Design Sojourn | Strategic Industrial Design Blog

Great post! I think that the most successful products of the future will be:

-based on humanistic values
-of cultural relevance
-sensorial
-sustainable
-iconic

It goes for both tangible and intangible products. The sensorial part has of course to be developed concerning the intangible products…

DT said: “sounds to me like a discussion moving towards ubiquitous computing which is a whole different ball game”

That’s where you seem to get off on a rather large tangent. I’m using the term “ubiquitous” differently. Tires are ubiquitous. Buttons to turn things on and off are ubiquitous. Ubiquitous computing carries a different connotation because it’s not referring to an object, but to sense of integrated connectivity in which the world is immersed. Furthermore, from the Xerox “sandbox” website:

Ubiquitous computing is roughly the opposite of virtual reality. Where virtual reality puts people inside a computer-generated world, ubiquitous computing forces the computer to live out here in the world with people. Virtual reality is primarily a horse power problem; ubiquitous computing is a very difficult integration of human factors, computer science, engineering, and social sciences.

- Link

The issue we’re discussing (I think) is with products *enabled* for Web 2.0 functionality. That’s not ubiquitous computing. Furthermore, the term “access” does not account for issues involving functionality.

For example, a device could tap into a phone conversation and have “access”, but if this device has no microphone then it doesn’t function on the level of the people involved in the conversation. Similarly, any device (including cell phones) can rather easily “access” Web 2.0 applications, but if they’re not designed to function at that social level, then they fail in a critical manner if they’re intended to operate as Web 2.0 devices. The device without a microphone tapping into a conversation is still a plausible device because it’s purpose may be to eavesdrop. However, a similarly handicapped device intended for Web 2.0 functionality misses the whole point of Web 2.0 interaction… unless it’s cross-linked to some other Web 2.0 application and functions at that level.

The problem is that the social conversation involved with Web 2.0 applications is not easily defined. There is no standard, and that’s part of the confusion over what Web 2.0 is. As more and more applications integrate VoIP into their applications, that piece of software is enabling one kind of conversation. Accessing it with a text-only device may not be sufficient. Even with text-to-voice conversion, people talk faster than they type. However, some applications will not benefit from VoIP and text-only devices will be fine for those.

Consequently, when access is easy, the question becomes “How is this device intended to be used to facilitate the social interaction of its users”. Is VoIP necessary? Is text the basis of that particular application? Something else?

DT said: “Ubiquitous computing is something everyone has been talking about for a very long time but to me this will never become a reality until you can jack your mind into the web. Why? It’s about understanding tangibility.”

You might want to go back and really give this some thought. The tangibility thing loses me.

Tangibility

DT said: “and focusing too much on the virtual web is coming from the wrong direction.”

Where is anyone focusing on the “virtual web” and “simulated virtual replacements”? That’s a different conversation imo.

DT said: “I started this post with a quote by Karim, and what he is leading up to is really all about how products now need to compete with intangible experiences.”

I don’t keep track of Rashid’s musings on these topics, so a link to this or a quote would be helpful to me. Thanks.

DT said: “If I can expand on this thus products, to compete, need to provide good if not better experiences to such intangible products. Or in other words better experiences to a sense of ownership, a sense of freedom, a sense of dialog, and a sense of belonging that current Web 2.0 technologies provide.”

The whole “compete” thing loses me. Without the tangible product (CD disk, DVD disk, computer, routers, etc) there is effectively no Experience in the context of this conversation. That’s why I use the term “symbiotic” in my own post:

Sony is perhaps already creating symbiotic relationships between product and service and social networks.

You seem to still think that these things are somehow competing. I don’t understand that point of view since, for me, these things have to exist in harmony to be done correctly.

To expand on the earlier analogy, regular tires exist in harmony with average roads and slicks are intended to interface with racetracks. On the other hand, knobby’s are designed for off-road. We design streets and racetracks. Thus, in those products, there is an attempt on both sides to exist in harmony to promote the Experience. The best a designer of knobby tires intended for natural terrain can do is *tailor” the tire to an anticipated Experience by targeting the type of terrain (sandy, rocky, grassy, wet, aso). And that’s still an attempt toward a symbiotic relationship. No tire designer considers the ground as competition.

