target is new

an exploration in the new

Category: Uncategorized

The haptic revolution of a watch

Today the Apple Watch was announced. It will not make it to the market until next January probably to give app developers chance to develop their apps and have a relevant watch experience from the start. And maybe also for other reasons we do not know.

In the media the reactions vary. Of course the stunning looks of the device and the sharp graphics are applauded. But on the other hand the features are criticised. Is this the leapfrogging device we were expecting?

I have to say, my first reaction when the movie was played was also a bit disappointed. Not for the lack of functions, I really don’t think that is an issue at all. I was however expecting a bit more a new type of product and not the pure watch. Still I could have known, Apple did not invent a smartphone or a tablet but improved the dna of it from the outside in. The real disruption is in the way the device works, the way it feels, the way we will use it and integrate it in our lives. And in that sense I think there is a true breakthrough innovation: the haptic touch.

I am wearing a Pebble for a year now and next to the real value of the concept of a notification device on my wrist, the most interesting part for me is the resonating interface. We are really able to distinguish different information signals by the resonation rhythm.

Next to that Apple introduced forced touch and heartbeat communication. Both are part of a whole new interface language I think, that brings the next level of intimate interactions into our digital devices. In the presentation some of these interactions are hinted but I expect this is just the start of a sixth sense, a way we will be able to make contact with the digital cloud around us, and with others.

Together with Digital Life Center, Labs is running a research project to look into the way trembling interfaces can be used to connect to digital coaches and to touch on distance. I think the ecosystem Apple created by sensor, display and SDK HealthKit can be more revolutionizing than any other functions that are introduced or did not been introduced. Looking forward to dive into this beyond touch interactions and develop for real intuitive use, for interfacing without a screen.

Continuity, the first step to a notifaction based OS

A new OS model emerged, thinking on the consequences of the Google Glass interface model and the consequences on a more deeper level for the way user experience will work in the future, and services will function on our mobile and wearable devices.

I sketched it for the first time for a presentation at the CrossMediaCafe February 4 this year: the app model is replaced by a system where the notifications-layer become the linking pin between instances of the service you are subscribed to. The context of use both in knowledge as in sensing is defining what is relevant for the moment.

I predicted this would be the playing field of the next generation OS’s of Google and Apple. I made a typo and call it the notifaction space, something that works remarkable well though.

Now we have seen the first of it in iOS8 and OSX Yosemity at the WWDC last Monday. The talk was packed with interesting new stuff, from appearance to complete new program models including a disruption in the platform with Swift and Extensions. And also some huge steps in connecting the tangible world to our digital reality with Healthkit and Homekit, something to go in deeper another time.

The solution for the notifaction space from Apple is called Continuity. OSX and iOS are not only looking more and more the same, the experiences are really merging now. And more interesting, the presence of devices in relation to each other is noticed and have added intelligent behavior. Fluent experiences, discreet behavior, all solved with Continuity.

Combined with the catching up in interactivity in the notifications with direct interactions via Spotlight features shows how this layer is indeed the center of our control room of the digital life. I expect even more to come as app-maker will start to use it and we grew into a trigger based ad-hoc service experience. Exciting times.

Lessons on wearables from Berlin

[Published on in Dutch]

Afgelopen week was ik op twee conferenties in Berlijn. De eerste was een nieuwe over het internet of things: Thingscon. Een zeer goede conferentie met hoog niveau sprekers en publiek. De tweede was NEXT Berlin. Daar was ik voor de tweede keer (vorige keer in 2012), dit keer op uitnodiging om als bezitter van een Glass bij nog erg summiere Glass penetratie in Duitsland het publiek kennis te laten maken.

De wearables waren in verschillende vormen goed vertegenwoordigd op beide conferentie. Bij Thingscon werd veel nadruk gelegd op het maken van dingen, iets dat voor een mensen die normaal over bits nadenken nog al eens weerbarstig kan zijn. “There is no China button”.  Nu we van corporate via personal computing nu naar ambient computing zijn gegaan gaat het niet meer om sneller maar om kleiner en minder energiegebruik, zoals de Noor Adam Scheuring zei.

