How Amazon Killed the e-book

I like new technology.  I like Amazon.com.   I hate the Kindle.  Actually, I love the Kindle, but I hate what Amazon has done with the business model around it.

If you need, for example, Sparknotes for Hamlet right now, you can get it through Barnes & Noble’s new e-book offering, but you’ll fail tomorrow’s English Literature quiz if you have a Kindle.  There are many more examples like this.  E-book readers can never fully take off until one device can serve a complete set of needs.

The e-book market is going the way of Betamax vs. VHS or HD-DVD vs. Blu-ray.  While this format war continues, consumers will stick to plain old paper books when they might prefer a Kindle if they could get most of what they wanted on it.

It didn’t have to be this way — Amazon was positioned to preemptively win the war with its vast network of titles and huge base of customers.  When it launched the Kindle, it initially did the right things:

  • Amazon got the rights to a whole bunch of e-books to prove the viability of the format
  • It developed the pretty good (but not fantastic) Kindle to further prove the viability of the format.

But then they messed up.  They didn’t share the platform, and other companies went on the offensive.  Sony already had its eReader which became more popular due to the large publicity around the Kindle.  And now Barnes & Noble is trying to get a piece of the pie.  As a result, that pie is going to remain much smaller than it could have for a very long time.

What could Amazon have done?  I think that, after jump starting the industry with the Kindle, Amazon should have opened the Amazon e-book format to other hardware developers who could create an ecosystem of devices to suit the needs of more people.  With more devices that suit more needs, more people start using them, people buy more books on Amazon (on any device of their choosing), and Amazon makes more long-term profit in the process.

Share:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Reddit

Does more technology lead to more problems?

This is a re-issue of an article that I wrote a few years ago… while it may be disconnected from what I usually write about, I have recently been hearing from many designers about the bad advice that they have received from consultants, especially IT consultants, so I thought it was worth the post. This article gives you a little something to think about regarding the role of consultants in your design firm.

“I don’t want more technology in my office. It’s just one more thing to break and by automating so many things I will lose control of my business.” Unfortunately this common argument has proven itself to be valid time and time again. Many technology-related decisions in small companies are made without regard for how they contribute to overall business goals. Furthermore, IT consultants that cater to small business often implement one-size-fits-all systems that do not meet the needs of their clients. Also, design firms are especially susceptible to receiving bad technology solutions since they are often very particular about what they need and also because they often do not have the resources to fully test what they are getting prior to roll-out.

Professional IT consultants are usually very good at system implementation and at troubleshooting technical problems. They are trained to work with highly complex technologies and their expertise is extremely valuable during the implementation phase of a technology project. On the other hand, they are not and do not claim to be business or design consultants. The service that they provide is to install a system or troubleshoot a problem. While they may help a client to select components to some degree, they rarely take the time to study business needs and goals to determine the correct technologies to implement.

A design firm client of mine once told me of a bad experience that his company had when working with an IT consultant. The company hired the consultant to install a system that tracked printing expenses so that print jobs could be accurately billed back to clients. The consultant selected a print tracking system, told the company that it would do what they needed, installed it on a server, and went on their way. When questioned about the system, the consultant had no information about how to configure it or how it worked. The consultant opened the program and said, “there you go, its there!” It may have been there but it did not actually work and the problem was far from solved. As it turned out, the system was difficult to operate, did not have all the features that the company needed, and was ultimately abandoned soon after.

You would be uncomfortable allowing a new doctor to prescribe a surgical procedure without first examining your condition and medical history, but that is essentially what many businesses end up doing when faced with the need to streamline their business processes using technology. These scenarios waste time, waste money, and put undue stress on the business. Sadly, they also cause business owners to lose faith in technology as a tool that can allow them to improve their businesses and allow them to focus as much as possible on design, which is what they do best.

