Gimmickery in Technology

Doing more with less - this is technology’s fundamental value proposition. The plow requires less human labor to cultivate more land. Hydraulic systems allow heavy loads to be lifted with minimal effort. Antibiotics cure bacterial infections more quickly than traditional remedies. Solar panels generate renewable electricity with no fuel costs or emissions compared to fossil fuel power plants. The use of technology keeps improving as we negotiate benefits and trade-offs along the way. The onus is on people who work in Tech to ensure we don’t go astray from its fundamental value proposition by carefully weighing the trade-offs against advances.

Much of the modern disconnect between technology and how it is applied stems not from the tech itself, but from a pervading sense of carelessness surrounding so-called ‘innovations’ in product development.

Let’s take the example of the “smart devices” category. Having designed for smart home systems, wearables and industrial IoT extensively, I’ll shed a more nuanced point of view to illustrate my point.

I was leading a program for a startup that wanted to launch wearables (fitness bands) for kids. The aim was to replace kids’ online activity with physical activity by monitoring steps and gamification through a companion app, partnerships with schools, etc. Fitness devices and apps were already trending but their form, features and marketing was targeted towards adults over children.

Child wearing a fitness band looking at his profile on the companion fitness app.

While the idea and team was great and I completed the project successfully, a question would often cross my mind throughout the duration of the engagement. How does this product truly embody the essence of getting fit? On one hand, there was opportunity in designing the device form factor, ergonomics, product interface, in-app gamification mechanics, interface, etc. specifically for children. On the other hand, if asked to describe a vision to make children fitter, it seemed unlikely that function or form of such gadgets would rank up high on the list.

Such devices then require marketing to make the offering look attractive under the guise of technological progress. They frequently represent a false economy. Purchase a fitness band or smartwatch and suddenly software versions, device pairings, incessant notifications, and product lock-ins enter the fray. More is gained, but at the cost of greater complexities–your (and your child’s) time and mind-space offered as sacrifice. All under the auspices of heightened convenience.

The real worry is that such practices subconsciously cause us to shape our lives differently. We give in to consumerism, buying more products that offer specific value over multipurpose, all-round solutions because we’ve become convinced of the narrative. Such objects lack visceral essence, and surrounded by too many such objects, one's environment begins to take on an air of busy-ness, urgency and the pressure to respond. Accumulate enough of these restless peripherals and the very notion of domestic sanctuary starts tearing.

Certain conveniences may justly earn their keep. But more often, these technologies gain traction by disguising the compromises. Some go as far as to set up ways to monetize reprieved efforts or time regained. Think smart robot vacuum cleaners, dishwashers, EVs etc.

One machine masterfully disguises it’s many trade-offs: the home coffee maker. A few years ago, ‘Smartened-up’ coffee makers pushed out other kitchen appliances to occupy prime position on many counter-tops. It was advertised as being technologically advanced with automation, personalization and other smart features. But… Does the machine brew healthier coffee? Is it more eco-friendly? Does it brew coffee more economically? Reduces the maintenance effort? Produces superior decoction? Are the aesthetics of the machine admirable? Is the experience of brewing your everyday coffee greatly heightened? No.

Really, how much of convenience does brewing coffee through an app provide?

The only real value here is that it can brew coffee faster than most preparation methods. In that singular dimension it achieves more with less effort. But viewed holistically, it represents an unequal compromise–in so many aspects it delivers less despite demanding more from the consumer.

Whole economies grow around this. Enter the perfect companion to your smart coffee-maker: smart temperature-control mugs (which could roughly cost 20-100x more than an un-smart mug), can be programmed to keep your favorite beverage hot via an app or digital interface. Maybe this is a luxury category product. Maybe research showed that people were too lazy to reheat their coffee or make a new pot. But… If you truly lived in luxury, you’d probably have house-help serving you coffee. Reality check for the lazy ones: the mug requires regular charging through an electronic charging coaster (that defeats the purpose of a coaster in my opinion–would you bring hot liquid close to a device that connects to power?), neither the mug nor coaster is dishwasher friendly–you have to wash it by hand, you’re just offsetting the work of reheating the coffee to cleaning the utensil.

The ember mug does one thing well: keep liquids poured into it hot. Picture credit: joshmadison.com

By my definition, this is anti-technology. No matter how you define it, all this is gimmicky.

Let me be clear– I am a champion of technology. It permits us to better appreciate nature through increased time, safer travel, adequate food supplies, and reduced diseases. I have a disdain for: what passes of as "tech", is often grand brand manipulation rather than meaningful technology. Tech products that have careless thinkers behind them will continue to provide unwholesome experiences, always requiring branding efforts to position the product ‘creatively’ in order to hide inadequacies.

But the blame cannot be pinned on the objects and apps themselves. It is up to each individual to determine if a given innovation truly provides more value with less demanded in return.

No wonder people often perceive technology as pervasive, as destructive, as opposite to nature. It’s not the tech, it’s us. We are poor in evaluating innovations and succumb to the marketing. We demand too little of our products and are willing to sacrifice too much for paltry gains.