DT said: “let me go out on a limb here by saying people will tire of these simulated virtual replacements.”

Too bad Timothy Leary isn’t around to debate this with you. But again, this whole line of discussion doesn’t seem relevant to me. However, I will say this: you don’t need to go out on a limb. Spend some time trying it and then decide.

DT said: “Why? There continues to be a lot of research on the fact that people crave authentic experiences, as evident in this awesome trend primers Insperiences and Tryvertising. Take a look at them to see what I mean.”

You really misrepresent the “Insperiences” article here imo. From the article:

So the big thing in the world of domestic bliss right now? How about re-creating experiences from the outside world into INSPERIENCES for the home? Mind you, INSPERIENCES will be as much about extending these experiences as flat out replacing them: consumers will still choose to visit a ‘real’ Crunch gym on the weekend, they will still hang out in bars with friends, they will still stay in hotels, and they will still come to the office for meetings and human contact.

The only person talking about *replacing* is you. Neither I nor Trendwatching is suggesting this. Of course people “crave authentic experiences”. Now define what that means. What exactly *is* authentic? Is this internet conversation we’re having not authentic?

Again, you seem to be coming at this from a singular point of view. The Trendwatching article on INSPERIENCES is all about people bringing worldly experiences *into* the home which is kinda what televisions and Web 2.0 and videogames and virtual worlds do. Trendwatching provides a caveat that going outside the home is still important. Of course it is. But it’s a caveat, and not a basis for your conclusions.

As for TRYVERTISING, I’m familiar with the term, but not sure what the relevance is of that article to this conversation or your point. As Business Pundit.com said “Actually, tryvertising isn’t new, but it’s the first time I’ve seen that word.” Trendwatching seems to me to place a premium on words they make up (it’s one reason I don’t bother reading them very often; they seem to me to just glom onto ideas and give them a custom name to get some buzz and ad revenue).

DT said: “1) Advertising for products in the virtual world, can it really represent the real thing?”

You didn’t read my comment closely enough. I said:

Now, the difference between a television ad for Nissan and a virtual Nissan vehicle is the difference between passive information transfer and active engagement.

I didn’t say it would “represent the real thing”. Far from it. I’m saying that a virtual product communicates features better than traditional advertising - like seeing a 2D image on a television screen or in a product brochure. That’s very, very different from what you’re going on about here.

DT said: “2) According to John Hurliman, Jeffrey Gomez created a plugin for blender that allows the software program to import and export the files for use in second life.”

Incorrect. Gomez (with whom I’ve worked) has created a Blender plug-in for export to SL. There are excellent reasons for having this ability, but you’d have to be engaged with SL to know why. Hurliman is the one trying to get data out. There are also good reasons for getting the data out. However, as a designer I have my own very compelling reasons for getting the data out. That you as a designer don’t implicitly understand those reasons is a bit of a shock to me. Your comment:

I believe it’s because being entirely visual, the stimulus causes the user to be tired. Bringing the product back into the realms of the other 4 senses is just a lot more comforting.

is well off the mark. The people doing this - Hurliman, Gomez, myself, and others - are involved in the technology. We’re product development people and researchers. It’s not the Consumers trying to get the data out!

Perceived Value

I have no clue why you’re discussing this in the context of the original topic. I do see some things I’d take issue with as I’ve had quite a few discussions on the topics and issues you raise here, but again, I don’t see the clear relevance to the issue of designing products for Web 2.0 functionality.

If you could somehow elaborate on this while tying it into the topic of designing products for Web 2.0 that would be helpful to me. Thanks.

Where does the product come back in?

DT said: “To me it’s really not a good idea to view tangible products, and its intangible Web 2.0 services or software as one, simply because it glosses over a very important factor. That is the bridge between the two. To me that’s where Industrial Designers can play the biggest role which is to think of creative solutions to link up the two.

Wow. I completely disagree here. That’s like a tire designer ignoring the contact patch of the road or the terrain. How does that person decide what the tire is? It’s like being on an island and deciding to design and build a bridge to the mainland, only your only point of view is from the ground on which you’re standing, so you don’t know how far across it is, or how deep the water is (just to name a few of the very many factors that need to be considered). How can you design the bridge without understanding the gulf between them? And how can you understand the gulf without acquiring a perspective which includes all the relevant elements?

