Column Archive

“Good Enough” gets better… Readers of these columns may remember past discussions of how consumer products typically reach a stage of being “good enough”.  Once this level is reached there is little benefit for products that try to exceed these levels.  A ready example can be found in audio components.  The sound quality of “good enough” can now be achieved by many products that are commonly available — and at low prices.  There is little commercial benefit to try to achieve anything better because the additional sound “purity” is not detectable by the great majority of listeners.  The few audiophiles who are willing to spend enormous sums of money to achieve aurally imperceptible improvements are a distinct minority.  And they are catered to by a few specialty companies that create products sometimes having more visual appeal than better sound.  The “good enough” criteria for audio components has not changed for quite a number of years and that is the way it is expected to stay. Some years ago, in the early days of digital cameras, I wrote a column that predicted that for most consumer digital cameras – especially in the point-and-shoot category — an imager with 2 Megapixels would be “good enough”.  This prediction was based on how people typically use these cameras to take snapshots that are then made into prints no larger than 3 x 5 or 4 x 6 inches in size.   Given the overall quality of the lenses and the casual use of these cameras, it seemed to me that 2 Megapixels would be quite “good enough” and would also keep the digital storage demands at a modest level.   Clearly my logic was not what prevailed in the market place.  The “good enough” criteria went well beyond the 2 Megapixels so that even the lowest priced digital cameras are currently beginning to approach levels closer to 10 Megapixels.   So have we finally settled on “good enough” at this new and higher level of quality – a level that most consumers will never appreciate?  Apparently not!  What caught my attention recently was a product review in Popular Photography magazine.  Nikon has just announced new Digital Cameras with 36.3 Mpixel and 24.2 Mpixel sensors.  What is really amazing is that the 24.2 Mpixel camera has a suggested selling price of $699.  It’s intended for amateur photographers just one level above those in the casual point-and-shoot category.  How will these amateurs benefit from this stunning resolution capability?   They would have to make prints larger than 16 x 20 inches to appreciate the subtleties that this resolution can provide.  And the rest of the photographic process has to be executed with comparable precision – no camera shake and very careful focus.  “Good enough” is apparently no longer being determined by what is practical.  It’s a race set by the market-driven need to promote and sell products – perhaps similar to what happened some years ago with horsepower in cars — a feature that also could never be used by most drivers but cost plenty in extra gas consumption.  So now we have cameras that take pictures well beyond the capabilities of essentially all amateur photographers.  And capturing images at this resolution requires storing very large files that then require extra computer resources to process – like the gas guzzling cars of the late 60s and early 70s.     Now, let’s look at what’s happening to displays.  Here too, we are apparently about to create a new level of “good enough”, but perhaps one that makes better sense.  When HDTV came along, I wrote a few columns suggesting that full HD resolution of 1080 x 1920 was really more than most consumers would ever appreciate.  It seemed to me that something in the range of 720 X 1280 was going to be quite “good enough” for virtually all casual viewers.  What was not so clear when I made these predictions was how flat-panel screen sizes would grow as time went by.  Many of you should still be able to remember that the largest CRTs were about 36 inches in diagonal measure and that rear-projection was the only way to achieve large-screen viewing.  Virtually no one in the display industry at that time thought that just a few years into the future we would be looking at typical flat-panel sizes of more than 50 inches – especially with LC technology.  Now we are being tempted with flat-panels in the 60 to 80 inch sizes and soon even beyond.  Given these larger screen sizes should we reconsider what is “good enough”?  At 70 or 80 inches even 1080 x 1920 HDTV begins to show its resolution limitations.   So perhaps it makes perfectly good sense that we are beginning to hear of plans to introduce TVs with even more rows and columns.  A doubling of rows and columns adds a spectacular three-dimensional quality to images on these larger screens.  And as it was in going from NTSC to HDTV this is a much easier transition for the consumer than trying to use something clumsy like stereoscopic 3D viewing glasses.  The higher resolution does not require anything special.  If a program comes in at a lower resolution it simply doesn’t look quite as spectacular but can be viewed just the same as a higher resolution program.  There is great entertainment value in large flat-panel screens.  The current “sweet-spot” of television displays in the 50-inch range is moving to 60-inches and soon above.  Over the next few years we can expect to see more of the market migrating to 70 and even 80-inch category displays.  For these, the new 4K resolution format will be of real benefit.  So a new “good enough” is evolving that goes well beyond what we thought was “good enough” just a few years ago.  This is an exciting development for the display industry – much more exciting than stereoscopic 3D that inherently will never be able to produce truly realistic images.  Are you ready to accept the new

