Making What Matters: A Conversation with MAD Designer in Residence Tony Fadell and Paola Antonelli

tldr

Tony Fadell — creator of the iPod, iPhone, and Nest, author of Build (book) — sits down for 85 minutes with Paola Antonelli, MoMA's senior curator of architecture and design, as the inaugural MIT Morningside Academy for Design Designer in Residence. The conversation is a masterclass disguised as a fireside chat: Fadell's process (start with pain, not cool), the real origin stories of the iPod and iPhone (both were defensive moves, both got thrown away and rebuilt), his warning that AI today is exactly where General Magic was in 1990 — a technology searching for a product, about to die of founder ego — and his Build-book framework for knowing when you're done. If you can watch one 85-minute thing on product craft this year, watch this.

Key Takeaways

Start with pain, not "wouldn't it be cool if." Fadell's process is unambiguous: everyday pain, experienced by a large number of people, that incumbents can't or won't solve. Everything else — the tech, the features, the design flourishes — is downstream of that. The current AI hackathons at MIT are repeating the exact General Magic mistake: brilliant people snapping Lego blocks together without asking whose life gets better.
A product is not a painkiller — it's a superpower. Solving the problem is table stakes. If the product also makes the user feel a little magical — like they just gained a capability — they evangelize it. Nest's 95% DIY install rate happened because grandmothers felt like geniuses opening the box.
Write the press release before you write the code. Lock the 4-5 key differentiators, price, channel, customer, and pain in 1–1.5 pages at the start of the project. Ship in 9–14 months against that script. Ship longer than 14 and the team turns over, the world shifts, your thesis rots. "In Silicon Valley they shoot the movie and at the end they go, 'Let's have the script.' You would never make a movie that way."
1.0 → 2.0 → 3.0. Version 1 is a good product. Version 2 is the fixed product. Version 3 is the business built around it. Don't conflate product-market fit with go-to-market fit. For FeatureOS and SupportWire running in parallel, this is the sequencing rule.
The iPhone was born from a defensive crouch, not a vision deck. Steve Jobs greenlit it because the iPod — 50–60% of Apple's revenue — was about to get eaten by Nokia phones with bolt-on MP3. First attempt: an iPod-plus-phone with a click wheel. Killed. Second attempt: aluminum chocolate bar. Killed. The shipped version emerged from throwing two generations in the trash. Great products are usually the third answer.
AI is a technology, not a product. The winners will bond the model to a specific customer journey with real context — like Nabla, the AI medical scribe that took seven years to get right — not wrap a general LLM in a new coat of paint. Fadell's warning: "It reminds me a lot of 1998 and 1999 — they can't deliver."
Pressure, not fear. Jobs' pressure cooker shipped the iPod in 8 months. The difference from startup fear-pressure: Jobs protected the project like an infant; VC fear-pressure threatens to cut the funding. One grows the product; the other kills it. For hiring and management: aim for healthy pressure, never fear.
Chase the pain you can feel yourself. Every one of Fadell's hits was a self-diagnosis. He was a DJ hauling 2,000 CDs (iPod). He was carrying three cables in one pocket (iPhone). His thermostat made him furious every day (Nest). Conviction is contagious only when it's real — and founders who fake it get found out the moment they have to sell the story.
Unintended consequences are the designer's ongoing job. Social media wasn't the intent of the iPhone, but it happened — and fixing it is still Fadell's job, not someone else's. "You can't just drop the mic and say I'm done and I'm out."
Hidden figures are everywhere. Megan Smith took the mic to name Susan Kare (made every icon on your screen), Joanna Hoffman (translated Steve Jobs for the team), and the fact that General Magic was 50% women in 1990. Great products are never solo work; the myth of the lone genius is the most expensive story in tech.

[00:00] Welcoming the Inaugural MAD Designer in Residence

Ben Farahi, assistant professor and director of the Critical Matter group at the MIT Media Lab, opens the evening in his role holding the inaugural MIT Morningside Academy for Design professorship. He frames the Designer in Residence program as a deliberate bet: bring the field's most consequential practitioners to campus for short residencies so design sits next to the labs as a legitimate mode of discovery, not a decorative afterthought [0:22]. Tony Fadell is named the very first resident [1:01], and Farahi notes Fadell will return in January to run a workshop during the IAP period — meaning this isn't a one-night talk, it's an ongoing thread into the student body.

Farahi then hands off to Paola Antonelli, senior curator of architecture and design and founding director of R&D at MoMA, a 31-year MoMA veteran and longtime MIT Media Lab advisory council member [2:40]. The framing matters: MIT is explicitly positioning design as a first-class discipline alongside engineering, and Fadell — a computer engineer from the University of Michigan who became a design obsessive — is the perfect proof point that the two aren't separate careers, they're one.

[1:34]

"MAD Designer in Residence is really about highlighting design as a mode of discovery and collaborations between disciplines." — Ben Farahi

[3:35] Fadell's Arc — From Motown Garages to Apple, Nest, and Build Collective

Antonelli runs a fast, affectionate biography [3:46]: Detroit roots, University of Michigan computer engineering, then the legendary General Magic — the company that effectively invented the smartphone fifteen years too early, and whose alumni (including MIT's own Megan Smith) went on to define modern tech [5:11]. After General Magic came Philips and the portable electronics division [5:52], then Fadell's own hard-drive music startup Fuse Systems [6:02], then Apple, where he became the father of the iPod and shipped the first-generation iPhone [6:30]. Then Nest — the thermostat that redefined the category — and now Build Collective, his advisory and investment vehicle for startups, plus his book Build (book) [6:46].

Antonelli confesses, with charm, that 31 years at MoMA makes her feel like "a coward" next to Fadell's serial reinventions [7:05]. For a builder-CEO audience, the subtext is the real lesson: the Fadell career is a sequence of decisive bets, each compounding the last. Every chapter — General Magic's failure, Philips' corporate lessons, Apple's craft, Nest's customer journey — becomes raw material for the next. Distribution and durability aren't separate from craft; they're the same muscle, trained over decades.

[7:27] The "Why" Problem — What 48 Hours at MIT Already Revealed

Asked what's "boiling in his stomach" after 48 hours on campus [7:27], Fadell lands on the most damning observation a design-obsessed builder can make about an engineering school: everyone here is working on what, almost no one is working on why. He describes attending "Sunday," a weekly AI hackathon [8:40], and watching brilliant students snap Lego blocks together — "isn't it cool if… isn't it cool if…" — without ever touching the question of whose pain they were solving.

Then he drops the devastating parallel [9:01]: General Magic did the exact same thing in the late 80s, with the original Macintosh team, the smartest people on the planet, building a phone fifteen years early. They shipped into a market they had no pulse on, the internet arrived on top of them, and it took four years to die. "We were missing design," Antonelli names it [9:33]. Fadell's correction: design isn't decoration, it's the customer journey — the whole arc from "never heard of this product" to "it's part of my life" — the rational and emotional symphony he learned to orchestrate at Apple and perfected at Nest [10:54].

For a founder-CEO, this is the lesson to tattoo on your forearm: technology fluency plus business-school scaling plus manufacturing does not equal a product. If the why for the customer isn't discovered, the rest is plumbing. Antonelli pushes it further — design changes behaviors, and products like the iPod, iPhone, and Nest thermostat prove it [11:46]. Fadell's origin story for his own taste is small and specific: a Detroit grandfather who repaired screen doors until they worked, and a mother who refused to live with ones that were ugly [13:11]. His father worked at Levi's for 33 years, so fabric, fashion, and aesthetic judgment were household language [13:34]. Function plus beauty wasn't a framework — it was a dinner-table argument.

[14:00]

"Aesthetic intention — it doesn't have to be prettiness. It can be punk. But aesthetic intention is a form of respect towards other human beings, towards your customer." — Paola Antonelli

[14:45] The Process, Version N — Start With Pain

Fadell opens up his current process, explicitly framed as an evolution — "ten years of failures" documented in Build [15:14]. The current version starts with one word: pain [15:41]. Not "wouldn't it be cool if," not technology-first, not a hackathon vibe. Everyday pain, experienced by a large number of people. If the pain isn't there, nothing else matters.

Step two is interrogating the competition [16:04]: why hasn't anyone solved this already? Sometimes it's pure incumbent inertia — the "goes to die in a big company" pattern every startup founder recognizes [16:32] — and sometimes it's a genuine technical constraint. Step three is whether technology has shifted since those incumbents designed their products [17:06] — the opening that creates a real window for a new entrant.

[15:41]

"It really starts with pain. Where is the pain? Too many people had go off and think about, you know, 'wouldn't it be cool if.' I really want to focus on the pain. Show me everyday pain that a large number of people have and let's start there." — Tony Fadell

[17:01] Pain, Incumbents, and the Technology That Unseats Them

Fadell runs his disruption test across his three hits. The iPod's unlock was storage plus MP3 — Fadell was a DJ hauling 2,000 CDs, and that was "pretty heavy" [17:46]. The iPhone wasn't about multi-touch as spectacle; the pain was lugging a laptop, a phone, and an iPod with three sets of cables [18:00]. Multi-touch and apps were the means to collapse three things into one pocket. Nest's pain was energy and ugliness — thermostats were fiddly and "absolutely ugly" [18:54].

Then Fadell layers in the customer model most founders skip. A thermostat isn't bought by one person — it's a Considered Purchase by a couple, where one partner is the geek and the other wants the energy savings or the aesthetic [19:40]. You have to sell to both in the same object. For a B2B feedback tool, the same truth holds: there's the PM who falls in love and the exec who signs the check, and the product has to speak to both at once.

[19:08]

"We called it the Nest learning thermostat because we couldn't call it the Nest AI thermostat 14 years ago — people were like, 'I don't want AI in my home.' Today, if it doesn't have AI, they won't even buy it." — Tony Fadell

[20:22] Painkillers vs. Superpowers — and Why Fuse Died

Antonelli pivots to staying power: what happens after the novelty ebbs? Fadell distinguishes between solving a problem rationally and turning the solution into an emotional Superpower [21:09]. A painkiller gets a shrug; a superpower gets shown to friends. The iPhone became "the Jesus phone" [21:32]. Nest got wrapped and put under Christmas trees. The self-install bet is the best tell — they engineered it expecting 40% would DIY, and 95% did. Grandmothers filmed themselves installing it before they even used it, because the act itself felt like a superpower [22:05].

The Fuse Systems post-mortem is the counterweight. Fadell had learned MP3 at Philips, pitched a music player, got shot down, and started his own company in 1999 [23:13]. The VCs of that era were pouring money into e-commerce and told him hardware was dead: "There's no future in hardware" [23:53]. Then the 2000 crash made it worse. He was near shutting Fuse down when Apple called for a consulting gig — the project that became the iPod. Six months after it shipped, the same VCs who had mocked him were calling back [24:51]. The weakness at Fuse wasn't the idea — it was distribution and timing. Being right early with no channel is indistinguishable from being wrong.

