Tag Archive: apple


The mobile technology sphere is progressing rapidly, and becoming increasingly complex. Which elements of systems theory can we apply to try and predict the course of the laptop market over the next year?

First, we’ll try to categorise the dominant forces in defining the future of the device. Next up, we’ll consider how those dominant forces are likely to interact. Finally, we’ll think about how the interaction of those forces is likely to influence the development of the laptop market as a whole.

Following a traditional Keynesian theory of economics, there are two main forces at play – consumer demand, and manufacturer supply. Each of these can be broken down further.

Consumer demand for laptops is a source of huge concern for laptop manufacturers at the moment. Why? Because it’s hard to predict. Consensus is that consumers are engaging more deeply with devices that emphasise mobility and connectivity over raw power. The diminishing of power’s role in consumer desire is likely due to the remarkable effort industry-wide to supply machines with high-power processors. Processors are nowadays unlikely to be the ‘bottleneck’ – constricting component – in consumer machines. As a result, raw specifications – the ‘GigaHertz effect’ – are becoming rarer as a marketing tool. Consumers expect responsiveness and adaptation to purpose, instead of large numbers.

This trend – which has been developing steadily since around 1999, at Microsoft’s pinnacle, has resulted in the tremendous surge in popularity of devices oriented around purpose. Apple is a key example here – specifications are swept under the carpet, and the user experience given prime position. The development of the cloud, in cooperation with the evangelising of ‘thinnish clients’ – such as low-powered tablets and Google’s Chromebook line – are likely to see this trend continue. Component manufacturers have focussed on ancillary matters – such as efficient use of power and dissipation of heat – in the place of pursuing higher clock cycles.

The consumer laptop market, then, is going to continue to move away from specifications as a marketing focus. Instead, those features emphasising mobility and responsiveness – use of Solid-State memory, larger batteries and higher-resolution displays – are likely to dominate.

On the supply side, there is significantly higher competition for components than there ever has been. Regulators have been slow to react to monopoly-esque moves by larger corporations – for example, Apple has effectively cordoned off the LG and Sharp high-resolution display manufacturing industry for their own. This could impede other manufacturers’ abilities to carry innovation through to end products. At the very least, expenditure required to manufacture products containing constrained components is likely to become prohibitive.

The likelihood here is that laptops’ price point will shift upwards. The dual forces of tablets and thinnish clients – as well as Apple’s surge in industry domination – will likely push laptops towards the higher end of current offerings. The tablet has seen unprecedented consumer adoption – outstripping the pace of adoption of more widely-used technologies like the Internet and electricity – and this is increasingly turning budget-minded consumers towards tablet PCs as viable alternatives to laptops.

Part of ensuring the survival of the laptop market will be the success or failure of Windows 8. Productivity suites still require a fixed, physical keyboard – and there are no technologies on the horizon which look to displace this. Laptops hereby carry an inherent advantage. The progress of the ultrabook category has been disappointing so far, but this could in no small sense be mitigated by the success of Windows as an OS.

So what conclusions can we draw? Unfortunately, simply that the laptop market is too fluid to make any coherent predictions. Certain features are a given – a focus on mobility and a push towards laptops as more premium devices – but these are far from the sum total of innovations likely to occur within the next year. Laptops as a whole will certainly endure, but the category may find itself subsiding in to other similar market offerings – as evidenced by the focus on both tablet-bearing and non-tablet-bearing ultrabooks.

In the previous article I expanded on the importance of minimising the interference of hardware or software in the connection between user and end-goal. However, this is only part of the story: some technology companies are moving in a fundamentally different direction. Given that our sense of self-soothing is built best when socially interacting within a shared cultural group, some companies are moving towards developing virtual personalities into their hardware. The point? To simulate interaction with individuals we can feel an affinity with and, in doing so, stimulate our feelings of self-soothing, contentment and, as such, brand loyalty.

Conversations with hardware

Do you talk to your phone? Regularly converse with the all in one printers at work? It’s pretty natural behaviour – and tech companies are trying to encourage it.

Moving to a different brand of phone involves more than just learning a new skill-set: hardware takes on its own personality, and in changing we must adapt to a new ‘virtual person’. Part of this is fuelled by the purposeful anachronisms built in to modern devices. Still more is fuelled by a well-crafted approach to designing and manufacturing them. But companies also take particular approaches that give a sense of ‘system-wide’ – or ‘ecosystem-wide’ – unity to their virtual personalities.