By viewing the whole - viewing the tangible devices and the Web 2.0 services as part of “one” overall system and one Experience - designers can work toward optimizing both and thus improve the singular Experience. By ignoring the overall system, it seems to me we fall into the arrogant trap of ignoring the singular element that should drive the design: the User.

I appears you’ve added a couple of paragraphs to the end of your post. Let me address those:

DT said: “I’m also not saying we should view the two as separate. Far from it, I believe that products should be viewed as a window or an interface to access these intangible Web 2.0 services, as the future is the two is walking hand in hand. Connected but yet separate, harnessing intangible experiences with very tangible products.”

Forgive the comparison, but this sounds like the “separate but equal” argument made by those in America who wanted to separate people along racial lines yet call them equals. It’s inherently flawed imo. And you’re effectively doing the same thing here afaic: you’re giving lip-service to the idea of integration, but focusing on the differences and keeping them separate. How does that make sense when the goal is a singular Experience?

What I’m suggesting to you is that there is perhaps Designer bias at play here. The tangible product is separate in your mind because designing it is what you do; it’s your job. You don’t design the Web 2.0 application, thus it’s importance is a separate, intangible thing. And by separating it off, you seem to me to be effectively belittling that importance.

DT said: “Considering it all as one, puts the tangibility vs. intangibility aspect into a black hole that leaves a lot of question marks, as well as trying to merge something against all known laws of physics.”

Huh?

I believe you’re still caught up in that one-off comment I made about fabbers. I could just have easily said “flexible display electronics”. The point was that there are plenty of products left to design; not that Web 2.0 is tied to fabrication devices. Somehow you seem to have keyed on that as the whole issue here. It’s not and never was for me.

DT said: “Leveraging off Web 2.0 communities like say Nike iD + Sneakerplay is really, to me, more about a damn good marketing initiative to sell more shoes by being able to design shoes that people want instead of just guessing. What I was trying to say in my last post is not this but more about how to design meaningful products that will work with the web.”

As I stated in my own post, I see the Nike/Sneakerplay effort as a form of crowdsourcing (see my comment on Mass Custom to understand why) and a market research play. Nike appears to me to be using the social aspects of Web 2.0 to help them gauge the market, do some research by directly engaging with the “influencers”, and perhaps using that information to help them further their own development efforts.

The *reason* for bringing up Nike is not because they’re designing a Web 2.0-enabled shoe. It’s because Nike is indicating a sensitivity and sensibility regarding Web 2.0 that I believe is forward-thinking and relevant. They have been and continue to initiate efforts to understand emerging technologies and harness them… and all they really do is make shoes! Not even high-tech companies are doing that because imo the mindset is different. Most companies still have the “not designed here” mentality. I consider that a dangerous position to take.

DT said: “I believe it is the new dawning and rebirth of the infamous “Internet Applianceâ€Â?, which were essentially simple yet focused products that do one or a few things really well. I think the complexity of the product will and should remain within the software interface, and thus logically products will move away from the “paradox of convergenceâ€Â? and become a lot simpler and easier to use.”

I don’t disagree that we’ll see the return of the “Internet Appliance”, but unlike previous efforts I believe that the products will need to be designed with a better understanding of the entire system in which they exist. As you said, they’ll be “focused”. Earlier efforts were the Swiss Army knives of design; trying to do too much imo and failing at most everything. But that’s why I’m saying the issue isn’t “access” but understanding the “conversation”. To make the product simple and relevant - to keep it “focused” - we need to understand its use in a different way. And that understanding comes from a wholistic, experiential point of view that does not take a “separate but equal” stance. After all, the people using it don’t want to perceive a separation. They want seamlessness. The only way to give them that imo is to move away from an Industrial Designer tangible-product-centric point of view and design for that seamless Experience.

Quick clarification:

When I said, “The *reason* for bringing up Nike is not because they’re designing a Web 2.0-enabled shoe“, I wasn’t suggesting they *are* designing such a shoe.

Also, “wholistic” > holistic. Apologies for the incorrect spelling of the word.

