Skip to main content

Magical Technologies Just over the Horizon

We the people have always been helplessly drawn to the concept of magic: the notion that you can will something to happen by wiggling your nose, speaking special words or waving your hands a certain way. We've spent billions of dollars for the opportunity to see what real magic might look like, in the form of Harry Potter movies, superhero films and TV shows, from Bewitched on down.
It should follow, then, that any time you can offer real magical powers for sale, the public will buy it. That's exactly what's been going on in consumer technology. Remember Arthur C. Clarke's most famous line? “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.” Well, I've got a corollary: “Any sufficiently magical product will be a ginormous hit.”
Anything invisible and wireless, anything that we control with our hands or our voices, anything we can operate over impossible distances—those are the hits because they most resemble magic. You can now change your thermostat from thousands of miles away, ride in a car that drives itself, call up a show on your TV screen by speaking its name or type on your phone by speaking to it. Magic.
For decades the conventional wisdom in product design has been to “make it simpler to operate” and “make it easier for the consumer.” And those are admirable goals, for sure. Some of the biggest technical advancements in the past 30 years—miniaturization, wireless, touch screens, artificial intelligence, robotics—have been dedicated to “simpler” and “easier.”
But that's not enough to feel magical. Real tech magic is simplicity plus awe. The most compelling tech conventions—GPS apps telling you when to turn, your Amazon Echo answering questions for you, your phone letting you pay for something by waving it at that product—feel kind of amazing every single time.
The awe component is important. It's the difference between magic and mere convenience. You could say to your butler, “Jeeves, lock all the doors”—and yes, that'd be convenient. But saying, “Alexa, lock all the doors,” and then hearing the deadbolts all over the house click by themselves? Same convenience, but this time it's magical.
Now, creating magic requires a lot of extra effort; to make something seem nontechnological, the designers have to hide a lot of technology. I'd argue that Apple became so successful in part because early on, it became one of the primary vendors of magic. I'll never forget the first time I drew a picture with the mouse on the very first Mac. It was a program called MacPaint—black-and-white only, on a 512- by 342-pixel screen—but it took my breath away.
Apple has often been late to the party. Long before Apple introduced the iPad, other companies sold tablets. Well before the iPod debuted, pocket music players were available from rivals. And before the iPhone was even a twinkle in Steve Jobs's eye, you could buy touch-screen phones.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Technology is revolutionising supply-chain finance

IN 2015 Kiddyum, a small company from Manchester that provides frozen ready-meals for children, won a contract from Sainsbury’s, a big British supermarket chain. Jayne Hynes, the founder, was delighted. But sudden success might have choked Kiddyum’s cashflow. Sainsbury’s pays its suppliers in 60 days; Ms Hynes must pay hers in only 30. In fact Kiddyum gets its cash within a few days. Once approved by Sainsbury’s, its invoices are loaded onto the supermarket’s supply-chain finance platform, run by PrimeRevenue, an American company. The Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) picks up the bills, paying Kiddyum early. Kiddyum pays a fee which, Ms Hynes says, is a small fraction of the cost of a normal loan. Sainsbury’s pays RBS when the invoice falls due. Suppliers, of course, have always needed finance for the gap between production and payment. Traditionally, they could borrow on their own account, or sell their receivables—unpaid invoices—at a discount to businesses known as factors. Moder...

Don't Even Think 'Merger' Without Taking These 5 Steps First

What was supposed to be a sunny $2 billion acquisition of U.S. television manufacturer Vizio by Chinese company LeEco went south when the latter had trouble coming up with the money. The deal reportedly included a $100 million fee should LeEco terminate the agreement, prompting Vizio to  file a lawsuit . Vizio alleges that LeEco executives deliberately misrepresented the company’s financial situation and used the merger to obtain confidential information. The situation between Vizio and LeEco seems particularly volatile, but it’s not unusual for mergers to go belly-up once both parties gain access to each other’s books. While numerous companies attempt to journey through the mazelike jungle of mergers and acquisitions, Harvard Business Review reports that  70-90 percent of those attempts end in failure . The terms of mergers can be complex, but experienced business leaders should learn to recognize the red flags that indicate they might be headed into a tumultuous situati...