[21:17]

"If you solve the problem, it's too rational. People are like, 'Okay, that's great.' If you bring them that emotional superpower, they're like, 'Oh, yeah.'" — Tony Fadell

[25:05] The Click Wheel, the Whiteboard, and Shipping in Eight Months

Antonelli points at the original iPod mockup Fadell is holding — the one he built in his garage with his grandfather's fishing weights inside to get the heft right [25:16]. That's the whole Fadell method in one object: make it feel real in the hand before you argue about it. He tells the click wheel origin story and doesn't flinch: "Great artists steal" [27:30]. Steve Jobs green-lit the project in a single meeting, then walked out with a Bang & Olufsen phone that had a wheel on it and said, "We think that's the interface" [28:28]. Fadell said yes and went to work. The refinement from an analog mechanical wheel to the click wheel came after — but the core move was recognizing the right thing when someone put it in front of him.

The software interface came down to the wire. Two weeks before launch, four people — Fadell, Jeff Robbin, Jobs, and Sabi Khan — were at a whiteboard arguing hierarchy [29:21]. March 2001 to October 2001. "We did this in eight months" [30:09]. Apple had $200M in the bank, $500M in debt, less than 1% Mac market share, no retail, and was barely breaking even [30:44]. Fadell had ten years of dead projects behind him and knew that if it slipped, it would die in the hallway.

He draws the line between healthy pressure and fear pressure. The Philips mode and the typical startup mode is external fear — VCs threatening to cut funding, corporations threatening to kill the project [31:51]. Jobs gave them the opposite: a pressure cooker aimed at shipping, not a knife at the knees [32:54]. The deadline was real, though — Sony owned every audio category with the Walkman, and Fadell knew that a four-year cycle like General Magic's would let the market move past them [33:06]. Get out by the holiday, or don't bother.

[32:15]

"Steve treated us like a little infant. 'I have to guard this, feed it, care for it — because it's surrounded by teenagers. If you take care of it like a teenager, it's never going to grow up. It's going to die.'" — Tony Fadell

[34:00] The iPhone's Messy Origin: From iPod-Plus-Phone to Ping-Pong Table

Antonelli pushes Fadell into the iPhone era. He reframes the origin: the iPhone didn't start as a phone project at all. It started as an existential defense of the iPod, which was driving 50–60% of Apple's revenue and holding 85–90% worldwide market share in digital music players [34:51]. Nokia and the other handset makers were circling, slapping MP3 playback onto mid-tier phones. The threat was simple and terrifying: if people only carry one thing in their pocket, and that thing is a phone, the iPod dies.

So the first attempt was literally an iPod-plus-phone — click wheel and all. Jobs insisted you'd dial by spinning the wheel to select names. "It turned into a rotary phone" [36:23]. Months of banging their heads. No speech-to-text. No workable texting model. At the point of resignation, Jobs pulled Fadell into a secret room: a touchscreen Macintosh prototype, built on capacitive touch (a leap from the resistive screens Fadell had used at General Magic and Philips), projected onto a ping-pong table with multi-touch sensors all around it [37:42].

[38:13]

"'You know that full-screen iPod you're making with virtual controls? Can you put this touchscreen on it instead of this other one?' And I was like, 'But Steve, it's the size of a ping pong table.'" — Tony Fadell

The iPhone wasn't born from a vision deck — it was born from a defensive crouch, a doomed prototype, and a side-project Fadell didn't even know existed. Great products often emerge from killing the first two answers.

[38:27] Throwing It Away: Iteration Before MVPs Existed

Over roughly two and a half years, Fadell's team miniaturized the ping-pong-table tech, built a new software stack, a new processor, a whole modality layer — and threw the design away twice. The iPod-plus-phone got killed. The large-screen video iPod got killed. Two full iPhone versions got killed before the shipping one. The first iPhone model looked like an aluminum chocolate bar, proportioned like an iPod mini; the antennas didn't work because nobody on the team had built portable radios before [39:52].

Antonelli notes this predates MVP culture entirely. Fadell agrees — there was no iterate-and-test scaffolding; you built to a wall, hit it, threw the thing out, and started again. Three shipped products in two and a half years plus two discarded ones, with a big hardware team, a big OS team, a big apps team, and an ecosystem of partners. The first iPhone didn't even have an App Store.

A quick detour into patents: Fadell holds ~300, and his instinct for patenting came from Apple, Philips, and General Magic. When General Magic went bankrupt, Nathan Myhrvold's firm bought the patents — and called Fadell to tell him one of his early serial-bus patents was fundamental to USB. Myhrvold wanted his help suing everyone. Fadell: "I'm out" [42:23]. General Magic gets its Xerox PARC comparison: a universal donor, the birthplace of Emoji (credited to Bill Atkinson and Susan Kare), later exported to NTT DoCoMo handsets when General Magic died [42:59].

[43:40] AI as Technology, Not Product

Antonelli pivots to Fadell's current seat at Build Collective, where he advises startups at the cutting edge. Her question: what's his diagnosis of design's power to change behavior? Fadell's answer is a warning shot at the current AI hype cycle. Done with care, AI is a superpower — he points to Nabla, an AI medical scribe that has been seven years in development, not six months [46:35]. It uses tightly scoped medical models, not hallucinating general-purpose LLMs, and the wins come from deeply understanding the patient and doctor journey so the clinician stays present instead of typing notes.

[45:43]

"LLMs and the AI we're seeing — it's a technology, it's not a product. You figure out what it's good for, if it's good for you." — Tony Fadell

[46:27]

"Too many of these things are still just demos and they're getting a lot of money. It reminds me a lot of 1998 and 1999 — they can't deliver." — Tony Fadell

For FeatureOS and SupportWire: this is the discipline. AI is raw material, not a feature bullet. The companies that will win are the ones bonding the model to a specific customer journey with real context and personalization — not the ones wrapping GPT in a new coat of paint.

[51:00] AI Interfaces and the Cost of Not Unlearning

Fadell returns to AI interfaces by arguing we are still trapped inside inherited modalities. Every new computing era starts by trying to cram the new paradigm into the old shell: pre-Macintosh, everyone forced applications into text; pre-iPhone, Microsoft spent four years building smartphones using desktop GUI metaphors. Multi-touch unlocked an entirely new application layer [51:25]. Then Siri and Alexa got bolted on as a tertiary input on top of touch and keyboard — and that, Fadell argues, is exactly the trap AI is walking into today [52:31].

[52:45]

"No one ever reimagined the applications as voice first. You have to say, 'This is the primary way you interact with it,' and then figure out." — Tony Fadell

His point lands hard for product builders: the shortcut of "AI-enabling" existing software stacks will not produce the Her-like future everyone imagines. The stack itself — hardware, OS, app structure — has to be rebuilt around the new primary modality. Antonelli names the real obstacle: Unlearning. Habituation is the enemy. Fadell adds that staying beginner means both breaking out of what you've built and remembering the pain you've habituated away — two moves that have to happen together. It's not evolutionary. It's a leap.

[54:18] Finding Pain Everywhere and the Hardware Trap

The Q&A opens. A student asks what pains Fadell is seeing right now worth building on. His answer: everywhere, constantly, in every domain [55:10]. He describes walking through the world in a low-grade state of irritation — "who designed this, how could it be this way" — and argues that agriculture, fashion, textiles, semiconductors, drug discovery, and materials science all have pains waiting for the new toolset. His VC fund Future Shape has portfolio companies on every continent across all of those categories [57:10].

The next student, working on adaptive home objects, asks how researchers without deployment scale contribute to AI-physical-device work. Fadell's answer is a warning disguised as advice: stop falling in love with the object. Prototype the problem with software, with hacks, with anything that gets data at scale before committing to a physical build [58:39]. As evidence, he points to a Chinese product Antonelli had asked him about: a $25 AI clip you attach to a child's existing doll. No new toy — just AI imbued into the thing the kid already loves [59:20].

[58:45]

"At the end of the day, I can't stand hardware. Hardware is hard." — Tony Fadell

[60:00] Hidden Figures, Diverse Teams, and Knowing When Hardware Is Done

Megan Smith — former US CTO under Obama, Fadell's colleague at General Magic — takes the mic and reframes the history everyone thinks they know. She invokes Vannevar Bush's Science, the Endless Frontier and its line about "the full creative and productive energies of the American people," then uses it to call out hidden figures: Lucia Hicks Williams, Joanna Hoffman, Susan Kare — the woman the Jobs movie reduced to "Susan made the bag," who actually made every icon and emoji you look at daily [62:29]. Fadell confirms that 50% of General Magic's employees in 1990 were women [62:54]. Smith adds that she herself was dropped from the patent Fadell had just been describing — "hidden figuring" in real time.

[62:40]

"Steve doesn't do that magical stuff alone. It's teamwork." — Megan Smith

Then an Irish industrial designer named Evan asks the question every hardware founder wrestles with: when is done done? Fadell's answer is one of the most portable lessons of the night — and it's straight from Build. At the outset of a project, write a one-to-one-and-a-half page press release. Lock in the four or five key differentiators, the price, the channel, the customer, the pain [64:58]. That press release is your script. Ship in nine to fourteen months — longer than that and the world changes underneath you, the team turns over, the thesis rots [65:28].

[66:20]

"In Silicon Valley they shoot the movie and at the end they go, 'Let's have the script.' You would never make a movie that way." — Tony Fadell

Most people can't hold more than four features in their head when deciding to buy something, so distillation is not optional [66:44]. The press release tells you when you're done — and what you wished you'd done becomes the next version.

[68:00] Why Chase This Pain and Not That One

Antonelli presses Fadell on selection: with countless problems to solve, why did he go after the ones behind iPod, iPhone, and Nest? Fadell's answer is almost embarrassingly personal — he was already building digital music players at Fuse because he loved music and felt the pain himself. A thousand songs in your pocket with all-day battery life wasn't a market opportunity; it was a self-diagnosis. iPhone was the same story (consolidating the three devices he was already carrying), and Nest was his own frustration with wasted energy. The pattern extends to less glamorous work — Future Shape has spent seven years on a plastics company now shipping its solution, because the plastics problem genuinely bothers him.

[68:40]

"Sometimes you love something so much you're going to amp it up… it's always something that is a pain that I want to take on that I can feel myself. So it drives me and then I can also communicate it." — Tony Fadell

The takeaway Fadell emphasizes for founders: if you can feel the pain yourself, you can transmit it — to teammates, to investors, to customers — and they'll adopt the mission as their own. Conviction is contagious only when it's real.

[70:00] Time Horizons, Iteration, and the 1.0 → 2.0 → 3.0 Rule

An entrepreneur building in senior care (her grandmother has Alzheimer's) asks the question every founder secretly worries about: how do you reconcile the multi-year arc of building something great with the monthly reality of payroll, burn, and investor expectations? Fadell reframes the premise — iteration isn't failure, it's the learning process. The trap is misaligned expectations: investors and teams who believe it has to work the first time will crack under pressure that should have been priced in from day one.

He then lays out his three-version framework from Build:

1.0 — Build a good product.
2.0 — Fix the product.
3.0 — Build the business around it.

[71:20]

"You're not building the whole business at the same time you're building the product. You have to figure out what you're doing. Then you can figure out the right business around it." — Tony Fadell

For running FeatureOS and SupportWire in parallel, the sequencing matters: don't conflate product-market fit with go-to-market fit, and pick Way Stations — shippable milestones — rather than betting everything on a single distant summit.