Hi David,

Thanks for visiting and leaving your great points. I have always love “iconic” as a key word in design and am reciently into “sustainable” as well. Thanks for pointing it all out.

Hi csven,

Wow, a great comments and a very detailed analysis. I honestly appreciated you taking the time and effort to got through the post and leaving your comments, almost line by line even.

Also even though I did not agree with a lot of what you said, I must admit after reading your comments, I had one of those “Aha!” moments when what you were saying fell into place. My big take away on what you said is that it is about creating a “seamless experience” rather than seeing it as two parts and that pretty much hit it on the head. Also many apologies on the misquoting of Gomez for Hurliman as well as its context. That teaches me to not skim through posts so quickly!

However I wont go into to detail in to a lot of your points such as “separate but equal” or “building a bridge to the mainland but not knowing how far it goes” or the fact that I seem to “effectively belittling that importance” of seeing the two as one. Not because your point are not important to me actually far from that. But the gist of my entire post perhaps not clearly stated is about this relationship between the two and the difficulty of getting the two to play together well. In other words, yes we can and should see it all as one experience, but the reality of getting it to work together has a lot of problems, of which the biggest two in my opinion is what I have stated is the tangibility factor and perceived value, both complete polar opposites to each other when you consider the product vs the web 2.0.

This topic also stems from personal experiences in designing a product with a “seamless web 2.0 experience” (see I am listening!). I am actually designing both the product and the web 2.0 experience, and reconciling the two aspects are the main problems now, in particular because we wanted an experience that could not be created as it was constraint by the hardware. I will consider what you have said and see if that makes a difference. That’s what I like about the Internet, debate, discussion, and learning from others. Thanks again.

Sigh, I was so engrossed in typing this I forgot to make my ebay bid…a product solution here?

I agree that building what I’m calling a symbiotic relationship between products we buy in the store and applications we use on the internet isn’t easy. If it were, we’d see more of them because I believe the way has been pointed by companies like Apple (iPod/iTunes) and RIM (Blackberry). Unfortunately I still don’t understand the point you’re making with regard to Tangibility. Again, it sounds as if you’re putting the Web 2.0 applications (virtual/intangible) at odds with devices that access them (real/tangible), but at this stage of our technological development I’m unsure why.

You said the biggest issue was in the conflict between tangibility and perceived value:

the biggest two in my opinion is what I have stated is the tangibility factor and perceived value, both complete polar opposites to each other when you consider the product vs the web 2.0.

With regard to Perceived Value, I’d point out that “perceived” value between tangible and intangible are not necessarily “polar opposites”; by definition it depends on the audience/consumer. Rather, “Inherent Value” is closest to being a polar opposite because that gets into issues of tangibility (btw, “inherent” is a term you’ll find in some Terms of Service agreements for that very reason). Let’s expand on this.

Sure you could sell your “farmed� gold from World of Warcraft or some powerful in game item for cold hard cash, but its value is only important to a very select group of people.

Let’s look at the above comment you made a bit more closely. What is the Perceived Value of a US$100 bill? That depends on where you live. In the EU it’s less than in the US according to exchange rate; US$100 doesn’t have the same purchasing power in the EU as it does in the United States.

Now to some primitive tribe of people still living in the Rain Forest who don’t use currency at all, its Perceived Value is the same as its Inherent Value. So what is the Inherent Value of the US$100 bill? Next to nothing. And it doesn’t really matter where you live, because it’ll likely be about the same. Paper is paper in the Real world, and that US$100 bill is actually just a small piece of paper. If someone cuts a piece of scrap paper to the same dimensions, draws a face and writes “$100″ on it the thing is still only a piece of paper. The difference between the two is purely in the *virtual* abstraction of what its Perceived Value is. Consequently, I’d argue that we’ve had a symbiosis of the tangible and intangible for ages. The real difference now imo is that the Internet is making people more aware of just how abstract our supposedly “real” world is.

