I’m sitting in the train, reflecting on the concept of “Free!”, having just listened to a podcast from the London School of Economics on the diminishing role of European citizenship—a British university, a very dry topic, my thoughts naturally drifted elsewhere. I’ve also been thinking about the dwindling state of print-media and the onslaught of digital media—a topic that has been beaten to death over the years.

I was wondering what made a university give its, let’s call them “words” away for a free, until I realised that the one thing that a university probably has in abundance is words. The same applies to print media, with an excess of its type of media, or radio stations, with an excess of music… etc., etc.

My theory of “freeness” is thus that you should release those things for free that you have in abundance. I’m sure there is a more formal economic theory about it, and I think it comes down to the idea of marginal value and that those things that have less marginal value can be released for free or cheap, while those with a higher marginal value should not be (please correct my interpretation in the comments, if I’m wrong).

The reason we are (or I am) so confused about this subject, is because things cost money. It costs money to produce a newspaper, which is why we are forced to look at adverts on every second page and pay a cover charge as well. So, it’s no wonder that we expect that by releasing stuff for free that they must be losing money!

I’m not a good economist, so I can’t throw a complicated formula at you, just that I think that you have to focus on other values, next to the commodity-cost of words / text / music, when selling a service. For universities, it’s the facilities and access to very smart people; for print newspapers, it’s the convenience of the paper at a fair price; for radio-stations, it’s the freshness of supply and witty comments. As long as you can differentiate yourself in areas like these, other things can essentially be given away for free.

As mentioned, I’m sure a theory exists about this, but I thought it would be a nice thought for today’s post.

A quiz to finish. What parts of following businesses could probably be released for free?

• A strategic consultancy
• A mail delivery company
• A gas station
• A word-processing software business
• A social network business
• An author of books

With at least one of these, I think it’s ok to say nothing at all. And I think that for none of them, it’s ok to say that everything should be free.

Vincent

Like

Unlike

Not my title, hence the quotes. “Smart Products” is the name of a 2006 Ph.D dissertation by Serge Rijsdijk, which I just purchased in a bookstore—I didn’t know you could buy these things. I’m fascinated with this concept, so much so that it was the reason for choosing Sony as my first serious company to work for, and why I worked in several projects / startups that dealt with interesting matters of industrial design. On this blog, I approached the topic a few times, with blog posts about “creating relevance,” about creating software for right-brained people, and probably some other things that I can’t recall at this time.

Before I go on, a little quiz. Which of these do you consider a smart product?

• The one-buttoned iPod? Is the iPhone a smarter product than the iPod? Why?
• The financial derivative, which was designed by many smart rocket-scientists?
• A bicycle gear-system that changes automatically, according to elevation-angle and intensity?

Think about these before you go on. Essentially, what a smart product means to me, is one that is able to interact with smart* human beings (*: by definition, ALL human beings). I would also say that a smart product adapts to the context of the user and does not force the user to adapt to it (though that, for the moment, is very wishful thinking).

An iPod, while on the surface a stupid device with a single button, is smart enough to just do the job we need it to do. It also has as a smart back-end that allows for a wide variety of content to be streamed through your device. An iPhone does the same job, except that it does more and it allows for two-way interaction: smart. A financial derivative may be smart by design but, from my understanding, it is a type of smartness that is incompatible with what humans consider smart, i.e. what makes sense to them. It does not speak our language, hence we should probably kill it (I fear the day that aliens come to our planet). The argument that it is designed for a different type of person, the financial genius, doesn’t apply either, considering the current crisis. The auto-gear system for bicycles, which I made up, but probably exists, is smart because it uses environmental intelligence to make our life easier. But in order to be able to do that, it must not make mistakes or else it becomes a very stupid device—there is a subtle line between smart and stupid, when speaking of technology… or biking.

Serge Rijsdijk has a much more complex definition of smart products, namely that they fit one or more of following seven dimensions:

1. The ability to co-operate: by which he means co-operating with other devices. He has an interesting quote from Nicoll (1999) who thinks that “the age of discrete products may be ending.” An example of this is a PDA that co-operates with a printer (or more modern: a camera that co-operates with a printer)
2. Adaptability: by which he means the ability to learn and improve the match between its functioning and its environment, e.g. my example of auto-changing gears or a thermostat that collects data about room and outer temperature and uses that to fulfil its user’s wishes.
3. Autonomy: meaning that the device can operate without interference from the user, e.g. some of those autonomous lawnmowers and vacuum-cleaners we keep hearing about.
4. Human-like interaction: as the term states, interacting with humans in a fashion that feels natural to them (I use a more broad description than the author). An example given is car-navigation, though I don’t exactly consider that a successful smart product yet—at least, the nagging voice telling you to “turn right” is not necessarily a characteristic of smartness, if you ask me.
5. Multi-functionality: i.e. a single product fulfilling multiple functions, such as a modern mobile phone. The fact that the iPhone has been so destructive to incumbents in this market would suggest that here too the definition of successful smartness need not necessarily always fit.
6. Personality: meaning the product’s ability to show the properties of credible personality. Examples given include the Furby, the AIBO, and (don’t laugh) Microsoft’s paperclip-assistant. My only experience with personable non-organics would be in the films: King Kong, Transformers, and Wall-E, all of which induced an emotional response in me. The AIBO was fun to play with at Sony, but, back then, not even close to the level of a dog. Still, I was sad to hear it has been discontinued. And I’ve killed many a virtual pet or plant (including that stupid paperclip), I’m not very sad to say.
7. Finally, Reactivity: i.e. the ability of a device to react to its environment in a “stimulus / response manner.” An example given is the Philips Hydraprotect hairdryer, which lowers the temperature of the air when the humidity of the hair decreases.

His thesis is focussed on the one issue that smart innovation is all about: how consumers react to smart products. I hope this post has made you think about it! More on this fascinating topic as I get to it.

Vincent

Like

Unlike