Quicker and Easier… The Information Society is upon us!   We have personal computers, laptop computers, tablet computers, smart phones, smart televisions, smart automobiles, and electronic readers of various kinds.  All these devices are supplemented by a plethora of places to store information — including “the cloud”.  It seems obvious that with all these devices as our constant companions there should no longer be a need to use the old-fashioned storage medium – paper.  Should it not already be as extinct as the proverbial dodo bird? Recently I had an interesting experience that led me to quite a different conclusion.  A client asked me to review several hundred technical documents and to sort them into a few pre-selected categories for possible future reference.  The documents were initially provided to me on a CD with each reference simply listed by a nondescript identifying number.  I was also asked to use a spreadsheet to keep track of how I categorized each of these technical references.  This certainly does not sound like a particularly difficult task, does it?  Simply start with the first technical paper, review it, decide on the category, and then mark the proper entry on the spreadsheet.   So how much time should I allocate for this task?  A quick look at a few of the files gave me an average of about five pages per document.  It would take less than a minute to bring up the document but then it would require at least 15 minutes to review the approximately five pages of text and figures and make a categorization judgement.  Then I would need to close the file, open the spreadsheet and enter the information.  A total of about 20 minutes per document seemed like a reasonable pace.  So three documents per hour divided into roughly 200 documents comes to approximately 66 hours of dedicated effort.  Wow!   I really did not want to spend the better part of two weeks on this task.   And then I received a call from the client that they really needed the results of my review in a few days.  Was there possibly a better way?   Since there were only a limited number of categories, was it really necessary to use a spreadsheet?  And was there any way to reduce the time it would take me to review each document?  What if I could simply pick up a printed copy, take a quick look at the figures and major headings, and make a decision in a few minutes instead of bringing up each page sequentially on my computer screen?  If I had these documents in printed stack, shouldn’t I be able to simply do a quick review and put each into a pile that represented the chosen category?  So off went the request to get the CD fed into a copy machine to produce what turned out to be a stack of paper that was nearly two feet high.  What a waste of paper and copier time – perhaps you may be thinking?  Will this really result in a saving in time and in the overall cost of doing this project?  Well, the good news is that I was able to get through all the documents in less than 15 hours instead of the 66 hours that I was estimating using only computer access.   By using paper, I was able to access each document instantly – simply pick it off the stack.  I was also able to sort and categorize with the same instant process of simply placing the document on the chosen stack.  The review process also became much faster and easier.  The figures were easy to find and peruse and the pertinent text could be found by a quick flip through the pages.  There was no need to go to a CD, find the file, open it, review it one page at a time, go back and forth between several screens to review figures and text, then close the file, open the spreadsheet, enter the document identifier, and fill in the category.      The end result was a major saving in time and a happy client.  Computers can do many things for us – many things that we were never able to do before.   But sometimes too much reliance can lead to a result that is exactly the opposite of what we thought we were trying to accomplish.  In this case, putting all the files on a CD seemed like the optimum way to get the information to me.  Obviously, it was much cheaper to ship a CD than a box full of papers.  However, at my end the process was made more difficult.  In fact, so difficult that it could not be accomplished in the desired time frame.  Given this experience, I think we can expect that paper will be with us for some time to come.   It’s still a wonderful way to organize information and have quick access to it.  It may look like a messy desk but it’s often easier to find whatever we need than to look for a computer file, the name of which we cannot remember.   Are you still a dedicated paper user or have you moved on to the predicted paper-less society of the future?  I would be interested to hear your thoughts on this topic or others.  You may reach me directly from this site, by e-mail at silzars@attglobal.net, or by telephone at 425-898-9117.

