Some context for 3 things.
Just as I did for AmazonBay, it is probably worth taking 5 minutes to put a bit of context around the 3 things presentation. Once again, the premise was to take 3 examples or metaphors - distillations - for 3 broad concepts. When I originally gave the presentation in person, the audience had no problem ‘getting this’ for the Digital Generation (changing behavioral patterns and expectations driven by generational shifts) and the Singularity (impact of exponential vs linear change in power of technology) but got hung up on Second Life as being my point; when in fact my point (admittedly the most oblique metaphor amongst the three) was that the UI was likely to evolve significantly over the coming years (think branch -> telephone/fax -> internet browser -> virtual reality(?) a la Second Life… We discussed this at the end of the ‘film’ and then extensively in small groups during coffee and dinner later in the day. I suspect this might also be the case for those of you watching the slideshow for the first time and so thought it worth clarifying.
Aside from this metaphor being perhaps the least obvious, I think one of the reasons it sparked so much debate is that - of the three - it created the most discomfort from the crowd (mostly 40 to 50 something successful white males in senior executive positions at financial services firms.) They ‘get’ that the next generation is different (indeed as ‘Baby Boomers’ they can relate to such a generational change, whether they can adapt is obviously a more open question…); they ‘get’ or at least can understand the argument, that technology is transforming business and at an accelerating pace. However - and perhaps only at a subconcious level (although here I could well be being presumptuous) - the idea of conducting ’serious business’ in what to them appears only as some kind of interactive video game, well that is a cognitive step too far. Even for those whom I felt suspected I might actually be on to something, seemed to react defensively as if in self-admission that this was something they could not adapt to and so to deny its plausibility was an exercise in intellectual self-preservation. And for those (surprisingly few) with some previous knowledge of Second Life, the manifest weaknesses of the platform and well-founded scepticism as to its ultimate future got in the way of the ‘idea’: instead of discussing the idea, it became all about Second Life specifically. Clearly this is a much more debatable point, to which I myself am completely agnostic and have no real value to add as to whether or not Second Life will become the next de facto UI or will just be a historical footnote.
Anyhow I obviously welcome comment and debate on these ideas - and indeed I felt it was successful in doing just that on the day in Monaco, but wanted to head off at the pass so to speak, debate specifically centered on the strengths and weaknesses of Second Life. Not that it is not a fascinating subject but because I don’t think I have anything particularly insightful or informed to add to that debate which has also so ably been carried on in other forums. (For those interested in that debate, try starting here or here or for a summary Bruno’s post (who btw pointed out that it was perhaps worth writing this contextual clarification.)
April 26th, 2007 at 1:08 pm
3D virtual worlds are fascinating places and people will increasingly gravitate towards them for immersive experiences (often as a substitute for the real life equivalent) but in terms of the likely next generation UI for transactional commerce I think IM is a more tractable example.
Not least because IM is the communication tool of choice for Gen Y (far above voice and email, and exceeding even the against-the-odds popularity of text messaging), the embedding of transactional and informational functionality into IM tools is growing, and this also continues the trend you illustrate above i.e. the aggregation of functionality around the user, rather than users around functionality.
The functionality of a high street bank branch is pretty localised i.e. in its spot on the high street. Everything since then has been about pushing that functionality out to the edge i.e. the customer and seamlessly integrating it into where he/she lives (both offline and online).
(Actually, thinking about it this is a good argument why virtual worlds (which mimic the real-world aggregation of people around places) may never become the UI for real-world commerce.)
There are many examples of ‘bots’ which act like human brokers of news, stock quotes/execution, weather forecasts, travel bookings and so on, both in the consumer space and increasingly in the corporate environment (partly driven of course by the information-access expectations of Gen Y employees).
What’s interesting to me as an observer and user is that somehow the power of having functionality where you live (i.e. in your IM client) trumps the richness or human-ness of having it in a web browser or at the end of a phone.
Over time I think these bots will become increasingly sophisticated and extend their abilites past the simple broking of information/execution to more accomplished digital assistants which will not only accept instructions but use their own initiative to combine other services for the user’s benefit. Of course this intelligence is independent of UI, but somehow the conversational ‘relationship’ one has with an IM bot sets an expectation and acceptance that it will behave in a human-like way, which I think will drive their evolution in this direction.
How Gen Z will want to do business is a whole other question…
April 28th, 2007 at 4:37 pm
The part I find really interesting about Second Life is that it is becoming an economy in itself. There are Second lifers doing graphic design work/programming etc.. for other users, be it to design their virtual world house or clothing and I’m sure there are lots more examples of money being paid for work done in the virtual world aside from virtual property speculation.
I did a bit of research into the Linden dollar, Second Life’s currency.
If you use a sterling debit/credit card to deposit funds on Second Life. Your credit card company will convert pounds into dollars at about 3% away from the mid-rate, then you buy your Linden dollars in their market that generally has a 3% bid/offer spread, and if you are lucky enough to withdraw money from secondLife, you pay a 3% sales tax after having dealt on the wide spread again. There’s alot of charges in there!
I suppose Secondlife use the currency as one of their revenue earners, and as far as I can see it is a fiat currency linked roughly to the dollar.
I think its very possible that online communities like SecondLife can develop into powerful economic communities, perhaps no real world money changes hands but alot of virtual world money is changing hands for real and virtual world goods and services. If no money leaves the virtual world this could open up some interesting angles in ways to get round some of the inefficiencies in real world transactions, for instance bank transaction charges and government taxation.
Alan Greenspan has talked about private currency systems being a thing of the future, perhaps this is an opportuntiy to develop fairer currency systems in virtual communities than the current real world fiat currency system.
We read alot about the breakdown of communites, maybe online communities will show the way forward and even have some sort of geographical merge with real world communities.
May 4th, 2007 at 11:25 pm
Actually this is probably the UI for Gen Z — straight out of Minority Report. Incredible stuff…
http://blog.centopeia.com/2007/03/21/jeff-hans-multitouch-demo-ii/
May 9th, 2007 at 7:59 am
Stu, it’s a great UI demo but you would end up with muscles like Conan the Barbarian *and* a bad case of RSI if you had to work like that every day. Realistically, a gesture-based interface is a great idea but only if the gestures are based on small wrist and finger movements with your forearms well supported. Maybe the iPhone is half way there.