Olivier Mével, de maker van Nabaztag (later Karotz), het Wifikonijn dat 200 duizend stuks verkocht, zoekt het nu vooral in dingen die onszelf quantificeren, en remote controls van alles.
Zoals ook Matt Biddulph aangaf op zoek te zijn naar de randen en vooral te focussen op het ecosysteem, niet op de node.

Die nodes zijn nog steeds de mensen betoogde Alasdair Allan. Wij verbinden nu nog de verschillende connected devices. Bij NEXT Berlin gaf Cedric Hutchings van Withings een mooi voorbeeld hoe hier gebruik van te maken. Ze proberen bestaand gedrag te ondersteunen met connected devices, zoals de weegschaal. Deze data wordt vervolgens persoonlijke gezondheidsdata waar omheen nieuwe producten worden gemaakt.

Interessant zijn de principes van discretie in design zoals de Finse designer Sami Niemelä het verwoordde. Mobile first = behaviour first, ontwerp vanuit de human factors de service, daarna de software en de hardware als laatste. Brady Forrest van investeerder Highway1 gaf het eerder ook aan: if the software breaks, the product breaks.
We maken daarbij steeds meer adaptieve producten die pas af zijn door het gebruik betoogde Matt Webb van BERG.

Het meten zelf is interessanter dan de data die we meten. Usman Haque hield een vlammend pleidooi als afsluiter van Thingscon om niet te focussen op de optimalisatie van persoonlijke dingen, maar op de mogelijkheden die de connected things hebben om samen diensten op te zetten met meer waarde. Wil niet alles simpel maken. Making meaning is making mess.

Christian Holm zei het ook bij NEXT Berlin. Serendipity maakt het leven mooi. Omarm de onzekerheid, neem dat mee in het design van de wearables.

In het zelfde panel gaf Priya Prakash terecht aan dat de notificaties nog niet werken. Daar ligt voor wearables de werkelijke uitdaging. Waar ik het helemaal mee eens ben. Mensen zijn daarin de sensors die de notificaties moeten sturen. Mooi gezegd. Het werd onderstreept met de slechte manier waarop de eigen iBeacon conferentie-implementatie werkte, onterechte en 10dubbele notificaties als je op de verkeerde plek stond. We zijn daar nog maar net gestart…

FutureEverything thinking on the box

This year I attended the FutureEverything conference for the second time. The last time was two or three years ago. A small conference, but with high quality content. And a good atmosphere too. This time it was scaled up a bit with big support of the city municipality, what makes it into a conference with a few side tracks and bit more local focus. Still the quality of speakers was far above average again.
It is some weeks ago now but I will give some reflections (instead of reporting in detail).

The kick-off by Mike Bracken and Russell Davies talking on GDS was nice. The first time I saw Russell in such formal talk, but still very smart and the achievements of GDS are of course impressive. Putting the delivery before the talking is very productive. The use some straight forward principles like: Work on stuff that matters. Do the hard stuff first. Make it open. Show the thing. Also show the analytics. Fixing the basics
They believe that the future of government is not a policy paper. It will emerge from the places where government is made. GAAN Government as a network. Not centralised, Not localised, But networked.

The rest of the day a lot of talks refer to different kind of utopias in the main room. The minimal viable utopia as Greenfield it puts.

The best talks I followed in the fireside chat room. James Bridle is still one of my favourite thinkers and artists. Always shifting our thinking with pieces of real working art. He talked on his drone shadows of course and on the project that was in town (but I missed); the Spaulder. Looking for the physical embodiments of the internet makes it interesting to look reversed too: digital embodiment of the real. The next day he talked a bit more on the surveillance topic in the main room. This was a very good panel of speakers, with next to James a talk by Eleanor Saitta, and Adam Harvey. James started with questions on the data ownership of driving plate data captured by British government.

It addresses how the current developments in surveillance shifts from an understanding of the world to an understanding of the person. Adam Harvey is the artist who made the camouflage like face paintings to counter face recognition. “We can interfere with observation by modifying our simulation. We exist in many environments and may moments in the future”. In that sense is the work of Tom Armitage creating a ghost presence of himself in another city a very practical implementation of the concept. Combining these would be very interesting.