[73:05] MoMA as Translator: Design in the Museum

A Wellesley/MIT student turns to Antonelli to ask how MoMA builds archives of great design objects. She points to her current show — Pirouette (she wanted "Pivot" but a podcast owned the name) — featuring emoji by NTT DoCoMo, Susan Kare's icons, the Sony Walkman, the Macintosh 128K, Spanx, the Monoblock chair, and Crocs: objects that changed behavior either directly or through other designers. Her insight as a 31-year curator: visitors come to MoMA for Matisse and Picasso out of cultural obligation, then get pulled into the design galleries for two hours because they recognize themselves in the objects — yet the museum setting creates a productive distance that forces deeper understanding.

[74:30]

"Revolutions might happen in science and in technology and in politics, but designers are the ones that make them into life." — Paola Antonelli

[75:57] Designer Intuition vs. AI-Generated Options

A founder asks how, in the AI era, you balance user needs, innovation, and designer intuition when you can now generate ten alternatives cheaply. Fadell draws a hard line: AI-driven option-generation and A/B testing are fine for optimization of something already working — but for 1.0 work, you need a human point of view on who you're building for, why, and what falls in or out of scope. The tools inform the gut; they don't replace it. He invokes Jobs as the archetype: Jobs wasn't the designer, he was the critical eye saying yes, no, or "a little bit like this."

[77:40]

"It's an informed gut that I get from some of those tools and data, but there's still a critical eye that makes those selections… it's still the human in the loop." — Tony Fadell

[79:14] Unintended Consequences and the Designer's Ongoing Duty

Asked how to predict who gets left behind when you solve a pain point for many, Fadell is blunt: every design creates unintended consequences, full stop. Some loved the iPod; his ex-General Magic friend hated that it isolated people. He refuses to accept "technology is neutral" as a pass for designers — Social Media wasn't the intent of the iPhone, but it happened, and fixing it is still the designer's job. Even post-Apple, he goes on news programs to publicly tell Apple what to fix.

[80:30]

"As a designer, you can't just drop the mic and say 'I'm done and I'm out.' You got to keep working on it." — Tony Fadell

[81:36] Timing the Market: When Tech Is Ready but Society Isn't

An aero/astro student working on space-suit wearables asks how to navigate technologies that depend on external infrastructure catching up. This is Fadell's home territory — General Magic was 15 years too early, and Nest sat in his head for 10 years until the technology and society were simultaneously ready. He runs a quick tour of "too early" graveyards: Google Glass users were "glass holes" before Meta Ray-Bans became normal; Bluetooth headsets were mocked in the late '90s; pagers were for drug dealers and doctors. The lesson: map both the technology curve and the customer journey — including detractors — and sometimes the right move is to sit on the idea until the moment arrives.

[82:50]

"It's not just having the technology be ready, but having society be ready to adopt those." — Tony Fadell

People Mentioned

Tony Fadell — creator of iPod, iPhone, Nest. Author of Build (book). Runs Build Collective and Future Shape. The guest.
Paola Antonelli — MoMA senior curator of architecture and design, 31-year veteran. The interviewer.
Ben Farahi — MIT Media Lab assistant professor, director of the Critical Matter group, inaugural Morningside Academy for Design professor. Opened the event.
Steve Jobs — co-founder and CEO of Apple. Fadell's boss for the iPod and iPhone years. The critical eye.
Megan Smith — former US CTO under Obama, ex-General Magic, ex-Google VP. Took the mic during Q&A to name hidden figures.
Susan Kare — graphic designer who made every icon, typeface, and emoji on the original Macintosh. The "Susan made the bag" reference.
Bill Atkinson — original Macintosh team, credited with inventing the emoji format at General Magic.
Nathan Myhrvold — former Microsoft CTO, founder of Intellectual Ventures. Bought General Magic's patents after bankruptcy.
Joanna Hoffman — legendary early Mac team member who translated Jobs for the team; ex-General Magic.
Jony Ive — longtime Apple chief design officer, Fadell's collaborator on hardware.
Jeff Robbin — Apple engineer, co-designed the iPod's software interface with Fadell.
Vannevar Bush — author of Science, the Endless Frontier, cited by Megan Smith.
Marina Abramović — performance artist, invoked by Antonelli as a testing-by-embodiment analogy.
Lucia Hicks Williams — hidden figure named by Megan Smith.

One Thing to Act On

Write the press release for the next major FeatureOS release — 1 page, before you write any code or start any design. Lock the 4-5 differentiators. Name the customer. Name the channel. Name the pain. Set a ship date 9 months out, hard stop. Pin it to the wall. Every time the team asks "should we build X," hold it up to the press release and ask whether it makes the story stronger or weaker. Things that don't make the cut become 2.0. This is the Fadell discipline in its cheapest, most testable form. Cost: one afternoon. Return: a shippable, coherent v1 instead of a sprawling almost-v1 that drifts for months. Start tomorrow.

Raw Transcript

Auto-captions from YouTube. Folded by default — expand if you need to grep the source or pull an exact quote.

