and say the bleeding edge - beyond the cutting edge.
The consumer's the one who buys the products. They're the ones who use
them. It's always the people that any advance in technology should be
about instead of the wishes and dreams of the those in the computing
industry.
The engineers and the IT technorati have their ideas of what they want.
It's a bit like haute couture and fashion in a sense. While haute
couture might influence fashion it's still the people that buy it. And
most of the time they don't. They buy what they want.
As with the high fashion industry, the bleeding edge of technology is
nothing to do with the public. It's a selfish thing almost. It's about
the desires of the elite. What they.
percieve. What they think will be there future and, often, what they
percieve is their place in the future.
This may be why it needs marketers to create desire rather than
genuinely seek to fulfil desire. Marketers seek to control and influence
the public consciousness rather than listen and understand human nature,
needs and desire. This is why there are so many failures but, of course,
there is still the need to innovate. I think the balance is struck
poorly. Innovation needs to be about purpose as well as dreams.
Understanding people rather than expressing individual desire.
Dotcom didn't focus on on the public nor their wants or needs. It was on
what was perceived as those things. Understanding was irrelevant. It's
sort of like campaigning in mental health but without the degree from
the university of life, or lived experience of mental illness.
The AN revolution may make the same mistakes. Same with AR. The public
want something different, something that's not understandable to people
in the industry. People in the industry forget that their lives are so
different and they have no point of reference to what the people who buy
and use their products care about or how they live their lives. Their
discourse is meaningless banter. Their jargon just a way for them to
feel smarter than others because they use words like "crowdsource" or
any other new bullshit that means they feel superior to the masses.
Too much guess work is involved. I wholly admit this on my part no
matter how much I do to defeat this weakness. Too much, "but of course
this is what people want" or "but I imagine this so it must be true"
goes on in the IT sector, just as in the charity sector.
#
Human 2.0 is something that actually excites me: humankind truly
augmented by technology rather than slaves to poor interface and crappy
design. This is the naturality aspect of AN and ANW. But who, truly
gives a fuck? Sure. The visionaries. The elite. Those with the power but
not those who buy the technology.
Too much of the development disregards the needs and desires of the
people. People just want to get on with their lives and if technology
makes it better then that's great but they don't want more hassle,
stress, complexity or all the other shit that early adopters are willing
to put up with.
Novelty is short lived and often a failure. There are too many to list.
There are genuine things that acutally make people's lives better based
on their needs and desires such as Friends Reunited or Facebook, things
that help basic desires to connect and be connected just as the mobile
phone does. Even these have to overcome a huge inertia for change from
the people but eventually the masses come on board, but only if they're
ideas that make a difference to them rather than ideas that are foisted
upon them.
Simply, many of the people - the masses, the proletariat or simply the
mobile phone technology buying public - don't want to try something new.
If they do it better fucking be worth it.
What I like about Steve Chao's and QPC's reconceptualisation of AR is
that they focus on naturality. To me this means better usability and
truly making technology about what humans want. Digital overlay upon the
real world is irrelevant but for what it can do and what it can do for
the people and their lives rather than what it can do to make money or
to make the visions of the technorati proven.
I believe that Articulated Naturality is about this. It's about
technology that works for the people. It's about natural. Organic. It's
about how computing adapts to people rather than the other way around.
That's truly exciting and that's truly Human 2.0.
Don't even get me started on early attempts at AR. They deserve a suffix
to become ARse. They're directed at making marketing and direct
marketing easier, but I find little value. Fuck. What a waste of time
and technology. Fucking barcodes and shit. No standards even. What the fuck?
People focus is the key. It's that simple. What do humans really want?
Or are the people still just meant to have their wants and desires in
formed by the marketeers.
The future will only be written by what people want from AN and ANW. AR
technology can lick my chocolate salt balls. It's a fucking joke. No
naturality to it. No attempt to understand the consumer or design
technology around them. At least there's one man and one company leading
the field on this. Everything else is ARse.
No comments:
Post a Comment