That bit about the near future was important.  Whenever you ordered one of the early products from Sinclair, it never arrived by return of post.  The reasons for delays are documented at the Planet Sinclair site and ranged from subcontractors making mirror images of the printed circuit board, through non-delivery of chips to products that were impossible to make. As a result, there was a common perception that Clive cashed our postal orders and cheques to provide the cash flow before he bought the kit parts.  I suspect there was no truth in that rumour was true, but it taught us the principle that you had to wait for cool technical things to appear.  But Sinclair invariably did a good job of keeping us early techies on-board, happily waiting the promise of things to come.

After a number of years in which we’ve come to expect the instant gratification that is available from the web, whatever our desires, I’m intrigued to see the re-emergence of that principle of having to wait. In particular, the tactics of small start-up companies similar to Sinclair Radionics, who tell everyone what they’re going to make well in advance of delivering it and then try to keep the customer interest level up until they actually deliver.  I assume they’re not taking the upfront cash, as today we have Venture Capital to fund their development pains.  But they’re playing to the same customer psychology that Sinclair did so well, of promising tastier jam tomorrow. 

(One of Sinclair Radionics's delayed Audio Amplifiers)

As readers of this blog know, I’ve been working with consumer medical companies for several years, so I was fascinated when FitBit came onto the scene a few years ago.  I liked what I saw - they seemed to have all of the right ideas and a credible business model, but one thing worried me - could they deliver?

I’ve been involved in product design for many years.  Much within the design of electronics is very well understood and is predominantly a matter of doing things in the right order.  But there are still a number of areas of design which fall into the black magic category, where it’s much more difficult than it looks.  From my experience there are four of these ready to trap the unwary:

• RF (radio) technology (and I’ve just finished writing a book on this to help product designers),
• Rechargeable Batteries
• Power Management, and
• Design for low cost Manufacture

What worried me about FitBit was that their product incorporated all of these.  Would they get it right first time?  I hoped they would, but sadly they’ve hit all of them.  Two years on, they’re only just shipping.

It’s now almost two years since they first announced the product.  FitBit have been wise - rather than taking the old fashioned route of keeping their customers in the dark, they’ve written a blog which has shared their pain with the customers.    As they’ve discovered that the radio range wasn’t what they’d expected, the batteries haven’t held their charge or lasted as long as they needed, and that production and assembly takes ten minutes instead of one, they have been brutally honest, letting those who had signed up for the first devices feel as if they were part of the process.  FitBit are now finally shipping. 

I hope the product goes well and works as they hoped.  But they provide a cautionary tale for any consumer or medical fitness company that doesn’t understand the issues of manufacturing wireless consumer products.  And for VCs that place their belief in a business plan from a company without that manufacturing experience.

A more recent example is Zomm, who burst onto the scene running full pelt this year’s CES, where they won the 2010 Best of Innovation Award with their Bluetooth tag.  They’re not the first to have the idea that it would be nice to use something to discover where you left our phone - I was involved in a similar Bluetooth product for the Palm Pilot back in 2002, which allowed your Palm to make a tethered data connection via the GSM network (at a blistering 9.6kbps), as well as getting your phone to ring, even if it was on silent.  But in those early days of Bluetooth, it only sold to a few techies.  Zomm marshalled the full force of the media with the most impressive consumer launch of a Bluetooth accessory that I’ve ever seen.

Zomm is the brainchild of Laurie and Henry Penix, a couple, who, with their friends, are good at losing their phones.  They’ve come up with their Zomm Bluetooth tag, which acts as a virtual leash, which can warn you if your phone goes out of range, as well as letting you answer calls remotely, and acting as a personal panic button.  It’s by no means the first such tag, but it’s the most attractive and feature packed one I’ve seen.  And it has a PR campaign to die for.

As was the case with Fitbit, Zomm don’t have a product to ship yet.  They’re playing the same “near future” game and taking pre-orders, which they will fulfil in late spring and summer.  It’s a product that will face many of the same design issues that plagued FitBit, so it will be interesting to see whether they meet their shipment dates.  They’re already doing a great job of engaging their community through Twitter and Facebook, with the offer if discounts of they can get 100,000 pre-orders.  With a potential value of $8 million, that will be a very nice pre-order to get Zomm going.

I really hope they do get their product out, and will keep an eager eye on their process.  As soon as either company accepts orders from outside the U.S. I’ll be placing mine.  Except that unlike my early Sinclair kits, I’ll be taking these to pieces to see how they work, rather than putting them together.

There’s an important conference coming up in London on 26th October that promises to address the issues that have limited success so far - Mobile Phones for the Senior Market.  It’s important because there are some fundamental lessons to be learned and things that need to be changed if the networks are to approach the older generation with the same degree of attention that they currently lavishing on their twenty-something users.  The resulting challenges need to be addressed, not just by the networks, but also by product designers and retailers. 