Take, for example, Siri on newer Apple devices. S/he (depending on region) responds in a characteristically personable manner – and Apple admits to having spent many hours carefully crafting a personality that would tread the line between servile and expertise. As such, Siri’s responses are in keeping with the entire iPhone, iOS and even Apple ecosystems. Her wit is akin to that shared by Apple’s marketing department. The kinds of responses she gives to more philosophical questions are in keeping with Apple’s guiding principles. What’s the point of all this? Because, each time you use Siri, you engage in a shared cultural experience with someone your body recognises as a genuine individual. Result? Endorphins. Particularly as Siri is polite, complimentary but self-confident – exactly the kind of individual we crave attention from.

Other technology companies are moving towards speech-recognition and synthesis software, but few currently have the ‘personality’ of Siri. And that’s quite a big issue. Given the psychological reaction we have to virtual personalities, I would predict that, over the next few years, competitors will develop their own characteristic variants.

Long-term thinking

 Researchers in AI have spoken at length about the ‘uncanny valley’ – a point past which computer-generated personalities will be indistinguishable from ‘natural’ ones. Some suggest that this is a point that humans will innately reject further AI development, but many are accepting that humans will likely welcome it warmly. Many science fiction writers have authored stories in which technology-kind is indistinguishable from humankind, and this seems to be a systemic trend in the complexity of technology evolution. So, in addition to the anachronising of common hardware and software tools – allowing us to accept them in to our consciousness – I believe that we will see an increasing trend in those ‘multi-function’ elements to become more ‘human’. In doing so, companies will not only enable swifter and more efficient features – they will build strong brand loyalty, based on direct interaction with a ‘representative avatar’ of the company ethos itself.

A few weeks ago, Apple unveiled a whole new breed of computer. They claimed to have rid the machine of ‘legacy hardware’ – optical drives, Firewire ports, Ethernet connections. Microsoft Windows has, in the last few iterations, tiered itself in to professional and consumer sub-brands. In this article we’re going to delve a little in to the complexity of fragmentation, and have a look at the state of play. Later, we’ll use the notion of fragmentation to predict the course of some key future technologies.

Me vs You

The biggest and most glaring fragmentation in the complexity is the divide between company ecosystems. Around the mid-nineties, companies became increasingly aware that they could maintain control over a far greater swathe of users by managing their entire content ecosystem. Apple’s an obvious choice – by maintaining exclusive rights to its OS licensing and supplying media, content, applications and hardware that is designed for exclusive attachment to this OS, they can maintain a content ecosystem all to themselves. Similarly, Google’s Android OS, though licensable, is not designed to function in the same way, with the same ethos or indeed with the same content as in the Apple ecosystem. So also for Microsoft.

Ironically, most of this commercial fragmentation seems to be based around avoiding fragmentation, not creating it. Apple asserts that complete control over the user experience is the only way to maximise cross-compatibility and user-friendly interfaces. It has deep internal unification, even between desktop and mobile OSs, and provides a host of simple adaptors that can ensure ‘legacy’ compatibility. However, it’s pretty far from perfect – the recent unveiling of iOS 6 sees fragmentation creeping in to devices that aren’t limited simply by their hardware – for the first time, it seems that Apple is overtly fragmenting its product lines for commercial gain. That’s a frightening concept, and something we as the consumer have little or no power over. Since they have managed it once with little uproar, it’s fair to say that this is a strategy Apple will likely pursue in the future.

‘Cross-compatibility’, though, is not just a buzzword to give legacy hardware owners a warm, safe feeling – it’s integral to the idea of fragmentation, and how industries are working to prevent it. There are already extensive efforts to unify OS approaches to things like networking and data sharing (which we will look at in a future article), UI feel and cross-platform applications. An oscilloscope app designed to work on PC, Mac and Chromebook sharing data freely across platforms? It’s under development. Similar actuator interfaces between Windows and Android? It’s available. As ever, you have to know where to look, but these attempts are being made by companies like TE Connectivity and others.

So, fragmentation as it currently stands seems to be driven by ‘consumer capture’ and, oddly enough, a desire to avoid fragmentation at the consumer level by introducing it further up. As a wild prediction, I would suggest that sooner or later consumers are going to begin requiring a cohesive ecosystem as a matter of course, and it’ll become essential to the survival of these larger corporations to make concessions and agree on at least a common interface method. One common interface method is that of cloud computing – and we’ll take a look at that in the next section.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 45 other followers

%d bloggers like this: