ࡱ> WOh+'0 ( D P \hpx&Script for Digital Living Room speecht criBrian Epsteinitria Normal.dotiBrian Epsteinit20aMicrosoft Word 8.0L@6@N@TnWEO&osoft Office0Templates!@rB:i+00՜.+,D՜.+,\ hp  SiliconArtistsQ / &Script for Digital Living Room speech Title 6> _PID_GUIDAN{9C1E9F29-004D-11D2-BE83-00008610BD29}+00Script for Digital Living Room speech Slide 1: Beyond the Digital Living Room I first want to express my appreciation for having the opportunity today, to address this distinguished audience, and kick off what promises to be a fascinating conference on the future of the digital living room. The very first comment I want to make, though, is that I order to envision the digital living room, in order to have a chance at glimpsing the way the home and our most personal environments will be evolving over the next decades, we need to expand our vision beyond the living room. What the digital living room is, will affect and be affected by how our whole environments change, how we live our lives in and out of the home. So I understand the digital living room conference, and the object of this speech, to be both broader and deeper than the digital living room alone. With all the technological changes over the past decade, particularly in personal computing and the introduction of the internet, it might seem as though were already well into the next technological revolution. Theres no doubt that the technologies that were seeing are very important: particularly the interconnectivity enabled by the internet has the potential for substantially changing society and our lives. But a point I hope to illustrate and drive home today is that these changes only scratch the surface, in terms of what can and will be done with technology. The so-called computer revolution still only touches us in limited and focused ways, mostly when we choose to turn on a computer, and contend with the awkward ways we humans need to interact with these very non-human machines. The things that do touch our lives much more frequently and deeply are the everyday objects in our homes. The mundane objects we use every day light switches, pieces of paper, clothing, bars of soap these things are the principal things we use to fill our everyday needs and satisfy our everyday desires. And herein lies the true opportunity of technology. Only when theres a seamless integration of technology with life, only when technology is more than a curiosity but an everyday and unsurprising way of satisfying our everyday needs and desires only then will we have seen the beginnings of the true technological revolution. Today Ill address two topics: First, what the future inevitably holds; how it is that we need to reconceive of technology moving away from a computing, and even a device model of technology and consumer electronics. And how instead, were moving towards a future where were no longer issuing commands and instructions to machines in order to have them fill our needs, but rather where our needs are fulfilled without our having to issue instructions. Our technologically-enabled environments will be able to satisfy our needs without instructions, because theyll understand us as humans and as individuals so well. And second, Ill talk about today. Only in light of the changing future can we discern the patterns in whats happening today, and distinguish whats important from whats incidental. Without showing specific and concrete examples of how were realizing this future vision, its nothing but empty words. So the second thing Ill do today is to give your some examples of products, technologies, and ideas many taken from the work were doing at Philips, and many from elsewhere in which this future is being enabled and realized. Of course were early on the curve: thats where our opportunity lies. Its impossible to predict exactly what will happen on this curve in realizing the future. But the examples Ill be showing will give at least a glimpse as to whats possible, and where we are already. &66@66678; ;<<x>P"PnP~PQQTTUUXj"jnj~jkknnoodtltttuuuurw"n~؉dl̓H"n~ةdl̳ƸfC^^fggdh5CJ6CJCJ^z(|(** --^../22558L<N<t>v>x>B\B^BDDGG@HHH & F&'OP&'kl     Slide 2: The unmediated fulfillment of needs The wrong way to figure out where the digital environment is headed , is to begin with today s technology and extrapolate from there. It s hard for technologists to avoid that, but there s no better guarantee&66@66678; ;<<x>P"PnP~PQQTTUUXj"jnj~jkknnoodtltttuuuurw"n~؉dl̓H"n~ةdl̳ƸfC^^fggdhj5CJ6CJCJ_HLLOOQ.V0VX\\\^\^^aa@bbbffiik.p0prrt & F Slide 2: The unmediated fulfillment of needs The wrong way to figure out where the digital environment is headed , is to begin with today s technology and extrapolate from there. It s hard for technologists to avoid that, but there s no better guarantee that predictions will be wrong, whether that extrapolation is a straight line, or a hockey-stick projection. I propose that we step back and start with us as humans; that we start with the nature of need-fulfillment. How is it that we satisfy the needs we have? Consider three different needs we have, and which we satisfy in different ways. Here are some needs I regularly have: Several times a day, I need to write letters, either emails or handwritten, or whatnot. I need to walk from place to place, around my home, to my office, etc. I need blood to circulate to my limbs. If that doesn t happen, I m in trouble. Now what I want to focus on isn t the details about how I go about satisfying those needs, but simply on how much attention I need to give in satisfying them. How much do I need to mediate that need-satisfaction by my conscious mind?Writing a letter is conscious activity: I need to think about the words I m putting down, actively formulate sentences, structure my thoughts. Sometimes writing a letter is easier than other times, but it s never an unconscious, automatic activity. Walking is an interesting case. When I was a young child, I needed to think actively every time I took a step. And today, when I m walking carefully, say on ice or climbing a mountain, I need to think about where I put my feet. But in general, when I walk from place to place I don t need to think about the walking. When I m walking, most often the activity doesn t even cross my mind. And at the extreme is need fulfill that