Techno no-go

Last week there was another big technology fair, with various companies displaying their latest advances. And before, of course, there was Apple, with the new iPhone 5.

So what was delivered?

Well, with the iPhone, you got essentially a very similar phone to the iPhone 4GS: the operating systems are the same, the hardware actually very similar. Yes, it was longer and thinner and slightly faster; but that was pretty much all.

The big news at the tech fair? That'll be the firm that showed off its latest 86” television screen. How was this a massive development? Well, it was 2” bigger than their previous screen.

Now, I know that there are sometimes huge leaps forward: HDTV, 3D, 4G etc. - in fact anything with an acronym or abbreviation. Brand new technologies that allow us to do so much more. The phone in my pocket lets me take a photo and share it via the internet with millions of people, within seconds and with just the swipe of a touchscreen. Well, ok, a couple of hundred of people. But it's not that long ago when the idea of sharing photos so widely - other than passing them around a group at a party - was unheard of.

But then the phone in my pocket actually isn't that much different to the previous one. I have a Samsung Galaxy Note; and previously had a Dell Streak. They are both the same size; both had a similar camera; both had the same operating system on them and the same availability of apps. In fact, the reason I bought my new phone wasn't to 'upgrade' - to get some technology or function that I didn't have - it was because my other phone had broken.

And when you look at people who do 'upgrade', it isn't usually the 'draw' of any new functionality; but simply the availability. People bought HDTVs because they were buying a new tv anyway, and 'might as well' have HD. There were of course the first few evangelists who bought simply for the new; but they aren't really the drivers behind the technology and are probably 1% of the target market (albeit being 100% of the initial market).

The tech guys create the new technology either because they can (or to see if they can); or because they must. The ridiculously big tvs for example are created purely to show that it is possible to do it; whereas other technologies, like SuperHD are created because there is a need: if you are buying an 86” tv, then 1080HD is simply not good enough, a crisp enough resolution at that size where your pixel will be a massive 2mm tall. Then, once the technology becomes cheap enough, it becomes included as standard - almost a forced migration. One of my colleagues regularly bemoans the lack of absolutely basic mobile phones available these days.

And you have to wonder how necessary - or even beneficial - the progress is. Take cash machines. Is there any need for them to have colour screens? Aside from the pretty pictures advertising their low-rate loans, no - you need the screen to tell you what your balance is, and ask you how much of that dwindling resource you would like to withdraw from your 86” SuperHD tv fund. The reason they have them is because it has now become cheaper to manufacture colour screens, otherwise you need to have and maintain a separate plant for your old monochrome screens.

I saw a car the other day advertised as having a colour touchscreen display. I'm not sure why. I presume it includes an in-built satellite navigation system, but otherwise, why? Is the colour touchscreen going to make me a better driver? Also certainly it would, in fact, distract you from being a better driver. I have seen irons advertised as having LCDs for no apparent reason. I'm sure someone sits in the R&D departments of white goods departments trying to think of things to slap on their fridge, and when someone asks why anyone would want that, they simply reply “why not!”

Indeed as a moot consideration the BBC Click programme recently considered why you would want an IP connected washing machine - one of the reasons behind IPv6 was that we were going to have so many more 'connected appliances'. The most dominant reason was so that the washing machine could send a message to your smartphone telling you that your washing was done. There was, however, one genius idea - that it would only turn on if the weather was going to be fine for the amount of time it would take to dry it.

Within tech circles the running joke is the IP connected fridge that automatically orders milk for you when you run low (it's not very funny, but they don't have many jokes). Lovely. But what are the practicalities of this? Would you have to scan the barcode when you use any so it knew it was milk? And then give it an estimate of how much you use? Or would you have to put it in the same place in the fridge every time so that it could weigh it? What about if you bought something new or wanted to try something different? Perhaps you don't ever try any new food? And what about delivery? Do you have to maintain your Google calendar so very tightly so that it can automatically book a delivery slot in for you? Thereby stifling your spontaneity? After all, spontaneity, experimentation and entrepreneurship are the key drivers behind technological invention and development. If the new technology ends up being less convenient it just doesn't take off.

And there is suitability. Take 3D tv. Not only was timing poor for this – within a few years of the mass consumer base having just upgraded to digital HDTV and therefore unwilling to make a purchase for a while – but it has a number of problems with suitability and practicality.