A Fond Farewell to Home Theaters… A house is built to last at least a hundred years.  Electronic products, on the other hand, have life cycles of typically no more than about five years.  Should we then be surprised that when we try to integrate electronic gadgets into our homes that the two may not live happily ever after?   One good example of this is the home intercom systems that were so popular in the 1980s.   They were the “must have” item in every new moderately upscale house that was built.   But it took only a few years for them to begin to look dated and their usefulness quickly declined as other communication methods came on the scene.  Similarly, there have been numerous efforts to integrate computers into homes.  These computers were going to regulate our heating systems, turn lights on and off, and control access at every entry point.  But how many of us would want to have a home that is controlled by an old IBM PC using 5” inch floppy disks?   That’s what we would find in a home only 25 years old — a house still very much in the prime of its life.  The computer, however, would have long ago given up any semblance of useful functionality.   Are we willing to commit our homes to something that has to be revamped every five years or so?   Even though some technologists thought otherwise, fortunately most consumers knew better.  Now we are seeing the passing of another major home-decorating trend that depended on the integration of electronics into our houses.   Did anyone predict ten or fifteen years ago that it would soon be possible to install 60, 70, or even 80-inch flat-panel displays in just about every room of our choosing?   And that these flat-panel displays would be bright enough that we would not need darkened rooms to see them?   The home theater concept was predicated on the need for a projector to achieve display images of large size, and projectors were typically not bright enough to be comfortably viewed in rooms with normal daylight.  Thus, was born the at-home movie-viewing experience.   Some home theater rooms that were constructed were truly impressive with movie-theater like draperies and even popcorn machines.  Subdued lighting added to the feeling of movie-theater ambiance.  But as flat panel displays grew in size, resolution, and brightness these dedicated home movie-theaters and their projection displays were used less and less.   Some homeowners tried to keep up with technology and upgraded these dedicated rooms by replacing projectors with flat-panel displays.  But for others these rooms have become places to store surplus items we all seem to accumulate.  The home theater is no longer a must have feature for most homebuyers – even upper end buyers.  There simply is no need for such a special place when every room of the house can become an instant  “home theater”.  And installing a flat panel display does not require a special room.    My current home was constructed in the year 2000 and the original owner had CAT5 wiring installed throughout with access plugs in every room.   That wiring is now dormant and as far as I can see will never have a useful function.  As with most of us, I now have WiFi and a computer in every room that needs no hard-wired connection.   Will we as a society finally “see the light” and quit trying to combine 100-year houses with 3 – 5 year electronics gadgets?   Most likely not.  The desire to find new “conveniences” and invent new applications will continue as it has in the past.  And as we have already amply experienced, those gadgets will have a short life span.  The best options for home owners will be to adopt only those products that don’t require their houses to be modified or special rooms to be constructed to accommodate these new “conveniences”.  That way these “electronic marvels”  can come and go without leaving evidence of their short life spans. Have you decided yet what to do with your home theater room?   Perhaps you were wise enough not to end up with one in the first place.  I would be interested to hear your thoughts on integrating homes and electronics.   What do you think is the best way to accomplish this?   You may reach me directly from this site, by e-mail at silzars@attglobal.net, or by phone at 425-898-9117.

Back to the Future… A few weeks ago, USA Today celebrated its 30th anniversary with a special edition that included a section on “The Next 30 Years”.  Along with this celebration they also introduced new graphics and a new layout for the appearance of the paper.  In our household, the immediate reaction to this “futuristic” look was, “what a horrible and unreadable mess” they have made of what was previously a comfortably readable and entertaining newspaper.   After trying to get used to it for a couple of days, we gave up and called to cancel our subscription.  Apparently, we were not the only subscribers to complain because they immediately offered us two weeks for free if we would reconsider.  The person on the phone said they were taking these customer responses into consideration and would use them to re-evaluate.  So much for trying to be graphically futuristic!  Why would I want to read a newspaper that looks like page after page of a non-stop infomercial?  The special section of what we can expect in the next 30 years was also very telling – telling in how wrong it is likely to be.  The “predictors” were all famous personages in key positions in various industries.  And guess what?  To a person they predicted future success for whatever they are doing right now.   James Cameron predicted great and ubiquitous success for 3D technology.  Richard Branson predicted space flight for everyone.  A TV executive predicted great success for TV.  And so forth.  There was not one surprise in the bunch. It’s really a good thing that the future does not listen to these predictions.  In reality, the future is full of surprises.  A few decades ago, who imagined how Google would influence our lives?  Who imagined how the Internet would create social networking?   Who imagined that we would rely on “Apps” for everything we do?  Who imagined people unable to wait even 5 minutes without checking their iPhones or iPads?  Fifty years ago, who imagined business people walking through airports dressed like homeless bums?  Who imagined that we would need to stand in line for a half-hour and have our bodies scanned before getting to the gate?  Who imagined that it would actually take longer to get to a destination because planes would be flying slower – in addition to the extra hour getting through the airport?  This list of unpredicted surprises can be made almost as long as we would like to make it.  No matter how we try, we don’t seem to be able to see those new events and new ideas that eventually turn out to be really important in our lives.  In past columns, I have written that what we can predict is technology evolution once we understand how a new material behaves.  But we cannot predict when someone might find such a new behavior.  For example, we were able to make accurate predictions of how flat-panel displays would evolve once we understood the basic material properties of Liquid Crystals, Plasma cells, and LEDs.  But so far no one has been able to predict when a new display material is likely to be found and how long it could be before it performs well enough to be commercially useful.  So how is it that we will get from today to our future ten, twenty, or thirty years from now?   It seems to require many efforts and multiple approaches until someone hits on that special idea, discovery, or innovation that rises above the rest.  On the opposing side can be unexpected events that cause a disruption in our lives and require a similarly unexpected and previously unplanned response.    Given this, will we really see space travel as a commercial enterprise?   Will we soon have cars that drive themselves?  And in our own field of display technology will we have some dramatic surprises?  Given that displays depend on the fundamental behavior of materials, and that it takes roughly 20 years from initial discovery to first interesting products, we can make a reasonable prediction that there will be few if any surprises.  For example, the path to flexible displays will be a slow and steady one.  The path to ever-larger displays is also well established and will continue.  We are entering the time of further improvements in resolution and greater pixel counts that should carry us for the next 5 to 10 years.  At the moment there are no dramatically new material systems on the horizon.  OLED is continuing its slow progress to commercialization and we may see some new results with Quantum Dots and related technologies.  And who knows, in 30 years or so we may even get 3D to look more like the reality it is supposed to replicate.  All this uncertainty and unpredictability makes the future all that much more interesting.  If you think you can do better at predicting what is going to happen, I would love to hear from you.  You may reach me directly from this site, by e-mail at silzars@attglobal.net, or by telephone at 425-898-9117.

