technology | Ian M Rountree

The “Heat Death” of Design and Technology

June 10, 2015 by Ian Leave a Comment

The universe passes around an awful lot of information – an awful lot of energy – all the time.

Go for a run? Bleed calories as heat into the air. Sun’s warm today! It’s shedding its worth into the ambient area at quite literally the speed of light. Atomic bombs? Self-explanatory.

The mechanics are all the same – physics is wonderfully complex but it’s not complicated. Which brings us to tech and design, weirdly.

It feels like every site on the web (including mine, for which I make little apology) features the same elements – because they’re popular and effective – all at the same time. Hero sliders, big images, stunning typography, literally the entire Material Design playbook in action – on every website it can be – 24/7 this year. Homogeneity at its best.

Why? It’s effective. We know what to expect. We know what a clickable link looks like on a desktop, and we can make simple guesses on mobile as to which regions are touch ready. It’s not bad in and of itself, but it will cause exhaustion, and go out of fashion.

Now tech is doing it too! This should not be a surprise.

This morning, Wired had a piece about everyone having the same plans for tech that’s damned accurate – and damning by way of its accuracy. From the article;

You can prefer one design or another, but that will be the only thing separating iOS from Android and Android from Windows. They’re just skins at this point. You’ll have access to all the same apps, all the same services.

Sounds great, right? And we can admit there’s less animosity between Mac users and PC users lately, just as there’s less ague in consumers over which phone to pick. As Wired says, “There are a few differentiators left, sure […] but they don’t matter to most users. A phone is a phone is a phone.”

Heat Death is at hand.

This is where we get back to physics. The idea of heat death centers on the passing of energies – that, and I’m paraphrasing a really large number of ideas here for the sake of demonstration – eventually, given enough passing, all of that energy will become homogenized. It’ll become the same. Momentum will be lost, among the many processes involved, and we’ll suffer the final doom of the universe; a lack of differentiation across all matter and energy, because there’s nowhere to go that hasn’t been gone before.

I feel like design, and tech, might spiral into a premature heat death situation by way of the hegemony of homogeneity.

Or I could be over thinking it. Maybe, as Wired says, this is what we need. Adoption is hard, and getting people on board with new systems is a challenge. Perhaps – going back to Clay Shirky – all of this stuff will become socially interesting as it becomes technologically boring.

Still, who wants to be bored by design items? Not me. How about you?

What Microsoft is Buying with Skype

May 10, 2011 by Ian Leave a Comment

Microsoft bought Skype this morning.

I expect the deal has been in the works for some time, but I think it’s a good move; market potential for new versions of Windows and Office is dropping due to saturation and consumer comfort with ever-better versions of both (I’ll be hard pressed to move off of Windows 7, and Office 2007 has done very well for me compared to previous versions). XBox is going strong, sure – but it’s not where Microsoft’s core history has been.

So why does Skype make sense?

Because Microsoft isn’t just about business, it’s about business communications. They’re competing not just with Apple for mindshare and consumer’s hearts, they’re also competing with companies like RIM (BlackBerry), a plethora of productivity apps, an ecosystem of application developers, and more, to do what it initially intended; help people get the things they want to do, done.

Getting things done is important to Microsoft. See the XBox community and it’s achievement system. See Sharepoint, Outlook, and any number of other applications core to Microsoft’s service offerings. There’s a lot Ballmer and the crew can do with a communications infrastructure.

Some things Microsoft may choose to do with Skype include;

Adding better features to Live Messenger, and rolling the IM clients together entirely.
Hooking in to Windows Phone to deliver native VoIP capability
Bolting on to XBox live community to allow those in-game to communicate with those out of the game.

Sure, Microsoft could have done this expansion on their own, but consider the cost. Adding Skype’s existing infrastructure to Microsoft’s makes a lot of sense; even if the massive price tag is a convenience fee in part, the cost of not only building a network, but building a service and a community around that network is very large. While Microsoft might be seen as “sinking” some of their capital into Skype’s acquisition, they’re purchasing something invaluable along with the network; time. Now, no matter what MS chooses to do with the new toy they’ve bought, they’ve got the time (and, by extension the agility) do make choices and course corrections they could not have made while committing themselves to building their own, ancillary network beside (but not on top of) Skype’s existing market share.

This was a very shrewd move – and I hope it helps those of us who spend our lives communicating do a better job at that.

What else do you think Microsoft’s getting with this purchase?

Children's Games and Social Media

January 8, 2010 by Ian 1 Comment

I was always crap at Simon Says. I was the kid who could only ever think of three things to have people do – stand up, sit down, run in place – and I’ve learned to mark this down to both an inability to develop internal go-to lists, and a dislike of having to issue mindless rapid-fire commands. Yet as I watch people tweet their lives away sometimes I wonder exactly how useful these skills are in real life? Like learning trigonometry, I had always figured it was something to get good at or avoid, but now I’m not so sure.

Like it or not, Social Media is here to stay. I hope someone comes up with a better, permanent term for what’s going on, because I dislike that buzzword, but there you are. I’m fortuitous to be getting into networking just now, because I have a nearly three year old son, and while considering the things we need to make sure he learns, at the same time I’m watching the foibles of high-powered people online, and seeing a lot of parallel.

One of the many things I dislike about Twitter’s ecosphere is the MLM phenomenon. It sounds like a pyramid scheme on the outside (and runs like one) but the behavior of the people involved, or at least the visible output of the bots, looks an awful lot like Simon Says. Rapid fire information with little available content driving people who are unlucky enough to get sucked in to useless products or a hookup to the scheme. It’s a social failing, but it’s one of those pendulum behaviors – those who understand just enough are exploiting those who don’t yet know.

How many pundit blogs do you read? I don’t specifically mean political pundits, I mean Apple and Google and Microsoft fanboy blogs as well. Notice anything about their habits? Suggesting certain new products, dropping bombs on others. For some reason this always reminds me of Red Light, Green Light.

The less said about Michael Arrington’s apparent tabloidism the better – but the entire leak culture feels like one big game of telephone.

Corporate recruiting feels a bit like Red Rover.

It’s amazing how often this kind of thing happens. Perhaps it’s early training, rearing it’s head on our adult lives. On the other hand, like just about anything, when you know just enough about how these habits form, you can exploit them. And when that gets old, you can become a benefactor and teach others either to exploit the habits, or how to avoid having these habits exploited.

Until you know where your habits come from, and what the tells are, how are you going to ensure you’re not being taken advantage of?

Otherwise, it’s duck-duck goose, and someone’s got their eye on turning you into the next goose.

Photo by Mykl Roventine