The mobile phone business is now the largest volume segment of the consumer goods industry.  Despite that achievement, it is an industry that is still remarkably young.  It’s debatable whether it is actually mature enough to have addressed real segmentation yet - instead it’s still at the stage of development where it tends to concentrate most on customers of its own age - late teens.   That could be a costly mistake.  By ignoring the specific needs of older users, the mobile industry is missing a major market.

It’s not that the mobile industry has not made some efforts.  Back in 2005, at the launch of Vodafone’s Simply handset the Wall Street Journal waxed lyrical about the opportunity, claiming that more is less.  The premise of the Simply was that it had big buttons and a large display and didn’t do much.  It didn’t seem to sell much either.

That patronising approach is common.  It reminds me of a BBC comedy sketch of weather forecast for pensioners, which ran along the lines of a slow loud delivery of “Hello dears, it’s going to be cold.  Yes,that’s right, COLD - have you got your thermals on…”  However well meaning the intentions may be, that attitude keeps creeping back in.  Even Senior Mobile’s Cellphones for Seniors blog falls into the same trap when it recommends the Samsung 240:

“The Samsung M240 was launched recently but it does not appear to belong in 2009. It looks like a phone that should have been launched 5 years ago. Simply put, it cannot compete with most of the phones in the market when it comes to features. It is a simple phone with basic features and it lacks a camera.” 

Elsewhere on the same blog we hear that: “The elderly are not overly concerned about stylish handsets with their flat keypads and cramped buttons. They prefer a phone with a simple keypad configuration with large and widely-spaced buttons.”

It’s a message that keeps on reappearing, but it doesn’t necessarily reflect reality.  Why shouldn’t the over 65s want camera phones - the travel industry has worked out that this market likes travelling and taking pictures of where they travel.  At home, they’re enthusiastic consumers of photos of their grandchildren.  They would probably love a camera phone that it’s easy to get photos off.

There’s no denying that our physical abilities change as we age; any designer should read the excellent report from Matthew Pattison and Alex Stedmon on Inclusive Design And Human Factors: Designing Mobile Phones For Older Users.  It provides one of the best explanations of what these changes are.  But they are changes that need to be addressed to continue to sell products and services, not a descent into senility as most mobile offerings assume.

What designers and networks need to understand is that these users can still be tempted by a well featured device which differs only in that it has a useable Human Interface, (as eyesight and manual dexterity are not as good as they were).   Plus a service plan that is clear and transparent, so that the cost of using it is predictable.  It’s a device for another stage of life, not a white stick.  And it can still be desirable.  It should be even easier to make them desirable as we start to get healthcare products that can talk directly to our phones using Bluetooth connectivity.

If we’re really going to design for an older generation and do it effectively, then companies need to believe in what they’re doing.  Here we hit the problem that the words and phrases of usability and inclusive design are foreign to most boardrooms.  To address the market properly, they need to be part of the way a company thinks from the top - not just a diktat that is passed down to the engineering department. 

So let me propose a test for any company that thinks it is servicing this market.  I’d suggest that every board member of a company takes one of their products and gives it to their mother or father to see what the response is.  Would they show it off to their friends as an example of how clever their child is?  Or would they hide it in the cupboard except for the days when their son or daughter comes around?  And would they like another one as a Christmas present, or default back to the socks and bubble bath?   I think most of the products that have come out so far would happily be exchanged for the socks and smellies.

Nor is the problem that this audience is technophobic, as is so often assumed.  On the contrary, if the technology is accessible, it’s taken on with enthusiasm.  According to Hitwise, the over 55s were the fastest growing group of Facebook users in 2008.   Where they may differ is in a lack of patience to work out how to use a poorly designed product.  I’d suggest that’s not a crime, unlike the daily one committed by unthinking product designers at mobile phone manufacturers.

Unfortunately it’s a sad fact that most tech companies don’t understand that no-one else outside their company really understands their products.  Even sadder is the fact that many of their board members don’t understand it either, despite the cost of running significant support departments.  Nor does the retail chain, which keeps on making the choice of buying the techie products and then wondering why they’re difficult to sell.

The recent report from OFCOM’s Advisory Committee on Older and Disabled people, covering the barriers and drivers that impact product design to meet the needs of older and disabled people: contains some revealing interviews that expose how manufacturers approach this market.  Typical responses include:  “We don’t actually run any specific research amongst our older or disabled customers” and “To try out a product we will usually send it out to people within the business”.  Guess how many over 65s they employ!  In other words, nanny knows best.

In 2007 there were 9.8 million people aged 65 and over in the U.K. By 2032 that number is predicted to be 16.1 million.  At a time where network operators are giving away more and more of their precious data bandwidth at a fixed price to younger, spectrally obese users, surely it makes sense to take a serious look at how to attract more elderly customers.  They may not be the top users, but they will provide a lower, but steady ARPU without putting a strain on network resources.  And if the applications and handsets are designed to appeal to their needs, they may even surprise us with their level of use.