Fundamental Driving Forces… Are there such “driving forces” that over time might guide and encourage the progress of developments in the display industry?  Over 25 years ago, I formulated what I thought such driving forces would be for the foreseeable future – at least 10 years out.   So perhaps it’s time to take a look and see how we did. At the time, I identified four fundamental driving forces:             Compute Power            Image Processing Software            Communications Bandwidth            Location Independent Communications Compute Power has continued to increase much as everyone anticipated, but perhaps in a different direction than expected 25 years ago.  Processing speed has not made any dramatic leaps in recent years, but we are now using our computers for data and image storage more than anyone imagined.  So rather than raw processing speed, we are now relying on our computers to store all of our knowledge and high-resolution images.  These images of course need high quality displays and that has turned out to be a major driving force for display size, resolution, and color accuracy.  Image Processing Software has likewise had an effect that parallels that of compute power and storage.  We are all using images to a degree that previously could not have happened.  Not only are we sending images to each other but we are using them more and more in commerce and in work environments.   The ability to capture, store, and manipulate images has led to the need for high-quality displays of all sizes.  In order to share the images we now have in our computers, in our digital cameras, and captured in our cell phones, we have seen the evolution of ever growing Communications Bandwidth so that these images can be transmitted and shared with family, friends, and colleagues The final fundamental driving force of Location Independent Communications is perhaps the one that has grown the most and has been the most surprising in how widely our society has not only accepted such technology but the new and sometimes peculiar behaviors that go with it.  Looking ahead 25 years ago, it would not have been possible to predict just how overwhelming the impact of cell phones, tablet computers, and laptop computers would be on allowing us to communicate from almost any location and to send nearly unlimited amounts of data to others.  These four fundamentals have indeed been important driving forces in how display products have evolved.  For example, the need for small displays with high-resolution is the direct consequence of text messages and other data being transmitted to and from hand-held devices.   As another obvious example, the large high-resolution flat-panel TVs we now enjoy are the consequence of transmission standards and image processing software that allow high-quality images to be sent to our homes.  Perhaps the question to ask now is whether we have exhausted these fundamentals and whether new ones are needed to guide us over the next decade and beyond.  My conclusion is that these four will continue to guide the display industry over the next decade as well.  We have made great progress over the last 25 years but are not anywhere near exhausting what can be done.  We’re in the midst of these developments and not near an endpoint.  Over the next 10 years we will see robust progress in display technology to keep up with progress in image processing and image communications.  We can expect to see even larger and higher resolution displays for television and more capable displays for the “wearable” and location-independent electronics applications. Should you wish to share your thoughts on this topic or others you may contact me directly from this site, by telephone at 425-898-9117, or by e-mail at silzars@attglobal.net.