predictions will be wrong, whether that extrapolation is a straight line, or a hockey-stick projection. I propose that we step back and start with us as humans; that we start with the nature of need-fulfillment. How is it that we satisfy the needs we have? Consider three different needs we have, and which we satisfy in different ways. Here are some needs I regularly have: Several times a day, I need to write letters, either emails or handwritten, or whatnot. I need to walk from place to place, around my home, to my office, etc. I need blood to circulate to my limbs. If that doesn t happen, I m in trouble. Now what I want to focus on isn t the details about how I go about satisfying those needs, but simply on how much attention I need to give in satisfying them. How much do I need to mediate that need-satisfaction by my conscious mind?Writing a letter is conscious activity: I need to think about the words I m putting down, actively formulate sentences, structure my thoughts. Sometimes writing a letter is easier than other times, but it s never an unconscious, automatic activity. Walking is an interesting case. When I was a young child, I needed to think actively every time I took a step. And today, when I m walking carefully, say on ice or climbing a mountain, I need to think about where I put my feet. But in general, when I walk from place to place I don t need to think about the walking. When I m walking, most often the activity doesn t even cross my mind. And at the extreme is need fulfillment that I never consciously direct  activity that I couldn t even consciously direct if I wanted to. My heart takes care of the circulation of blood. Interestingly, it s the most important need of all these, but its fulfillment is always unmediated. What s fascinating about these examples is that the more important activities are less mediated by my consciousness. And the reason for that is that those important activities are regular needs I have, and they re predictable ones. When the road is predictably flat, I shouldn t need to think about walking; when it s predictable that I need blood circulating  i.e., always  then I shouldn t need to think about that. The only time I should have to mediate the fulfillment of my needs is when they re unanticipated, unpredictable. When I write a letter, there s no automatic way of anticipating what I intend to say, so that s why I need to mediate it consciously. But for needs that can be anticipated, it s a waste of my conscious effort and attention for me to have to think about how to fulfill them. Our ordinary needs should be satisfied automatically. ttttnwpwrwz\z^z||@.0ĐƐ & FnpH\^ܜޜ@.0İưn & F Slide 2: The unmediated fulfillment of needs The wrong way to figure out where the digital environment is headed , is to begin with today s technology and extrapolate from there. It s hard for technologists to avoid that, but there s no better guarantee that predictions will be wrong, whether that extrapolation is a straight line, or a hockey-stick projection. I propose that we step back and start with us as humans; that we start with the nature of need-fulfillment. How is it that we satisfy the needs we have? Consider three different needs we have, and which we satisfy in different ways. Here are some needs I regularly have: Several times a day, I need to write letters, either emails or handwritten, or whatnot. I need to walk from place to place, around my home, to my office, etc. I need blood to circulate to my limbs. If that doesn t happen, I m in trouble. Now what I want to focus on isn t the details about how I go about satisfying those needs, but simply on how much attention I need to give in satisfying them. How much do I need to mediate that need-satisfaction by my conscious mind?Writing a letter is conscious activity: I need to think about the words I m putting down, actively formulate sentences, structure my thoughts. Sometimes writing a letter is easier than other times, but it s never an unconscious, automatic activity. Walking is an interesting case. When I was a young child, I needed to think actively every time I took a step. And today, when I m walking carefully, say on ice or climbing a mountain, I need to think about where I put my feet. But in general, when I walk from place to place I don t need to think about the walking. When I m walking, most often the activity doesn t even cross my mind. And at the extreme is need fulfillment that I never consciously direct  activity that I couldn t even consciously direct if I wanted to. My heart takes care of the circulation of blood. Interestingly, it s the most important need of all these, but its fulfillment is always unmediated. What s fascinating about these examples is that the more important activities are less mediated by my consciousness. And the reason for that is that those important activities are regular needs I have, and they re predictable ones. When the road is predictably flat, I shouldn t need to think about walking; when it s predictable that I need blood circulating  i.e., always  then I shouldn t need to think about that. The only time I should have to mediate the fulfillment of my needs is when they re unanticment that I never consciously direct  activity that I couldn t even consciously direct if I wanted to. My heart takes care of the circulation of blood. Interestingly, it s the most important need of all these, but its fulfillment is always unmediated. W&'OP&'kl     (z(/ =!"