0:09 [music] 0:16 [applause] 0:20 Good evening everyone. I am Ben Farahi. 0:24 I'm assistant professor and director of 0:27 the critical matter group here at MIT 0:29 Media Lab. I also hold um inaaguual 0:33 Morningside Academy for design 0:35 professorship which I'm really excited. 0:37 So I actually hold the best of the two 0:40 words. It is my great pleasure to 0:44 welcome you all on behalf of Morningside 0:47 Academy for Design Matt as well as Media 0:49 Lab to this very exciting conversation. 0:53 I have pleasure of sharing the stage 0:56 with both Tony and Paula back in 0:59 December during the design Miami. 1:01 [snorts] Tony Fidel is the Morningside 1:04 Academy for designs inaugural designers 1:06 in residence. Our first designer in 1:09 residence. 1:11 Yes. [applause] 1:17 So, MAD launched uh the designer in 1:20 residence program to invite the leading 1:23 designers and practitioners to campus 1:26 for short-term residency to foster 1:28 exchange between MIT community and the 1:31 leading design voices. Matt designer in 1:34 residence is really about highlighting 1:36 the design as a mode of discovery and 1:39 collaborations between discip 1:41 disciplines. In his first visit uh Tony 1:44 have met with many faculty and students 1:47 and different labs and he shared his 1:49 experience which I hope it was inspiring 1:52 and also inspire our community. Uh and 1:56 Tony will come back in January for a 1:58 short visit to um run a workshop during 2:02 AP period with our students. 2:06 We're also extremely delighted to have 2:08 Paulo Antonelli in conversation with 2:10 Tony. So I'm not giving the introduction 2:14 to Tony. Uh Paula will but I'm going to 2:17 uh give the introduction to Paula. Paula 2:19 Antonelli is the senior curator uh of 2:23 architecture and design and the founding 2:25 director of research and developments at 2:28 the Museum of Modern Art. MoMA an 2:31 architect by training. Her highly 2:33 influential work investigates design in 2:36 all forms from architecture to game 2:38 design with a goal of promoting design's 2:41 positive influence on the world and 2:43 fostering restorative practices. 2:47 Recognized by Time magazine as one of 2:49 the 25 most incisive design visionaries, 2:54 she is recipients of numerous awards 2:56 including Smithsonian National Design 2:59 Awards and London Design Awards and many 3:02 more. Paulo has a longstanding 3:04 relationship with MIT which we are very 3:06 lucky. uh she has formally serving as 3:09 advisory cons council member for MIT 3:12 media lab as well as participating in 3:15 numerous event events at MIT. 3:18 With that we are extremely excited about 3:20 their conversation and with that uh 3:22 please help me welcoming both Paulo and 3:24 Tony onto onto the stage. 3:28 [music] 3:35 Good evening everybody. Thank you Vena 3:37 so much and uh it's a delight to be back 3:40 in this room because we ran symposia in 3:43 here gloriously a few years ago and it's 3:46 fabulous to be here with you and I want 3:49 to thank Elise for this fabulous it's a 3:53 great slide it's really beautiful and 3:56 actually it shows us together and uh you 3:59 know we met I was just now I I have this 4:02 really bad trait when I like people I 4:05 forget get how I met them. It's very 4:07 funny. It's like they're part of my 4:09 life. I don't know when. I don't know 4:11 how. So, I was asking Tony, "How did we 4:13 meet?" And he said that I reached out to 4:15 him and I asked him I as I asked to meet 4:17 him when he was still at Apple in 2008. 4:20 Thank you for remembering that. But so 4:22 uh it's very telling that Tony is the 4:25 first designer in residence for the 4:27 Morningside Academy because he even 4:30 though he did not go to MIT he really 4:32 represents the multiaceted approach to 4:35 technology design and even art that MIT 4:38 has. So just a very brief introduction 4:41 to let people know uh where you come 4:44 from. So Tony is from Detroit or Detroit 4:48 Mottown [laughter] 4:50 Mottown and that's I I like to see I 4:53 like to think that that's very telling 4:55 but you know he's from Detroit and he 4:57 went to um to University of Michigan 4:59 where he studied computer engineering. 5:01 Then out of computer engineering he 5:04 already had this sense of design being a 5:06 fundamental part of engineering and of 5:09 the world. I mean it's what makes 5:11 whatever engineers do into life for 5:13 people. So he already had this sensation 5:15 in his mind. And then he was part of the 5:18 legendary General Magic company which in 5:21 a way was the uh actual founder of you 5:24 know the inventors of really the 5:27 smartphone and so was our own MIT Megan 5:30 Smith our own star. She was also General 5:33 Magic out there somewhere. Where's 5:34 Megan? 5:35 >> Here are the other magician. I mean yeah 5:38 General Magician. By the way, there's a 5:41 great movie about General Magic if you 5:43 want to see the two of them together 5:46 when they were just like coming out of 5:48 the egg. Anyway, so after General Magic, 5:51 he went to Phillips where he started the 5:53 portable device, the portable electronic 5:55 devices division. After that, you went 5:59 straight to Apple. 6:00 >> No, I went I had my another startup, my 6:02 own fuse. Yeah, Fuse making. So that was 6:05 like a hard drive music startup and then 6:08 after that Apple where he is considered 6:12 the father of the iPod because it 6:14 started with the iPod and actually the 6:16 iPod is at moment that's probably where 6:18 we met you know the iPod we also when we 6:21 show it we also have like fake 6:24 to like make people realize what it felt 6:27 like and then also the first generation 6:29 iPhone and after [snorts] that he left 6:32 and he founded Nest the you know it's 6:36 almost like a talking thermostat. It's 6:38 not talking but uh you know the the 6:40 thermostat that I'm sure you either have 6:42 or you have seen and after that he left 6:46 Nest and he started what he's doing 6:49 right now which is to start many other 6:52 companies. He started building 6:54 collective build I'm sorry build 6:56 collective which is a company that 6:58 advises startups and invests. So you see 7:01 all of these adventures make me really 7:05 admire him cuz I am such a coward and 7:07 I've been at MOMA for 31 years cuz I'm 7:09 scared of my own shadow. So this is the 7:12 the first thing that um that I want to 7:15 connect with you being here at MIT. I'm 7:17 starting from the end. You've been here 7:20 I think 48 hours or not even right but 7:23 already you're starting to feel how you 7:25 can be used here right? 7:27 >> Absolutely. So, what are you thinking? 7:30 Even though it's it's early to know what 7:33 you're going to do, but what are you 7:34 thinking? What is boiling in your 7:37 [laughter] in your stomach? 7:38 >> Well, um, first I want to thank you and 7:41 I think Hashim and Jonno and all the 7:44 staff for such a warm welcome and and 7:46 and and uh adopting me in a way to to 7:49 come and be the inaugural designer here 7:51 in residence. And I want to also thank 7:54 all of you for the warm welcome and to 7:55 show up and and and come today. So, 7:57 thank you so much. Um, but in 48 hours, 8:00 besides the warm welcome and lots of 8:02 great food, Lebanese food and all that 8:04 stuff, um, 8:05 >> you're Lebanese, too. 8:06 >> Lebanese and Polish. Yeah. [laughter] 8:08 Sorry. 8:09 >> Um, the, uh, I think the the thing that 8:13 I see, and you see this in most of the 8:15 projects, everyone has kind of a passion 8:17 project they're working on. Every 8:19 everything's project based here. and 8:20 they they go through sometimes the 8:22 technology they're working on and they 8:24 want to create a product or create 8:25 something out of that or um they see a 8:28 product that needs to get fixed and so 8:31 they they work on that but they really 8:33 have this what what they want to do and 8:37 what happens and I I attended a uh this 8:40 thing called Sunday it's a hackathon 8:42 that happens every Sunday um all about 8:44 AI and next generation interfaces and 8:47 and and applications and everybody's 8:49 talking about the what and they're 8:51 putting together all these Lego blocks, 8:53 Lego block and Lego block and isn't it 8:55 cool if and isn't it cool if and I think 8:58 uh Megan will remember this. We did this 9:01 kind of isn't it cool if at General 9:03 Magic and we had the smartest people in 9:06 the planet. This was the original team 9:08 that created the Macintosh and we they 9:12 were going to go off and create what was 9:14 this iPhone just 15 years too early. And 9:16 we were putting all the pieces of what 9:18 together, but we really didn't 9:21 understand the why. 9:23 Really understand what it was behind the 9:26 product. Why? What 9:28 um problems were we really trying to 9:30 solve for whom? Did they really have 9:32 those problems? 9:33 >> We were missing design. 9:34 >> We were missing design. Yeah. It was 9:35 just a bunch of engineers impressing the 9:38 other other engineer or um next to them. 9:41 So, we were like, "Isn't that cool?" 9:42 "Yeah, that's cool. Put that in. Put 9:43 that in. Put that in." And by the time 9:46 we shipped, we didn't actually have a 9:47 pulse on the market. And when we 9:49 shipped, the internet had just shown up 9:52 and we were a it took four years and it 9:55 was a disaster. Well, we all learned 9:58 from it and it there was so many and you 10:00 should watch the movie because I don't 10:01 want to give it all away but what came 10:04 out of it and what we learned from that 10:06 was not just about how to make better 10:08 products but to have better wise and 10:10 then you see the people at General Magic 10:13 the next generation go off and do 10:14 incredible things well beyond General 10:17 Magic. Um and so when I look at the 10:20 teams here and the people doing 10:21 everything, I keep asking the why, the 10:23 why, the why. Because even when we see 10:27 um they get they might get the right 10:30 product why they might understand the 10:33 pain and then they go over to the 10:35 business school and they get the how to 10:37 build a business and they go over here 10:39 to how to maybe scale up the 10:41 manufacturing. They still don't 10:43 understand the why for the customer. And 10:45 what I mean by that is from the time 10:47 they've never even heard about the 10:49 product till the time they use the 10:52 product or or test it or whatever. And 10:54 that whole journey that goes along with 10:56 that that whole why also needs to be 10:59 discovered. And it was a lot of the 11:00 magic of what I learned at Apple and 11:02 then perfected over at Nest was that 11:05 that customer journey and uh and that 11:07 symphony that you create about uh how 11:10 somebody learns about it through other 11:12 people or whatever way and and the 11:15 emotional experience they go through 11:16 both rational and emotional experience 11:18 they go through to try the product and 11:21 then maybe make it part of their lives. 11:23 >> So this is what you want to implement 11:25 here. you want. 11:25 >> Yeah, that's I I I really think that 11:27 something around deep deep customer 11:30 understanding and the journey of the 11:32 product, not just ethnographics, but 11:35 really taking it 11:36 >> and you know besides besides the 11:38 customer's understanding and the and the 11:41 whole uh life cycle of the product, it's 11:44 also about behaviors. I mean what I find 11:46 really powerful about design is that it 11:49 can really change behaviors especially 11:52 when you have the wherewithal, the 11:55 ambition, also the lack sometimes but 11:57 you know the energy and vision to work 12:00 on products like the iPod, like the 12:02 iPhone or like the thermostat that go 12:05 everywhere. You know that's what I I'm 12:07 always amazed about design because it 12:10 can really change things behaviors. I 12:13 don't want to say change the world 12:14 because it's always so you know like 12:16 exaggerated but it can really do that. 12:19 So when did you understand 12:23 this potential the importance of design? 12:25 Sorry I'm I'm speaking about my own uh 12:29 obsession but when did you understand 12:31 that design was the key? Well, I had an 12:35 inkling when I was young 12:37 >> and this was very young being, you know, 12:41 growing up in sometime in Detroit and 12:43 with my grandfather in the garage. He 12:45 was a depression era kid. He was and we 12:47 would save everything and we would 12:49 repair everything. It was, you know, 12:51 like the crazy labs here. We were making 12:53 everything and with my grandfather and 12:55 we would repair all these old homes 12:57 around Detroit and we were with my and 13:00 and we were repairing my parents house. 13:02 My grandfather and I my brother were 13:04 repairing my parents house fixing 13:05 because they were old houses and my 13:08 grandfather would like put it all 13:09 together and the let's say it was a 13:11 screen door and the screen door was 13:13 working just fine and then my mom would 13:16 come through and go, "Yeah, it works but 13:18 it's ugly. It's horrible. What is that? 13:21 you can't we can't have that in the 13:23 house. And my grandfather's like, "What 13:24 are you talking about? It works just 13:25 fine. There's no problem here." And 13:27 she's like, "No, we can't have that. We 13:29 can't have that." And so it was this 13:31 there was this huge fight. And my dad 13:34 was also in fashion. So my dad worked 13:36 for Levis's way back in the day for 33 13:38 years. So I was in I was always seeing 13:41 fashion. I was touching fabrics. My dad 13:43 was teaching me about fabrics and sales 13:44 and all this stuff. And then my mom 13:46 would make sure the house was right and 13:47 she cared about all the design pieces. 