So Quick to Change… Across the street from our house is a wooded idyllic trail that runs along Lake Sammamish.  This is the perfect place to take a walk – with dog or not – to relax from a busy day of activity, to do a bit of quiet meditating, or to simply do nothing but enjoy the peaceful lake and forest canopy overhead.   It’s a blessing to have such an opportunity in the midst of busy suburban neighborhoods.  But is this the way most of us are taking advantage of this special place?  Well, not from what I see.  Most of the people that pass me by are busily talking on their cell phones or texting as they walk.  Some are even trying to control their unruly puppies or pushing baby carriages while also holding cell phones to their ears or texting with one free hand while pushing and/or pulling with the other.  So what has happened to the quiet walks in the woods or the idyllic strolls along the beach?  We no longer seem to be able to take even a few minutes away from our wearable electronic devices to simply enjoy what nature has to offer.  That makes me sad.  In last month’s column, I discussed what I believe are the fundamental driving forces of Compute Power, Image Processing Software, Communications Bandwidth, and Location Independent Communications.  These fundamental driving forces have guided new product developments for the last several decades and can be expected to continue to be relevant for at least the next decade.  But while these fundamentals have proven to be stable and reliable guides in how technologies are evolving, there have been rather dramatic and rapid changes how specific products — that are based on these driving forces — have come to influence the way we make use of new capabilities. How many years has it been since the introduction of the iPhone?  Not very many at all.  How many years since the iPad?   An even shorter answer.  Yet in that brief period, we have come to accept the desire – even necessity – of non stop communications with everyone we could possibly know.  When the plane lands there is a frenzy of activity as everyone instantly checks for messages on their iPhones.   In restaurants people are texting and talking on their phones instead of to their dates or colleagues. In stores shoppers are talking on their phones while selecting items.  And of course, no matter what the laws say, texting and talking while driving continues to be a perceived vital necessity – no matter what the risks may be.  Given all this, there can be no surprise that a quiet and peaceful trail through the woods is just another location for talking and texting.  After all what else could one possibly do to occupy those few minutes of peace and quiet?  The rapidity of this behavioral change is something that I do not believe anyone anticipated.  It’s not all that different than if we had all suddenly become addicted to a powerful drug.  Technology was simply the facilitator.  The more interesting and unpredictable result is the rapidity and depth of behavior change that has taken place.  So what can we conclude from all this as we approach the Christmas Holidays?  The practical side is that the gifts of choice this year are more cell phones and more tablets – in other words more “Location Independent Communications” devices.  Better images and better ways to capture and send them are a natural and now expected part of having these devices. But will Christmas morning and Christmas day consist of each family member busily texting and/or talking on their communication devices while ignoring family members in their physical vicinity?  Most likely, yes.  Given that this basic behavioral change in how we interact with the world took place in the span of only a few short years, what other surprising changes could there be that we have not yet identified?   Will some new technology driven product come along that will have as major an impact on our society?   Could it be in the area of education and learning?  Could it be in transportation such as self-driving vehicles?   Could it be in some new way that we acquire purchased items?  In the meantime, perhaps we can slow down for a few minutes – at least on Christmas day – and just be at peace with the world and with our lives.  Doing nothing can be a great way to renew and refresh.   However, it’s not as easy as you may think.  Just try it.  Take a few minutes to just breathe and let your mind be clear of everything.  That may be the greatest blessing and gift that you can bestow upon yourself this Christmas.   Take a walk along the lake and through the woods – unaided by your wearable electronic gadgets.   Then if you wish you may send me an e-mail directly from this site, or to silzars@attglobal.net, or call me at 425-898-9117 and let me know how it went.   Thanks, and we’ll chat some more next year.

Taking Time to Appreciate… Was Santa good to you?  Did he bring you a new tablet computer?  Or perhaps a new Smart Phone?  Or a Smart TV with a gesture-sensitive remote control?  Or a new laptop computer with both a touch-screen and a keyboard?  Or maybe a new desktop computer with the latest version of Windows?  Or did he go all out and bring you a flashy new automobile with a display screen (touch of course) that controls nearly every function in the car – as well as some that have nothing to do with the car?  Well, my Santa was not nearly as good to me.  And I am very glad. How many of these feature-laden devices do we really need and how much time are we willing to spend just to replace what we already know how to do and that seems to be working just fine?  For example, I’ve needed a new desktop computer for some time now – it’s getting cranky in its old age — but I have been reluctant to spend the many hours it will take to make a new computer work in the way that I am used to with the one I have now.  Frankly, I don’t need a new version of Windows.  The old version (XP) does everything that I need.  So why do I want to spend several days getting to the same place with a new version?  I would be very happy to have a new computer that is simply trouble free.  Do I really want a remote control for my TV that responds to my gestures?  That seems incredibly silly.  What is wrong with just pushing a button or two with one finger to change channels the way I am doing it now?  And recently we see that the electronic gadget approach has also invaded the automobile industry.  