Also the chat with Adam Greenfield was good. Long time I saw him present. His new piece as anti-smart city thinking was the main topic. From smart to networked city as an approach. The example to go out through the city in a ‘Walkshop’ and be aware of all the connected artefacts.

The second day was talking on the box as one speaker quoted.
A nice metaphor to take responsibility again instead of making just new new stuff. On of the boxes is our relation to tech and the evolution in that. Koert van Mensvoort introduced a model that behaves like the Maslow pyramid, upper levels are the next stages in evolution. For tech he found the steps: envisioned > operational > applied > accepted > vital > invisible > naturalised

Especially in the afternoon some great speakers told about projects. Like Tom Armitage on Hello Lamppost, and Dan Williams on several robotic encounters.
The talk of Alexandra Deschamp-Desino on gonzo products is definitely something to watch if you are active in the field of creating connected products, lets call them new products, like we call media new media in the era of change. Gonzo products are a need breed: a product designed for the crowdfunding reality. Low goal, lean, 6 months pivots.
Tom Armitage talked on Hello Lamppost and showed us how you make a city really playable. It is not a playable city if not everyone is allowed to play. Therefor they used low entry technology (SMS). Networks go beyond network cables. We should create service avatars. Objects as manifests of services. Made personal. Products can break from the services. Wellknown example is the Nabaztag connected rabbit.

Looking back on the conference it is hard to pinpoint one overall story. I like the box as a metaphor. Also I got the feeling that there is a kind of gap emerging between a non-developing practice of open data in cities and new realities of automated contexts we need to master.

Wearables trigger a new model of pull-marketing

For the Mobile Marketing weblog I wrote a column on the impact of wearables on marketing models. We will have a Personal API that can provide the data we generate by the use of wearables on a permission basis.

Read the post below (in Dutch).


Afgelopen week was er week SxSW in Austin. Ik heb dit jaar overgeslagen na een bezoek in 2011 en 2013. Het is een interessante bubbel waar je vooral goed kunt ontdekken welke ontwikkelingen tractie zouden kunnen krijgen. Voorafgaand filosofeerde ik over een paar mogelijke trends, waarvan wearables en privacy de belangrijkste waren. Het lijkt zeker terug te komen als ik de verhalen lees.

Voor mij is het een van de meest interessante aspecten van de wearables. Wat gebeurt er met de data die we gaan produceren met z’n allen. Ik vind het interessant dat de mens steeds meer een bron van data wordt over zichzelf waar hij anderen toegang toe geeft. Ik noem dat Personal API. Een API staat voor een Application Program Interface en zorgt ervoor dat je bijvoorbeeld met de data uit Tweets analysetools kan bouwen als bedrijf. Heel veel moderne diensten hebben een API. De Personal API maakt het dus mogelijk om voor andere partijen – binnen voorwaarden – gebruik te maken van mijn data.

Wat er gaat ontstaan in de wisselwerking tussen je eigen datacollectie en de publieke data, en welke data je wel en niet wil achterlaten is een groot vraagstuk. Nu nog zie je dat we er geen controle over hebben, denk aan de NSA-activiteiten. Als we die data echter steeds meer dicht bij onszelf laten ontstaan in de wearables en de tussenlaag meer bewust wordt ingericht krijgt de gebruiker meer controle. Het was ook een van de topics bij SxSW.

De commotie rond de ING heeft er alles mee te maken. Is de data die ik als gebruiker van een betaalde dienst (bankieren) gebruik van mijzelf of van de bank. ING geeft de indruk van het laatste, maar veel klanten zijn het daar niet mee eens. Het was voor ING net zo makkelijk geweest om de datatransactie vanuit de klant te laten sturen, dan was er geen ophef geweest, en was de opbrengst voor de ING gelijk geweest.

Ik geloof dat we het komend jaar veel applicaties en diensten zullen krijgen die de gebruiker wel de sturing gaan geven. Een voorbeeld is die probeert alle data bij elkaar te brengen. Maar ook tools als Commonsense van Sense-OS proberen data uit sensoren slim bij elkaar te brengen.

