Categories
Cars Design Honda

The Shape of Fear

There’s a red-and-silver Honda CRX that shows up in a parking lot near a park I walk regularly. Not always — it’s not a daily thing — but often enough that I’ve started to look for it. When it’s there, I stop. I stare longer than a car deserves. I’ve owned other Hondas. I never owned this model, and by the time I could have, I was a family man, and a two-door coupe with a back seat that barely qualifies as a suggestion wasn’t a thing you brought home. That’s still true. I still love it anyway.

For a long time I thought the pull was nostalgia — an artifact from a specific decade doing what artifacts from specific decades do, standing in for the whole era around them. But nostalgia doesn’t usually make you stop walking.

Something more specific was going on, and I only located it recently, looking at a rendering of Tesla’s Cybercab: the same silhouette. Not the same car, not the same era, not the same anything except the one thing that matters most in a side profile — the roofline. Low nose, a peak over the front seats, one continuous downward sweep to a short, cropped tail. No break at the B-pillar to speak of. Glass that continues the line of the roof instead of interrupting it.

Two cars, forty years apart, arriving at the identical answer to a formal problem. That’s the kind of coincidence that isn’t really a coincidence — it’s a shape that keeps getting rediscovered whenever the constraints line back up.

The Cybercab gets there because there’s no driver’s compartment to package around, no B-pillar structure fighting for space, nothing back there to make room for. The roofline can just fall away because there’s nothing left to interrupt it.

The CRX got there from the opposite direction — not by subtraction of function but by subtraction of everything else. Weight. Drag. Ornament.

What I didn’t expect, going looking, was how much fear was baked into that shape.

The CRX wasn’t dreamed up in some skunkworks with time to spare. It came out of what Honda’s own people described, at the time, as something close to an image crisis — the third-generation Civic was about to launch into a market with sharper competitors than the last one, and the man responsible for small-car development at Honda R&D was worried the company’s whole small-car identity was aging out from under it. The response was billed internally as a kind of renaissance, and the CRX was its opening statement — not a side project, but the leading edge of an “all-out attack.”

The person who actually shaped it, Hiroshi Kizawa, had already put his career on the line once, on the original Civic — a car he believed Honda’s future as a real manufacturer depended on. He came back and did it again, smaller and stranger this time: a two-seat coupe, under 900 kilograms, wrapped in plastic body panels molded in-house, chosen partly because they could someday be recycled — Honda thinking, in 1981, about what happened to the car after its life was over, which is its own small strangeness worth sitting with.

The reception at home was lukewarm in a way I find almost endearing now. One Japanese trade magazine at the time called it a dehydrated Camaro with some boy-racer posturing, allowing that it might not be beautiful but was at least likeable. That’s a strange epitaph for a car I’d call one of the most purely resolved shapes of its decade. But maybe that’s how it goes with real design — the people closest to it, watching it get made under pressure, can’t yet see what it will look like from forty years out, parked in a lot, still stopping people who weren’t even born when it launched.

Less than six months after the CRX reached showrooms, Honda started work on what would eventually become the NSX. The unglamorous little economy coupe, born from institutional anxiety and injection-molded plastic, turned out to be the warm-up act for the most serious sports car the company would ever build. Fear, it turns out, is not a bad place to start, if the people afraid of it are good enough to turn it into something worth being afraid for.

Which makes me think of Ferrari’s own version of this moment, playing out right now. Their first electric car, the Luce, is exactly the kind of institutional fear the CRX was born from — a company that has to prove it still belongs to the future, using a technology it didn’t choose. And where Honda answered that fear with a shape, a single unbroken line that turned scarcity into style, Ferrari answered it with a four-door liftback, roomy and glassy and, by most early accounts, nobody’s idea of a Ferrari silhouette. I wish they’d gone the other way. I wish somebody at Maranello had looked at what a wedge does when you strip a car down to its constraints — no engine bay to hide, no B-pillar to interrupt, nothing left but the line from nose to tail — and had the nerve to make the Luce look like it was afraid of something, the way the CRX clearly was.

I think about that shape differently now — not as a wedge from the eighties, and not as a preview of some robotaxi’s rendering either, but as a shape that seems to arrive whenever a design team is left with almost nothing to hide behind. No engine bay to speak of. No back seat to protect. No driver at all, in one case. What’s left, both times, is the same honest line — nose to tail, unbroken — and I wonder what it says that the shape survives every reason for making it, outlasting the fear and the plastic and the market anxieties that produced it, showing up again decades later for reasons nobody involved the first time could have guessed.

Categories
Design Technology

The Battery That Refused to Leave

A standard AA battery is 50.5 millimeters long and 14.5 millimeters in diameter. It produces 1.5 volts. It weighs roughly twenty-three grams, about as much as a sheet of paper folded twice. In a Costco bulk pack, forty-eight of them together weigh a little over a kilogram — the heft of a hardcover book, or a decent cantaloupe. Most people buy them without thinking much about it. They go in the cart the way paper towels go in the cart.