Okay, so people crack DRM, replicate and distribute digital information (software, mp3’s, mpegs, etc) that from a business perspective is Product. Does that mean people don’t value those things? that because this Product isn’t Tangible people don’t Perceive them as having Value? Of course not. They value them alright. If they didn’t, they wouldn’t exhaust any of their irreplaceable Time to be inconvienced with harvesting them. They wouldn’t bother going through hacker “Read Me” files to figure out where to put some piece of included code in order to bypass licensing schemes. They wouldn’t risk putting their computers in danger of viral infection by downloading unknown applications and data files. In short, people go through a lot of bother to get these intangible Products. But what they are also doing is recognizing that these things - like money - have no truly Inherent Value, and as a consequence, the Perceived Value is lowered. When replication is as easy as pushing a button, what other conclusion is there?

For example, if news today broke that US$100 bills were being perfectly counterfeited and distributed, people would be made more aware that the paper money in their hands is only a representation of something else: gold and silver. And if they stop and really understand that it’s only a representation, then the Perceived Value drops. The Inherent Value hasn’t changed. If you burn the paper, it’ll give off the same amount of heat regardless.

Let’s take that another step. What is the Inherent Value of gold? If the economy were to collapse today but I somehow managed to be handed the gold that is supposedly represented in my scraps of paper, what do I *do* with it? I’m no metalsmith. And if the economy falls apart, I’m only interested in three things: food, water, shelter. Gold provides none of those things. To me, it’s Inherent Value isn’t even as good as the paper which I can burn to cook my food. It only acquires value when I can use it in trade to get those basic necessities. Only when I can exchange it, does it’s Perceived Value increase. Now imagine that the marketplace where I can exchange my gold is online. Suddenly, the Perceived Value of that online service goes up considerably, doesn’t it?

Now, tangible goods are *already* subject to piracy. Happens all the time. But the people doing it are rather sophisticated in that they have the money and the tools to do it. But as the means become available, tangible goods *will* be subject to piracy by consumers. There’s already an Open Hardware License in the works for distributing real product information online so that people can fabricate their own. There are already databases being built for 3D objects so that they can be fabricated by anyone with access to the internet. So when people can make their own products, what happens to Value? Well, if they can acquire the files and fabricate it themselves, Perceived Value starts to drop. Eventually, I’d propose, what we’ll have is a world where the building blocks - plastic pellets, liquid polymers… the things we use in home fabrication units - become valued commodities and outstrip the end products created from them. We’ll be a world where the printer is free and the ink cartridge costs an arm and a leg! And the Design? Well, our efforts become no different than those of musicians, writers, filmmakers, and anyone else whose products have already migrated from atoms to bits. That is why I ripped the 3D file from the videostream and took it into Pro/E a couple of years ago; to show the Industrial Design community what’s coming.

A few years back I told the people on the Core77 forum that most of the products we design will be given away for free; just the way that toasters are handed out when people open bank accounts. There was once a time when electric toasters were highly valued. Now they’re not. Think about it: Tangible goods of lesser value than intangible Service.

Once you recognize that Service is simply migrating to Web 2.0 functionality, I think you’ll recognize that the only thing actually different is the rate of change in our general Awareness and the inability for businesses built on a separation between the “real” and the “virtual” to deal with these changes, because the Perceived Value of Tangible things has been dropping for years. Only back then it was controlled by Business institutions. That’s increasingly no longer the case.

Future Product Thinking…

For what it’s worth, I’ve been trading comments on the Design Sojourn blog on… well… it started off as a discussion on developing devices that worked with Web 2.0 (recall my earlier post on that - reLink). The discussion has si…

Hi csven,

Sorry for the late reply. I’ve been out of the home with limited internet access; however I have not been idle and have been spending the time thinking about this.

Perhaps you are looking too deep into this and/or perhaps I have not explained it clear. My ideas on tangibility and perceive value (or inherent value if you like) is really more from how a designer approaches a design problem.

Tangibility issues to me boils down to the idea of software interface vs. the hardware interface. When should you use a touch screen or when should you use buttons to navigate is just one example. What I’m saying here is creating the right user experience between the two, creating the control or interface. Nuts and bolts thinking and creating the tangible interface that best manages the Web 2.0. That’s why this interface excites me so much.