Dat betekent voor marketeers dat ze veel directer en persoonlijker contact kunnen zoeken. Permission marketing gaat een nieuwe fase in als we onze eigen Personal API gaan beheren.

Hoe die appjes eruit kunnen zien is ook een van de vragen die we ons stellen bij een hackathon op 9 april in Rotterdam plaatsvindt (en waar ik betrokken bij ben). We staan nog maar aan het begin van deze ontwikkeling, maar de impact lijkt groot te worden. Zeker voor marketeer. Het zou heel interessant zijn als bij de hackathon niet alleen programmeurs en designers meedoen, maar ook een moderne marketeer in een team gaat zitten.

In het marketingvak komt weer focus te liggen bij de gebruiker van de producten en diensten, vraaggestuurd. Pull is echt het nieuwe push, de Personal API zal daarin een van de belangrijke concepten kunnen zijn.

Proving privacy is all about control

For the Dutch blog Mobile Marketing I wrote a post on my experiences with wearing a Glass in a museum that allows making pictures, but found it uneasy to allow it when it is unclear when the pictures are taken. An interesting case how the approach to this device is characterised by the openness and transparency more than the fact itself.

The post is in Dutch.


Er wordt heel verschillend gereageerd als je een Glass draagt. De onzekerheid die het oproept kan een gevaar zijn voor de acceptatie van wearables.

Vorige week was ik in het Rijksmuseum. Al enige tijd ben ik actief de mogelijkheden van Glass aan het onderzoeken, de nieuwe slimme bril van Google. Sinds enige weken heb ik zelf ook een exemplaar en probeer daarmee verschillende dingen uit. Zo ook rondlopen in het museum. Aangezien het beleid van museum fotograferen en videoopnames toestaat leek me dat geen groot probleem. Dat bleek echter anders. De suppoost in de zaal bij het kunstwerk van Daan Roosegaarde vroeg mij de bril af te zetten. Als toelichting gaf ze aan dat dit het beleid was zolang er geen beleid is geformuleerd. Daarbij gaf ze aan dat het probleem niet is dat je fotografeert met de bril, maar wel dat je niet ziet dat iemand dat doet.

En daarmee wordt wel een interessant punt geraakt. Bij alle presentaties die ik geef of bijwoon over de Glass komt altijd de privacy vraag langs. Wat gebeurt er met de data en zijn we nu echt volledig overgeleverd aan Google. Ook afgelopen donderdag bij het seminar Mens voor de Lens. Geleyn Meijer prikkelde in zijn aftrap met de vraagstelling of de data van een persoon die een device als Glass vastlegt eigenlijk niet van die persoon zou moeten blijven. Een discussie op zich.

In het licht van Glass een interessant punt uiteraard, maar een andere spreker (Dariu Gavrilla) vertelde over de geavanceerde radar en camerasystemen (8 stuks) die in een nieuwe Mercedes zitten en zorgen dat de auto voorkomt dat je een voetganger aanrijdt door in het uiterste geval zelf te remmen. Die foto’s die Glass maakt zijn misschien nog maar een fractie van alle foto’s en signalen die worden opgevangen door alle auto’s straks. Er is natuurlijk wel een verschil. In de auto zit geen mens aan de andere kant van het glas die naar de beelden kijkt.

Voor marketeers en mediamakers is het interessant te beseffen dat met de nieuwe golf ‘intimate mobile devices’ of ‘wearables’ weliswaar een heel nieuw speelveld ontstaat waarin marketingcommunicatie en -concepten kunnen worden bedacht, vol met mogelijkheden om dat toe te spitsen op die ene persoon. Maar aan de andere kant zorgen die devices ervoor dat mensen argwanend worden. De vraag is of de data die wordt afgegeven bij het gebruik van wearables niet ‘permission-based’ moet zijn. Google heeft met Glass daarin een interessante positie gekozen. Door het interactiemodel van diensten met triggers is het alleen mogelijk succesvol te zijn op deze device als je superrelevant communiceert. Als je daar dan specifieke data van die consument nodig hebt is de kans een stuk groter dat die wordt afgegeven.

