Things will be back in order soon.

Additional sections will be added with my work in social media and corporate branding.

Last week saw the release of the iPad unto an expectant world. The media has seen gone full steam ahead dissecting every single aspect of this device and speculating on its impact and eventual success. It’s as would be expected from an Apple launch:  the eagerness, the desire, the barely controlled hysteria. And yet, not everything was the same.

This is not the first time that Apple has launched a new category of device, we’ve seen it before with the iPod and iPhone. Product refreshes are easy, you already have an established base of loyal customers. But a new product category requires a bit more faith on our part. And this time, Apple has had a harder time than ever before in gaining it.

There are a lot of things not to like about the iPad, all of which have been covered extensively by the media. But there’s a lot to like too. I do not doubt that this device will be a success and a game changer on several levels. Amazon has been the first to feel the momentum growing.  So why all the hesitation?

At its presentation Steve Jobs made an emphasis on the fact that this was a third device category to fit between the smartphone and the laptop.  And while it’s more iPod than MacBook, and certainly does a lot of things better than the former, it fails to bring anything new to the table. There is nothing you can do with the iPad that you can’t do with the other devices.

This being Apple, it won’t stop the iPad from becoming a success. It will only make the iPad a slightly tougher sell to people who already own these other products, at least until other features or functions have developed enough to become powerful incentives on their own. However, lacking a unique functionality from the start seems like a huge missed opportunity to have had a truly groundbreaking product.

What could the iPad have included, that neither the iPhone nor the MacBook could replicate, that would have given it unique functionality and appeal? I believe that to be stylus input and handwriting recognition.

Apple has had a history with both that goes back a very long way, right back to the days of the Apple Newton. It is unlikely that at some point in this product’s development this function wasn’t considered for the device. It has even been rumored that a prototype of this functionality lies hidden behind the latest incarnation of the iPhone OS, 3.2. So why wouldn’t they have included it?

Successful handwriting recognition on a screen is a tricky implementation. And instead of risking less than perfect execution it wouldn’t be farfetched to think that Apple decided to head in another direction rather than risk it. I wish they had.

I have been able to experience only one kind of successful handwriting on a computer screen, and that is on the Tablet PC platform, and then only on computers equipped with Wacom’s Penabled technology. These are not the resistive or capacitive screens used on most touch-enabled devices these days. This technology works through electromagnetic resonance, meaning the stylus is actually powered by the tablet through electromagnetism, which allows the stylus to be thin, lightweight, and battery and cable free. It also allows the stylus to inform the tablet about the pressure being exerted on its tip, and the tablet to follow the stylus even when it isn’t actually touching the screen.

The way the tablet tracks the movement and varying pressures of these styluses allows for a very true to life and pleasant writing experience.

Both capacitive screens (as found on the iPhone) and resistive screens (as found on pretty much everything else) are unable to interpret more than on-off type inputs. You are either touching the screen or you are not. And that is simply not enough for an acceptable handwriting experience. Apple tried to accomplish this on the Newton, and then Palm tried it with its Graffiti handwriting on the Palm. Through different methods they both failed to deliver an acceptable experience.

Current touch enabled devices available today, such as the Archos 9 PC Tablet, do not promote on-screen handwriting at all for their products, even if the function seems obvious and the form-factor appropriate. This is because an enjoyable experience is not possible with the resistive and capacitive touchscreen technologies generally used today. Fujitsu attempted to go a step further. Their P1xxx line of Tablet PCs uses a resistive touchscreen. And they did promote handwriting on them. Yet another problem these screens face when handwriting is an issue that has come to be known as “vectoring”, which refers to any lines that may occur due to unintentional touching of the screen (such as with the palm of your hand). The P1xxx line of tablets is capable of disregarding these contacts so as not to allow them to interfere with the writing. But even with this assistance it was not enough.

Unfortunately, Wacom’s technology is proprietary, and unlikely to be licensed by Apple. Some alternatives exist, such as the N-Trig digitizer employed by Dell on its Latitude Tablet PCs. But the situation remains the same.

If Apple had, through any route, managed to include handwriting on the iPad we would have had such a different reception to the product. When Gizmodo asked its readers how Apple should fix the iPad the most recurrent suggestion was that of stylus input, as can be seen here, here, here, here and on my own submission. Sure, most of them wanted it to be on the level of a portable Cintiq tablet (to them I say: Look at the latest Fujitsu Stylistic slate) which wouldn’t have been realistic for a whole other number of reasons. But the fact remains that the consumer interest would have been there and that a device that brings a function fundamentally different than that of its peers would have elicited a much warmer reception.

With successful handwriting recognition, how long would it have taken the iPad to take classrooms by storm everywhere? I believe Apple has left the door open for someone else to grab the gold on this one. And I hope someone does.

“Create intuitively simple, emotionally appealing, and functionally impressive interaction design”

I wish every company understood design as they do and followed this same mantra. I wish I could say that every consumer electronics item I own was conceived in a similar way. But unfortunately, it isn’t so. Admittedly, this is unlikely to be the most cost-effective way to go about things since it requires to actually stop and think and not just keep pushing products out of the production line. Then again, it should be the best received and most rewarding, we have had enough examples to know that consumers will acknowledge and appreciate with sales numbers and brand loyalty.

