Assignment #2: Would This Technology Get Adopted?

Lara Sarkissian

Panasonic Prototype, 3D Plasma TV

http://www.techhive.com/article/172700/Panasonic_Prototype_3D_Plasma_TV.html

·      Panasonic’s plan is to create a plasma TV with 3D capabilities, so families can sit and watch 3D movies at the comfort of their own home. I think this will be adopted (slowly), since audiences enjoy the “true to life” experience 3D movies give, as well as more interaction with the visual information. Also, this means audiences won’t only have access to 3D in theatres, but also in their own home.

·      However, I believe the 3D capable plasma TV would have a very slow adoption rate. Currently, there are only a handful of features that are created for 3D by filmmakers per year. This means there will be more 3D content needed to feed audiences interest and reason to buy the 3D capable plasma TV and throw out the TV they have currently.

·       Relative advantage: 3D capable TV would bring higher quality, “true to life” and more interactive experience compared to non-3D capable TV’s out there.

·      Compatibility:  It would be compatible only in the sense that 3D productions will now be able to stream at home vs. only at the theater.

·      Adaptability (re-inventablity): However, there aren’t enough 3D productions out there, to go out of the way and spend a lot of money to buy a new TV specializing in 3D productions and completely change the system currently used. Therefore, harder to adapt to and less willing to purchase because of affordability. 3DTV requires “active glasses” as well, which are pricy.

·      Observability: Compared to non-3d capable TVs, the 3D capable TV will have positive effects sensed because of having higher quality and giving more sensual information along with visuals. However it is unclear what will come next and what new innovation will outdo the 3D TV’s and the progress that can be made in the future.

·      Errors: Not enough 3D content out there to buy a new (expensive) TV specializing in 3d.

·      Improvement: Possible techniques to create imitated 3D versions of current films.

The Kitchen Safe – Will it be adopted?

Christina Vasiliou

The Kitchen Safe, with built-in time lock, was created by David Krippendorf as a tool to help in avoiding temptation; the user can put food items in the container and then set the timer for any time – from 1 minute to 10 days – and lock the items in the container for the aforementioned period of time. 

Relative Advantage

            The Kitchen Safe has relative advantage for those who are dieting who have little willpower to avoid snacking on unhealthy foods.  This purpose was David Krippendorf’s original goal in creating the Kitchen Safe.  Apart from not buying unhealthy foods or having someone else hide such foods from you, there are no kitchen specific, time-lock safe predecessors, so the relative advantage of The Kitchen Safe is pretty apparent.  Additionally, The Kitchen Safe is a less expensive alternative to expensive, fancy diet plans, when you can instead just lock away the food for certain period of time.  However, the relative cost advantage of the safe to just not buying unhealthy foods is not high – it would definitely be more cost effective to not buy unhealthy foods than buy a $39.95 safe.  However, The Kitchen Safe is designed for those who cannot resist buying and eating the unhealthy foods. 

Compatibility

            The Kitchen Safe is definitely compatible with the values and norms of our social system because a healthy lifestyle has been deemed a valuable characteristic to have in our society.  Additionally, many feel that we live in an over consumptive society, so an innovation that works to cut down consumption (of many things beyond food) can be seen as very compatible with society’s values.  The Kitchen Safe would not be compatible with people who do not have “temptation” problems and who do not have a food or object that they feel is to tempting to resist – or one that does not fit in the 3.5 quart container.

Adaptability

            The Kitchen Safe is very adaptable and can lock up a large variety of temptation inducing things.  While it was originally designed for irresistible, unhealthy snack foods, it is also pictured containing cigarettes, computer mouses, cell phones, credit cards, dog food, and kids’ toys.  If you are trying to limit yourself to only smoking once a day, you can set the timer for 24 hours and physically restrict yourself to access to your cigarettes once a day.  If you want the entire family to be cell phone free for a 20 minute dinner, everyone can put their cell phones into The Kitchen Safe for that certain period of time.  Another useful way to use The Kitchen Safe is for dog food because then it will avoid the question of whether someone else in the house has fed the dog yet which can be a common problem in families.  

Observability

            The observability of The Kitchen Safe depends on what it is being used for.  If it is being used to limit snack foods in hopes of losing weight or becoming more healthy then the observability of these results is not very noticeable in the short term.  If it is to limit cell phone use at the dinner table, then the observability is very good because the results are immediate.  In both cases, the restriction begins immediately so the actual process of the technology is very observable, but it depends on what the goals of using the technology are to rank the observability.