There seems to be a rush to see who can add more features that are all controlled from a central display panel.  But what happens when this electronic control-everything approach has a failure?  And why do I need to go through complicated menus while driving just to tune a radio or control the temperature?  For sure we have seen the end of the era of antique automobiles.  The ones being built currently will never be restorable because the electronics modules will not be available once the supply of working ones in exhausted.   The mechanical components will still be operable and repairable but there will be no way to replace or restore the electronic control functions.  It seems that we have entered an era of new gadgets being created at an accelerating pace, but with no clear reason why we are making them – other than to generate business for the manufacturers.  It’s as if we are creating the latest hit songs.  We bring a product to market – hope that everyone will want to buy one – and within six months do it all over again.  If the next product is not a hit the entire business may be in jeopardy.   The fundamental problem may be that we really don’t need this many new things and we are nearing a saturation point of how to absorb all the new features that are being thrown at us.  The good news is that as a group we consumers are amazingly astute.  We accept the developments that give us a real benefit and reject those that are more trouble than they are worth.  Perhaps that is why all the push for 3D TV in the home has had so little commercial success.  Perhaps that is also why there has been no great rush to buy computers with the latest version of Windows.  And if all those wonderful electronic features being added into automobiles are not easy to learn and use, they will encounter the same consumer resistance.  So perhaps as we enter the New Year, what we should all do is to simply relax and do nothing.  Don’t rush out to buy the latest gadget.  Sit back and let a few others try it and see what they think.  Take a nap instead.  There will be plenty of opportunity to acquire the best of what is being offered.  Then implement only those devices and those features that add a real benefit to your lifestyle.   An interesting exercise that you may want to try is to list those developments that you think have had the most influence on your life in the last decade.  For me a short list would be the ability to search and find almost anything on the Internet, e-mail and Wi-Fi, and large-screen flat-panel TVs.   I would be interested to know what your short list would look like.  You may reach me directly from this site, by e-mail at silzars@attglobal.net, or by phone at 425-898-9117.   With my best wishes to all of you in this New Year – and may you be able to relax the way our puppy is doing in the accompanying photo.

Smart Appliances – In Search of a Problem… With the advent of smart phones and tablet computers, we now find ourselves in the midst of a revival of the “electronic home”.  The Electronic Home concept had its birth at about the same time that personal computers became widely used as a consumer product.  Fortunately, most of us realized that connecting a home to a PC might not be such a great idea.  Since typical houses have a lifetime of roughly a hundred years and computers are lucky to last for five, having a home built in the late 80s now being controlled by an obsolete IBM PC running DOS really doesn’t make much sense, does it?  Living here in Seattle, we used to hear many stories about the mansion Bill Gates was having built on the shore of Lake Washington and how everything in it was computer controlled and automated.   I wonder how many times he has had to rip out and redo all of the electronics in his now more than 20-year old lakefront abode.  Of course for him that is not a problem but for most homeowners such obsolete and no longer useable control systems certainly would not enhance the value of their properties.        The new wrinkle that smart phones and tablet computers now offer is remote access.  So the new idea is that we may want to check up on our houses, control various appliances, and be able to manage what is going on in our homes from wherever we happen to be.  And as long as we don’t make these devices an integral part of the house itself this could provide some useful benefits.  Perhaps some of us would like to be able to look in on our homes while out shopping or at a restaurant dinner to see how our pets (or kids) are behaving.  But do we really need to be able to set the furnace thermostat, turn on the oven, or activate the toaster from a remote location?  Would we do that very often and how important is that to most of us?  As for me, I can do without those capabilities just fine.  The quest by manufacturers for “improving” our lives seems to be exceeding our abilities to appreciate and accept all these wonderful new features.  Among home appliances, the refrigerator seems to be a favorite for attempts to add capabilities of dubious value.  A few years ago a major manufacturer added an LCD screen on the door of their premium model.  I think it was supposed to have access to the Internet and have ideas for meals and how to prepare them.  Now the new concept is that the refrigerator will keep track of its contents and notify the user of expiration dates and help make shopping lists.  What seems to be lost in all this is that inventory control requires a careful recording of what goes in and out.  Will this process be automated by RFID tags?  And how important is it to have this information?   I can find out everything I need to know about what is in my refrigerator with a visual scan that takes no more than a few seconds.  And even with the use of RFID tags how will the refrigerator keep track of partially used items?   These eager-to-please manufacturers seem to be missing another key societal change.  Many of us have virtually given up on cooking at home.  We are either eating out or taking advantage of pre-prepared dishes that are now sold with increasing popularity in grocery stores.    The way we use our appliances is changing.  We are actually using them less and not more.  We need simple functionality and not more features that take more time to implement than performing the functions we are already accustomed to doing – and in the future doing them even less.  