#$% Slide 2: The unmediated fulfillment of needs The wrong way to figure out where the digital environment is headed , is to begin with today s technology and extrapolate from there. It s hard for technologists to avoid that, but there s no better guarantee that predictions will be wrong, whether that extrapolation is a straight line, or a hockey-stick projection. I propose that we step back and start with us as humans; that we start with the nature of need-fulfillment. How is it that we satisfy the needs we have? Consider three different needs we have, and which we satisfy in different ways. Here are some needs I regularly have: Several times a day, I need to write letters, either emails or handwritten, or whatnot. I need to walk from place to place, around my home, to my office, etc. I need blood to circulate to my limbs. If that doesn t happen, I m in trouble. Now what I want to focus on isn t the details about how I go about satisfying those needs, but simply on how much attention I need to give in satisfying them. How much do I need to mediate that need-satisfaction by my conscious mind?Writing a letter is conscious activity: I need to think about the words I m putting down, actively formulate sentences, structure my thoughts. Sometimes writing a letter is easier than other times, but it s never an unconscious, automatic activity. Walking is an interesting case. When I was a young child, I needed to think actively every time I took a step. And today, when I m walking carefully, say on ice or climbing a mountain, I need to think about where I put my feet. But in general, when I walk from place to place I don t need to think about the walking. When I m walking, most often the activity doesn t even cross my mind. And at the extreme is need fulfillment that I never consciously direct  activity that I couldn t even consciously direct if I wanted to. My heart takes care of the circulation of blood. Interestingly, it s the most important need of all these, but its fulfillment is always unmediated. What s fascinating about these examples is that the more important activities are less mediated by my consciousness. And the reason for that is that those important activities are regular needs I have, and they re predictable ones. When the road is predictably flat, I shouldn t need to think about walking; when it s predictable that I need blood circulating  i.e., always  then I shouldn t need to think about that. The only time I should have to mediate the fulfillment of my needs is when they re unanticipated, unpredictable. When I write a letter, there s no automatic way of anticipating what I intend to say, so that s why I need to mediate it consciously. But for needs that can be anticipated, it s a waste of my conscious effort and attention for me to have to think about how to fulfill them. hat s fascinating about these examples is that the more important activities are less mediated by my consciousness. And the reason for that is that those important activities are regular needs I have, and they re predictable ones. When the road is predic Slide 2: The unmediated fulfillment of needs The wrong way to figure out where the digital environment is headed , is to begin with today s technology and extrapolate from there. It s hard for technologists to avoid that, but there s no better guarantee that predictions will be wrong, whether that extrapolation is a straight line, or a hockey-stick projection. I propose that we step back and start with us as humans; that we start with the nature of need-fulfillment. How is it that we satisfy the needs we have? Consider three different needs we have, and which we satisfy in different ways. Here are some needs I regularly have: Several times a day, I need to write letters, either emails or handwritten, or whatnot. I need to walk from place to place, around my home, to my office, etc. I need blood to circulate to my limbs. If that doesn t happen, I m in trouble. Now what I want to focus on isn t the details about how I go about satisfying those needs, but simply on how much attention I need to give in satisfying them. How much do I need to mediate that need-satisfaction by my conscious mind?Writing a letter is conscious activity: I need to think about the words I m putting down, actively formulate sentences, structure my thoughts. Sometimes writing a letter is easier than other times, but it s never an unconscious, automatic activity. Walking is an interesting case. When I was a young child, I needed to think actively every time I took a step. And today, when I m walking carefully, say on ice or climbing a mountain, I need to think about where I put my feet. But in general, when I walk from place to place I don t need to think about the walking. When I m walking, most often the activity doesn t even cross my mind. And at the extreme is need fulfillment that I never consciously direct  activity that I couldn t even consciously direct if I wanted to. My heart takes care of the circulation of blood. Interestingly, it s the most important need of all these, but its fulfillment is always unmediated. What s fascinating about these examples is that the more important activities are less mediated by my consciousness. And the reason for that is that those important activities are regular needs I have, and they re predictable ones. When the road is predictably flat, I shouldn t need to think about walking; when it s predictable that I need blood circulating  i.e., always  then I shouldn t need to think about that. The only time I should have to mediate the fulfillment of my needs is when they re unanticipated, unpredictable. When I write a letter, there s no automatic way of anticipating what I intend to say, so that s why I need to mediate it consciously. But for needs that can be anticipated, it s a waste of my conscious effort and attention for me to have to think about how to fulfill them. Our ordinary needs should be satisfied automatically. But most technology  certainly the PC model  is one in which we issue explicit instructions in order to get it to satisfy our needs. It doesn t know enough about us to anticipate our needs, so we need to tell it what to do. Slide 3: Moving to an implicit, anticipatory model What I m suggesting is that technology in the future will move from an explicit, instructional model to an implicit, anticipatory one. Instead of issuing instructions as the norm, the norm in the future will be to have our needs fulfilled as the norm, and only as the exception having to issue instructions at all. Just like the example of walking I used above, riding a bicycle is a gootably flat, I shouldn t need to think about walking; when it s predictable that I need blood circulating  i.e., always  then I shouldn t need to think about that. The only time I should have to mediate the fulfillment of my needs is when they re unanticipated, unpredictable. When I write a letter, there s no automatic way of anticipating what I intend to say, so that s why I need to mediate it consciously. But for needs that can be anticipated, it s a waste of my conscious effort and attention for me to have to think about how to