Archive for February, 2010

“Machines are cheaper, but people are sweeter.
Someday, only the rich will be privileged enough to deal with human beings. The poor will be forced to use technology.”

This week in class we gave this quotation a thought. It is the title of an article written by Megan Santosus (CIO. Framingham: Apr 1, 2005. Vol. 18, Iss. 12; pg. 1).

Pranav Mistry made me think that the same quote could be reformulated, so that it refers to the physical world.

“Computers are faster, but objects are more real.
Someday, the privileged will be able to integrate technology into their real world environment. The poor will be forced to use technology only.”

I think that many of the future technology and business trends will definitely bring not only the human, but also the physical element back in.

A name very similar to the one of its smaller brother, the iPod. Names that will surely make us pronounce and type the O in Pod and the A in Pad more carefully.

It’s not only the name that makes us refer to the smaller Apple brother. It’s also the shape and, of course, the functionalities.

And we wonder:
How will this brotherly relation influence the development of the new born iPad?

Room for yet another gadget in your purse? (Photo: Gizmondo.com)

Simplicity reflected by yet another jewel of advanced technology. Simplicity reflected by a perfectly directed speech. “Magical. Revolutionary. Unbelievable.” These are just three of Steve’s words that frame the Apple discourse on the new iPad.

But what are the words we are using to explain what the iPad is?

Here are some samples of home-made explanations:
“It is a like an iPod Touch, but with a bigger screen.”
“It replaces my ugly notebook.”
“It is the smartest e-book reader on the market.”
“It is a notebook…but one without a text processor, unfortunately.”
“It’s this amazing browsing experience…but it lacks Flash support.”

These explanations and rudimentary definitions reflect our primordial need of defining objects by their function. It’s this cognitive process we fall for: we desperately want to arrange the objects that surround us into classes or categories.

When it comes to the iPad, is it really a product without category?
Or is it the only product of its category (e-book readers?) worth using?
Is it itself launching a new category we do not know the name of yet?
How will we – the market – react?

Here is just one of the possible answers. An anthropologist answer, according to which the iPad’s lack of category will cause a stir.
Time will tell.