I was chatting with some members of our design research team just yesterday next to the cooler the other day, we were talking about how iPhone is such a bad phone and a great media player, and the Backberry is such a great email gadget but terrible browser. The conclusion was phones were not designed to handle the “social” functions and they are just add-ons. What does a true “social” gadget looks like? I will ask our design team to come up with some crazy ideas and sure clients love to see them
As more and more people use Twiiter or Facebook as their core communications. What are the best gadgets designed for that? The gadget lets them tweet, reply, retweet, send direct messages, and connect with followers. Here comes the TwitterPeek which sells for $99 or $199 (with plan) which included a service plan. It can only support one account at a time. Users can also view TwitPics by clicking the "view content" option from the TwitterPeek menu.
If users choose to pay $99 at the time of purchase, they will get the TwitterPeek device and six months of Peek service. After that, they need to pay $7.95 per month for network access. If customers plunk down $199, they'll get the device and service for the life of the product. In either case, TwitterPeek allows for unlimited tweeting.
It is always an important industrial design discipline that they teach in school, do we design something for a singular or more important function or something that does everything. The preference is design something with a purpose in mind.
Is the TwitterPeek really necessary in the marketplace. Or we need a Facebook Device? The deep satisfaction of design is when you find an elegant solution to a problem that has, until now, had a hindering effect on our p quality of life or experience or the environment. And the function should be super obvious - developing a straightforward solution to a meaningful problem. But it is not that simple.
Industrial design is understood as a part of engineering design, or as running parallel to engineering design and increasingly interface design.
However, when industrial design activity is engaged in the more aesthetic or style concerns of a product it can be understood as running parallel with marketing and brand activity. And when industrial design is engage running parallel with business strategy activity, that becomes a very different game. There is not a right or wrong or simple answer here, there is a lot of room for ambiguity and misunderstanding and many designers are confused about design themselves.
Many designers love to talk Business Model design, not sure how many are qualify to discuss this subject. My experience is even among the MBAs that I hired, anyone with less than 10 years of solid experience don’t understand the real implications of these Business Models discussion. My response to them is "How exactly do you change a business model without understanding the industrial and distribution economics plus the individual players' competitive dynamics. There are always game theory in play in these moves.
One interesting thought is traditional industrial designers came into being as mass production raised output and wanted to match those to market demand, this is still true but not entirely the case. If industrial design comes within a marketing function and marketers buy the creative services of industrial design consultant on an occasional basis for a special project, this quite is different if industrial design is a part of the manufacturing function. And if industrial design comes within a strategy firm and executives buy the innovative services of a firm that has strategy + design capabilities (like Idea Couture), then it is part of corporate strategy undertaking. That’s design thinking in action, not design talking. Am I confusing you?