The size has been in continuous production since 1907, when the American Ever Ready Company first manufactured it for use in early penlights. For the first four decades of its existence, the AA battery was what might be called an informal standard — widely used, commonly understood, but not officially codified. That changed in 1947, when the American National Standards Institute fixed the dimensions and voltage in writing. The naming convention itself had come earlier, out of a series of meetings in the 1920s between government officials and battery manufacturers who were trying to bring order to a proliferating market. They began with A for the smallest practical cell, then moved outward — B, C, D — for larger sizes. When smaller cells were needed later, the alphabet doubled back on itself: AA, AAA, AAAA. Running out of letters in both directions is its own kind of history.

What the standards committee built, whether they thought of it this way or not, was a commons. The word is precise. A commons is something no one owns and everyone can use — a pasture, a fishery, a language. The AA battery became a commons of power. Any battery from any manufacturer, made to the specification, would work in any device built to receive it. The chemistry inside could vary — zinc-carbon, alkaline, lithium, nickel-metal hydride — but the housing stayed the same. No license was required. No negotiation. A manufacturer building a flashlight in 1965 did not need to solve the battery problem. A company making a remote control in 1985 did not need to negotiate with a power supplier. The relationship between a device and its energy source belonged to no one, which meant it was available to everyone.

In 1959, an Eveready scientist developed the first commercially available alkaline AA, which lasted five to eight times longer than the zinc-carbon version it was designed to replace. The devices followed the power. Transistor radios. Portable tape players. Handheld games. Cameras. Each decade brought a new category of device that found the AA battery waiting for it, already standardized, already available at every drugstore and grocery checkout lane in the country. The commons kept growing because the commons was free to enter.

Apple, eventually, decided the idea was wrong.

The iPhone, introduced in 2007, had no user-replaceable battery. Neither did any iPod before it, any iPad after it, any MacBook, any AirPod, any Apple Watch. The power source in an Apple product is sealed inside the device, charged through Apple’s own cables and connectors, managed by Apple’s own software. This is not a cost-cutting measure or an engineering compromise. Apple’s products cost more than their competitors’, not less, and the sealed battery is part of what justifies the price. The company’s founding argument — refined over decades, made explicit in every product announcement — is that hardware and software and power, designed together and optimized together, produce a better result than any open standard can achieve. The AA battery asks nothing of you except that you insert it correctly. Apple has decided that is insufficient.

Tesla arrived at a similar conclusion by a different route. Where Apple sealed the power source to improve the user experience, Tesla sealed it to own the energy relationship entirely. The Supercharger network — Tesla’s proprietary charging infrastructure, built out across highways and cities at enormous expense — is not interoperable with other electric vehicles, or was not for most of its history. A Tesla charges at a Tesla station. The battery chemistry, the cell format, the thermal management, the software that governs charging and discharge — all of it is developed in-house, at Tesla’s gigafactories, for Tesla’s vehicles. The company has spent more time and money thinking about batteries than almost any organization outside of a national laboratory. But the battery it produces is not a commodity. It belongs to the car. The car belongs to Tesla’s ecosystem. The customer belongs there too.

Both companies are making a version of the same argument: that the future of technology is integrated, that the best products are closed products, that power should be managed rather than swapped. They have built that future, or a version of it, for the customers who can afford to live inside it.

Warren Buffett, in 2014, bought the thing neither of them wanted.

Berkshire Hathaway’s acquisition of Duracell from Procter & Gamble was structured as a stock swap — Berkshire exchanged its $4.7 billion stake in P&G for full ownership of the battery company, recapitalized with $1.8 billion in cash. The tax advantages were real and significant; Berkshire had held the P&G shares since the company’s acquisition of Gillette in 2005, and the cost basis was $336 million. A cash sale would have produced a substantial capital gains bill. The swap avoided that. Buffett is attentive to such things.

But the more durable rationale was simpler. Buffett has spent sixty years looking for businesses that are easy to understand, that generate predictable cash, that sell something people buy out of habit. See’s Candy. GEICO. Coca-Cola. The common thread is not glamour but persistence — products whose value proposition does not need to be reinvented, whose customers return not because they have been excited but because they have been satisfied, reliably, for a long time. Duracell has twenty-five percent of the global battery market. It has been the category leader for decades. The people who buy it at Costco are not making a considered choice between competing technologies. They are buying what they have always bought.

The Costco pack of forty-eight is, in Buffett’s framework, infrastructure. Not the infrastructure of data centers or power grids — the quiet infrastructure of daily life, the kind that gets restocked when the supply runs low and otherwise goes unnoticed. Smoke detectors. Remote controls. Children’s toys. Wireless computer mice. Clocks on kitchen walls. The devices that run on AA batteries are not going away, and the economics of replacing them — not just the devices but the habits, the muscle memory, the universal availability of the standard — are formidable. Buffett is not betting that the AA battery will conquer the future. He is betting that it will remain in the present for a very long time.