The question is really a simple one.  Is there a problem that can benefit from a new approach?  Or are manufacturers simply adding capabilities hoping that they will somehow appeal to the buying public.  There is something else to consider when introducing all these new capabilities.  Human behavior studies have shown that when we are presented with too many choices we may go into a decision making paralysis mode and basically give up, i.e. do nothing.  Or we may be dissatisfied with whatever choice we make.  There is a personal example of this I can readily share.  I have an SLR digital camera that has about every feature that anyone could possibly want.  Among these features it has about a dozen shooting modes from which one can choose.  And within each shooting mode there are many additional choices to “optimize” the results.  Well, after many attempts to use these wonderful “features” I gave up.  I realized that with a rudimentary knowledge of the simple concepts of aperture, shutter speed, and focus I could do much better by using the manual mode with the built-in light meter.  This is what I always did with film cameras and for me it’s still the easiest and most convenient way to do good photography.  I’m not quite sure who benefits from using the multi-layer menus of the pre-selected modes, but all they did for me was to cause both user paralysis as well as dissatisfaction.  I had pretty much given up on using this camera until I delved into it to learn what works for me — and what doesn’t.  By eliminating all the superfluous choices, I’m now a happy user.     Elegant simplicity should not be lost in our quest to add ever-more capability.  Maybe there is a good reason why in earlier times these additions were called “bells and whistles”.   How are you coping with all these new capabilities that are being offered up to us?  Do you really need more than one finger to select a TV program?   Well, if you do then perhaps the new gesture recognition capability is just what will make your life a

I’m Bored – What’s Next… Have we become like spoiled children who need the continual stimulation of a new toy?  We find a new product that has been brought to market, we get all excited about it, but like with a new toy or a hit song we soon tire of what it has to offer and want yet something else to entertain us.  This desire for yet another new thing may be good for the economy but it has become a real challenge for many companies trying to out-innovate products currently on the market that are selling like the latest “hit songs”.  And of course the downside to this is that if a company does not have a broad product base, just one miss can send it into oblivion.  Keeping up with this ever accelerating pace is creating some fundamental changes in how companies do business and how they introduce new products.  Does this mean that we are awash in new innovations?  Well, not in my opinion.  By far the greatest efforts go into copying and quickly building on those few really new ideas that come our way every year or two or three.  For example, some years ago Microsoft introduced a tablet computer that was an adaptation of the PC.  It failed.  No one wanted to have a tablet for doing PC-like activities with a stylus instead of a keyboard.  It took Apple to come up with a new way of thinking about what a tablet should do and how it should interact with a user.  Now that paradigm is so well accepted that it is hard to imagine why it was not “obvious” to others.  Of course once something is shown to solve a fundamental problem the new way of doing becomes so ingrained in us that we can’t imagine doing it any other way.  Then of course everyone else jumps on the bandwagon and tries to show that they too can join the fray with minor modifications to the original innovative idea.  What of course is so frustrating to those — who have gone against common wisdom and blazed the trail to a new way of doing things – is that after a short time they get very little recognition for having done so.  And as with hit songs it’s not so easy to come up with a great new one every few months.   Not only that but some less talented engineers who try to compete in this innovation-driven environment can create some spectacular misses.  For example, some of the new control schemes that are being introduced in the latest car models are creating more problems than they solve.  On a recent business trip, I picked up a rental car that had some of these new electronically controlled “features”.   As I was pulling out of the rental car lot, I noticed that my backside was getting uncomfortably hot.  And I don’t just mean a little bit hot – I mean really burning hot.  I looked all over the dash panel and console for a switch or control to turn off the heated seat.  Well, guess what?   In order to turn off the seat heater, I first had to touch “climate” on the touch display panel, and then icons came up for the seat heater.  Actually, it even took some time to figure out that the sort-of seat-looking profile was the icon I needed.  The final insult in this saga was that every time I got in the car to drive it I had to go through this process.  The seat heaters came on with each new trip no matter how many times I turned them off.  And they came on at “high”.  So not only were they hidden at a sub-menu level on a touch panel, they were set to automatically come on whether I wanted a hot backside or not.  The interesting and perhaps scary observation is that the pace of new product introductions is continuing to accelerate and will for the foreseeable future.  Along with this comes a level of instability that perhaps we have not seen before.  The fate of companies can swing dramatically in just a few months – or even a few weeks.  There is no break or letup from this torrid pace.  Will we be able to maintain this level of activity and pressure to perform or will many fall by the wayside exhausted from one or two failed efforts.  In the meantime, we can expect consumers to display relatively little loyalty to brands or products.  The latest “hit song” will be what carries the day.  The rich rewards will go to those who can create a new idea and quickly get it to market.  New companies will grow in a flash, and then flame out equally quickly. The large giants will need to be quick followers or buy up the new ideas to stay competitive – or they will also end up struggling for survival.  