The Best Technology I Own Was New in 2011.
The computational needs of designer-y/engineer-y types are generally both esoteric and intensive in that the demands that we place on our tech are both computational resource-heavy and require specific hardware like, for example, 3D trackballs and mice. Few civilians care to learn the nuances of the parametization of physics simulations of anisotropic materials when layered in an isotropic matrices (e.g. how does carbon fiber composite behave during impact load?) nor do folks seem to have any desire to attain enlightenment on the subject of surface texture optimization for expedient GPU-enhanced ray tracing. Ideally, the computers that we use are designed for purpose. All this lingo is not an unsubtle intellectual humblebrag; those are real issues which I deal with rather frequently albeit they are a small part of my overall design practice and they represent an extreme end of complexity.
For seven years, I spent too much money trying to find a computing package that worked well for my needs. In design as in any innovation field, there’s a lot of FOMO-derived atmospheric pressure to keep pace with the latest and greatest software with the implicit secondary understanding that the best results come from using the best tools and only the best tools. Due to a combination of marketing spin and the actual wear on my machines, I “upgraded” every couple years to what I thought would be a best tool. The lowest moment came when I purchased a Cintiq tablet/computer hybrid thinking that- somehow- a digitizer pen would solve all my workflow issues. Needless to say, it did not.
On the whole, my requirements were simple: I just wanted a tool that was easy but I failed at finding the right answer every time. Recently, my wife decided that the Core i7 Macbook Air that she used in graduate school in 2011 was no longer useful to her as the battery was well past its expiration date and so she upgraded. I adopted the old machine and spent about three hours refreshing the hardware; it is now perfectly adequate for my needs and, while it does not accomplish the more processor intensive finite element analysis that I wrote about earlier, it does just about everything short of that efficiently.
This isn’t about my new-to-me computer though. As with all Medium posts, there is a larger lesson at hand and such lessons are preferably told through extended metaphor and an intellectual voyage of self-evolution that ultimately culminates in a series of interconnected truths. There will also likely be a rash of psuedo-controversial bold statements made to support the highlighted thinking; such prose is the digital equivalent of Ronnie Ortiz-Magro’s seminal “Come at me, bro!”:
(An aside: I am ashamed that this reference popped into my head while writing this article. It wouldn’t go away until I typed it out. I am sorry. I am so sorry.)
I further realized during proofing that this whole thing can come across a bit preachy so it’s worth noting that I am not immune to the intransigence as defined here; like the teachings of any good golf instructor, this article is an absolute case of “do as I say and not as I do”. With intellectual and moral liability hereby cleared, we continue:
The Lessons (As Told Through Extended Metaphor)
- The amount of effort required to operate a tool should be as minimal as possible. Energy/effort spent operating a tool is directly detractive of any energy/effort placed into solving the problem the tool was designed to solve.
2. Simplicity beats complexity every time.
3. Novelty is not innovation.
Although not germane to the initial paragraphs for fear of this article being written off as a throwback to 2009 “Windows-fanboi-sees-the-light-and-joins-Appletopia” thinkpiece, the final learning:
4. Ecosystems win.
The Interconnected Truths
As a hobby woodworker, I can build this facet of my argument using any number of other extended metaphors that are inherent to the monotaskers inherent to the woodworking industry. You know who really doesn’t ever use a $175 anodized aluminum jig made for cutting round-corner dovetails in tropical hardwood door posts? Professional woodworkers. They are too smart for that psuedo-snake-oil and they do not have the time nor the space in their lives to deal with that level of insane complexity.
It is a curious artifact of drinking at the teat of the free flow of information provided by the Internet that profundities that many know become personally unattributable and instead part of the ether of the moment:
“The best camera is the one that you have with you.”
-An entity, at some point
For the designer technophile, this is hard to hear. Especially in a field encumbered by the notion that newer is better because all progress is progressive, the concept of using what is within metaphoric reach feels a lot like settling. While some things must and should change, the ultimate obsession with process (and the perfection of the tools used in that process) are a lurid byproduct of design-as-art. Design can be art but it is not always. Design is functional and art is formative. When the two are viewed as incontrovertibly linked, both are done a disservice as the two complements are limited by the other when they are closest to their achieving their maximum impact. The impact of Warhol’s series on Campbell’s tomato soup cans would be unquestionably reduced if his depictions of the cans were also required to contain real tomato soup.
This obsession with the new is antithetical to the idea that design and engineering are built to improve the human condition because, much like a doctor bound by the Hippocratic Oath who puts the life of their patient above all other factors, properly executed design and engineering should be selfless, agnostic of path, and should be hellbent on improving quality of life. If no improvement can be made by creating something novel, then the design process must stop and focus on magnifying the impact of what already works. The unfortunate reality is that this magnification is non-billable, not considered design because the path to invention is not immediately apparent, and often manifests itself in, solely for example’s sake, things like prescription drug purchasing assistance programs which seem to solve the problem at hand but instead solve a symptom; the high cost of medication is the problem yet the assistance plan effectively increases the spending power of an individual in one highly specific way. The real cost of the drug -the actual problem- still remains. These are self-serving roundabout answers driven by systems that are obsessed with novelty. Answers like these are not true solutions and they are built to prioritize something other than improving human existence. They should be ignored.
Ecosystems Win Without Wavering (Ewww.)
Ecosystem thinking is the most powerful force for commercial growth in modern society. Inclusion of bold statement: check!
Many of the largest and most well-known companies made their mark by making it incredibly easy for consumers of all sizes to spend their dollars within the walled garden of their portion of the market:
- Walmart: Purchased Jet.com in 2016 for $3.3 billion USD (or roughly the same as the nominal GDP of The Cayman Islands) as the to bolster their e-commerce bonafides. Outcome? Jet.com was disbanded and folded into Walmart.com but, since the end of 2016 when the deal closed, Walmart’s value increased at a rate that outpaced the growth in the Dow Jones Industrial Average over the same time period by approximately 40%. During that same time, Walmart also launched same day delivery of in-store items and groceries.
- Apple: Since the launch of the App Store for in July of 2008, Apple’s share price increased by (as of the date of publication) 1002%. Over the same time period, the Dow Jones increased by 228%. Apple collects a portion of every dollar spent on the App Store, only allows apps from the App Store to be officially installed on iPhones and iPads, and allows developers to build apps that piggyback onto the hardware services offered by Apple’s products thereby extending the reach of such apps beyond the screen.
- Google: Launched an Android-based competitor to the App Store called Android Market (now called Google Play) just a few months after Apple’s keynote announcement; the value of the company’s Class A shares increased by 651% since then. Google’s store performs in roughly the same fashion as Apple’s.
This isn’t rocket science. Remove the friction inherent in any transaction and the transaction moves more efficiently which presumably makes for a happier consumer who engages with the ecosystem even more. In short, the ecosystem is the ultimate lubricating oil combined with a slight dose of nicotine. In a more abstract sense, the service/hardware ecosystems are equally powerful. For example, consumers are incentivized to subscribe to Amazon Prime because the service- in addition to offering free two-day shipping- offers access to a whole suite of other Amazon services that stream movies, music, and the Washington Post. The same goes for those who purchase Nespresso machines; while it’s possible to use off-label Nespresso pods, the company makes it exceedingly easy to set up a recurring purchase of genuine Nespresso pods. Oh and while you’re here, would you like to buy a temperature-controlled milk frother?
Screw You Guys, I’m Going Home.
The moral of the story is that South Park remains the finest source of unflinching social commentary on television. Non sequitur summation FTW.