Daarin zijn er modellen te bedenken waarin die data een tijdelijk karakter heeft. Zoals bij de radardata van de Mercedes. Het denken over profileren van consumenten moet verschuiven naar herkennen van gedrag, en daar op inspelen. Lerende systemen zijn daarin essentieel. Zoals een NEST thermostaat van je gedrag leert, het is niet voor niks dat Google deze partij heeft gekocht; Google is bij uitstek de partij om deze kennis te verfijnen en op basis van anonieme profielen heel veel input te geven aan marketeers. Context as a Service kan Google als de beste aanbieden.

De wearables zijn zeer interessant en maken een hoop los. Dat zal de komende tijd vaker gebeuren. Overigens reageerde de directeur van het Rijksmuseum later via Twitter dat Glass wel welkom is. Een teken hoe we nog zoeken naar de goede vorm voor deze datagedreven context.

Connected Everyday and the life of things

I was lucky to notice a tweet on Thursday evening, otherwise I would have missed a symposium at the Faculty of Industrial Design Engineering in Delft at Friday, dedicated to Connected Everyday. The symposium is dedicated to the inaugural lecture of Elisa Giaccardi later that day, but I was triggered with the line-up of speakers in the morning. Three of them I knew already by their reputation for good thinking on a field I find most interesting; connected products and the deeper impacts.

We live in a world where digital data, material objects and social practices are increasingly connected and interdependent. What are the challenges in designing for this new ecology of materials, artefacts and interactions?

Paul Dourish started off with a more philosophical look to the concept of Everyday. He mentioned different concepts of Everyday: Everyday as ubiquitous, everyday as casual, as residual, as repressive, as revolutionary, as collective, as site of study, as site of design.

Everyday is restructuring our perspective on life, my everyday is different from yours. As site of study it is interesting how he described the participation in the researchable world. Reshaping the concepts of everyday through design is in the end the topic of now.

Next was Chris Speed. He talked on Fast Algorithms and Slow things. And the concepts of time. The framework of everyday is future and past. He explored a bit further into the notion of time. Showing how stories told in movies of 6 seconds on Vine have a different meaning as the 140 characters of Twitter, that cost us also 6 seconds to read. And he let us experience via Speeder how speeding up the reading pace transforms meaning.

Sensors make us watch without eyes. New realities emerge. I liked his app TMIY, Take Me I’m Yours, where you can put geofenced based messages to objects based on place and time. The theory of spimes brought to practice. I think his distinction between objects and things, where things have context of presence, is very valuable. New economic models will emerge from the connected things.

Third speaker was Ron Wakkary. I did not see a talk of him before, but I liked it very much. He goes into the way we need to design for these everyday practices. We don’t call it functionality, it just does things. He also reject the idea of users. We have to look to these new things as self controlling entities. Unselfconsious interactions.

Screenshot 2014-01-27 04.27.32
A model

He used a couple of research project that made sense. The table non table project and the indoor weather station. Both designed for a kind of own will in the things. And as his main conclusion: “that over time lead to subjective and possibly unknowing improvements in the relationships of artifacts, evironments and people.”

Last speaker was Jack Schulze. Well-known for his agency BERG London, that is now fully transformed into a product company BERG Cloud with signature product Little Printer. He did not talk on this product, but on more meta level consequences of these new products. Systems are leaking into our experiences. Every connected product brings a system with it.

The example of cash is very strong. The product itself is quite simple. A coin. But it represents a lot. Like ownership. That change as you don’t hold the coin yourself. The object is just a carrier of the system behind it. And make the context of use clear.
And the example of Google; as a search action to pizaa of 0.26 seconds can return 213 million result, what is the thing carrying with it.

There are four orders of products, an evolution.

  1. Shelf demonstrable value
  2. Action at a distance, autonomous connection
  3. Independent connection to the web, the objects are part of the services of the internet
  4. They speak to and affect each other, an ecology of things

To use something, you have to be able to perceive it. You have to make things that have heart. That is what connects us to the things. Like the Apple iOS comparison to Android. iPhone feels better because the makers care.