The other issue I spoke about is perceived value. This to me is more about how and why people treasure and value a product they buy. This has an impact to product branding, product longevity and sustainable design. It’s not so much about putting a money value to it, (perhaps my Mp3 example is not correct) but how the factors though opposite is able to increase a value of a product.

Let me explain why the curse of the net is FREE. With the easy start up of Web 2.0 products, it means it dies extremely quickly. Delete from the server and it’s gone. Furthermore my point with software upgrades and everything being in beta, you never really have to keep anything. Sure there are things that people value online, but more often than not its user created. That’s why so many companies are looking at user creation (crowd sourcing) as a marketing strategy, not because it’s about power to the people, it’s about giving people an emotional attachment.

So what I am pointing out in both my comments in “tangibility� and “perceived value� is my argument that the Web 2.0+ cannot exist without products, thus the future of the Web 2.0 sustainability has to leave the virtual and enter the real. Vice versa products need to embrace the Web 2.0 to survive. Seamless experience as you say is the key.

Perhaps its biases, but I do not think the world will move into a total customer create environment. It will just become a given purchasing requirement, just like S/M/L in shirts, or airbags in cars, or internet access on phones etc. The reason will mainly be about convenience which is what the major market is about. Only time will tell if this will move from a niche market situation into mainstream. Don’t forget what we are reading on the internet is just a subset of the entire population (you know the usual adage about he who shouts the loudest) and would be bad market research to based it all on that.

Ultimately the problem will be control and the delivery of the experience. This is really about the argument of Apple/Microsoft vs Linus and Symbian. I think the solution will fall in a happy medium. Products which can be bought whole or with the ability to be customize.

Tangibility issues to me boils down to the idea of software interface vs. the hardware interface. When should you use a touch screen or when should you use buttons to navigate is just one example.

This is certainly different than this earlier comment and the associated explanations:

Yes I agree the ultimate integration of product + web will become ubiquitous. But this “conversation� after it connects sounds to me like a discussion moving towards ubiquitous computing which is a whole different ball game. Ubiquitous computing is something everyone has been talking about for a very long time but to me this will never become a reality until you can jack your mind into the web. Why? It’s about understanding tangibility.

In that part you were juxtaposing tangible product with virtual objects inside a 3D space (e.g. “unless we ‘jack in’ … tangible products are hear to stay, and a lot of the current hype on the virtual net could come to naught“) while using “ubiquitous computing” to mean some kind of seamless integration of virtuality and reality (when that’s not what it is). I found this to be rather confusing, as I wasn’t suggesting any of this in my comments.

Now you’re moving back to what I was discussing in the very beginning, only afaic you’re maintaining the bias that the hardware is more important than the software. Because even though you’re no longer talking in terms of “intangible=virtual reality”, you’re apparently still equating the idea of “authentic experiences” to Tangibility, as if something intangible isn’t authentic. I disagree.

With regard to Perceived Value, you initially stated:

the tangibility factor and perceived value, both complete polar opposites to each other when you consider the product vs the web 2.0.

Now you’re saying

This to me is more about how and why people treasure and value a product they buy. This has an impact to product branding, product longevity and sustainable design. It’s not so much about putting a money value to it, (perhaps my Mp3 example is not correct) but how the factors though opposite is able to increase a value of a product.

Who says people treasure and value products they buy? Do they? Are you sure??? I don’t.

If this is true, then why is there a trend among some people to eliminate tangible things from their lives? Maybe not in Asia. But in the U.S. more and more people are starting to live as I do. I gave away all my furniture seven years ago. I have no bed. I have no dresser or table with chairs. I have one desk. One desk chair. One drafting table. That’s all my furniture in a rather large two bedroom apartment. I have been systemically removing the rest from my life and rarely purchase products. I have interest in buying stuff. And more and more people are doing the same because people increasingly value Experience more than Things. Tangible things are like anchors to Freedom. They have to be cared for, they have to be watched over, they have to be moved. I don’t want to *worry* about Things. I don’t want to *care* for Things. I prefer to worr about and care for people.

It’s the Freedom from Things that allows people like me to have more Experiences, usually with friends and family. My furniture didn’t improve my Life Experience. It worsened it. So I gave it all away and that made me happy (this is probably where I should recommend the movie “Fight Club”). And I’m not alone in how I feel. You can read more here - Link.