In late 2005 Nokia released the N770 Internet Tablet, the first device in a new line of portable internet devices. From then on the line would be carried on by the N800 (2007), N810 (2007) and N810 WiMax (2008) successors. All of these are internet-centric devices, to which Nokia would give no cellular radios, meaning they they are not capable of regular cellphone functions and must rely on actual cellphones to establish their connections when a WiFi signal isn’t readily available.

Today, access to the “real” internet has become the main objective for the latest crop of mobile devices. After the iPhone showed everyone that a faithful and reliable internet experience was possible on a cellphone everyone else has been trying to step up. The HTC Touch HD and Max 4G, the Nokia N97, and now the Palm Pre all hold certain similarities in their approach to this situation, an expected evolution from the previous generation and mostly from the iPhone. All of these devices offer screens larger than 3 inches, and resolutions over QVGA, which has proven to be a minimum for an acceptable experience. Eventually, enjoyable-internet cellphones will converge with all of the ultraportable netbooks, internet tablets and WiFi-enabled portable media players out there. The resulting form factor is very likely to be an optimization of the current pick of devices, namely as large as possible a screen while remaining pocketable, with some form of sliding keyboard underneath (at least until someone gets haptic feedback right on on-screen keyboards).

Both the Nokia N97 and Palm Pre follow this configuration, and the as-of-yet-unannounced-but-inevitable HTC Touch HD Pro should follow the same formula. It comes out as sort of amusing then that it was Nokia who were the first to come up with an enjoyable internet experience on such a form factor with their Maemo-based Internet Tablets. Which begs to make the following question: How far ahead in the cellphone game would Nokia currently be if they had included a cellphone radio within their Internet Tablets?

As mentioned, HTC has yet to announce a device with a full screen face and an underlying keyboard. Since the original iPhone’s launch it has taken them to go from the original Touch, to the Touch Diamond, to the Touch Pro, to the Touch HD… and they still don’t have their competitor for this generation. Palm is breaking into new ground with the Pre, they have had nothing similar before it. And Nokia instead has jumped from the E90 Communicator (2007) all the way to N97 with only a small step in between on the 5800 Tube to incorporate touch into their OS.

The Nokia N97 is Nokia’s flagship for this generation of cellphones. Press reception was only mild though, because even though it is a great form factor some specs are already behind the competition. And the jury is still out on the phone’s performance in regards to web browsing. The phone doesn’t have the iPhone’s interface, or the Touch HD’s resolution and screen size. Nokia also still sells the E90 Communicator, another internet-capable cellphone which arguably will still hold some advantages over N97. All in all, the bar has been set very high for N97, and interestingly enough it seems to be Nokia trying to play catch-up with itself on their new device’s primary attraction.

Clockwise from top left: Nokia N770, N800, N810 Wimax (which also has a sliding qwerty keyboard), N97, E90, N810.

Click here for a Sizeasy size comparison between N770, N800, N810, E90 and N97.

I had the opportunity to attend three adjacent technology conventions in New York City: Web 2.0 Expo, Interop and Mobile Business Expo.

This was a huge event, lasting almost a whole week between workshops, keynotes, parties and the actual Expo. I finally got to play with some hard to find devices, such as the Microsoft Surface, the Celio Redfly and the as-of-yet unreleased Blackberry Bold; and got a taste of the direction web 2.0 is taking from both startups and industry leaders.  

Overall it was a great 4 days full of energy and promise. It was reassuring to see that despite the current situation of the economy this is one sector with a lot of life to it.

What if the Archos 604 personal media player had been symmetrical? I know that’s the first thing I wished it had been when it was launched. Technical considerations aside –  Would it had been more appealing?

I decided to play with this idea after writing my post on symmetry in portable consumer electronics. In my opinion, a great number of devices released in the last few years would have greatly benefited from some slight cosmetic changes. And so, taking into account symmetry amongst other factors I came up with the slimmer Archos unit you see above. The idea wasn’t to drastically change every aspect of the original unit, but to make smaller changes which would have been possible at the time of the unit’s design.

In this particular case, having seen the 604′s internals I am pretty sure the shape I’m proposing would have been possible back then. It would have certainly raised the unit’s price, but it would have been possible. Besides making the unit slimmer, I rearranged the controls and relocated the indicator lights, centering these along the unit’s center. I also relocated the Archos logo.

What could have been gained by all this? You would have had a much cleaner looking device which is easier to recognize. You would have had a shape which could have been iconic for your brand. If used accross the board, this shape could have been appropriated by Archos, in the same way that Apple appropriated the simple geometric arrangement which results in the iPod’s shape. And people would have associated said shape with your device anywhere they saw it. 

Here’s an interesting coincidence. The general arrangement of elements in the Archos I propose happens to coincide with an as-of-yet unreleased device, the iRiver Spinn. Even though the years between these two devices allow the Spinn to be lighter, thinner, and possess a superior interface, I believe it is a good indicator that Archos would have had something special in their hands had they done something along these lines back in 2006.