The panel discussion delivered some extra bits of insights. The format to let objects ask questions to the speakers worked out very well. We learned a nice entertaining activity; read the reviews of the Roomba and see how the product is having a soul for people.

Schulze added that it is remarkable to realize how the very same book of 1999 -say Harry Potter- is so different now with all its context you get when reading in 2014. That is the impact of systems and spimes.

Wakkary put it nice: products are interventions in situations. And as Chris Speed said; objects are no things. Things are events with objects as artefacts. Combine this with algorithms and it can get messy.

Do we lose agency with exponential technologies?

At Monday September 9 I attended another edition of Singularity University NL sessions, this time on Ethics, Values and Norms. The short seminar consisted of one keynote by Philip Bery, professor in Philosophy of Technology at University of Twente. Next to that Yuri van Geest, ambassador of Singularity University in the Netherlands gave some extra context. The attendees discussed the topic in four groups: big data/AI, robotics/drones, bio,

Philip Bery layed out the work they do on formulating ethical models. The focus on value design is interesting for all of us designers, especially if we are moving in systems that are influencing our life. As he made clear, the technology changes our agency of life.

Bery stated that ethical issues are always present, even if we do not know yet if and what issues technology trigger. We need to design proactively technology artifacts to promote desired values. It is a balancing act between technology features, values and context of use.

Yuri showed some interesting examples after the talk of Bery, like the Nordstrom tracking case (that seems to be stopped already) and the bio attack thread that can take place on a personal level now. He made clear that our behavior generates unique sets of data, that can be connected to the very person. So we need to manage our data exhaust.

In the group discussions it turns out – judging the presentations at the end – that central themes for all was unawareness of the consequences, and the need for literacy, and the losing of agency that is the result.

In the group discussions the proposed solutions remain on the first level like creating rules and education. Philip Bery proposed value-sensitive design is in that sense a better fundament for thinking on these topics, the real shift needs some serious shift in thinking.

It was valuable to notice the attitude of this audience and the willing to seriously discuss these topics. Hope it will be a integrated part in our shaping of the future.

Design for the new Industrial Age

For the Dutch Design Week of 2012 (20 – 28 October) I was invited to share my vision on the changing role of the designer in our post digital age we are entering fast. I did a long version on the convention floor twice and a shorter one at the conference.


In my long version I first sketched how our life is influenced by the digital context. We are used to the availability of digital content. We have the world of knowledge at our fingertips all the time with our smartphone, we choose media more and more on demand and we customise our physical products like we do with digital ones. The concept of code/space is inspiring in that. In a lot of situations the digital context is crucial for the functioning. No connection means no function. Think of an airport.

Products can not live without the services that are integrated. Apple is learning that hard lesson with their Map-gate where the poor quality of the map is defining the quality perception of the iPhone more than ever.

Digital as default. We see that the Internet is not only connecting services and people, but also things. With the new IPv6 standard we have enough addresses to connect all products to the Internet. Interesting new products emerge.
The interesting products are those that are designed from a valuable usage. Things with internet will be smarter and get new interaction principles, like the Nest thermostat. Learning from the behaviour and using contextual data from as well within the home with sensors as from outside with the connection to the latest weather reports.

Interesting are also products that are more mundane, or even ‘crappy’. Like the fridge magnet pizza button. A connected button that delivers you a pizza by pushing the button.
Simply adding connectivity can deliver a lot of value. Like with Asthmapolis where every puff of an asthma patient contributes to a map of dirty-air places.

Digital as default and ubiquitous virtuality has lead to a new romantic feeling for the real. Making the data tangible again is happening more and more. The makers movement is hot. We like printing your own old-fashioned newspaper or creating beautiful installations around our virtual presence.

3D printing fits this development. We see a rapid democratizing of 3D printing. Now as a gadget for the high brow at the Bijenkorf Dol Dwaze Dagen, next year just a couple of hunderds of euro for printing simple stuff. And very accessible service providers for more complex stuff. New types of products are emerging, with hard to make forms and with personalised scripted products, products that are designed but also leave a lot open for the end buyer to make its own.