fulfill them. Our ordinary needs should be satisfied automatically. But most technology  certainly the PC model  is one in which we issue explicit instructions in order to get it to satisfy our needs. It doesn t know enough about us to anticipate our needs, so we need to tell it what to do. Slide 3: Moving to an implicit, anticipatory model What I m suggesting is that technology in the future will move from an explicit, instructional model to an implicit, anticipatory one. Instead of issuing instructions as the norm, the norm in the future will be to have our needs fulfilled as the norm, and only as the exception having to issue instructions at all.  ipated, unpredictable. When I write a letter, there s no automatic way of anticipating what I intend to say, so that s why I need to mediate it consciously. But for needs that can be anticipated, it s a waste of my conscious effort and attention for me tnpĸƸHJHJTV We can see the development of computers as a kind of analogy to this development. When computers were first invented, programmers needed to issue instructions for flipping every gate, and at best in machine code, giving the processor explicit instructiono have to think about how to fulfill them. Our ordinary needs should be satisfied automatically. But most technology  certainly the PC model  is one in which we issue explicit instructions in order to get it to satisfy our needs. It doesn t know enough about us to anticipate our needs, so we need to tell it what to do. Slide 3: Moving to an implicit, anticipatory model What I m suggesting is that technology in the future will move from an explicit, instructional model to an implicit, anticipatory one. Instead of issuing instructions as the norm, the norm in the future will be to have our needs fulfilled as the norm, and only as the exception having to issue instructions at all. Just like the example of walking I used above, riding a bicycle is a good way of illustrating the contrast. s for every move to make. We can see the development of computers as having them learn about us, making them understand more about our humanity and making assumptions about us to make them easier for humans to use. If we were different, it might be easieHJTVf  HJT We can see the development of computers as a kind of analogy to this development. When computers were first invented, programmers needed to issue instructions for flipping every gate, and at best in machine code, giving the processor explicit instructions for every move to make. We can see the development of computers as having them learn about us, making them understand more about our humanity and making assumptions about us to make them easier for humans to use. If we were different, it might be easier for us to program in machine code than in high-level languages, but as humans, we ve programmed computers to understand us. Still, we re very early in the process; computers understand us well enough that we can program in high-level languages, and can interact with them using graphical user interfaces. But that s still a long way from the stage where they ll have enough humanity built into them that we don t need to be quite so explicit about what we tell them to do. One of the big lessons of the consumer electronics industry is that when the demands on the user are too high, the user will just let needs go unfilled, rather than bothering to issue all those instructions. Programming VCRs is too trite to mention. But there s a fascinating story that ir for us to program in machine code than in high-level languages, but as humans, we ve programmed computers to understand us. Still, we re very early in the process; computers understand us well enough that we can program in high-level languages, and can interact with them using graphical user interfaces. But that s still a long way from the stage where they ll have enough humanity built into them that we don t need to be quite so explicit about what we tell them to do. One of the big lessons of the consumer electronics industry is that when the demands on the user are too high, the user will just let needs go unfilled, rather than bothering to issue all those instructions. Programming VCRs is too trite to mention. But there s a fascinating story that illustrates this message profoundly. It s actually a bit of a sad story, told by the neurologist and author Oliver Sacks. One of his patients was a man named Virgil, who had been blind almost since birth. Miraculously, at the age of 55 Virgil had an operation which almost completely restored his sight. So Sacks tells about what happened after Virgil s operation. At first, it seemed as though everything was excellent: his vision, while not perfect, was still quite clear; he had almost normal visual acuity. But that didn t mean he could see. While Virgil s eyes were fine, he had never learned to focus, to identify objects, to track them as they moved, to recognize shapes. He had learned to identify things by touch, but never by sight. For Virgil, seeingt instruction, we let the need go unfilled rather than devoting the effort to filling them. llustrates this message profoundly. It s actually a bit of a sad story, told by the neurologist and author Oliver Sacks. One of his patients was a man named Virgil, who had been blind almost since birth. Miraculously, at the age of 55 Virgil had an operation which almost completely restored his sight. So Sacks tells about what happened after Virgil s operation. At first, it seemed as though everything was excellent: his vision, while not perfect, was still quite clear; he had almost normal visual acuity. But that didn t mean he could see. While Virgil s eyes were fine, he had never learned to focus, to identify objects, to track them as they moved, to recognize shapes. He had learned to identify things by touch, but never by sight. For Virgil, seeing was a complex intellectual task, involving consciously remembering the visual features of things he saw, associating them with one another, and converting washes of light and color into visual objects. In short, every aspect of seeing, for Virgil, involved conscious mediation. Nothing about seeing was unmediated, as it is completely for us, who grew up learning those skills. The sad part of the story is that it proved too much for