In contrast with the IT consultant, a design-focused consultant will not allow a client to rush into making improper decisions. The consultant will first work to understand the business as a whole and the unique processes in the firm, including overall goals, how the personnel operate, and the existing infrastructure. Only then can a solution be researched and a recommendation made that will solve the given problem while ensuring that the company’s core operations are not disrupted. This approach saves time, helps ensure that employees are not forced to deal with inefficient procedures due to poorly planned systems, and contributes to the long-term health of a company.

More technology does not necessarily lead to more problems for a company. A good consultant is not one that provides you with all the bells and whistles and latest gadgets on the market, nor is it necessarily one that has the most technical credentials. When it comes to making the right choices to improve the efficiency of your technology or workflow processes, only a person who understands your specific business and its overall goals can help you make the correct decisions.

Share:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Reddit

Barber Shop Design

Today I got my hair cut at my usual place.  When the barber put on that silly little armless apron thing, I noticed something different.  Yes, it was new, but there was also an embroidered store logo on it.  Big deal…  Well, the cool thing about it is that it was embroidered backwards, so that when you look in the mirror, it looks right.  That small design detail is so simple and makes so much sense.

Share:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Reddit

The Psychology of Design Thinking

There is a less structured, curiosity-driven, paradigm which focuses not on what is absolutely right or wrong, but instead on what is surprising. A problem with rights and wrongs is that, for some people, the pressure of being correct gets in the way of experiencing what actually is.
- Mind Hacks Blog

Those of you in the design community know that designers are trained to look at the world from a different point of view. In most education systems, people are essentially trained away from thinking creatively since, as children, we do this very naturally. In a successful design process, there are no truly wrong answers — the direction you take may be a detour, but somehow it helps you get where you need to go. This concept is certainly not nurtured in most classrooms.

The blog entry that I quoted above caught my eye because it illustrates how the design process as it is generally practiced today closely mimics the natural human learning process that has evolved over thousands of years. As an added bonus, when you are in this more natural state of learning, your body reacts by releasing dopamine, which makes you feel good (like a runner’s high).

The successes associated with the design process and recent trends across disciplines towards it can therefore be described as a reversal to our natural human state rather than as a new breakthrough. Ironic as it may seem, using design thinking is a way for us to learn how to be ourselves.

Share:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Reddit

The Wallet - Some Suggestions

There are several solutions that could improve the experience of taking a transit card out of a wallet, swiping it, and passing through a turnstile. Here are some of my initial thoughts; of course, more research and testing is required to come to the best solution.

Exterior pocket outside billfold
This allows frequently used cards to be located and removed more easily. In most cases, this would still require the rider to use two hands.

Card Slider
One solution is to create a drop down slot in the wallet. For the NYC MetroCard format, the rider could slide the magnetic portion of the card down and swipe the card with it still physically connected to the wallet. The card would be held in by a clip that moves up and down with the card. This could be performed with one hand and in one motion. Here is a sketch of what this might look like:

Card Clapper
For transit systems where the card must be fully inserted into the turnstile (i.e. San Francisco), a wallet could have a flap attached to the exterior portion, allowing the user to slide the card out, have it ingested by the machine, and then clasp the wallet again when the card exits the machine. This could be performed with one hand and in one motion. Here is a sketch of what this might look like:

Would these things work? I’m not sure, but it is worth a try. The point is that the little problems with the little things in life add up to big problems overall in lost time, frustration, and inefficiency. Why not tackle the little things one at a time to create big overall improvements?

Share:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Reddit

The Wallet - Impact of the Design Flaws

If you read my last post, you might have said, “what’s the big deal — can’t people just deal with it?” The answer is yes, of course they can… but there is a cost to the individual, to other people, and to the wider systems in which they participate. The mismatch between wallet design and the needs of the people who use wallets causes problems and slow things down.

I have compiled the list below of the implications of bad wallet design as they relate to swiping a transit card. I’ve observed this first hand both as a study and in my daily life. If you are anything like the millions of people who ride mass transit every day, I’m sure you have been frustrated by at least one of these items and probably several.

