From impossible to dissolution in four steps.

Technology is an odd thing. It changes constantly not only in small ways, but occasionally in completely unexpected ways. A technology can develop over a period of time in a certain direction, to then suddenly switch.

When the success criteria to changes a completely new line of evolution takes place. These changes of success criteria are known as Excession Events. I’m so fascinated by this idea that I’ve written a book about it. The End of Certainty.

Although these changes happen all the time, it always surprises me how many people are completely caught off guard by them. Whether those people are my grandparents making wooden cart wheels in 1920, or the executives at places like Blockbuster and Motorola.?

For a while I’ve been thinking about what the causes of these excession events might be. Why do the success criteria change at a certain point, and not before or after that? If we can predict their timing then, even if we don’t know in what direction the market success criteria will go, at least we can plan for a disruption to a market. It wouldn’t be perfect but it might well prove useful.

To that end I’ve been thinking about the life cycle of technology in its entirety, not just it’s existing manifestation.

There are four phases that a technology goes through. At the juncture of each of these changes are where excession events are most likely to happen.

The four phases phases

Impossible:

Theoretical only. Lots of speculation about it’s possible use, but no concrete examples

Barely possible:

The user is a specialist, users are the servant of the technology.

Easily possible:

The technology becomes the servant of the user.

Trivial:

The technology becomes a feature of something large, effectively dissolving into something larger.

Let’s look at some examples.

The automobile:

19th Century: Impossible:?

Until the invention of the internal combustion engine the automobile was effectively impossible. Vehicles such as steam powered traction engines existed, but could hardly be considered personal transport devices. The idea existed, but until XXX managed to built a practical engine it couldn’t work. Other technology was also required for an effective vehicle. Rubber tires, braking systems, metallurgy capable of enabling small strong gear boxes. All these were necessary to make the car possible.

Early 20th Century: Barely possible:?

Until Henry Ford developed the Mobile T, almost all cars were as close to impossible to be not really worth mentioning. The Model T changed the world by enabling users prepared to work around it’s quirks to have an effective mode of transport, better than the solutions that existed before (in this case the horse and carriage). The model T was slow, dangerous (the brakes failed tests even straight out of the factory), and users needed to have a practical bent to keep the vehicle on the road.

It was unreliable but was simple to fix. Farmers would plow fields with it, business men to deliver goods with it and families could go on holiday using it. At one point the Model T was estimated to represent over a third of all the cars on the road. If users were prepared to work around it, then it was a hugely valuable tool.

Late 20th Century: Easily possible:

The modern Toyota Collora is an incredible piece of engineering. It’s comfortable, economic, ultra reliable. The user gets in, and rvies away. 99% of users never even open the hood. The user either knows nor cares how it works. It’s a Toyota, it will work today, tomorrow and for years to come..?

Every modern car works this way. If the user does open the hood (bonnet) they are presented with a wall of plastic. It effectively states. “No user serviceable parts inside”. For a Model T era device that would be a disaster. But for the modern car it's fine. After all what possible reason is there to open the hood? The automobile has become the servant of the user. The user might not have a clue how it works, and that’s just fine.

Mid 21st Century: dissolution.

By the mid 21st century automobiles will be self driving, and this will have an enormous effect on both the cars themselves and the relationship we have with them. Once a car is self driving why would anyone want to own one? Users simply pick a vehicle that fits their needs at the precise place and time of their choosing. Need to go to the office? Pick a small one or two seater. Going skiing with the family? Take an RV and sleep while it drives you there. Doing some gardening? The pickup truck will do nicely.

In such an era of renting what you need when you need it, and not even thinking of it when you don’t, completely changes the relationship you have with the automobile. The car is no longer something to treasure. It is neither a source of pride, or a status symbol. None of us think about what model, or engine our Uber has, the vehicle says nothing about us. Few of us care about our rental car. The success criteria change. For me I pick my rental car based on how good the radio is, pretty much nothing else.

Calculators:

Pre Arabic and Indian numbering systems: Impossible

Before the development of the decimal numbering system by Arabs scholars in the 8th century and the concept of zero in India at a similar time, arithmetic was really really hard. The Sumerians? had a system based on base 60, and base 12, but it was hardly in wide spread use, although of course those systems still survive in geometry (hence 360 degrees in a circle), and is the reason there are 12 hours on a clock. The Roman numbering system might look nice on monuments, but it’s pretty terrible for doing any kind of arithmetic.?