When looking every year at each new wave of consumer electronics products I can’t help but wonder about the design process and the decisions behind each device, about the road it must have undertaken, from concept to final product.  Is the final product I am looking at stylish? Does it follow the latest design trends, is it jumping to set a trend of its own, or is it dated? Is it desirable? Will it move people to buy it?

I chose the two examples pictured above to illustrate a particular trend I believe was born with the iPod and has since been a leading trend in some portable consumer electronics categories. This trend has since become a good starting point for well-received aesthetics in portable devices, and a good indicator as to the possible success as an appealing consumer electronics device. I am talking about symmetry.

In the case above we have two devices, one very succesful, one not so much. One is symmetrycal, the other is not. The Rio Karma, a hard drive based digital audio player from 2003 was a device praised for its technical abilities. It received very positive reviews, and yet hardly any of them failed to comment on the player’s shape. Why did the Rio Karma have this shape? Ergonomics. This was not a gratuitous or capricious arrangement of elements, this device was designed to be comfortable when held by a right hand.  More comfortable than the iPod? Probably. The Karma’s design takes into account the unit’s weight distribution, the hand’s shape, and the position of the screen relevant to the movement of the thumb on the joystick. But if it really was so decidedly better, why wasn’t it a bigger success? Why haven’t ergonomics caught on as an ubiquitous trend in consumer electronics design? In some categories, such as digital cameras, ergonomics still have a leading role. Yet in others, such as portable audio players, most manufacturers seem to be driving away from them.

Of course, a lot of other factors come in when judging one device over another. But considering the critiques the Rio Karma’s shape received (and these were not due to handling of the device, but to its looks) there is something to be said for this unit’s appearance. Is symmetry the sole factor responsible for success or failure in portable consumer electronics devices? Hardly. I am not advocating symmetry as the be-all end-all of product design. But I do believe there is a trend, which was started by the iPod, and which has since become a very desirable trait. It therefore amuses me how many companies each year seem to ignore this fact.

In terms of symmetry, a device can fall under one of two options, symmetrical or asymmetrical. As you can see in the image at the top of this post, I have selected an iconic representative of each tendency within the digital audio player category. On one side, we have the iPod, one of the most successful consumer electronics devices of all time and the product responsible for establishing symmetry as a desirable trait. On the other side there is the Karma, a device which did everything right – except the shape. What does the iPod’s form have over the Karma’s? What does it gain by being symmetrical? It is simpler. It is cleaner. You could call it stylized. And ultimately, prägnant.

Ever noticed how Apple’s products tend towards symmetry? The iPod is a rectangle with rounded corners with a smaller rectangle and a circle aligned at its center. The iPhone is a rectangle with rounded corners and a border around it. Macbooks keep their layout symmetrical, their touchpad centered. These simple shapes, possible only through symmetry, are easy to remember. And this ease in coming to the consumer’s mind is an invaluable characteristic.

But what of the myriad other symmetrical digital audio players out there? Several manufacturers took the cue from Apple and have produced symmetrical devices. There are the various Toshiba Gigabeat series, most Sandisk Sansas, and countless others from Cowon, iRiver, Samsung, Philips, etc. It is worth noting that Creative and Sony are particularly contrary to symmetry. Of those that are, of course not all were successful or well received.  Symmetry doesn’t make other flaws forgivable. But in most of these cases at least the reviews reflected the acceptance of what has become, if not a standard, at least a strong expectation.

All this is not to say that symmetry is the holy grail of successful product design. Not by a long shot. However, in recent consumer electronics, it is not as easy to come up with a list of symmetrical devices criticized for their appearance. Even when this comes at the expense of other desirable considerations such as ergonomics. Symmetry has established itself as a tendency, as a fashionable trend. Apple knows it and makes the most out of it.  

What determines how desirable a product is? What qualities must a product strive to posses to move a potential adopter to buy it? Nowadays, symmetry is one of them.

My current job as a technology consultant has given me access to a great deal of gadgets and electronic devices. I couldn’t help myself and took a bunch of pictures of several of them, the original idea being to showcase those design features which I felt were worthy of praise. I guess not everyone is really interested in appreciating the work that has gone into each and every one of these devices, the amount of research and design that goes into even the lower-end ones.

The pictures I took intend to make apparent my appreciation for the design that goes into them. There are pictures of details, of reflections, of light playing over textures. Of everything that makes them attractive or desirable. 

I have selected a few and uploaded them to a Flickr account, which I am linking here. I cropped the pictures to a 16:10 aspect ratio, originally intending them to be used as wallpaper. Flickr however has resized them to a maximum resolution of 1024 x 640, which defeats that original purpose.

Check out the album here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/thenegret/

On March 29 I attended Webprendedor 08 (which can be translated as “Webentrepreneur”), a conference on the latest innovations, trends and business endeavours in the web. The conference covered the financial, legal, commercial and community driven aspects of web 2.0 projects, presentations on the latest local initiatives (which included Zimio.com, Tugar.cl and Needish.com), and the basics of entrepreneurship in the web. All in all, a very enlightening and inspiring event I’m looking forward to attending next year.