Virgil. Ultimately, he decided that seeing was too much work for the payoff, and so he decided to go blind again. In a much less extreme and poignant way, but still analogously, there are lots of people who ve decided that it s not worth the effort to use computers or sophisticated consumer devices. Even if they could use thd way of illustrating the contrast. When first learning to ride, a child needs to issue explicit, conscious instructions to his or her legs to get them to move in the right way. Over time, though, that knowledge turns from knowledge-that into knowledge-how, and so becomes implicit, with the body anticipating instinctively what the next move will be. em if they tried, they rightly decide that it s not worth the conscious effort. They simply make the decision that it s not worth it to put so much mediation into satisfying whatever need the device is meant to satisfy. When needs require too much explici We can see the development of computers as a kind of analogy to this development. When computers were first invented, programmers needed to issue instructions for flipping every gate, and at best in machine code, giving the processor explicit instructions for every move to make. We can see the development of computers as having them learn about us, making them understand more about our humanity and making assumptions about us to make them easier for humans to use. If we were different, it might be easier for us to program in machine code than in high-level languages, but as humans, we ve programmed computers to understand us. Still, we re very early in the process; computers understand us well enough that we can program in high-level languages, and can interact with them using graphical user interfaces. But that s still a long way from the stage where they ll have enough humanity built into them that we don t need to be quite so explicit about what we tell them to do. One of the big lessons of the consumer electronics industry is that when the demands on the user are too high, the user will just let needs go unfilled, rather than bothering to issue all those instructions. Programming VCRs is too trite to mention. But there s a fascinating story that it instruction, we let the need go unfilled rather than devoting the effort to filling them. Slide 4: Ambient Intelligence The future of the digital living room won t be one where there are lots of gadgets scattered around the place, each requiring instructions to satisfy needs. It won t even be the popular vision of  ubiquitous computing. Instead, it will be one where our environment satisfies our needs, mostly without our having to think about it. seeingeventually he effectively went blind again. BCCFIIMMHPJPTTWWTZVZ^^^^aaccffgggdhour needs don t change, the ambient light continues to illuminate the room, unmediatedly satisfying the need. Slide 5: Illuminating the transformation: Examples for today, and for the future. xxx seeingeventually he effectively went blind again. 0q/%Script for Digital Living Room speech Brian Epstein Brian Epstein [$@$NormalmH 0@0 Heading 1$@&CJ4`4 Heading 2$@&5CJ<A@<Default Paragraph Font..(&'OP&'kl  !"4#$  /0lm!! was a complex intellectual task, involving consciously remembering the visual features of things he saw, associating them with one another, and converting washes of light and color into objects. ;#<#%%&&<(=(n*o***++--.....'''''''''''''''''   dhz(HtnTBdh -<L]Unknown Brian Epstein/X2$t RV̕|" 2$ gvEc* ܩb@0(  B S  ?.w ##$ $s${$D%L% && ''''^.j.....'B 'YZ',`##$"$.... Brian EpsteinC:\WINDOWS\Desktop\My Briefcase\My Documents\Tandem\Philips\Docs on mtg with Roel\Digital Living Room Final\Script for Digital Living Room speech.doc Brian EpsteinC:\WINDOWS\Desktop\My Briefcase\My Documents\Tandem\Philips\Docs on mtg with Roel\Digital Living Room Final\Script for Digital Living Room speech.doc Brian EpsteinC:\WINDOWS\Desktop\My Briefcase\My Documents\Tandem\Philips\Docs on mtg with Roel\Digital Living Room Final\Script for Digital Living Room speech.doc Brian EpsteinC:\WINDOWS\Desktop\My Briefcase\My Documents\Tandem\Philips\Docs on mtg with Roel\Digital Living Room Final\Script for Digital Living Room speech.doc Brian EpsteinNC:\WINDOWS\TEMP\AutoRecovery save of Script for Digital Living Room speech.asd Brian EpsteinC:\WINDOWS\Desktop\My Briefcase\My Documents\Tandem\Philips\Docs on mtg with Roel\Digital Living Room Final\Script for Digital Living Room speech.doc Brian EpsteinNC:\WINDOWS\TEMP\AutoRecovery save of Script for Digital Living Room speech.asd Brian EpsteinNC:\WINDOWS\TEMP\AutoRecovery save of Script for Digital Living Room speech.asd Brian EpsteinNC:\WINDOWS\TEMP\AutoRecovery save of Script for Digital Living Room speech.asd Brian EpsteinC:\WINDOWS\Dllustrates this message profoundly. It s actually a bit of a sad story, told by the neurologist and author Oliver Sacks. One of his patients was a man named Virgil, who had been blind almost since birth. Miraculously, at the age of 55 Virgil had an operation which almost completely restored his sight. So Sacks tells about what happened after Virgil s operation. At first, it seemed as though everything was excellent: his vision, while not perfect, was still quite clear; he had almost normal visual acuity. But that didn t mean he could see. While Virgil s eyes were fine, he had never learned to focus, to identify objects, to track them as they moved, to recognize shapes. He had learned to identify things by touch, but never by sight. For Virgil, seeing was a complex intellectual task, involving consciously remembering the visual features of things he saw, associating them with one another, and converting washes of light and color into visual objects. In short, every aspect of seeing, for Virgil, involved conscious mediation. Nothing about seeing was unmediated, as it is completely for us, who grew up learning those skills. The sad part of the story is that it proved too much for Virgil. Ultimately, he decided that seeing was too much work for the payoff, and so he decided to go blind again. In a much less extreme and poignant way, but still analogously, there are lots of people who ve decided that it s not worth the effort to use computers or sophisticated consumer devices. Even if they could use them if they tried, they rightly decide that it s not worth the conscious