Possible design errors

            The main error in the functioning of The Kitchen Safe is that while it aims to take away temptation, there is no limit on the time the container can be open.  While it may be locked for three days, it can be open for an indefinite amount of time, so if after three days, you are really fiending for cookies, there is nothing stopping you from eating ALL the cookies that have been locked away for 72 hours.  This also goes for cigarettes.  Furthermore, the effectiveness of the product relies solely on human will power, the exact thing it is attempting to solve the problem of.  If you don’t have the willpower to not smoke cigarettes, you might not have the willpower to physically lock them in a box for a predetermined amount of time.  Additionally, in some cases (like food) only one temptation can be locked away at a time if you only have one safe. 

            Overall, on the basis of relative advantage, compatibility, adaptability, and observability The Kitchen Safe has a good chance of being adopted rather quickly.  The Kitchen Safe has varied possibilities for usage and fits into the weight/health conscious values of a large portion of the population of society.  Its potential errors are only realized after purchase and are only applicable to some of the functions.  For instance, using the safe for technology, children’s toys, dog food, etc. avoid the “overcoming temptation” error that is possible with snack foods and cigarettes. 

 http://www.dudeiwantthat.com/gear/gadgets/the-kitchen-safe-time-lock-vice-guard.asp

http://www.coolthings.com/kitchen-time-lock-safe/

http://www.thekitchensafe.com/pages/overview

VIRGINIA LAM:

This item is designed to be a laptop stand where one can flip it and use it upside down. This laptop stand is much more convenient than previous laptop stands due to the capability of being used upside down. It is convenient for those who would enjoy using their laptop for work or pleasure while being in a more relaxed position. However this item is not a necessity but rather an item for pleasure. The benefits from this stand seem to only last for a certain amount of time because I believe that most laptop users would not lay down for an extended period of time. But this innovation is very compatible with society right now because large amounts of people use laptops in this current generation. This innovation seems simple enough to understand for a wide range of users and does not seem complex at all since the stand only requires two bolts. I feel as if the adaptability for this product is low as it is only used to hold a laptop. However the only other ways I could think about it being used would be to read books or other devices upside down as well. I would say that the downfall in this stand is that it is more bulky than normal laptop stands, so I believe that it will be adopted at a much slower rate. Another down side to this innovation is that I feel as if this design could not be very beneficial to the longevity of the computer. Many laptops probably won’t run as well upside down compared to right side up. Maybe they can develop a fan in addition to the stand to cool the laptop if it were to overheat. Overall, I believe that this innovation could be adopted but it might be adopted at an extremely slow rate and it would not be bought by most of the general public but rather a small population.
 

JILLIAN FIRESTONE:

IYAH TURMINI:

http://www.amazon.com/CTA-Digital-iPotty-Activity-Seat/dp/B00B3G8UGQ?tag=vglnk-c297-20#productDetails

The product I chose for this assignment is the iPotty. Yeah, the iPotty. It’s basically a potty training seat with a stand that holds iPads. So your potty-training child can have the pleasure of excreting fecal matter while entertaining themselves with several hundred dollars worth of technology.

Right off the bat, this product has a few major design flaws. First, excrement and iPads should never come into such close contact. Second, the product is manufactured by CTA Digital and made in China, which I’m gonna venture a guess and say means that it’s almost guaranteed to have high levels of lead. I honestly doubt this product would be adopted at all considering people tend to treat their tech like their children. Beyond that, why would you want to get your child used to using the restroom with an iPad. They’d just end up that freaky kid in school who totes their tech to the lavatory (and not in the acceptable-iPhone form).

In terms of relative advantage, the iPotty doesn’t have too much of an advantage over the old standby potty training toilet seat. I don’t really understand how entertaining a child will develop their ability to use a toilet or induce bowel movements.

I wouldn’t say this product is necessarily incompatible with today’s tech-obsessed society. It just strikes me that this goes a bit too far. What parent wants their friends to come over, use their bathroom, and find the iPotty in there? Seems like it’d be embarrassing. It’s just so bougie and ridiculous.

The iPotty is definitely not adaptable. It’s too specialized to be re-invented into something else. It’s not as useful as general technology (once your children are beyond the potty training age it just becomes a lead-laden crap-seat) or even a very useful specialized technology.

While the iPotty isn’t preventative tech, making it’s dismal rate of adoption slightly higher than it might otherwise be, it’s results aren’t necessarily easily observable. Potty training can take a lot of time. And this product seems like it would require a lot Clorox wipes and a really good iPad insurance policy from Apple.