Comments on: Designing Products in an Open Source World http://www.kickerstudio.com/blog/2008/09/designing-products-in-an-open-source-world/ Thu, 14 Jul 2011 10:14:18 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Kicker Studio http://www.kickerstudio.com/blog/2008/09/designing-products-in-an-open-source-world/#comment-25 Kicker Studio Wed, 08 Oct 2008 17:18:54 +0000 http://www.kickerstudio.com/blog/?p=32#comment-25 [...] initiatives. If you know of any let me know. Brand is great place to look as we prepare for the future of products. We’ll do well to learn from the challenges of building collaborative brands. Mistakes will [...] [...] initiatives. If you know of any let me know. Brand is great place to look as we prepare for the future of products. We’ll do well to learn from the challenges of building collaborative brands. Mistakes will [...]

]]> By: Tom http://www.kickerstudio.com/blog/2008/09/designing-products-in-an-open-source-world/#comment-24 Tom Thu, 25 Sep 2008 16:49:23 +0000 http://www.kickerstudio.com/blog/?p=32#comment-24 Josh raises a good point. As designers, especially if we're talking about designing "hackable" products, we need to be aware of their potential danger. But architecture or prosthetics certainly demand more development rigor than some more trivial applications. I'm thinking here of playful ideas like the folks who will create a 3d print of your World of Warcraft Avatar. The first forays into product 2.0 will most likely be around this kind of decorative styling. Think the personalization of a sticker, only in three dimensions. We're already seeing the cultural shift with the DIY movement and more surface treatments for companies like Cafe Press and Zazzle. My hunch is that this type of "ownership" over products will continue to go beyond the skin and start to affect the physical styling. As this starts to happen, we designers are going to face some fascinating questions about ethics and responsibility (as Josh mentioned) as well as brand, authorship and value generation. Josh raises a good point. As designers, especially if we’re talking about designing “hackable” products, we need to be aware of their potential danger. But architecture or prosthetics certainly demand more development rigor than some more trivial applications. I’m thinking here of playful ideas like the folks who will create a 3d print of your World of Warcraft Avatar.
The first forays into product 2.0 will most likely be around this kind of decorative styling. Think the personalization of a sticker, only in three dimensions. We’re already seeing the cultural shift with the DIY movement and more surface treatments for companies like Cafe Press and Zazzle. My hunch is that this type of “ownership” over products will continue to go beyond the skin and start to affect the physical styling. As this starts to happen, we designers are going to face some fascinating questions about ethics and responsibility (as Josh mentioned) as well as brand, authorship and value generation.

]]> By: Josh Damon Williams http://www.kickerstudio.com/blog/2008/09/designing-products-in-an-open-source-world/#comment-23 Josh Damon Williams Wed, 24 Sep 2008 22:48:12 +0000 http://www.kickerstudio.com/blog/?p=32#comment-23 Nice post, Dan. This is a really interesting and optimistic development for product design. I also got to witness some of the "Web 2.0"/open source philosophy bleed into meatspace when Hot was working on the <a href="http://openarchitecturenetwork.org" rel="nofollow">Open Architecture Network</a> for <a href="http://architectureforhumanity.org" rel="nofollow">Architecture for Humanity</a>. Cameron Sinclair (from AFH) wants architects, builders, and designers to "improve living standards through collaborative design." One of the main goals of the Open Architecture Network was to provide a space where architects could share, borrow, adapt, and evolve designs for housing solutions. One interesting obstacle to adoption has been concerns over legal liability. Putting blueprints online for free is one thing, but what happens if those blueprints turn out to be flawed and the house falls down? This gets complicated a bit further when one design is used to spawn more designs. With software, bugs in the open source aren't (necessarily) life and death matters, but once you get physical the stakes really go up. I'm guessing the same must be true for prosthetics Nice post, Dan. This is a really interesting and optimistic development for product design.

I also got to witness some of the “Web 2.0″/open source philosophy bleed into meatspace when Hot was working on the Open Architecture Network for Architecture for Humanity. Cameron Sinclair (from AFH) wants architects, builders, and designers to “improve living standards through collaborative design.” One of the main goals of the Open Architecture Network was to provide a space where architects could share, borrow, adapt, and evolve designs for housing solutions.

One interesting obstacle to adoption has been concerns over legal liability. Putting blueprints online for free is one thing, but what happens if those blueprints turn out to be flawed and the house falls down? This gets complicated a bit further when one design is used to spawn more designs.

With software, bugs in the open source aren’t (necessarily) life and death matters, but once you get physical the stakes really go up. I’m guessing the same must be true for prosthetics

]]>