The Things I still own have no worth to almost anyone but me. And I don’t value them because they’re Tangible. I value them because they remind me of someone and of my Experiences with them. Usually these Things are photographs. How often when people lose a home do they talk about “irreplaceable” things? Almost always. Those things have *real* value. They are quite often only photographs. Now what difference does it make if that image is printed on old paper or displayed on a computer screen? I don’t think it matters much. People are tied to their memories, not to some molecules.

You say “Let me explain why the curse of the net is FREE.” I may argue with a lot of people about DRM, but I don’t do it because I think FREE=Curse.

With the easy start up of Web 2.0 products, it means it dies extremely quickly. Delete from the server and it’s gone.

Again, you attach importance in ways I don’t understand. Web 2.0 is NOT about assigning value. It’s about connecting. And as such it’s about being social and about the Experiences which are, by their nature, transient. But don’t listen to me, just read all the business journals that say the same thing: Experience sells. And that’s why companies can make money with Service and give away the tangible product; people want the Experience. THAT is where Value is.

Sure there are things that people value online, but more often than not its user created. That’s why so many companies are looking at user creation (crowd sourcing) as a marketing strategy, not because it’s about power to the people, it’s about giving people an emotional attachment.

I think you miss some very, very important reasons companies want user-generated content. It’s not actually about providing people with an emotional attachment. After all, much of YouTube isn’t user-generated at all; it’s just illegally uploaded content created by others. And I assume you’re aware of numbers that have been batted around regarding how much content is actually “user-generated”.

The reason companies want user-generated content is simpler and more selfish: it’s expensive to create and next to impossible to prevent its theft. Better for the users to create the content. That’s the whole reason the videogame industry is excited about “Spore”. It’s procedural and it’ll be almost entirely user-generated (and the distribution system blew me away when I read about it).

That’s why.

So what I am pointing out in both my comments in “tangibility� and “perceived value� is my argument that the Web 2.0+ cannot exist without products, thus the future of the Web 2.0 sustainability has to leave the virtual and enter the real.

If your only point is that human beings need to use devices and that the internet wouldn’t exist without them, then we could have avoided quite a bit of discussion! As to the “future of the Web 2.0 sustainability…”, I don’t understand your point. After all, the future most likely *does* include “jacking in”. There are already brain interfaces where people can control their computers with thought only. There are already interfaces for the optic nerves so that soon people can have artificial eyes (or maybe the kinds of eyes Gibson wrote about in the 1980’s). That’s the future. There are still “real” things, but from the perspective of the end user, they’ll become increasingly less interesting, and assuming nanofactory technology does develop, then most anything can be created with little effort thus decreasing “tangible” value even further. That, however, is not what I was talking about with regard to developing products for use with Web 2.0 applications.

Perhaps its biases, but I do not think the world will move into a total customer create environment. It will just become a given purchasing requirement, just like S/M/L in shirts, or airbags in cars, or internet access on phones etc.

I don’t recall anyone saying that “the world will move into a total customer created environment”. In fact, on the Core77 forum I for one outlined what I thought a few years ago… and it wasn’t that.

Ultimately the problem will be control and the delivery of the experience. This is really about the argument of Apple/Microsoft vs Linus and Symbian. I think the solution will fall in a happy medium. Products which can be bought whole or with the ability to be customize.

Only the Experience is not Tangible. Thus designing the device needs to consider the Web 2.0 part of the equation equally, because it may be the more important factor in delivering the final intangible Experience.

correction: “I have no interest in buying stuff.”

Hi csven,

I think we have to agree to disagree. For one, I totally disagree with your belief that people are giving up tangible goods and heading towards “freedom”. In fact much of my team’s market research, which is all over the place (sorry), indicates otherwise. Furthermore just to add, we have found that in certain markets, people are getting tired of the virtual aspect of the web and looking for authentic experiences which are just that, actually physically sky diving, riding a roller coaster etc.

Anyways this is a complex topic, which I think I will stop debating now, as it seems I may not be getting my point across correctly to you as it does seem the terms I use are incorrect or examples wrong. Like the varied Web 2.0 we have touched on many topics some related and some not. I may attempt to talk about it again when I am suitably more mentally organized.