Two different visions of where technology is going, then, expressed in the form of capital allocation. Apple and Tesla have built sealed ecosystems and asked their customers to enter. Buffett bought the battery for the people who haven’t. The AA cell, fifty millimeters long and fourteen and a half millimeters wide, 1.5 volts, unchanged in its dimensions since a group of manufacturers met in the 1920s to agree on something everyone could use — it sits at the back of a kitchen drawer in most houses in America, waiting for the smoke detector to chirp.

Categories
Abstract Design Inspiration Presentations

The Image Quilt

ImageQuilt 2015-11-02 at 6.42.48 PMAt a recent one-day course taught by Edward Tufte, he introduced me to the notion of an “image quilt” – a mosaic of images that you can create using an extension available for Google’s Chrome browser.

Here’s an example of just such an image quilt – based on a Google image search using the phrase “ny times infographic

When creating an image quilt, you can make a number of adjustments including size, spacing, ordering, etc. as well as removing certain images from the quilt before saving it as a PNG image file.

Tufte also suggested that when searching for things on Google he often chooses to view image search results – not the regular web search results. He notes that the regular web search results have typically been extensively “gamed” using techniques like search engine optimization to influence placement of the results on the page. He suggests that isn’t the case with the image results. I’ve been trying it more frequently – it is a useful alternative for certain kinds of searches.

Categories
Design iPhone 5 Photography VSCO Film

Abstracts on the Shelf

Abstract

These are some iPhone 5 shots taken in the lounge of a hotel I recently visited. I had been reading in the lounge one evening and, while heading out, noticed these interesting pieces in cabinets well lit by halogen spots above them. I played with a couple of them in VSCOcam – but most are straight out of the iPhone 5 camera.

“The best camera is the one you have with you…”

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Categories
Books Design Work

Enjoying Nancy Duarte’s New Book: resonate

I’m a big fan of Nancy Duarte and the amazing work that she and her team at Duarte Design perform to help make presentations into something we can really enjoy. Being just up the road in Silicon Valley, I was fortunate to be able to attend one of her workshops (taught with Garr Reynolds) about 15 months ago – and I thoroughly enjoyed it.

resonate by Nancy Duarte

Nancy’s first book, published about two years ago, was slide:ology. In the preface to her new book, resonate, she notes that the new book is actually a prequel to the first – having realized that first you need to figure out the story you’re telling – and THEN you can create the most effective slides to tell that story.

I ordered the book on Friday and received it yesterday. Just finished a first pass skim to get a sense for what’s inside – and, I must say, it’s quite the “tour de force” about visual storytelling. I enjoyed her conclusion to the opening introduction:

“The future isn’t just a place you’ll go; it’s a place you will invent. Your ability to shape your future depends on how well you communicate where you want to be when you get there.”

Some of the case studies are particularly compelling – including the Steve Jobs’ 2007 keynote introducing the iPhone and Pastor John Ortberg’s storytelling from the pulpit. Lots more too!

If you enjoyed slide:ology or Garr Reynolds’ Presentation Zen, you’ll enjoy resonate as well. Highly recommended!

(Note: Amazon.com affiliate links included above)

Categories
Design Living

Contempt for Authority

Just read a nice profile of Edward Tufte by Adam Aston in BusinessWeek. Loved the opening quote:

“My father once told me that I would never be successful because I have too much contempt for authority,” says Edward Tufte. “I think that’s been an enormously successful strategy.”

I’ve been to a couple of Tufte’s local sessions in Palo Alto – both were great fun and provoked lots of new insights.

Categories
Business Design Presentations

Having Fun at Presentation Reboot @ Duarte Design

One of my partners from Glenbrook, Russ Jones, and I attended the great Presentation Reboot session held at Duarte Design in Mountain View on Tuesday.

Taught by Garr Reynolds and Nancy Duarte, the session was a deep dive into creating effective presentations – and a whole lot of fun too – as you can see in the picture below that Garr took!

Presentation Reboot at Duarte Design

Another attendee, Chris Spagnuolo, posted a review of the session on his blog.

Categories
Design Living

Honoring Jay Fliegelman

It seems that the older one gets the more there’s an interest in reading obituaries.

While browsing this afternoon, I happened across an article written with great care by Cynthia Haven from the Stanford News Service about the death earlier this week of Jay Fliegelman, the Coe Professor in American Literature at Stanford. He was only 58 years old.

Haven’s article goes on to talk about Fliegelman used his “important collection of more than a hundred rare books” to truly bring history to life for his students.

Last month, I attended Edward Tufte’s two day experimental course in Palo Alto. Tufte also punctuates his presentations on information design with his own set of rare masterpieces.

Special teachers – like Fliegelman and Tufte – awaken our senses to new insights we’d never have learned without them.

Categories
Design Web/Tech

Tufte’s Experimental Class

Edward Tufte’s teaching a new two-day “experimental class” next month in Palo Alto (Thursday-Friday, July 12-13). I attended Tufte’s one day session a couple of years ago – and am looking forward to the “deeper dive” of the two-day session next month. “The two-day course is the theory of analytical design with examples; the one-day course, examples with some theory.” There’s nothing better than a deep immersion!