One day it is going to happen.  Come and learn more in London on October 26^th.

ME (Mobile/Evolution), written and performed by Claire Cunnigham is about crutches.  Since a bicycle accident at the age of fourteen she has been using crutches.  Four years ago she took up dance and since then has rapidly gained fame as a disabled performer.  I should add that, having seen her, the adjective disabled seems utterly inappropriate, as what she manages to do far surpasses most people’s physical capabilities.

ME (Mobile/Evolution) consists of two pieces.  In the first the stage is strewn with a variety of crutches that she has accumulated over the years, ranging from expensive made-to-measure ones, through found ones to everyday ones.  Each has a memory.  Equally importantly, each has a design flaw, which Claire explains.  Her explanations aren’t negative - she just explains pragmatically what the limitations are.

She also explains her concerns as a user.  It’s an object lesson in what a product designer ought to be thinking about.  There is the revelation of how much a crutch users knows and thinks about surfaces, making us realise how much we take for granted in assuming that we will naturally cope with the transitions from concrete to cobble to wet paving slab.  And the everyday questions of whether they let her wear platform heels or kiss a tall boyfriend.

As an eloquent expression of the sort of questions a designer ought to ask it was more compelling than any text or lecture I’ve come across.  The second half of the performance (pictured) was one of the most beautiful pieces illustrating how a crutch need not be a hindrance, but can extend someone’s elegance.

If you’re in Edinburgh, go and see these pieces.  If not, look to see if she’s performing anywhere near you.  If you’re organising a conference on Usability, consider booking Claire to perform as part of it.  In thirty minutes she can demonstrate more than you’ll learn from a year’s design course, transforming dry theory into something of beauty.

To coincide with the Medica exhibition I wrote a White Paper called “Trust me – I’m not a Doctor” to explore some of the changes that I think are necessary for the development of usable consumer health devices.  One reader came back to me with a very pertinent question – “It’s one thing to say what needs to change, but what steps can manufacturers take in order to keep up with the latest developments in technology?”

It’s a very good question.  Much of the medical industry concentrates on gradual evolution.  It’s not an industry that is either particularly fast moving, or prone to disruptive influences.  Certainly Medica was very much about more of the same and not doing anything new.

That poses a real problem, and to address it I think you have to take a deliberatively disruptive approach by thinking outside the box.  Rather than asking how to keep abreast of technology, which is only likely to increase the pace of the current linear evolution, I’d suggest the more heretical view of thinking about what happens to the market when the clinician is excluded from it. 

That’s probably the most efficient way to promote change.  Today most consumer medical devices are just simplified or repackaged versions of clinical devices.  They still assume a medic somewhere in the loop.   If the potential of internet connected devices is going to happen, then we’re looking at the development of compelling applications that engage consumers.   And to be compelling they need to look at design from the user’s viewpoint.

This isn’t going to be a market for critical conditions – they will stay essentially within the same regime as exists at the moment.  But that’s actually a miniscule portion of the potential market.  Where consumer medical devices will appear is in everyday wellness, long term disease and assisted living.  Over half of the population is a potential subject, as this definition covers everything from weight, whether that’s obesity / diabetes or anorexia, through to arthritis, early onset dementia and simple fall alarms.  If product designers are innovative it can even extend to include reinforcement devices to help complement depression and addiction eTherapy schemes.  So as well as classic medical parameter monitoring it can include devices as commonplace as internet connected virtual cigarettes.

The risk that the traditional medical manufacturers face is that they’re still hung up on producing expensive devices designed for clinicians.  The mentality that Monty Python highlighted in “The Meaning of Life” as “the machine that goes ping” is still remarkably well entrenched.  As Sharon Brownlee describes so well in her book “Overtreated”, the industry still persists in designing their products to make money for physicians, rather than in reducing the cost of healthcare to the patient. 

I believe that we’re at the cusp where the market will change.  It may be because manufacturers, either traditional or new, realise that there is another way of doing things.  It may also happen because user communities discover the opportunities offered by connected devices and write the applications themselves. After all, there are plenty of web developers who are reaching an age where they have a vested interest in such services.  Or it may come from innovative companies that see the opportunity and seize it.

It’s the right time for such disruption.  Escalating health costs, plus the restrictions that a recession will impose will squeeze both social and personal budgets.  In the same way that industries were upset with the introduction of products like portable TVs, plastic kettles, walkmen or mobile phones, consumer medical devices are poised to do the same.  Existing medical device manufacturers are like dinosaurs.  They have the opportunity to stamp on all of the new furry creatures appearing below their feet, but unless they evolve rapidly, they face the prospect that smaller, faster companies will get there first and take these new markets away.

So to return to the question, medical designers need to take the initiative.  By doing so they may upset their existing medical customers, who may well see these new products as a potential threat to their income.  But if they don’t, they will confine themselves to their current markets.  And if consumer based healthcare takes off, these will inevitably shrink from where they are today.