PROBLEMS FOR THE INDIVIDUAL RIDER

  • “Show me the money”
    • To catch trains, people often run out of the turnstile with their wallets wide open. I observed several people do this and could clearly see all of their cash and credit cards. Not a good thing in a big city, or anywhere really.
  • “I swear I had it earlier today”
    • By performing this process while walking, the rider can easily drop something without realizing it.
  • “Oops”
    • Since the process requires two hands, swiping through a turnstile while carrying anything can cause the rider to drop and damage items.
  • “Stand Clear of the Closing Doors”
    • Because there are many steps and each requires some level of precision, the rider could lose time and potentially miss trains if there is an error.
  • “The Bottomless Pocket”
    • I noticed some people keep their card in their pocket, outside of a wallet. This can make it difficult to find the card at the right time. It also makes it easier to lose as the rider takes other things out of his pocket.

PROBLEMS FOR ALL RIDERS

  • “C’mon, Buddy! Move it!”
    • At busy commuter times, I noticed that several riders are unable to get cards ready by the time they reach the turnstile, delaying other customers and creating a line.
  • “Watch Out!”
    • People often look down at their wallets before and after going through the turnstile and therefore are not always watching where they are going. I observed several near-collisions for this reason.

Next time I’ll offer a few suggestions on how to improve wallet design.

Share:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Reddit

The Wallet – A Relic of the Past

I was recently shopping for a new wallet and discovered that most of them are poorly designed for today’s lifestyle. A quick internet search shows that wallets today are pretty much the same as they were 100 years ago, even though our lifestyles have changed dramatically over the last century. In this short study, I focus on men’s wallets and the experience of swiping a transit card, an event that is part of the daily routine of millions of city-dwellers. My observations reveal that this seemingly simple process often does not work smoothly.

Of the riders that I observed in the New York City subway, I noticed more than half of them had some sort of delay due to the swiping process on their way through the turnstile. Among the many riders who stored their transit cards in wallets, the process of swiping requires at least seven steps. The seven steps are sometimes performed smoothly, but often the rider fumbles somewhere along the way.

Here is a simple storyboard of the process (click for a larger view):

The primary inefficiencies that I observed are:

  • Most riders paused somewhere in the process

    • Often the pauses are a result of needing to fully open the wallet to retrieve the card or a disruption caused by something that the rider is carrying.
  • Most riders needed both hands to complete the process.
    • This is especially burdensome on riders who are carrying things. These riders have to find a way to free both hands. Most frequently they awkwardly grab their items with a few fingers during the swiping process, put them under their arms, or place them on the ground just before entering the turnstile. Here you can see some of the difficulties in action:
  • Some cities (like London and DC) have “touchless” systems in place and most will probably have them eventually, but the reality is that millions of people still have to deal with swiping a card. In the next couple of posts, I’ll talk about the implications of these inefficiencies and offer a couple of potential solutions for new wallet designs. Stay tuned.

    Share:
    • Digg
    • del.icio.us
    • Facebook
    • Reddit

Follow up to my post on Blackberry

They have done it again.  RIM has managed to design an even worse phone than the Blackberry Pearl.  The new Blackberry Storm proves that bad design and execution ruins a phone more than an extensive feature list helps it.  Much has been written about this, but I think that David Pogue puts it best in his review (I won’t repeat what he says here):

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/27/technology/personaltech/27pogue.html

Another major problem is that RIM is trying to be something that it is not — cool.  Blackberry used to be solid and the design of its phones and the reliability of its infrastructure proved that.  They were not the slickest phones out there, but they worked and worked well.  The iPhone is not perfect — it has its bugs, too.  But, Apple didn’t set out to create the most reliable phone in the world, and Blackberry absolutely should since its core client base is businesses and people who have depended on its reliability for years.

Blackberry’s design was flawed the second they tried to be something they are not.  Having released several poorly designed phones, a halo of inferiority is poised to kill Blackberry’s future.

Share:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Reddit