However in my opinion, Web 2.0 access and experience of it is just one of the many experiences that needs to be managed in the user’s product journey. The way you turn a product on, the sounds it produces, its interface are all examples of other experiences that add up to a total experience. In my original article, I just wanted to focus on just that one aspect, tackling the Web 2.0 experience as one in a stable of experiences a designer can draw on.

I just like to thank you again and end this post by perhaps asking you to consider the consider the biases we (as in you and I) might have as we move in an environment that is really considered the fringe where by “yes” it could be the future and its potential is huge, but its not a correct representative of the entire consumer market as a whole. Often, I have to pull myself back from it all as the risk is that it falls into what I think is mainstream because I see and read about it everyday!

For one, I totally disagree with your belief that people are giving up tangible goods and heading towards “freedom�.

Let’s make sure there’s no confusion on this point.

First off, people ARE giving up tangible goods. This IS occurring. You cannot disagree as some people are doing this now and there is a recognizable trend (pointed out by others, not me).

Second, calling this a “trend” does NOT mean that everyone will do this anymore than everyone will suddenly dress Emo style today because it’s a trend. I said “I am not alone”, not “everyone is doing this”.

I call this up because trends sometimes signal broader shifts in attitudes, and it’s the shift in how people Value stuff that’s changing and which I’m addressing here. This should be no surprise to any of us. As anything becomes increasingly available, it becomes less valuable. That’s just the Law of Supply and Demand. As China’s manufacturing output has grown, and as Wal*Mart has forced efficiencies on suppliers to keep costs low, the supply of product has exploded. That does not, however, mean people do not WANT things. Only that the Value of those things relative to some other things changes. That is what I’m suggesting.

Third, again I would caution against equating “authentic” with Tangible. After all, there is *nothing* Tangible in sky diving or riding a roller coaster. Those are intangible experiences and are as subject to intangible variables as they are to a device’s physicality. For example, if someone is excited to go skydiving and highly values the parachute and other tangible goods they’re using, the experience could be ruined with a single, intangible text message: “You mother has died”. Web 2.0 isn’t about software. It’s not about e-commerce or virtual worlds or any of that. It’s about connecting people in a greater variety of ways. It’s not the medium, it’s the message.

All the best.

I remember now, the effect I am referring to is called “the polarizing of the market place”. (Sort of an extension of the law of supply and demand). This is where products become, as you are describing, commodities or the perceived value products in the lower end of the market. (Note this can range from Plasma TVs to Rice) However it seems you did not consider the move to the top end of the curve, where the premium products lie. This trend has been derived from data that has been collected by analyzing purchasing patterns of consumers from all over the world.

What this basically means is what is valued or not has to do with what is important to the consumer. For example a person may drink cheap tea and drive a BMW, or buy expensive tea and drive a cheaper Kia.
Again you need to be careful with trends. Sure we are all varied and there are many things happening. But only until it becomes statistically relevant, I would class it a trend.

Finally you misunderstand; my noting of “authentic” experiences is just to support my argument of people getting tired of the intangible web. Perhaps we should call it authentic intangible experiences, instead of simulated intangible experiences.

Yes I agree, Web 2.0 is about connecting people. But often the applications that are built around it such as Second Life touch on a lot of the issues I have mentioned.

All the best to you too.

The reasons for the Second Life blender plugin were to allow people to use a familiar toolset to design 3D data, to transfer designs between the two Second Life grids (our libsecondlife office in Second Life was designed by someone on the teen grid who used prim.blender), and to allow builds to be archived or put in versioning systems.

I personally am interested in having a bi-directional flow of data in and out of Second Life because it will enable more rich workflows for both Second Life content design and visualizing other systems in the metaverse.

Hi John,

Thanks for stopping by and leaving your comments. I think the blender plugin is vital for Second Life to move it to the next level. In fact I would go as far to say that there should be plugins for all commonly used CAD programs or Second Life starts to accept standard file formats used in industry. (iges, step, 3dm etc.) This then should give Second Life a Facebook type “effect”.

Regardless, if a product in Second Life has a real life counter part, suddenly things become real, and the process can and should, as you mentioned go both ways.