It is perfect for the all-immersive movie experience; but that is less than 1% of what tvs are made for, and an aspect in which people are willing to compromise: if they want the full experience they go to the cinema.

TV is frequently dip-in dip-out. Getting your eyes used to a 3D screen is not compatible with that. Indeed in Japan a number of authorities are concerned about the effect and strain 3D tvs place upon peoples eyes. And you can't dip-in, dip-out when it involves putting glasses on and taking them off again: it is just plain inconvenient. And even when you are fully committed to a movie, the glasses are a discomfort. Yes, they are now making tvs which don't require glasses, but the 'sweet-spot' in which to sit to achieve 3D is limited and very much not suited to popping your head round the doorframe to catch the headlines inbetween cooking.

But that shows the development progress. It started out offering a feature – 3D – and then they worked to refine that feature, making it as comfortable as possible and removing the need for glasses. Without the initial development of what might have seemed like a gimmick, the ultimate aim would not have been achieved: without the novelty of a super thin screen, your mobile would not be in the same state as it is. And the need to make these novelties, gimmicks consumable is what drives future development; as soon as you can make HDTV a necessity - for the mainstream, as the basic starting point - then you can reap the rewards of developing that technology and investing it into the next big thing.

Of course the tiny, drip-feed, incremental developments are necessary. Yes, HD was a massive step-up for television, and it did convince people to spend more when an otherwise necessary upgrade was required, but it would only have been possible with the steps in between. Yes, the processor in the new iPhone may be only slightly faster, slightly more powerful than the last one; but it is considerably faster than in the first phone. Were it not for this snail-pace progression then my memory card would have been sitting around at the same size - both physically and digitally - as my old 16MB compact flash card, waiting for the next earthquake-sized radical development. There wouldn't have been the step smaller to SD, then to mini-SD, then to micro-SD. The digital increases would possibly have still occurred, but that is the law of digital; and even then they have only been required by other developments - my camera incrementally increased from 3megapixels to 5 and now to 10 megapixels. Without that, there is no need for a bigger memory card so that I can hold 2000 pictures instead of 1000 - 1000 would have continued to be perfectly sufficient.

But that brings me back to the usefulness of the developments. Digital cameras these days are being marketed with 20+ megapixels. How useful is that? Unless you are zooming in stratospherically, or printing the pictures out the size of a bedroom wall (I shall be doing that soon and I still suspect my 10mp pictures will be perfectly adequate) then all that the extra pixels are doing is using up data on your hard-drive. Worse still, it may actually be hindering the consumer experience because more pixels take longer to save, and therefore present a greater lag on refresh times, slowing down your ability to take the next shot. Yes, that degree of quality may be necessary for professional users, but for the general consumer it is bamboozling.

And that, I think, is really the point which I am trying to make. When it comes to technology I am reasonably well educated, and can understand the terms, the benefits and the compromises; but that isn't necessarily the case with consumers. They see each technological development as a concern, a further term or specification to confuse them. It makes them very wary of technology. Human nature being what it is, people are only too quick to come up with problems or failures, where technology (and not - so they believe - the user) has let them down. Unless the creep is so gentle so as to be unnoticeable, there will be a distinct wariness from the potential user. Ironically creep helping to prevent a shock. Unless, of course, like me, they are quite a geek about it. It's all very well putting a colour touchscreen in the car, but if your average driver can't use it to turn the heating on, then it's a step backward from what they want and are used to. It's all very well increasing the definition, but it's another number to remember, and the consumer wonders “is this the three-letter-acronym where a smaller number is better or the bigger? Is Panasonic's HCSD the same as Sony's CSF?”

To that extent there needs to be a happy medium. Just enough information for the consumer so that they understand the development without confusion; and with manufacturers themselves being sensible as to use or necessity of inclusion (or extension) of a technology or the information. If it is included as standard across the industry, consider dropping the information - a company was recently criticised as advertsing its paint as "lead free" dispite the fact that all paints - by law - have been lead-free since the 1990s. If customers are finding themselves forced - or at least encouraged - to adopt a technology that they don't want and can't see a benefit of, then they are going to be reluctant adopters, and certainly not evangelists about it. But then, I think I have probably discussed some of this already with regard to Facebook.