Loving What’s Broken

Amongst the myriad of web sites that report on what’s new and relevant in the tech world, trying to get the scoop on the next big things always seems to play a role as the common theme. “What’s next” is always an enticing concept that draws attention, and rightfully so. However, it might be worth a look into what’s not working now to really see where things are heading. So to speak, staying “ahead of the game” is really knowing what isn’t working in the one you’re playing. I’ll elaborate.

The new “it” word in I.T. has easily got to be the “Cloud.” For many of us the “Cloud” has just been the derived terminology for tool and services we had long since used. Dropbox, a great cloud service app that syncs data across multiple platforms, can easily trace at least some semblance to many services that came before it such as AIM, who used to allow users to share folders over’s it’s chat service. Apple’s new and practically named “iCloud” service combined many services that it had previously offered in it’s older MobileMe and .Mac services. There are other examples that I’m sure I could cite, but my point is not to exemplify this but identify that what’s “new” is very often not really new at all but what’s already been in front of us for years. It’s just that the experience of using what we had was broken. Fragmented services amongst an equally fragmented spread of providers could easily emulate the functions of “The Cloud,” but couldn’t do so with comfort and ease to the average user. It’s when the average user’s experience in wielding the tools that shape said experience reward the user beyond the service the tool aims to fill that we truly get products we collectively hold as “amazing” or, as mentioned earlier, “the next big thing.”

And personal computing is, if anything, an experience. It’s far from the objects and software we use, but very much those things at the same time. If the last decade has shown us anything in the tech sphere it’s that the tools that help define us do so by shaping the methods and relationships we relate to one another. This is, I know, a rather lofty sentence that might be Wired Magazine or GigaOm fodder, but it nevertheless rings true. The way people use technology along with the way they feel about it is very often more important that the device or service itself. The go to example for this in the tech world is usually the iPod, as Apple really didn’t bring anything new or unique to the market with its digital music player with the exception of the experience using one. It was simple and intuitive, and made the tech behind it all an afterthought to the enjoyment of listening to music. Think about it. Apple’s commercials had silhouettes dancing, not a spokesperson listing features. It was an activity they sold, not a product. Well, they definitely sold a product or two.

Facebook is another really great example. Chat boards, photo sharing sites, and even social networking as a whole already existed before Facebook showed up. What Facebook did differently is that they made these services more enjoyable to use. So much so that they easily define the term “Social Networking.” I hear they even made a movie about it.

I’m not saying anything that five minutes of thought or at least a half-dozen other tech writers, or for that matter you yourself, might not have already known. “New” is usually just “revised” or “improved.” My goal wasn’t to point out anything new but to make an argument that perhaps the attention of the tech audience, or perhaps everyone, be changed from the never-ending quest to find the “Next Big Thing” to looking for the “Last Great F*ck Up.”

Failures are a dime-a-dozen in tech. Microsoft Zune, HD DVD, and even just recently, Google Wave are all great examples. However, there is tremendous value in their failings. Often, services and tools such as the aforementioned become dismissed monikers of technological progress never serving more then a chide reference in conversation. The Zune had innovative sharing features, HD DVD arguable the greatest value for the consumer, and Google Wave took on eradicating e-mail with a unique vision of what correspondence over the web would be. All failures, sure, but all novel and of value. It wouldn’t be hard to imagine someone coming along and building upon features of each of these and other failed services to give us, let’s say, the next Spotify.

In truth, tech, as in any other field, abides by the old adage “learn from your mistakes.” However, our collective attention does not tend to mind our shortfalls. The trick is to know which failures to regard as ingenious and novel. It might be to the advantage of the innovators for most of us to look past the wrecking yards of old ideas, but in a world where tech changes faster than most of us can keep up, it might be beneficial to slow down and familiarize ourselves with what we have right now – even if, for the time being, it doesn’t work.