Try multiplying V times X less III. The answer is XLVII, obviously

Abacus: Barely possible.

The abacus comes to most of us as a child's tool. It is however an extremely efficient calculator for those able to use it. When I first visited China and Mongolia in the early 1990’s it was still in widespread use in markets. It does take training, and more than a little to be efficient using it. Once mastered it is typically faster than a modern electronic calculator for the sort of simple arithmetic taking place in street markets.

Calculator: Easily possible:

1972, Clive Sinclair in the UK and TI in the USA developed the first hand held calculators. They changed the world because you no longer need to be skilled to do sophisticated math. So long as you knew the right buttons to press, you could do a dizzing amount of mathematics. It has had such a profound effect on society that the general math skills of the population are much eroded from an earlier age.

Trivial. 2007

The Texas Instruments TI-83 calculator costs $180. The iPhone app that does exactly the same thing $4.99. Most users will never need the sophistication and power of a Ti-83, and the iPhone has a far more than adequate scientific calculator built in. If you haven’t tried it simply pull up the normal calculator and turn it sideways. All the scientific stuff will appear. But don’t panic, you can always turn it back, because let’s all be honest, none of us are going to use any of the stuff anyway.

Optics

Pre 15th century: Impossible

Before developments in glass making in Italy in the 15th century clear, consistent glass able to be polished was impossible.

Barely possible:?

Starting with Galilao, a mantel then developed by Kepler, Newton and many other luminaries, the microscope and telescope were developed. The users typically had to grind their own glass, and many were extremely secretive about the process. The skills even became state secrets. By todays standards these instruments were crude, rare and extremely expensive.

Easily possible:

By he mid 20th century optics had become highly commoditized. Binoculars of a power and clarity that Galiliao or Newton could not even imagine become available for trivial amounts of money. Ever larger optical telescopes dwarfed their predecessors from the mid 20th century onwards.

Trivial

Today the lens of a telescope or microscope are a trivial part of the device. Increasingly the electronic sensor is replacing the human eye. This has become the facet most important to astronomy. As a result telescopes and optical systems built in the 1930’s are gaining new life as exoplanet hunters, with the power of digital sensors and the enormous compute power available to process the raw data. There are now sensors capable of capturing images that don’t even require lenses at all.

Video Collaboration

Pre 1994, Effectively impossible. Technically it could be done, but the compute requirements and network availability made it as close to impossible as to make no difference.

Barely possible

From around 1995 to around 2016, most video conferencing experiences required the users to know way to much about the technology, from ISDN lines, to network bandwidth, to IP addresses and what algorithms were used in the call.?

Early players in this space included PictureTel and Vtel, then Polycom , Tandberg , Lifesize , Cisco , Codian , Aethra , SONY, and many others.

Want evidence? Think about how many of us still know about SIP or H.323, or what video codec is being used. Have you ever thought about what audio algorithm your cellphone uses? As a result of this, almost 85% of everything I know is either no longer true, or no one cares about.

Easily possible

Systems like WebeX , Zoom , Microsoft Skype , Bluejeans , and many others made the experience radically different. No longer did you need to know anything about how it worked, reliability went through the roof, connections between organizations, and individuals proliferated.?

The scenario was not perfect. Interop between the different services is suboptimal, but it is also something the majority of organizations and individuals can work around it. Even if that answer is using a different application.?

Trivial / dissolves

In 2022 Video Collaboration is right on the cusp of dissolving into something larger. In this case a greater workflow. Microsoft Teams gives users much more than simply video calls. Google is doing much the same with Hangouts . Zoom has a marketplace empowering Zoom to be embedded into myriad other workflows.?

Solutions like Slack and Miro have WebRTC video comms built in. Video as a stand alone technology is becoming trivially easy.

Where this leads is hard to say, but it is clear that we are moving to a world in which video is both completely ubiquitous and part of a greater set of tools we will use throughout our working life. So flexible solutions seem like the safest bet.

Leonardo De Vinci stated.

“Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication”

and I think these examples prove his point.

What examples would you like to cite or explore? Some that come to mind for me include, aircraft, gene sequencing, software languages, and heart surgery. I'd love to hear your thoughts on this concept and other examples of this process.

About the Author

Simon Dudley is a chump. A man who believes in paying taxes, waiting his turn, the rule of law, being a decent human being. He writes a lot about technology, society, education, business, Excession Events and science. He is also the Head of Analyst Relations & sales Enablement at Logitech.