Life will not be easy nor kind to investors – especially those who get in at just the time when a company looks great but is about to flame out. For us in the display community all this is actually good news.  The more products that are brought to market and the more that companies need to distinguish themselves from others that are pursuing the same markets the more we will benefit with variants of existing and new display technologies.   Will this accelerate the shift from LCD to OLED?  I think it is too soon to tell.  We have yet to see a major success for a reasonably large OLED based product.  I think when (and if?) that happens then it will be time to take a look at how long we can expect LCDs to continue their nearly complete dominance of the display market.   Are you willing to make a prediction of how long LCDs will continue to dominate?  More than 10 years?  Twenty years or longer?   I would be interested to

Was it HDTV?… For several years now, the consumer electronics industry has been looking for that “next great opportunity” to create another round of consumer demand similar to what happened when HDTV came on the scene.  Some thought that 3D would have such an impact.  But it didn’t.  A few stragglers still think that consumer acceptance will happen any day now.  They are stubbornly clinging to the concept that 3D viewing will become popular – even with all its fundamental flaws that cannot be corrected by any currently known technology.  Given the realities of the marketplace, however, most television manufacturers have moved on to search for other opportunities. Recently, the most likely candidate for the next round of new features has been to “converge” traditional television with the Internet or with some set of “smart” functions.  This is a reasonable extension of how we can use the large high-definition screens that most of us now have in our homes.  But will this create the same market excitement as when HDTV was introduced?   Well, it might if HDTV had been the only driving force that caused the rapid transition from CRT televisions to flat panels.  Perhaps we have to think back and appreciate that HDTV may have been only one of several driving forces that caused consumers to go shopping for their next television.  Certainly it was an important one with the government mandating that the existing TV broadcast spectrum and transmission method would go away.   With this major disruption — that no one could ignore — there was a great impetus for consumers to go shopping.  Although we engineers like to think that the technology features of HDTV were the major driving force, it may be just as likely that the forced conversion was an even more significant factor. However, I think there is yet something else that influenced consumers to go shopping for that new flat-panel television technology.  Many consumers were beginning to use LCD monitors with their desktop computers and were beginning to appreciate the convenience of the flat-panel monitor’s space and weight savings.  Instead of needing assistance to lug a CRT monitor to another location one could simply pick up the display and move it as desired.  Then when flat panel TVs began to show up in model homes and homes of our more affluent colleagues we all saw how easy they were to position or mount on any surface in any room.  And we immediately noticed how great the larger size displays looked compared to even the best and biggest CRTs.   This caused interest and demand to grow at a rapid pace.  Furthermore, HDTV as implemented on the new flat panels made the images look noticeably better than we were used to seeing on our typical CRT televisions.  However, if image quality had been the only factor, we could have come close to HDTV quality with the existing analog NTSC standard by using line doublers and even line quadruplers such as were introduced on some premium CRT sets.  I personally used one such 32-inch set that was made by Sony.  The image quality was nearly as good as an HDTV broadcast signal for that size screen.    However, this TV weighed well over a hundred pounds and required at least two people to handle.  And it would barely fit through a standard door. As a testing laboratory, over the last few years I have had the opportunity to work with flat-panel televisions of all shapes and sizes.   What has surprised and impressed me is how much value I end up placing on the weight, and “flatness” of these televisions.  For the larger screen sizes, the overall resolution and picture quality is clearly of great significance but beyond that the physical appearance (thinness) and ability to easily assemble and set up for operation become noteworthy benefits.  And it’s not only by comparison to the older CRT or rear-projection televisions, but even noticeable when comparing LCD to Plasma displays.  The Plasma televisions are significantly heavier and more difficult to handle – especially in the larger screen sizes.     Given these observations, perhaps the reason why the television industry is having such a difficult time finding that “next great opportunity” is that there isn’t one to be found – at least with current or anticipated display technologies.  The conversion from CRT televisions to flat panels coincided serendipitously with the government mandated conversion of analog to digital broadcasting.  This was a once-in-a-lifetime event with two major and complementary developments occurring nearly simultaneously.   HDTV provided the method for transmitting improved images and flat-panel technology came along to take advantage of this new capability by making screens of ever-larger sizes.  It was a convergence of favorable circumstances that will not happen again for many years.   Thus, we can expect to see incremental improvements that will encourage consumers to look at new products but we are not likely to see any time soon the kind of market opportunity that we experienced with the transition from CRTs to flat-panel technologies.  For now, the future looks much more incremental.  I would welcome your comments on this topic or others.  Does your home now have more than one flat-panel TV?   Let me know what you think is in your personal future?  To contact me, you may reach me directly from this site, by e-mail at silzars@attglobal.net, or by telephone at 425-898-9117.