effort. They simply make the decision that it s not worth it to put so much mediation into satisfying whatever need the device is meant to satisfy. When needs require too much explicit instruction, we let the need go unfilled rather than devoting the effort to filling them. Slide 4: Ambient Intelligence The future of the digital living room won t be one of TV"%%))H,J,0033T6V6::::==??BB We can see the development of computers as a kind of analogy to this development. When computers were first invented, programmers needed to issue instructions for flipping every gate, and at best in machine code, giving the processor explicit instruction We can see the development of computers as a kind of analogy to this development. When computers were first invented, programmers needed to issue instructions for flipping every gate, and at best in machine code, giving the processor explicit instructions for every move to make. We can see the development of computers as having them learn about us, making them understand more about our humanity and making assumptions about us to make them easier for humans to use. If we were different, it might be easier for us to program in machine code than in high-level languages, but as humans, we ve programmed computers to understand us. Still, we re very early in the process; computers understand us well enough that we can program in high-level languages, and can interact with them using graphical user interfaces. But that s still a long way from the stage where they ll have enough humanity built into them that we don t need to be quite so explicit about what we tell them to do. One of the big lessons of the conss for every move to make. We can see the development of computers as having them learn about us, making them understand more about our humanity and making assumptions about us to make them easier for humans to use. If we were different, it might be easieumer electronics industry is that when the demands on the user are too high, the user will just let needs go unfilled, rather than bothering to issue all those instructions. Programming VCRs is too trite to mention. But there s a fascinating story that illustrates this message profoundly. It s actually a bit of a sad story, told by the neurologist and author Oliver Sacks. One of his patients was a man named Virgil, who had been blind almost since birth. Miraculously, at the age of 55 Virgil had an operation which almost completely restored his sight. So Sacks tells about what happened after Virgil s operation. At first, it seemed as though everything was excellent: his vision, while not perfect, was still quite clear; he had almost normal visual acuity. But that didn t mean he could see. While Virgil s eyes were fine, he had never learned to focus, to identify objects, to track them as they moved, to recognize shapes. He had learned to identify things by touch, but never by sight. For Virgil, seeingesktop\My Briefcase\My Documents\Tandem\Philips\Docs on mtg with Roel\Digital Living Room Final\Script for Digital Living Room speech.doc-s hho(.-s@((1((5GCJmH F5GCJmH  & FC$, 'NO>kl/<4 "$C Y9?`l'(5R{a"&,-.4=*+3},-8EFJ./06wlr for us to program in machine code than in high-level languages, but as humans, we ve programmed computers to understand us. Still, we re very early in the process; computers understand us well enough that we can program in high-level languages, and can interact with them using graphical user interfaces. But that s still a long way from the stage where they ll have enough humanity built into them that we don t need to be quite so explicit about what we tell them to do. One of the big lessons of the consumer electronics industry is that when the demands on the user are too high, the user will just let needs go unfilled, rather than bothering to issue all those instructions. Programming VCRs is too trite to mention. But there s a fascinating story that illustrates this message profoundly. It s actually a bit of a sad story, told by the neurologist and author Oliver Sacks. One of his patients was a man named Virgil, who had been blind almost since birth. Miraculously, at the age of 55 Virgil had an operation which almost completely restored his sight. So Sacks tells about what happened after Virgil s operation. At first, it seemed as though everything was excellent: his vision, while not perfect, was still quite clear; he had almost normal visual acuity. But that didn t mean he could see. While Virgil s eyes were fine, he had never learned to focus, to identify objects, to track them as they moved, to recognize shapes. He had learned to identify things by touch, but never by sight. For Virgil, seeing was a complex intellectual task, involving consciously remembering the visual features of things he saw, associating them with one another, and converting washes of light and color into visual objects. In short, every aspect of seeing, for Virgil, involved conscious mediation. Nothing about seeing was unmediated, as it is completely for us, who grew up learning those skills. The sad part of the story is that it proved too much for Virgil. Ultimately, he decided that seeing was too much work for the pay was a complex intellectual task, involving consciously remembering the visual features of things he saw, associating them with one another, and converting washes of light and color into visual objects. In short, every aspect of seeing, for Virgil, involved conscious mediation. Nothing about seeing was unmediated, as it is completely for us, who grew up learning those skills. The sad part of the story is that it proved too much for Virgil. Ultimately, he decided that seeing was too much work for the payoff, and so he decided to go blind again. In a much less extreme and poignant way, but still analogously, there are lots of people who ve decided that it s not worth the effort to use computers or sophisticated consumer devices. Even if they could use them if they tried, they rightly decide that it s not worth the conscious effort. They simply make the decision that it s not worth it to put so much mediation into satisfying whatever need the device is meant to satisfy. When needs require too much expliciRj k ,!M!T!U!_!!!!#"0"""";#>#m$x$y$z$$$$'%(%5%J%X%%&c'''''(;(z((((()?)