13:49 and my grandfather's over there in the 13:50 in the basement fixing everything. And 13:53 so I had this kind of weird, you know, 13:56 sense of like, oh, there's more to this 13:58 than just making some something 13:59 functional. 14:00 >> Yeah. Also, yeah, because aesthetic 14:03 intention, it doesn't have to be 14:04 prettiness. It can be punk, but 14:06 aesthetic intention is a form of respect 14:09 towards other human beings, towards your 14:11 customer. Right. Exactly. And we should 14:13 all demand better, right? And you know, 14:15 I'm I'm seeing right now Nest here was 14:18 like the thermostat was amazing. So, 14:21 let's go back for a moment because Elise 14:23 is is is like commanding the slides. So 14:26 let's talk about your process for a 14:28 moment because I'm sure that you know 14:30 the students want to know about your 14:32 process and now that we talked about 14:34 your engineering background, your uh uh 14:38 your epiphany of aesthetics and uh and 14:42 also your the lessons that you learned 14:45 with general magic. We can talk a little 14:47 bit about the process. So maybe we can 14:49 start we can go back to the first slide 14:53 and and talk about 14:55 >> how it happens. 14:57 >> So first I should say that 15:02 it has evolved obviously right from 15:05 general magic there's that first thing 15:06 because I'm like I'm with all my heroes 15:08 and they they must know design and they 15:10 you know they they made the Mac they 15:12 must understand all this stuff and so 15:14 I've had to go through a series of 15:16 failures. So I had 10 years of failures 15:18 is all in the book of you know 15:20 understanding product design user 15:23 interface customers understanding then 15:26 sales and marketing and all of the other 15:29 pieces of the puzzle through many many 15:31 10 years worth of failures and a lot of 15:33 hard work and so it has evolved. So so 15:36 let me tell you the where it is now for 15:39 me and it really starts with pain. 15:43 Where is the pain? Too many people had 15:46 go off and like think about, you know, 15:49 oh, wouldn't it be cool if and I did 15:51 that early on, but I really want to 15:53 focus on the pain. Show me everyday pain 15:57 that a large number of people have and 16:00 let's start there. And so then I then I 16:04 look and I look at so I say, okay, is 16:07 there's pain? And then I say, well, why 16:11 hasn't anyone solved that yet? So then I 16:13 look at the competition and I look 16:15 what's out the products that are out 16:16 there and I say, "Okay, why didn't they 16:19 solve for this? What's the problem?" And 16:21 sometimes it's just a big company. They 16:23 just don't know any better and they 16:24 can't they can't get out of their own 16:26 way, right? We know how many big 16:27 companies and a lot of a lot of students 16:30 and faculty know like you have 16:32 incredible ideas and then it goes to die 16:34 in some large company when they work 16:36 with you, right? because of the inertia 16:38 of the whole the whole u big uh the big 16:42 wheels turning there. And so so I I I I 16:47 I start with the the compet so with the 16:50 pain the competition and then I say wait 16:54 a second has technology changed since 16:57 these products were initially conceived 17:01 and is it a deep enough technology that 17:04 could unseat it's a fundamental 17:06 uh uh a fundamental thing that changes 17:10 the game so much that if you change the 17:14 uh change and add the technology, it 17:16 shakes all the stuff above. 17:19 >> And that's what we found with the iPod. 17:22 >> That's what we find with the iPhone. 17:23 >> We found it with Nest as well, which was 17:25 literally in the case of the iPod, it 17:28 was um uh storage. It was it was storage 17:31 and MP3 was the the defining tech to 17:34 solve the pain of carrying lots of CDs 17:38 cuz you're a music lover, right? And you 17:39 might not say that's a real important 17:41 pain, but it is pain for some of us. I 17:43 was a DJ and I carried 2,000 CDs with me 17:46 and it was pretty heavy. 17:48 >> And then the pain of iPhone. So what 17:51 what was iPhone all about? So the new 17:53 tech there was multi-touch screens and 17:55 all these other things. But what the 17:56 real pain was you were carrying a laptop 18:00 for your productivity tools. You were 18:02 carrying your mobile phone for 18:04 communications and texting. And then you 18:06 were carrying an iPod for entertainment. 18:08 And we had games and videos and stuff at 18:10 the time. and you would carry three 18:13 things with all the different cables and 18:15 everything else and it was lugging. And 18:16 so we just said, "Okay, we're going to 18:18 put this all in using multi-touch 18:20 interface and um and uh next generation 18:24 uh interface and apps to put all of 18:27 those things in your pocket." So that 18:28 was the pain we were solving and we had 18:30 to bring all of these um these uh 18:32 different technologies together to solve 18:34 that pain. At Nest, the pain was 18:39 energy. We were just spending so much on 18:42 energy. We didn't, you know, we'd leave 18:44 it on and then we'd spend energy when we 18:46 weren't home or we turn it off and then 18:48 we were cold or hot when we got home and 18:50 we had to turn it on. We're always 18:51 fiddling it and it was ugly as all hell, 18:54 right? Absolutely ugly. And then what 18:56 came about was not just beautiful. It 18:58 wasn't just a beautiful thing. This was 19:00 one of the very first AI enabled 19:03 products. 2011 we shipped an AI enabled 19:06 product. We called it the Nest learning 19:08 thermostat because we couldn't call the 19:10 Nest AI thermostat 14 years ago because 19:14 people were like what I don't want AI in 19:16 my home. Today it's like if it doesn't 19:18 have AI you know they won't even buy it. 19:21 So, so that was the enabling technology 19:24 there that so those are the kind of ways 19:26 I think so again pain incumbents 19:31 technology and then after that it's 19:33 understanding all the layers of customer 19:36 behavior understand the customer very 19:38 well the buying cycle so in the case of 19:40 a thermostat you could say oh someone 19:43 buys that no it's actually it's a a 19:46 considered purchase by two people either 19:48 the you know and it's and the The 19:50 consumers are either uh environmentally 19:53 conscious or they're design conscious 19:55 because they want something look nice in 19:56 the wall or they just want a geeky cool 19:58 new product. 19:59 >> And you have to understand in a couple, 20:02 you know, it's like, oh, one person it 20:04 could be the geek, the other person is 20:05 the wants the energy savings or the the 20:08 the the uh the the money savings. And so 20:11 you have to tear apart that dynamic and 20:14 make sure you get it right in how the 20:16 product is used and how it's 20:18 communicating. So you sell it to two 20:20 people to get the Yes. 20:22 >> Yeah. But once the curiosity has ebbed, 20:26 >> right? 20:26 >> It has to have staying power. 20:28 >> Oh, absolutely. 20:28 >> And the because that's something that's 20:30 really important. So um the the journey 20:33 continues. So you have to keep on 20:35 improving the interface, keep on 20:37 improving the product, make it more 20:39 familiar. So I'm sure that there's 20:40 really a good and strong followup, 20:42 right? 20:43 >> Oh, there's always the followup. Well, 20:44 to first is just getting it out of the 20:47 box or getting whatever it is you're 20:48 using and making sure you set 20:50 expectations low and deliver high. And 20:52 so, so the point with like the iPod or 20:55 the really the iPhone and then Nest was 20:59 >> you can solve a problem, a pain with a 21:02 painkiller. 21:04 >> What I try to do and I work with it with 21:06 the teams on is we try to turn it into a 21:09 superpower. 21:11 So you didn't just solve the problem 21:13 because if you solve the problem, it's 21:15 too rational. 21:17 >> It's just you're rationally solving it. 21:19 People like, "Okay, that's great." 21:22 >> Well, and if you bring them that 21:23 emotional superpower, they like, "Oh, 21:26 yeah." And then you they want to show it 21:28 to their friends. Like to me, you know, 21:30 when people saw the the iPhone, remember 21:32 was the Jesus phone and like, "Oh my 21:34 god, look at all the stuff it's doing." 21:35 And then in in Nest's case, it was they 21:38 were giving them as gifts and putting 21:40 them under the Christmas tree and 21:42 saying, "You have to have this. This is 21:43 the best thing ever." In in some cases, 21:46 we had um because we also made it 21:48 self-installable 21:50 so you could install it. And I thought 21:51 only 40%. We spent so much time on the 21:54 installation and putting screwdrivers in 21:56 the box and all the document the 21:58 walkthrough documentation and 21:59 everything. And we thought it was only 22:00 going to be a 40% of people who would um 22:03 install it. 22:05 It turned out to be 95% of people 22:08 self-installed it because it was such a 22:11 delightful experience. We were getting 22:13 videos from grandmas who put it in and 22:16 were like, I did it and they and it was 22:18 they didn't even use the product yet, 22:19 but they felt this like superpower. They 22:22 did something they never thought they 22:23 could. And that's the emotional 22:25 experience 22:26 >> tied with the rational thing to to 22:28 really get people to love the product 22:31 and then hopefully love the brand for 22:33 subsequent products. And by doing that 22:35 saving energy. I mean that's what's 22:38 amazing that you through that kind of 22:40 delight and the efficiency and the fact 22:43 that the piece works you change 22:46 behaviors which is so important. So I 22:48 wanted to ask you what went wrong with 22:50 fuse? What did you not have with fuse? 22:53 The it was the wrong pain that you had. 22:57 we so at Fuse here's what here's what 22:59 basically happened and and this is 23:02 another lesson kind of that I I learned 23:04 through through time not that I was 23:06 necessarily cognizant about it but at 23:10 Fuse we were we were I at Phillips I 23:13 learned about MP3 and we were doing the 23:15 very first audio books on handheld so we 23:17 were the very first audible product that 23:20 could play audio books and then I was 23:22 like oh that could be music and so we 23:24 tried to get Phillips to do it of course 23:25 goes to diet Philip So I start my own 23:28 company and things are going well but 23:30 then I'm trying to get funding for it. 23:33 >> Oh, 23:34 >> and this is 1999. 23:37 >> So the VCs were not really there yet or 23:40 they didn't understand did 23:42 >> the VCs it's kind of like what's 23:45 happening right now and we all know what 23:46 hap or some of us know what happened in 23:48 2000 was everybody was pouring money 23:50 into e-commerce and internet websites. 23:53 They said there's no future in hardware, 23:56 just do all this stuff. And so there was 23:59 no money. And then what happened was the 24:03 2000 happened and the bottom folded out, 24:05 fell out [snorts] of the whole internet 24:07 craze because all the companies didn't 24:10 hit the numbers they were supposed to 24:11 hit. And then it was even harder. I had 24:14 to I was near shutting down the company 24:16 and I had to go take a consulting job 24:18 when Apple called because they said 24:19 consult for us to what would be the what 24:22 would be ultimately the iPod. So I was 24:25 being I stayed in the hardware realm. So 24:28 I was doing um hardware products. So 24:31 General Magic then Phillips then Fuse. 24:34 And all during that time the VCs were 24:37 like what are you doing Fidel? You're 24:40 not hitting this internet wave. You're 24:42 crazy. Why are you still doing this 24:44 stuff? That was a whole decade ago. 24:46 That's over. Right. And then Apple 24:49 calls, the iPod comes out, and six 24:51 months into it, the VCs are calling, 24:53 hey, do you want to 24:55 >> So Steve Jobs was back that was already 24:58 back at 24:59 he knew even though you might have 25:01 failed a fuse or whatever, he knew that 25:04 you had it. 25:05 >> Absolutely. 25:05 >> That you trusted hardware together with 25:08 software. So Right. 25:09 >> Right. Exactly. Oh, there's the model 25:11 that I put I made in my garage. 25:14 >> Uh, and with my grandfather's fishing 25:16 weights inside and put it in Steve's 25:18 hand. And that was the original iPod 25:20 model. It's not like a beautiful thing, 25:22 but it was enough to show the 25:23 functionality and the size. 25:25 >> It's all there. It's it's in the hand. 25:27 It has that kind of weight and the kind 25:29 you put probably the fish bait inside 25:31 because you wanted to also have the 25:32 right weight. When that leads me to 25:35 another extremely important uh part of 25:38 the design of this kind of objects which 25:40 is it is the interface you know today we 25:42 were having a conversation about 25:44 interfaces and you know there's haptic 25:47 there's like voice there's like tapping 25:50 >> now there's voice without voice 25:53 what do you mean voice without voice 25:54 >> oh so there's a company actually here 25:56 out of the media lab I'm sure a lot of 25:58 people know about it um um and you can 26:00 actually talk you just Oh, 26:04 >> and it knows what you're saying by 26:06 watching the muscles. 26:07 >> It's always so complicated to talk when 26:09 you cannot talk. 26:10 >> Yeah. So, there's a whole modality. 26:12 >> Uh, in Patty May's organization, they 26:14 they invented that you can talk without 26:17 you can communicate in a voice interface 26:19 without actually, 26:21 >> you know, actually speaking. 26:22 >> Yeah. 26:23 >> It's pretty interesting. 26:24 >> Um, let's go back to various interfaces. 26:26 I want to go back to the idea of delight 26:27 because you know in the design world um 26:30 the b word beauty has been banned for a 26:33 long time. There was this fear of beauty 26:35 of being too pretty but in truth really 26:37 once again there are many different 26:39 types of beauty and uh and it is 26:41 something that really plays a very 26:44 important function. So in the case of 26:47 the uh of the iPod you know it it was 26:51 just a marvel and a delight of interface 26:54 and the same with every single product 26:56 that you have developed. So tell me 26:59 about um the process of developing an 27:03 interface like how many people let's say 27:04 the iPod that wonderful 27:07 tell me how it happened how many people 27:09 were with you uh and uh and how did you 27:12 get to that haptic feedback that is just 27:16 so ineitable. 27:18 >> Okay. Well, um, there's a few things and 27:23 I put it in the book and it has been 27:25 told before, but literally the way that 27:28 that came about 27:30 was great artists steal. Okay. 27:33 [laughter] 27:34 And so, so what happened was that you 27:36 saw the model that I made and I I had an 27:38 idea for that and we didn't really had 27:40 we had not even it was just could we 27:43 physically make something that would 27:45 seem compelling and we'll work on all 27:47 the other details yet cuz um so we were 27:50 doing that and so at the end of the 27:52 meeting and Steve goes we're going to do 27:54 this thing and I was like what it was 27:56 one meeting we green light he 27:58 greenlighted it to the next phase I like 28:00 what and and and I was like oh I wasn't 28:02 even expecting that and then they go, 28:04 "Can we show?" And I was still a 28:06 contractor at the time. They go, "Can we 28:08 show Tony?" And I'm like, "Show me 28:10 what?" And they and so they come out 28:12 from his office and they bring a BN 28:15 Bangan Olivesson phone. 28:17 >> Oh, okay. 28:18 >> And it had a wheel on it. 28:20 >> Oh, that's right. That it did. 28:21 >> It had a wheel on it. It was a decked 28:23 phone only in Europe. And 28:24 >> it was too heavy. And 28:26 >> it was all that stuff. But it was like 28:27 And it was like that. And I was like, 28:30 they're like, "You see that? We think 28:31 that's the interface." said and I was 28:33 like, "Yeah, that could be it." And 28:36 they're like, "Do you think you make 28:36 that?" I'm like, "Oh, absolutely. No 28:38 problem." So, I knew exactly what to do. 28:40 And uh and then and from that, that was 28:42 just the fundamental 28:44 the fundamental thing. But then there 28:46 was the treatment of how we did the ID. 28:48 There was then the the subsequent 28:50 versions, how we got the click wheel 28:52 happening from the m the the the analog 28:55 mechanical wheel. So there was lots of 28:57 refinement along the way but it was 28:58 really that and then it was I so that 29:02 was the hardware interface but then the 29:04 software interface we prototype many 29:06 times and literally two weeks before we 29:11 were going to ship the iPod before we 29:13 were showed the world. It was four of 29:17 us. 29:19 It was Jeff Robin, 29:21 myself, Steve Jobs, and uh um I think 29:27 Sabi uh Sabi Khan, and we were all 29:30 sitting there and literally at the 29:33 whiteboard 29:35 talking about what the the structure 29:37 should be. We were literally all 29:39 together like, "No, not this. Put it in 29:41 this hierarchical order that 29:43 >> that's how it happens." And we were 29:44 literally the four of us just finalizing 29:47 the interface because we had the the the 29:50 rough thing. But then we went and 29:51 implemented it. And that was literally 29:53 the start from this the time this was 29:55 shown. This was March 2001. 29:58 We shifted at October 2001. 30:02 >> Wow. 30:03 >> It tomorrow is the 24th anniversary of 30:07 the launch of the iPad. We did this in 30:09 eight months. 30:10 >> How could it happen so fast? So, and uh 30:12 and how solid was the distribution 30:15 infrastructure in October? 30:17 >> Um, 30:17 >> was it like a hail mary or or was it 30:20 >> No one believed no one believed that we 30:23 could pull this off. Steve, no. This 30:25 this wasn't Steve's saying you need to. 30:28 This wasn't anyone else saying it. I 30:30 knew because I saw how many projects I 30:33 had worked on that had died. I had 10 30:35 years of failure. Okay? So, I know what 30:38 happens along the route. Especially, you 30:41 have to remember Apple was only it was 30:44 had $200 million in the bank and $500 30:47 million in debt. It was barely breaking 30:50 even and had less than 1% market share 30:53 in the US and in Japan for Macs. It 30:56 didn't have retail. It didn't have 30:59 anything you knew except one laptop and 31:01 a couple of desktop computers. That was 31:03 it. And no one was buying them. So I was 31:06 like I was like this may never get out 31:10 if it takes too long. So I'm like we got 31:13 to just make it happen. 31:15 >> And that's what we did. And everybody 31:17 was like oh it'll ship in the springtime 31:19 of the following year. And we got it 31:21 done. So, do you think that um it's good 31:25 to be in a situation of high pressure 31:27 and with uh little or a lot to lose like 31:30 you know just this kind of like either 31:33 uh either we make it happen or we bust 31:37 >> I think it's great to have a a healthy 31:40 pressure and what what sometimes happens 31:44 and this happens in big corporations and 31:45 also small um small uh startups is that 31:51 there's an external pressure of fear and 31:54 an ex external pressure of of fear from 31:57 investors saying you're going to run out 31:59 of money, you got to do this or the 32:01 corporation going we're going to cancel 32:03 this project because you're not 32:04 delivering on time and whatever where in 32:07 and I saw that at Phillips and other 32:09 places. I see this in startups all the 32:11 time. At Apple, Steve treated us like a 32:15 little infant in terms of like I have to 32:18 guard this. I have to I have to feed it. 32:20 I have to care for it because this it's 32:23 surrounded by teenagers, you know, and 32:25 like if you don't take care of it in a 32:26 special way and you take care of it like 32:29 a teenager, it's never going to it's 32:31 never going to grow up. It's going to 32:33 die, 32:34 >> right? And so you have to think about 32:36 that. So if you have the right kind of 32:37 pressure and the right kind of 32:38 environment, then those things can 32:41 happen and it's okay to have that 32:43 pressure. But if it's the negative kind 32:45 where it's like if you don't, you're 32:47 it's not it's not going to work. M 32:49 >> so it was very much a it was still a 32:51 pressure cooker but it was not it was 32:54 not this you know we're going to cut out 32:56 your knees if you don't 32:57 >> Yeah that's good. So it was um it was 33:00 conducive for vision and creativity. It 33:03 was conducive to that which is very 33:06 important 33:06 >> and it's and after and I learned from my 33:08 experience at General Magic that took 33:10 four years to get out the door 33:12 >> like the markets can change everything 33:14 can change. So I wanted to make sure for 33:17 us we had to get out by that by that 33:19 holiday season because Sony owned all 33:23 was number one in every single audio 33:26 category. And I was like, Steve, we can 33:28 build this, but are we really going to 33:30 be able to sell it? Sony's number one. 33:32 And that was another thing that was 33:34 really pressuring me. So, it was he was 33:36 giving us the right environment, but I 33:37 felt Sony and Sony was like one of my, 33:40 you know, design hero, you know, design 33:42 hero companies like from the Walkman and 33:44 everything else. And so I was like, 33:46 these guys, they could figure it out 33:49 >> and we have to go faster. 33:51 >> So, talk about the power of design. Sony 33:53 and the Sony Walkman was the first time 33:55 you could move around with this bubble 33:57 of personal space. And then that bubble 34:00 of personal space was also enabled by 34:01 the iPod, but the iPod had more. It had 34:05 more delight in a way and also 34:08 refinements and it had the Chicago font 34:10 and it had all the haptic feedback and 34:12 Yeah, I know. Fantastic. And then okay, 34:14 let's move on to the I'm a geek for 34:17 these things as you know. Let's move to 34:20 the iPhone then. So there's a new 34:21 technology that still has to be 34:23 perfected but you know there's the touch 34:26 you know screen and uh and now you have 34:29 to figure out an object which is an 34:31 ingot. It doesn't have any more so much 34:34 of the hardware qualities that you had 34:37 worked with in the past. It's an ingot 34:40 and then it comes alive when you 34:43 started. So how did you move about in 34:47 this kind of new environment? It didn't 34:50 start that way. 34:51 >> So what it really started was it was an 34:53 iPod. So it was supposed to be So what 34:56 was happening at the time was iPod was 34:59 getting a lot. We it was 50 to 60% of 35:02 the revenue of the company. It was the 35:03 thing taking off. We had 85 90% market 35:06 share worldwide for for digital music 35:09 players. And all the cell phone 35:11 companies, smartphones, Nokias and 35:13 everything, they didn't like it. They 35:16 were like, "Oh, we can do that on a we 35:18 can do that on a mid-tier phone." There 35:20 was no smartphones at really at the 35:21 time. So, they were starting to try to 35:23 adopt music playing functionality in 35:27 their phones. 35:28 >> And so, we had an existential crisis 35:31 that if we knew that people only wanted 35:33 to carry one thing in their pocket at 35:35 the end of the day, and if it was a 35:36 mobile phone and it played music, that 35:40 was more likely than just an iPod alone. 35:43 And so we had to figure out how to 35:46 we were saying how are we going to 35:47 compete with these mobile phones that 35:49 were going to try to eat our lunch. 35:50 There was already people already like 35:52 Nokia saying you could play MP3s. It was 35:54 nowhere near as nice but they were 35:55 getting there. And so um so the first 36:00 project was making an iPod plus phone. 36:03 So, literally it was the same iPod that 36:06 you know with the click wheel and then 36:08 we put a phone inside of it and and we 36:12 were all like, "How is this going to 36:13 work?" And Steve's like, "Oh, you're 36:14 going to just select the name from the 36:16 wheel." And they were like, "Yeah, but 36:17 sometimes you don't have the, you know, 36:20 the name in your contact library. You're 36:22 going to have to dial it." And it turned 36:23 into a rotary phone. And so, you took 36:26 this thing that was really, really cool 36:29 and it was like, "That'll work. Yeah, we 36:30 can make calls." But then people are 36:33 like, "How do I dial phone number?" And 36:34 then, "How do I do texting?" 36:37 Right? How do I text? And there was not 36:39 enough speech to text at the time. We 36:41 didn't have any of that stuff. It was, 36:42 >> "Oh my god, speech." 36:43 >> Yeah. Yeah. Forget it. And so, so, and 36:47 he had us working on that for months 36:49 going, "You're going to make it. We're 36:51 going to figure out the right 36:52 combination of buttons and everything 36:54 and modalities to make this work." And 36:56 we were like banging our heads and we're 36:58 like, "Steve, this doesn't work. This 36:59 doesn't work. Keep trying. Keep trying." 37:02 We're like, "It doesn't work, Steve. It 37:03 doesn't work." And so there was this 37:06 point, it was point of resignation where 37:08 he's like, "Shit, it doesn't work." But 37:10 he goes, 37:12 "Come over here, Tony." And I was like, 37:13 "What?" He's like, "Secret room? I 37:15 didn't even know this was going on. 37:16 [laughter] It was a secret room making a 37:19 touchscreen Macintosh." 37:21 >> So it was a touchscreen Macintosh and it 37:24 was a new technology, capacitive touch 37:26 instead of resistive like we used at 37:27 General Magic and Phillips and all those 37:29 other things. And I hadn't seen 37:30 capacitive touch cuz I built touchcreens 37:32 before and I was like, "Oh, this is 37:33 really cool." The thing was the 37:36 touchcreen, the Mac was projected from 37:38 one of like these big projectors onto a 37:40 ping pong table. 37:42 >> Oh. 37:42 >> And then the capacitive touch was all 37:45 around the pingpong table. It was this 37:47 huge thing. And he's like, "See, check 37:49 it out." And you could do multiple 37:50 touches and all this stuff. And he goes, 37:52 "What if you had this on that?" Because 37:55 we were also making a video iPod at the 37:57 time, which was a really big iPod with a 38:00 virtual wheel. 38:02 >> Whoa. 38:03 >> Because we wanted because we were doing 38:04 movies at the time. So, how do we get 38:06 maximum screen space? So, we were doing 38:08 a video iPod and iPod plus phone and 38:10 then we had this touchscreen Mac, but it 38:12 was huge. 38:13 >> And he goes, "You know that full screen 38:16 iPod you're making with virtual 38:18 controls? Can you put this touchcreen on 38:20 it instead of this other one I was 38:22 doing?" And I was like, "But Steve, it's 38:24 the size of a ping pong table." 38:26 [laughter] 38:27 >> And so, so over a course of two and a 38:31 half almost three years, we had to 38:34 miniaturaturize all the technology, 38:37 build a whole new software stack, a new 38:39 processor, a whole new level of 38:41 modality, all the different apps, and we 38:44 threw away the design two times. So, we 38:47 threw away the iPod plus phone. We threw 38:49 away the the the video large screen iPod 38:53 and then we made two full versions of an 38:56 iPod, threw th or iPhone, threw those 38:58 away and then built the the final one. 39:01 >> And at that point, there was not even a 39:02 concept of a minimum viable product. It 39:04 was not even an MVP. They were all like 39:06 you went from model to prototype and 39:08 otherwise you would throw every 39:10 everything out. There was not the same 39:13 process of iteration and test that 39:15 exists right now. Right. No, no. We 39:17 would we would literally take it to a 39:19 certain extent and then we would test 39:21 the radio, you know, the antennas cuz we 39:23 never really made portable antennas or 39:25 we didn't make the touchcreen or we 39:26 didn't or was it fast enough. So, we had 39:29 to get it to a certain point and we're 39:30 like, "Oh, we hit a wall again." But we 39:32 know what to do. So, throw that away, 39:34 start over again, and then we would 39:36 continually modify. Cuz the first 39:39 iPhone, 39:41 the first model of an iPhone, it looked 39:42 like an iPod mini if anyone remembers 39:46 that. It was looked it was an aluminum 39:47 extre 39:49 more like a chocolate bar. It had a 39:51 different proportion. 39:52 >> Exactly. So that was the first thing but 39:55 then the antennas didn't work in that 39:57 >> you know because we didn't know better. 39:59 We didn't really know how to make those 40:00 kinds of things. So we had to go through 40:02 this process but it was high speed. So 40:05 three prod products in two and a half 40:08 years plus those other two that we threw 40:10 away plus all the software all the other 40:12 stuff. So and it was a lot of people 40:14 coming together. So I had a big team but 40:16 then we had a big operating system team. 40:19 Then we had a big applications team as 40:20 well plus the whole user interface. 40:23 >> So 40:23 >> plus the whole ecosystem outside of 40:25 Apple because then you had I remember 40:27 there was this little keyboard you could 40:29 plug into I think it was an Ericson 40:32 phone. So it was just the insanity of of 40:34 what everybody was testing around the 40:37 world was like fervor. 40:39 >> It was crazy. And you know um we didn't 40:42 even have an app store. There were no 40:44 apps, you know, thirdparty apps in the 40:46 first iPhone. So, again, iterate, 40:48 iterate, iterate. Now, we're on iPhone 40:50 17 and it's aluminum and they [laughter] 40:52 figured how to make antennas work and 40:55 all this stuff. 40:56 >> So, out of those 300 patents that you 40:59 have, were they all three 300 different 41:02 pains or they were ways to perfect 41:06 solutions to different pains? 41:09 >> Um, a little of both. A little of both. 41:12 Um, you know, I really got to charge. 41:14 You know, Apple was really big on 41:16 patents. Pope Phillips was as well. So, 41:19 I got to spend a and so was General 41:20 actually general magic, too. So, I got 41:22 to do a I just learned that whole way of 41:26 doing it and like keep pushing the edge. 41:28 Um, and so a lot of it was novel. In 41:31 fact, so much so that when General Magic 41:33 went bankrupt, 41:35 General Bank, um, a company came in and 41:40 bought all the patents and all the 41:42 technology from General Magic and I 41:44 wanted to try to buy my stuff back, but 41:45 this company bought it all. And then I 41:48 got a call. 41:48 >> What company was it? Is it is the 41:50 company that bought it still alive or 41:52 >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Oh, okay. Yeah. It's 41:53 Nathan Mirvald's. 41:54 >> Ah, 41:55 >> Nathan bought it all. So Nathan bought 41:57 it all and then he started going through 41:59 all the patents 42:01 >> and he calls me up and he goes, "Hey 42:03 Tony, can I get your help with 42:05 something?" He goes, "Your patent," cuz 42:07 I did this special serial bus. He goes, 42:09 "Your patent is actually fundamental to 42:11 USB." [gasps] 42:13 >> The universal serial bus. That was what 42:15 we were doing. So it was a fundamental 42:16 patent. And he's like, "I need your help 42:18 because I'm going to sue everybody on 42:20 USB." I said, "I'm out." [laughter] 42:23 >> But yeah, it was literally we were doing 42:24 fundamental 42:24 >> patent. was a heroic company. It was 42:26 like Xerox Spark, right? You know, Xerox 42:28 Spark is where the graphic user 42:30 interface, I'm I'm saying it for the 42:32 younger students here. So, the interface 42:34 of the Mac and the the the mouse, all of 42:37 these amazing uh inventions were made. 42:39 So, it was a a universal donor, General 42:42 Magic. 42:42 >> Yeah. Yeah. General Magic positive. 42:45 >> All kind Exactly. All kinds of different 42:47 things. In fact, at General Magic, we 42:50 created and invented and this was really 42:52 Bill Atinson and Susan Car created 42:54 emojis. 42:55 >> Yeah. 42:56 >> And we were working with NT Docamo at 42:59 the time and they go, "That's really 43:00 cool." And when General Magic died, they 43:02 went and implemented emojis on on the 43:06 Japanese handsets. And that's how it all 43:07 took off. And they're now in the 43:09 collection of moms. And now they're at 43:12 with the iPod, with the original, well, 43:14 not the original Macintosh icons because 43:16 Steve didn't let me have them. He wanted 43:18 to control every single exhibition that 43:20 we did at MoMA. I said, "Sorry, no." 43:22 [laughter] So, we don't have any like 43:24 Yeah, we have Susan Cares, the icon 43:27 designers. We have her notebooks. So, 43:30 um, 43:30 >> and tomorrow, Susan and I are announcing 43:32 our collaboration and a new product 43:34 coming out tomorrow. I we I wanted to 43:36 show it today, but it's under 43:38 I can't today but tomorrow you'll check 43:39 it out. 43:40 >> Well, and you'll come and see the the 43:42 page turner at MoMA before the 43:43 exhibition ends. But so right now you 43:46 are at Build Collective and you are 43:49 advising startups. You're dealing with 43:51 all the most cutting edge technologies. 43:53 Today we were discussing the fact that 43:56 I'm really jealous because basically all 43:59 of the companies in the world go to him 44:01 to show him what they're doing. And 44:03 that's what I would dream of of like 44:05 having as a curator. But so you're in 44:08 this privileged position of really 44:10 seeing what's going on in the world of 44:14 both software and hardware and all the 44:16 intersection thereof. 44:18 What is your um what is your diagnosis 44:22 of where we're at when it comes to 44:25 understanding the power of design to 44:27 change behaviors for the better? 44:32 Um well I believe when it's done it's 44:35 being considered and it's really 44:37 thoughtful we can do that we can 44:39 >> companies doing it are these are the 44:41 companies that you see some of them 44:43 absolutely are we're seeing this in some 44:45 of our uh AI medical scribe 44:48 >> um company in a company called Nabla 44:50 they're really going off and using AI in 44:52 the right way not using huge large 44:55 language models that hallucinate but 44:57 really clearly defined medical ones to 45:00 help doctors do uh have much better 45:03 patient engagement and so we make sure 45:05 that they can stay with the patient. 45:07 They can they're not writing down notes 45:09 and they're always engaged and getting 45:11 much better um um you know reports to 45:14 the to to the patient about how they can 45:17 do better care, how they take should 45:19 take their prescriptions, all that 45:20 stuff. Also how they do the billing and 45:22 how they do the insurance. So when it's 45:24 well considered and it's well done, it 45:27 it is a superpower for these for these 45:30 for these doctors and these um nurses 45:32 who use it. So absolutely, but you have 45:35 to take the time and not rush it out, 45:37 you know, to too much that we see today 45:40 like uh LLMs and and the AI that we're 45:43 seeing is it's a it's a technology, it's 45:46 not a product, 45:48 >> and it's like you figure out what it's 45:50 good for if it's good for you, right? 45:52 And if you look at a lot of for 45:54 consumers and like, oh, isn't that cool? 45:55 I can make those, you know, cool 45:57 graphics or I can, you know, it'll do 46:00 some things. It'll clean up my text or 46:02 whatever. But when you're a company, 46:04 especially doctors or lawyers, finance 46:07 or what have you. And you're going to 46:09 trust your brand with adopting these 46:12 things. you really need to understand 46:15 how they're built and how they're going 46:17 to supercharge your in um supercharge 46:20 your your whatever you're doing. And too 46:24 many of these things are still just 46:27 demos and they're getting a lot of 46:28 money. It reminds me a lot of [snorts] 46:31 1998 and 1999 of like they can't 46:34 deliver. 46:35 >> Yeah. And and just to be clear, this AI 46:38 medical scribe called Naba that we've 46:40 been doing, it's been seven years in 46:42 development. It's not been the last two 46:44 years or 18 months or six months. It's 46:46 been a long time. And really 46:48 understanding the customer journey and 46:50 the patient journey and how it works. 46:53 >> It's it's so important and and that 46:56 context uh that personalization those 46:59 things are what makes it so powerful. 47:02 not the these huge models underneath 47:04 that that are not really bonded to the 47:07 user in the right way. 47:08 >> Yeah. And that's really an understanding 47:09 of design. I mean there's a slide of my 47:12 work over there um just because we were 47:16 discussing this power that design has to 47:19 take technological revolution I mean 47:21 revolutions in technology and in science 47:23 and transforming them into life. And 47:25 this is an exhibition that I did in 2008 47:27 that was about this. But I think it's 47:30 important to um also clarify that design 47:32 sometimes doesn't have form. It still 47:34 has to have delight but sometimes it's 47:36 about designing behaviors as you as you 47:38 were saying. So there's a lot of design 47:41 in AI uh good and bad because design 47:44 exists both good and bad. Um that is 47:48 either not expressed formally but is in 47:52 this kind of journey that you're talking 47:54 about. It's not only the interface, but 47:56 it's also the interaction that I think 48:00 is the kind of translation of the new 48:03 generation of design skills that are 48:06 necessary that you might also um have 48:10 make here. 48:11 >> That's that's my hope. My hope is to 48:13 learn especially with a lot of the new 48:15 technologies is to see how far we can 48:18 push the you know my model of how to do 48:20 this and how we can do it and maybe 48:22 we'll invent some new other ways and 48:24 prototyping ways to get um these 48:27 iterations even sooner in the design 48:29 process to have even a better effect um 48:32 as along the journey. So we can do the I 48:35 always say that you might not get to 48:37 version 2.0 0 with your first product, 48:40 but you instead of doing version.8 on 48:42 your first product, you could get to 48:43 version 1.2 or 1.3, your very first 48:47 product because you you have enough 48:49 modeling and you can simulate things and 48:51 that stuff. So, 48:52 >> and you can also perform it. That's 48:53 something else that you have here at MIT 48:56 that you probably will discover in the 48:58 next 12 hours. [laughter] No, but the 49:02 art. So it's really interesting how 49:04 performance has become central to 49:08 architecture and to design in the past 49:10 few years and to the art world in 49:12 general. It's very interesting because 49:14 >> performance in what way? 49:16 >> Well, performance well performance right 49:19 now could be a dance, it could be the 49:21 interpretation, it could be a Marina 49:23 Bramovich interpretation, you know. So 49:25 okay, this idea of testing by 49:28 performing, 49:29 >> right? Um I feel that it could be 49:32 something really interesting to include 49:35 in this new path or new program. it. I 49:40 just thought about it because also this 49:41 light is talked to me which is this 49:43 other exhibition that was about the 49:44 communication between people and objects 49:47 and you know modeling in the past has 49:49 been um very much thought of as computer 49:53 modeling and instead u modeling it with 49:56 human or with AIs that behave like 49:58 humans might enable one to really think 50:01 of these dynamic design objects. We're 50:04 getting too geeky here but um 50:06 >> I like where you're going. 