Yesterday a smartphone upgrade was announced and publicly presented in a much-awaited marketing event. While the public expected a “new model”, an “elevated version” of the existing model was offered instead. There were disappointed journalists and technology analysts, who were frustrated to see that they had been caught wrong in their predictions and speculations. What was perhaps more serious was the fact that the maker’s stock price took a temporary plunge. The reception of the aforementioned announcement was mainly based on two facts: (a) the “new” device was offered in the same physical container, and (b) the codename of the new product did not reflect enough change (the device was named as a version of an existing model number, i.e. as a third degree differentiation in the hierarchy [product name, model number, version letter] instead of a second degree differentiation). Apparently, shape and name are more or less superficial properties of the product, and a serious evaluation should have been based on functionality improvement. While the public reaction is a complex social, psychological, historical, and economic phenomenon, there is a question central to its heart: How does the average consumer understand quality and innovation in technology?
The reaction could be considered as yet another example to the old “form vs. content” problem of philosophy, assuming that the case (with attributes such as shape, material and color) and the name are expressions of “form”, while functionality is an expression of “content”. It takes a 21st century human a second to feel form, it may take years to taste and appreciate functionality. Also, the diversity of opinions on functionality matters is much wider than the diversity on form. Once more it seems that a content improvement is not enough, if it is not accompanied by a change in form, which in fact implies that the appreciation mechanisms of today’s humans are still tailored to the needs of the prehistoric era. Anyway, is a smart phone anything more than an advanced tool?
The moral of the story (“one must always signal content change with sufficient form change”) has serious repercussions on the future of technology, as we understand it today. Significant investments have been made on pervasive computing (or ambient intelligence) technologies. However, a major objective of pervasive computing is seamless integration with human activities. Unfortunately, humans seem incapable of appreciating seamless functionality, unless they are somehow forced to sense its absence.
There is an interesting exercise, which illustrates this point. After a long period of continuous smartphone usage I feel bored, overly addicted, and perhaps abused by the telecom industry. That is why once in a few months I subject myself to voluntary smartphone deprivation. I usually repent my decision in less than a week, as I miss certain functionality other than making plain phone calls and sending messages. However, appreciation by absence is relatively difficult to achieve, because it requires former presence. The prevalence of form over content in human valuation mechanisms implies an inherent difficulty in making pervasive computing and other “seamless” technologies acceptable by the general public. Inverting the prevalence of form over content is not only a philosophical challenge, but also a major issue in promoting and financing the aforementioned technologies.
The reaction could be considered as yet another example to the old “form vs. content” problem of philosophy, assuming that the case (with attributes such as shape, material and color) and the name are expressions of “form”, while functionality is an expression of “content”. It takes a 21st century human a second to feel form, it may take years to taste and appreciate functionality. Also, the diversity of opinions on functionality matters is much wider than the diversity on form. Once more it seems that a content improvement is not enough, if it is not accompanied by a change in form, which in fact implies that the appreciation mechanisms of today’s humans are still tailored to the needs of the prehistoric era. Anyway, is a smart phone anything more than an advanced tool?
The moral of the story (“one must always signal content change with sufficient form change”) has serious repercussions on the future of technology, as we understand it today. Significant investments have been made on pervasive computing (or ambient intelligence) technologies. However, a major objective of pervasive computing is seamless integration with human activities. Unfortunately, humans seem incapable of appreciating seamless functionality, unless they are somehow forced to sense its absence.
There is an interesting exercise, which illustrates this point. After a long period of continuous smartphone usage I feel bored, overly addicted, and perhaps abused by the telecom industry. That is why once in a few months I subject myself to voluntary smartphone deprivation. I usually repent my decision in less than a week, as I miss certain functionality other than making plain phone calls and sending messages. However, appreciation by absence is relatively difficult to achieve, because it requires former presence. The prevalence of form over content in human valuation mechanisms implies an inherent difficulty in making pervasive computing and other “seamless” technologies acceptable by the general public. Inverting the prevalence of form over content is not only a philosophical challenge, but also a major issue in promoting and financing the aforementioned technologies.