@)c)h)))))))))* *$*`*n*o**** ++++++++++,, ,,,-%-Z------..Z........0@1N@0@0@0110Z0\1^1f We can see the development of computers as a kind of analogy to this development. When computers were first invented, programmers needed to issue instructions for flipping every gate, and at best in machine code, giving the processor explicit instructions for every move to make. We can see the development of computers as having them learn about us, making them understand more about our humanity and making assumptions about us to make them easier for humans to use. If we were different, it might be easier for us to program in machine code than in high-level languages, but as humans, we ve programmed computers to understand us. Still, we re very early in the process; computers understand us well enough that we can program in high-level languages, and can interact with them using graphical user interfaces. But that s still a long way from the stage where they ll have enough humanity built into them that we don t need to be quite so explicit about what we tell them to do. One of the big lessons of the consumer electronics industry is that when the demands on the user are too high, the user will just let needs go unfilled, rather than bothering to issue all those instructions. Programming VCRs is too trite to mention. But there s a fascinating story that illustrates this message profoundly. It s actually a bit of a sad story, told by the neurologist and author Oliver Sacks. One of his patients was a man named Virgil, who had been blind almost since birth. Miraculously, at the age of 55 Virgil had an operation which almost completely restored his sight. So Sacks tells about what happened after Virgil s operation. At first, it seemed as though everything was excellent: his vision, while not perfect, was still quite clear; he had almost normal visual acuity. But that didn t mean he could see. While Virgil s eyes were fine, he had never learned to focus, to identify objects, to track them as they moved, to recognize shapes. He had learned to identify things by touch, but never by sight. For Virgil, seeing was a complex intellectual task, involving consciously remembering the visual features of things he saw, associating them with one another, and converting washes of light and color into visual objects. In short, every aspect of seeing, for Virgil, involved conscious mediation. Nothing about seeing was unmediated, as it is completely for us, who grew up learning those skills. The sad part of the story is that it proved too much for Virgil. Ultimately, he decided that seeing was too much work for the payoff, and so he decided to go blind again. In a much less extreme and poignant way, but still analogously, there are lots of people who ve decided that it s not worth the effort to use computers or sophisticated consumer devices. Even if they could use them if they tried, they rightly decide that it s not worth the conscious effort. They simply make the decision that it s not worth it to put so much mediation into satisfying whatever need the device is meant to satisfy. When needs require too much explicit instruction, we let the need go unfilled rather than devoting the effort to filling them. Slide 4: Ambient Intelligence The future of the digital living room won t be one where there are lots of gadgets scattered around the place, each requiring instructions to satisfy needs. Instead, it will be one where our environment satisfies our needs, mostly without our having to think about it. The model isn t the same as the popular  ubiquitous computing : in fact, some need fulfillment won t involve computing at all  why not use smart materials, for instance, to satisfy certain needs, instead of computing? Rather, it s a model in which innovation is truly integrated with life, in which our environments become wiser, more comfortable, and more compelling. And in particular, it s a future in which technology anticipates our needs, in which the intelligence is ambient  much like the light in this room, satisfying our need to see without our even being conscious of it, pervades the entire room. And as long as our needs don t change, the ambient light continues to illuminate the room, unmediatedly satisfying the need. Slide 5: Illuminating the transformation: Examples for today, and for the future. off, and so he decided to go blind again. In a much less extreme and poignant way, but still analogously, there are lots of people who ve decided that it s not worth the effort to use computers or sophisticated consumer devices. Even if they could use them if they tried, they rightly decide that it s not worth the conscious effort. They simply make the decision that it s not worth it to put so much mediation into satisfying whatever need the device is meant to satisfy. When needs require too much explicit instruction, we let the need go unfilled rather than devoting the effort to filling them. Slide 4: Ambient Intelligence The future of the digital living room won t be one where there are lots of gadgets scattered around the place, each requiring instructions to satisfy needs. Instead, it will be one where our environment satisfies our needs, mostly without our having to think about it. The model isn t the same as the popular  ubiquitous computing : in fact, some need fulfillment won t involve computing at all  why not use smart materials, for instance, to satisfy certain needs, instead of computing? Rather, it s a model in which innovation is truly integrated with life, in which our environments become wiser, more comfortable, and more compelling. And in particular, it s a future in which technology anticipates our needs, in which the intelligence is ambient  much like the light in this room, satisfying our need to see without our even being conscious of it, pervades the entire room. And as long as learning to walk [JOKE ABOUT PC]becomes fully assimilatedGiven that humans don t think in machine code,intelligencelargelygood  [$@$NormalmH 0@0 Heading 1$@&CJ4`4 Heading 2$@&5CJ<A@<Default Paragraph Font..(&'OP&'kl  !"4#$  /0lm!!;#<#%%&&A(B(s*t***++--.....'''''''''''''''''   