The Direction of Convergence

In 2003 I wrote an internal white paper for my then fresh out of the gate company, Brevisys Technologies. I would link it *here*, but the time to divulge everything in it has not yet arrived. But I promise I will post it soon. The point of the paper was simple: If you have two devices that incorporate the same 4 features: phone, PDA, music player, and video player -- but their origin of development is approached from different directions--- why is it that the two resulting devices are so completely different?

The answer seems obvious. If I want to bake a pumpkin pie and I arrange all the ingredients on a table for two chefs, it is obvious that based on how much of each ingredient they mix and in what order they mix them, the end result will be entirely different. But on the surface building a tech gadget isn't really like baking a cake. ALPS Electric for example is the largest manufacturer of tac switches in the world. They provide components for almost 80 percent of all electronic devices made. In business, and particularly in the world of large scale manufacturing, the number of specific parts suppliers is fairly finite. Even in the variation of lets say LCD manufacturers, you might find a few options missing or present in a particular manufacturer's product, but for the most part: size, resolution, refresh rate, power consumption, etc -- are pretty standardized. So when you see the following items: a battery, PCB (Printed Circuit Board), Hard Drive, LCD, switches and buttons, your first thought is-- How many possible ways are there that I can combine these items to make a different product? In the pumpkin pie example, the amount of ingredients doesn't exactly translate to an extra dash of LCD -- (It could work with an extra amount of hard drive-- or different type of memory system-- Flash vs. IDE) But for the most part that is all still semantics. The thing has to have X, Y, and Z functions period. There is no getting around that. I need an LCD controller in my circuit board because I'm using an LCD. I need a finite amount of chip sets that run the finite amount of hardware I need to accomplish X, Y and Z.

So now the problem of functionality variance seems less about the ingredients involved and more about something else. Is it the software that runs these components? The user interface? Is it the GUI, or is it the layout of the hardware that determines how its sits, fits and feels in my hand that makes the two experiences so vastly different? On a grander scale--- how do these things relate to the success and failure of a product in the marketplace?

Back in 2003 I was comparing PDAs like the Tungsten and other offerings with HP Pocket PCs, Blackberries, Trios, and other such devices in the market. To begin with, I have always been a huge gadget whore. Basically, I love anything with buttons on it--- except for sweaters. Anyway, that was also around the time when I got my first iPod-- (yes I know, quite a delay) but that is because when everyone loves something or HAS to have it-- it makes me not want it--- I want to run in the other direction---or better yet, find something even cooler that no one else knows about. It took me a year or so to realize that there really is nothing cooler than an iPod out there. And at the time of this writing-- the Zune doesn't even come close.

So back to the problem: There I was--- looking at all these devices, and silently staring back at me was the first piece of the puzzle. And that puzzle piece still intrigues me to this day. Design.

Before you put a device in your hand, before you touch the first button, the first thing you notice - the first thing that attracts you - is design. In studying Neuroscience I was always amazed by the intricate and powerful aspect of visual processing that constantly takes place in our brain. With 3/4 of our minds dedicated to visual processing, I realized why design was so important to what we were trying to accomplish. And beauty in design is something that is the greatest challenge to overcome when building consumer products.

The only way beauty isn't sacrificed is when you can start from scratch on a new product. Throwing on a phone and MP3 player to a PDA you've already built? -- Get ready to get hit by the ugly stick. There are still a lot of companies that find a way to package, repackage, and then successfully dump enough marketing dollars down our throats to make it work. But that is not the point here. Start fresh, do it right, and then encase everything in beauty. Look at the direction from which you are converging the items in your final product. Which direction gives you the most beautiful and user friendly product? Which direction gives you something special. That is the direction to take.

I promised I would explain all this nonsense about a '67 Mustang as the deeda Inc. Mascot, so here it is:

Design, Beauty, Inspiration, Power.

The right Design leads to Beauty, and the strength of the Inspiration that comes from such Beauty is very Powerful.

Not everyone is a car person. We at deeda happen to be. The one thing I can tell you about a 1967 Shelby GT500 is that it is one of the most powerfully beautiful cars in the world. It was made by Americans who were passionate about what they were making, and that passion still shows 40 years later. This is who we were - and this is actually who we are today. But somewhere along the line I think we've forgotten this. Proof of our inherent romanticized view of the era is in how Ford decided to bring back a retro-designed Mustang based on the 67-68 model year. It's a little sad to say we can't do something new, but it's still inspirational to look back and see what we once did - and it seems like we were able to do it almost without trying - as if it was just natural.

So the deeda 67 Mustang is meant to be a design and inspiration statement. This is who we once were, and by God this is who we are going to continue to be. We are capable of bad-ass greatness and its time we revived these skills that have remained dormant for far too long. Technology products for consumers are no different from building Skyscrapers or Automobiles - They must all be built to contain the following:

Design, Beauty, Inspiration, Power.