Interesting move from IKEA. My first thoughts consider this to be quite risky – not making the furniture modularly being able to take TV’s from other suppliers means that customers will have to get rid of their current TV, unit and home theatre set ups or find another place for them, and they aren’t small things. TV technology has evolved rapidly in the past few years, will a consumer feel safe paying a premium for the TV and furniture that may become obsolete in a year or two? What goes on inside a TV is a mystery to most consumers. It is magic that takes electricity and turns it into entertainment. Are people more likely to trust a technology brand like Sony because of this complexity? How does that work given the simplicity of IKEA’s other products?

That said, there is obviously a consumer need to be rid of wires. The wireless sub-woofer is a nice feature, but where does the power for this come from?! Surely there’ll be a wire connecting it to a power socket, you’re not going to be powering a sub with 100 AA’s?

I do enjoy the advert. The remote dropping is a nice touch that communicates the human side to the brand, I even had a giggle. So much for the Charles Eames quote “Never let the blood show.” Advertising copy has become very human, but now the media are going as far as showing the mistakes in the production of a video piece, and giving the user a glimpse into the production process. Nice!

I’ll be watching this product closely, this is definitely a paradigm shift in consumer electronics and furniture and it’ll be interesting to see if it works.

Experimenting with Arduino and Processing, simply changing the frequency rate of two looping tonal wavs using an IR distance sensor and potentiometer. Use of the Processing map() function seems to map the audio rate range to steps that give some nice tones, which was a happy accident.

The response seems to be quite laggy, moreso than tests I have done with sensors creating a graphical output, but that might just be the sound library. I will look into it if I come up with an interesting application. It could be quite nice to map distance sensed over time taken for the values to change and create a primitive velocity response.

WARNING: due to not having any software to trim it, this video goes on for longer than necessary. Feel free to stop it when you’ve had your fill.

While we are on the topic of Arduino, I recently stumbled across what looks like some well thought out and executed Arduino video tutorials, great for anyone that would like to learn: http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLA567CE235D39FA84&feature=plpp

It’s interesting to see how this media isn’t ‘limited’ to animations on screens. Once the visualisation program is set up, images can be ‘harvested’ from frames and used on static media like print or digital images with no loss of quality. Metaphorically, the programs that create these images could be likened to machines, and the data that is fed into these machines compared with a physical, raw material.

Synapse connection: my random, uneducated thoughts follow

Our DNA contains a genetic code which is a set of rules that describes how to ‘generate’ a person. It is essentially a machine, or program (as above) that takes raw material, or data in the case above, and uses a set of rules to make shapes that fit together to create something bigger. Because all the machine-like functions are done on such a nano scale then by the time the huge quantities of these shapes amass to create something we can understand with our senses, all traces of machinery or formulaic construction are gone and we get a perception of the result as something that is organic. If you think about it, we are still made by billions of tiny shapes created by these minuscule machines.

If I was a paranoid schizophrenic then I might be inclined to think that these machines were developed by aliens. Aliens that left some here on Earth, and are watching from afar this experiment we call life. Aliens that might be far-evolved humans, who started off trying to develop technology such as we are today, experimenting with generative design and replication.

We are now designing and building machines that allow themselves to replicate (eg. RepRap), and as historical patterns indicate, technology only gets smaller with development. We strive to find formulas in everything, to help us understand life and be successful; it must be a genetic predisposition. There is work being done that allows us to manipulate materials on a nano scale. I wonder if advancements in technology, combined with our insatiable quest for formulaic life will lead us to create tiny machines that replicate and generate organic life forms in the future.

With Moritz Stefaner

Click here to view the video on YouTube.

Click here to view the video on YouTube.

Click here to view the video on YouTube.

Click here to view the video on YouTube.

The video cannot be shown at the moment. Please try again later.

 
I have just started learning Processing. This is a programming language built on Java with designers and artists in mind that works very well with Arduino inputs. It’s basically coding for people who don’t like to code, and it is fun! I have just begun to learn it and the above sketch was made up in about 10 minutes of playing/learning. It responds to mouse input, but this input could be replaced with any data feed eg. physical sensors connected to an Arduino or web analytics for interesting visualisation and interaction applications.
Note: you must have JavaScript enabled to see the above.

It would seem that, at their essence, telephones, mobile phones and mobile devices are tools that allow us to be connected with others at any time we’d like. To me, it would seem that the most successful devices in the context of the mobile world are those that manage to interface with humans in as seamless and as efficient a way that the state of the art can allow. Looking back it is plain to see the pattern that is emerging; we have come from pure mechanical engagement in the form of rotary dialling on the telephones of old to the touch screen gesture fuelled digital interactions of today. We are inching towards ever-more natural interfaces, and quite possibly, ultimately aiming for these devices to interface directly with our thoughts.

The technology of today wont allow our conciousness to interface with a mobile device and the connectivity it provides internally, likewise we aren’t able to communicate to the person sitting next to us telepathically. Until we are empowered with the ability to transmit our thoughts and experiences directly to this connected world we will always need a physical interface.

But then what happens when we throw sensors that collect data about our behaviours and processors that analyse this data for patterns into the mix? The interactions we have with these devices, and the sensors they are able to read allows the connected world to to learn things about us; habits, movements, behaviours and things that we might possibly didn’t know ourselves.  Technology is allowing our behaviours and personalities to be mapped and ‘equationized’ into models. These models can be applied to intelligently enable the devices, computers, machines and infrastructure that we use daily to operate in a way more personal and more efficient to us. They can further be used to create, as Matt suggests, a ‘companion species’ that represents us in the connected world.

To think about it, we have always lived in two worlds. We have the world in our heads, where we see with the “mind’s eye”. A place shared with no one, where anything is possible. We also have the physical presence of ourselves in the real world where our needs and desires clash with physical restrictions and egos interact and mesh on a very raw basis. We are now building, electronically, a third world, where egos meet in a realm only hindered by the restrictions we place upon them.

Our digital world comprises of electronic signals going between servers, that are in turn fed data collected by sensors. We might view the conciousness brain and nervous system as artefacts that create a connected world. Me might compare each synapse with a server and the nervous system as sensors that collect data. Through the creation of our connected world are we slowly modelling a brain? …I am seeing fractals.

Is it wise to imagine a future where our connected world is a singular brain floating in Google HQ that we interface with telepathically?

http://transparencygrenade.com/

Love the process shots and technical drawings.

In other news, our new client project involves us designing a product to uphold the tradition of dining as we know it in the smaller-scale setting of the modern home. I have been decoding the John Lewis brand as part of our client project. Tomorrow I will head to the store and take some pictures of the look and feel, the product before making my plan for observing dining habits.

Sketch

Into Rhino. Preferred the more angular pot on the left.

Branding (to be laser cut and embedded into master, finished off with filler and sanded flush – a bit unsure about this step!)

Profiles for lathe turned master

And a rudimentary agitation platform made using a switch, a 7v power adaptor and a motor with an off-centre mass I had knocking around.

So fingers crossed I’ll be able to do a bit of lathing and laser cutting after my presentation, and start getting a silicone mould ready.