gz(HtnTBg -<L]Unknown Brian Epstein/X2$t RV̕|" 2$ gvEc* ܩb@0(  B S  ?.w ##$ $s${$D%L% && ''''c.o.....'B 'YZ',`##$"$.... Brian EpsteinC:\WINDOWS\Desktop\My Briefcase\My Documents\Tandem\Philips\Docs on mtg with Roel\Digital Living Room Final\Script for Digital Living Room speech.doc Brian EpsteinC:\WINDOWS\Desktop\My Briefcase\My Documents\Tandem\Philips\Docs on mtg with Roel\Digital Living Room Final\Script for Digital Living Room speech.doc Brian EpsteinC:\WINDOWS\Desktop\My Briefcase\My Documents\Tandem\Philips\Docs on mtg with Roel\Digital Living Room Final\Script for Digital Living Room speech.doc Brian EpsteinC:\WINDOWS\Desktop\My Briefcase\My Documents\Tandem\Philips\Docs on mtg with Roel\Digital Living Room Final\Script for Digital Living Room speech.doc Brian EpsteinNC:\WINDOWS\TEMP\AutoRecovery save of Script for Digital Living Room speech.asd Brian EpsteinC:\WINDOWS\Desktop\My Briefcase\My Documents\Tandem\Philips\Docs on mtg with Roel\Digital Living Room Final\Script for Digital Living Room speech.doc Brian Eps11p1r1ʛ1ԛ1R1|110؜11010110>1@1111 0ޠ11 110j%@0l%@11H0P111V1n111̥1\1111:0111"1J1L1`1n1z1~1X1ة01111f1n1 [$@$NormalmH 0@0 Heading 1$@&CJ<A@<Default Paragraph Font..(&'OP&'kl  !"4#$  /0lm!!;#<#%%&&A(B(s*t***++--....   Cz(HtnTBC -<L]Unknown Brian Epstein/X2$t RV̕|" 2$ gvEc* ܩb@0(  B S  ?.w ##$ $s${$D%L% && ''''c.o.....'B 'YZ',`##$"$.... Brian EpsteinC:\WINDOWS\Desktop\My Briefcase\My Documents\Tandem\Philips\Docs on mtg with Roel\Digital Living Room Final\Script for Digital Living Room speech.doc Brian EpsteinC:\WINDOWS\Desktop\My Briefcase\My Documents\Tandem\Philips\Docs on mtg with Roel\Digital Living Room Final\Script for Digital Living Room speech.doc Brian EpsteinC:\WINDOWS\Desktop\My Briefcase\My Documents\Tandem\Philips\Docs on mtg with Roel\Digital Living Room Final\Script for Digital Living Room speech.doc Brian EpsteinC:\WINDOWS\Desktop\My Briefcase\My Documents\Tandem\Philips\Docs on mtg with Roel\Digital Living Room Final\Script for Digital Living Room speech.doc Brian EpsteinNC:\WINDOWS\TEMP\AutoRecovery save of Script for Digital Living Room speech.asd Brian EpsteinC:\WINDOWS\Desktop\My Briefcase\My Documents\Tandem\Philips\Docs on mtg with Roel\Digital Living Room Final\Script for Digital Living Room speech.doc Brian EpsteinNC:\WINDOWS\TEMP\AutoRecovery save of Script for Digital Living Room speech.asd Brian EpsteinNC:\WINDOWS\TEMP\AutoRecovery save of Script for Digital Living Room speech.asd Brian EpsteinNC:\WINDOWS\TEMP\AutoRecovery save of Script for Digital Living Room speech.asd Brian EpsteinC:\WINDOWS\Desktop\My Briefcase\My Documents\Tandem\Philips\Docs on mtg with Roel\Digital Living Room Final\Script for Digital Living Room speech.doc-s hho(.-s@..1.. & FC$ >kl/<4 "$C Y9?`l'(5R{a"&,-.4=*+3},-8EFJ./06wlRj k ,!M!T!U!_!!!!#"0"""";#>#m$x$y$z$$$$'%(%5%J%X%%&c'''((((( )D)E)h)m)))))))))**)*e*s**+0+++++++,, ,%,,,-*-_------.$._.......0@0101^1f11p1r1ʛ1ԛ1R1|110؜11010110>1@1111 0ޠ11 110j%@0l%@11H0P111V1n111̥1\1111:0111"1J1L1`1n1z1~1X1ة01111f1n1111*1x1z11Ҭ1Ԭ1ڬ1111111100.1h11111100İ1111 1"1*11ر111D1d1l0010011111̳11100n1F11600"1"1v"1D#1$0r%1&1&1'1*(1l(1z(1|(1(1(0<)1)1*12*1V+1+0+0H,1N,1.1.1.1.1.1/0(/1 01"01<01f010100F314140l516171471717171Z81\8181818191^91n91z91~9191919191$:0:0:1J;1;12<0=0=1.=1d=1=1=1=1>1>1>1>0?0?1&@1@1@1@1@1@1&A1A1B0B1C0v%@0p%@0t%@0v%@GTimes New Roman5Symbol3& Arial"1hR&fS&ff&R"dhj111*1x1z11Ҭ1Ԭ1ڬ1111111100.1h11111100İ1111 1"1*11ر111D1d1l0010011111̳11100n1F11600F1F1vF1DG1H0rI1J1J1K1*L1lL1zL1|L1L1L0kl/<4 "$C Y9?`l'(5R{a"&,-.4=*+3},-8EFJ./06wlRj k ,!M!T!U!_!!!!#"0"""";#>#m$x$y$z$$$$'%(%5%J%X%%&c'''((((( )D)E)h)m)))))))))**)*e*s*t****+0+++++++,, ,%,,,-*-_------.$._........0@1N@0@0@0110Z0\1^1f11p1r1ʛ1ԛ1R1|110؜11010110>1@1111 0ޠ11 110j%@0l%@11H0P111V1n111̥1\1111:0111"1J1L1`1n1z1~1X1ة01111f1n1111*1x1z11Ҭ1Ԭ1ڬ1111111100.1h11111100İ1111 1"1*11ر111D1d1l0010011111̳11100n1F11600F1F1vF1DG1H0rI1J1J1K1*L1lL1zL1|L1L1L0 _PID_GUIDAN{9C1E9F29-004D-11D2-BE83-00008610BD29}Oh+'0 ( D P \hpx&Script for Digital Living Room speecht criBrian Epsteinitria Normal.dotiBrian Epsteinit19aMicrosoft Word 8.0L@pT@N@KI& 675 !"#$%&'(D+,-./01234XC89:;<=>?@ABREFGHIJKLMNOPQ^STUV)[Z_\]s*fabcdemghijkvnopqrutY{wxyz|?#J###r.u.v.{. Brian EpsteinC:\WINDOWS\Desktop\My Briefcase\My Documents\Tandem\Philips\Docs on mtg with Roel\Digital Living Room Final\Script for Digital Living Room speech.doc Brian EpsteinC:\WINDOWS\Desktop\My Briefcase\My Documents\Tandem\Philips\Docs on mtg with Roel\Digital Living Room Final\Script for Digital Living Room speech.doc Brian EpsteinNC:\WINDOWS\TEMP\AutoRecovery save of Script for Digital Living Room speech.asd Brian EpsteinC:\WINDOWS\Desktop\My Briefcase\My Documents\Tandem\Philips\Docs on mtg with Roel\Digital Living Room Final\Script for Digital Living Room speech.doc Brian EpsteinNC:\WINDOWS\TEMP\AutoRecovery save of Script for Digital Living Room speech.asd Brian EpsteinNC:\WINDOWS\TEMP\AutoRecovery save of Script for Digital Living Room speech.asd Brian EpsteinNC:\WINDOWS\TEMP\AutoRecovery save of Script for Digital Living Room speech.asd Brian EpsteinC:\WINDOWS\Desktop\My Briefcase\My Documents\Tandem\Philips\Docs on mtg with Roel\Digital Living Room Final\Script for Digital Living Room speech.doc Brian EpsteinNC:\WINDOWS\TEMP\AutoRecovery save of Script for Digital Living Room speech.asd Brian EpsteinNC:\WINDOWS\TEMP\AutoRecovery save of Script for Digital Living Room speech.asd-s hho(.-s@&& 2&&5GCJmH F5GCJmH  & FC$ 'NO >kl/<4 "$C Y7Gco*+8U~d!"%)/017@-.6/0;HIM  ABCIR  ! " V ! ! !!8!H!T!p!!!!}"""""##$)$*$+$6$O$\$$$$$$$%:%b&'0'j'''''(6(I(q((((())%)7)^)f)l)n))))))) * *)***T***7+8+F+a+v+w+++++,,,,,--%-)-B----.p.u.v.x.y.z.0@1N@0@0@0&@0*@0 @0110Z0\1^1f11p1r1ʛ1ԛ1R1|110؜11010110>1@1111 0ޠ11 110j%@0l%@11H0P1j11V1n111̥1\1111:0111"1J1L1`1n1z1~1X1ة01111f1n1111*1x1z11Ҭ1Ԭ1ڬ1111111100.1h11111100İ1111 1"1*11ر111D1d1l1 j1>j0010011111̳11100n1F1@j111600F1F1vF1DG1H0rI1rj1j1J1J1J1K1*L1lL1zL1|L1L1L1j1M0O>O>O>O>O>O>$VKJMs>- %03,3030303s>X4%%11;12X4X4X403%R1%1M> &6?&6%%%%03M>X4 X4=->%"%M>11 dE +JS13E>Root Entry F dE@1TablejHWordDocumentnSummaryInformation(      `l~DocumentSummaryInformation8CompObjjObjectPool""""0TableM  FMicrosoft Word Document MSWordDocWord.Document.89q՜.+,D՜.+,\ hp  SiliconArtistsQ / &Script for Digital Living Room speech Title 6> _PID_GUIDAN{9C1E9F29-004D-11D2-BE83-00008610BD29}Oh+'0 ( D P \hpx&Script for Digital Living Room speecht criBrian Epsteinitria Normal.dotiBrian Epsteinit20aMicrosoft Word 8.0L@6@N@TnWEO& 765 !"#$%&'(D+,-./01234XC89:;<=>?@ABREFGHIJKLMNOPQ^STUV)[Z_\]s*fabcdemghijkvnopqrutY{wxyz|}