With digital default we see that services become predictive using big data. Like Google Now, where the service knows more (or at least earlier) about you than you self do.
Products will be always the part of an ecosystem. A cloud system like Bergcloud introduces with their Little Printer. Not the printer is the product, but the Bergcloud you build in your home wil be the product you buy and use for all kind of connected output devices.

The ultimate personalised one fits just one product will happen more and more. Made possible by kits that we as designers will be making for users, like the Homesense Kit.

Products will be hackable by default. Remixing IKEA as example is now something for a niche group of users. It will be part of the service IKEA offers.
And products will adapt the use. Like the dashboard of the new Volvo V40 that fits your driving style.

And so we will see that new capabilities of designers are addressed. We cannot design for all, we need to design for remix, for adaption. Scripted products like the example made by Soundcloud and Shapeways – The Vibe – where a case is designed around the forms of waveforms. Waveforms the user can choose himself.

This does not mean that the role of the designer is played out. It changes. We will see especially places like Etsy emerge within big manufactures where the designers will be connected to the users, and manufacturing will be like Kickstarter, pitching the products ideas to the buyer before producing and starting a dialogue.

So the new designer should be prepared for the new Industrial Revolution as Chris Andersen puts it so right. The principles of the Long Tail will be part of all our products we buy and use.
As designer you should start changing your behaviour to make very personal products, both personal with a story as personalised by the buyer.
And the designer should design open products. Products that are hackable or are ready for personal extensions.
And products should be smart. The Big Data that is produced by the connected products is not meant for big infrastructures, but is used to create tiny services for just that one user.


PICNIC Innovation mashup

Last Tuesday I visited a new event organized by the PICNIC organization; the innovation mashup. In the morning four speakers shared their visions, of which those from Shell and IDEO stand out. In the afternoon there were different workshops organized to think on innovation. I attended the one of colleague agency Frog to experience their methods of creative collaborative thinking, which is comparable to the approach we have. Sitting together with people from different backgrounds thinking on a case was a good experience.

In stead of doing a full report I publish my Storified tweets. Marcel Kampman did a nice video report of the day too.

  1. iskandr
    Recipe. Create a business model and perform stress test on all elements per future scenarios. #picnic12
  2. iskandr
    @kevinrommen ik geloof dat het verschil niet zit in de creatieve oplossing, maar in de executie. Maar creativiteit is overal uiteraard.
  3. iskandr
    Corporate research is driven by speed vs failure. Failure is a gift. But be aware to own your own failure to learn. #picnic12 #shell
  4. iskandr
    ButterflyWorks: Everyone is an expert, make it count for commitment, play the orchestra for structure, analogies are your friends #picnic12
  5. iskandr
    Andrea Mallard of IDEO is super bored by talking on design thinking. The culture is more important to the success than the method #picnic12
  6. iskandr
    10 cultural quirks of IDEO. 1. Rituals vs rules. Rituals are more important, rules can enable the rituals. #picnic12
  7. iskandr
    Cuitural quirk 2. Play vs. work. Play is method to engage employees and quality of work. If it isnt fun it isnt working #ideo #picnic12
  8. iskandr
    Quirk 3. Personal vs. professional. Everybody cries at ideo. Because they care enough #picnic12
  9. iskandr
    Quirk 4. Failure vs. success. Fail talent show. Bad ideas has the chance to be great, good ideas are doomed to be good #picnic12
  10. iskandr
    Cultural quirk 5. Space vs. stuff. Space to enables the right kind of behaviour. In times of crises you don’t cut the m&m budget #picnic12
  11. iskandr
    Quirk 6. Prototyping vs. perfection. Invest nothing to be able to let go. Test ideas, not execution. #picnic12 #ideo
  12. iskandr
    Cultural quirk 8. Forgiveness vs. permission of initatives. 9. Purpose vs prize 10. Challengers vs. Followers #picnic12 #ideo
  13. iskandr
    Vodafone wants especially innovate on mhealth. DIY health. Because it happening, and the money flows there now #picnic12
  14. iskandr
    Complexity of the development of mhealth is the gap IT and health. A new challenge is organized by Vodafone. #picnic12

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 36 other followers