforeseen development.