50:07 >> No, [laughter] no, I know. Uh uh so 50:09 because of the complexity of the new 50:12 design um products that we're seeing in 50:16 the world, there might need to be also 50:18 this kind of performance test. 50:20 >> I I I to take that just a little bit 50:22 further and a little bit more geeky, 50:24 we're doing that today. Um and you're 50:26 starting to see with the humanoid robots 50:28 and they're doing performances. People 50:30 are performing acts in a way and doing 50:33 tasks and shores and doing that stuff 50:35 and that's how we're using to train all 50:37 of these things. Not not saying that's 50:38 all going to work and everything else, 50:40 but it is a in in fact 50:43 >> a much more visceral way. It's not 50:45 programming anymore. It's using the 50:47 human form to program. 50:49 >> Absolutely. Yeah. There there's so much 50:52 um going on. So right now at Build 50:56 Collective, you see all sorts of 50:58 projects and of course many of them are 51:00 about AI and um the the search for the 51:05 perfect interface for AI is still very 51:08 much embionic, right? 51:10 >> Oh, absolutely. Absolutely. the the the 51:12 the issue that we have is that there are 51:16 so uh there's new forms of modality 51:19 which is which which we spoke about 51:21 earlier but we're still constrained in 51:23 the same world that's already been built 51:25 and so everyone is trying to map on it. 51:27 So if I remember, you know, 51:29 >> it was uh if you remember pre iPhone, 51:33 they were trying or pre- gooies, it was 51:36 like, okay, we're going to do whatever 51:38 we can inside of uh a texting interface. 51:40 And then the Mac showed up and all the 51:43 applications had to work in this new 51:45 modality of of of graphical user 51:48 interfaces. And then people were then 51:50 trying to take that same modality and 51:53 saying, "We're going to make a 51:54 smartphone with it." And Microsoft was 51:55 trying to make a smartphone for four 51:57 years before the iPhone, but it was 51:59 using the old modalities. And then we 52:01 brought the multi-touch and a whole new 52:03 way of interaction. And then all of a 52:04 sudden it spurred a new a new set of 52:07 applications and ways of doing it. And 52:09 if if we look at it, then they added 52:12 Siri and Alexa onto it 52:14 >> and voice. And now what you had was 52:17 multi-touch, 52:18 right? And so you had multi-touch and 52:20 that was really interesting. And then 52:22 voice became and and a and multi-touch 52:25 and then a keyboard. So you're swiping 52:27 and then you have a keyboard as the 52:28 secondary input. Then they add voice as 52:31 a tertiary input. And so no one ever 52:34 reimagined the apps applications as 52:38 voice first. So you have to say this is 52:41 the primary way you interact with it and 52:43 then figure out. So I think so many of 52:46 our stacks of software not just the 52:48 hardware have to get changed to be able 52:51 to really have this interface that we 52:54 are starting to imagine like the movie 52:56 her and those things. There's a whole 52:58 new way of doing that. But we have to 53:00 get out of the structures we've already 53:02 been building and and and stop trying to 53:05 think we're going to take it, you know, 53:06 the um a shortcut and we'll just be able 53:09 to AI enable it um with the current 53:12 modalities. 53:14 >> And that's the toughest thing. 53:15 Unlearning is the toughest thing, right? 53:19 And that's where some somebody like 53:20 Steve had that ability. 53:24 >> He didn't even have to unlearn. He just 53:26 was studying tabular every single day. 53:29 But I I think that that's something that 53:32 we might train ourselves to do. These 53:34 are my slides. Oh my god. I don't want 53:36 to take away from it, but these are 53:37 collections of moment just to show that 53:39 I speak the same language a little bit. 53:42 But um it really is about the um the 53:45 unlearning process in order to then 53:48 figure out the pains or the new 53:50 behaviors that are necessary and move in 53:52 that direction. And that's probably the 53:54 toughest thing. 53:55 >> Staying beginner. Yes. unlearning the 53:57 old stuff and then uh getting rid of the 54:00 habituation. 54:01 >> Yes. 54:02 >> So, it's those two things. It's breaking 54:04 out of what we've done as well as 54:06 remembering the pain that we've 54:07 habituated away and putting those 54:09 together in a new bucket and trying to 54:11 see what you can come up with. It's a 54:13 lot harder, of course, because it's not 54:15 evolutionary. It's revolutionary. It's a 54:17 leap. 54:18 >> All right, MIT, that's what's in store 54:20 for you in January. So, [laughter] 54:22 now that we had this great conversation, 54:24 I'm going to open up to questions from 54:26 the audience. And you know, we have I 54:29 think one microphone or two. Where? Oh. 54:32 Oh, you're bringing the microphone. 54:34 Okay. There's going to be one 54:35 microphone. There are two microphones. 54:37 So, if you don't mind, you can queue up 54:40 behind the microphones and uh um and ask 54:45 your questions. Maybe you can introduce 54:46 yourselves 54:48 as you go. 54:49 >> Hi, thank you so much. My name is 54:51 Jacqueline. I'm an MIT student here in 54:53 systems engineering and management. And 54:56 I my question is what are the you talked 54:58 about like starting with the point of 54:59 pain. I'm curious what are the pains 55:01 that you're seeing right now as being 55:03 the most prevalent to build upon. What 55:06 what are you seeing? 55:07 >> Oh, okay. Um I see so I see so much 55:10 pain. It's it's it's weird like and and 55:13 maybe this also happens for you is when 55:15 I go through the world I like because I 55:18 try to stay beginner all the time. every 55:20 there's so many things that frustrate me 55:22 like every day I'm like how who designed 55:24 this how could it be this way and like 55:26 it's horrible to be around because I'm 55:27 always you know screaming about 55:29 something like that's got to get fixed I 55:31 think you have to look at all of the 55:35 disciplines like look at agriculture 55:37 look at fashion there are so many pains 55:40 everywhere it's not just consumer 55:42 products that have issues but we we 55:45 finally have the technology we finally 55:47 have the tools to be able to bring these 55:51 superpowers to people in these 55:53 industries es and they don't have to 55:55 just be big a it can be small family 55:58 farms and those things where we can 56:00 bring that down so it's the pain that 56:02 you feel and in whatever context you 56:06 come from and whatever experiences you 56:07 have just look for those those things 56:09 stay beginner and find those and then 56:11 work from that like I said and see if it 56:13 touches enough people to then go after 56:16 it so I have my own but There are so 56:19 many that you can go find in whatever 56:22 domain that you really geek out on. 56:24 >> And you know, every now and then I'm 56:26 going to jump in with my own questions 56:27 if they follow up. But for instance, 56:29 talking about these pains from all over 56:31 from different sources. Do you also have 56:34 companies from uh different areas of the 56:37 world like you know companies that are 56:39 trying to leapfrog limitations? Do you 56:42 also have startups from Africa or from 56:46 >> We have we have startups 56:48 everywhere on every continent but Africa 56:51 right now. We're trying to find 56:52 >> interesting 56:53 >> find some there. But we're we're in all 56:55 different things and we're in all 56:55 different technologies. So we're in 56:57 agriculture, we're in textiles, we're in 57:00 semiconductors, we're in medical, we're 57:03 in drug discovery, we're in material 57:07 science. So we we do all of those 57:10 different things. Um and with teams 57:12 around the world. Um and it's it's it's 57:15 wonderful because the human nature and 57:18 pain is everywhere and how you build 57:20 things is u especially teams and things 57:23 is more or less the same everywhere 57:25 which is which is wonderful that it 57:27 transfers. 57:28 >> Thank you. 57:29 We'll go one side. Yeah, please go 57:32 ahead. 57:32 >> Hi Tony. Nice to meet you. I'm Ethan uh 57:34 under uh designer at the design 57:36 intelligence lab. I'm working on objects 57:38 that learn and adapts with people at 57:40 home. um question in general we're 57:42 trying to make objects that understand 57:44 people and people can have their own 57:45 superpower their own set of modalities 57:47 interaction around it um I wonder what 57:50 do you think about how as student 57:51 researchers we can contribute to these 57:53 larger world of like AI physical devices 57:56 where we don't necessarily have the 57:58 deployment or the data necessary to like 58:01 um understand how people interact with 58:04 it in a larger scale 58:07 >> what I would say is And too many times 58:11 people get so enam and and this is in 58:13 the book get enamored with hardware. 58:16 They get enamored with physical objects 58:19 that they spend so much time working on 58:21 the physical object instead of the 58:23 problem and the larger things and seeing 58:25 how they can prototype it with software 58:27 and other things. It might not be 58:28 perfect but trying to deploy it at some 58:31 kind of scale with you know expensive 58:34 things but you get enough of them so you 58:37 can get data. So do not always think 58:39 that you need to make the object unless 58:41 there's something something so inherent 58:44 in the object itself to get the that for 58:46 you to get special data. Try to see if 58:48 you can get some faximile of it created 58:51 so it can inform you so you can take the 58:53 next step to see if you really need 58:54 hardware because at the end of the day I 58:57 can't stand hardware. Hardware is very 59:00 >> such a big lesson. You're so right. It's 59:02 so hard and most people they want to 59:04 focus on and they get, "Oh, isn't this 59:06 cool?" And I'm like, "No, no, no." 59:07 >> You were telling me today about that 59:09 kind of AI seed that you can put in your 59:12 own toys and in your own objects. That's 59:14 the best. 59:15 >> Yeah. Absolutely. And and so to what 59:17 Paul's mentioning is that in China, 59:20 there's a uh instead of making AI 59:23 enabled toys, they make a little clip 59:25 and the clip is just AI enable. So, you 59:27 clip it to your kid's favorite doll and 59:29 you can then talk to the doll because 59:31 it's not a new doll. It's the same one, 59:32 but it gets these imbued with new new um 59:37 new interactions. 59:39 >> So, steampunk. I love it. 59:40 >> Yeah. And and it's like 25 $25, $30, 59:44 something like that. So, think about 59:45 other ways to hack it. And that doesn't 59:47 mean you're going to ship it that way, 59:48 but figure out how to hack the system to 59:50 get what you need to move confidently 59:53 to make sure you want to do the hard 59:55 hardware stuff. 59:56 >> Thank Okay, cool. Thank you. Thanks for 59:59 the question, 60:00 >> Tony. 60:00 >> Oh, magician. 60:02 >> Magician power. 60:03 >> You have to introduce yourself. 60:05 >> Yes. Definitely. Should I Should I 60:08 introduce you? 60:09 >> I don't know. [laughter] 60:09 >> Yes. Yes. Yes. That's fun. 60:11 >> So, Megan and I met I She was already at 60:14 General Magic, but Megan and I met at 60:16 General Magic. We worked together on the 60:18 same teams. Uh they are all in the 60:20 hardware. She was doing the devices, 60:23 touchreen devices, 60:24 >> everything you physically see because 60:25 I'm course too mechanical engineering. 60:27 >> She was even she was even saying one day 60:29 these devices that we were going to make 60:31 are we're going to turn into a Dick 60:33 Tracy smartwatch. 60:34 >> So So anyways, but she's done much more 60:37 than that. She's a huge MIT alum and 60:39 supports so many things here. But she 60:41 was also the CTO of the US government 60:44 back in the day for President Obama. 60:46 >> For President Obama. So she and much 60:48 more accomplished than I can. But that's 60:50 just a a a smattering of what she's 60:53 really been able to build. 60:54 >> Thanks. [applause] 60:55 >> And happy birthday yesterday. Happy 60:57 birthday. 60:57 >> Happy birthday. Happy birthday. 60:59 >> So I was a student when the when the new 61:01 when the old building was new. Uh and uh 61:03 what I wanted to bring out is is you 61:05 know Jerry Weezner who was MIT president 61:07 was President Kenny's science adviser. I 61:09 got to do that for President Obama. And 61:11 one of the things that a lot of people 61:13 know about is that Vanver Bush, we're 61:15 very proud at MIT of Vanver Bush because 61:17 he was our engineering dean went to DC 61:19 and advised FTR and uh he wrote this 61:22 paper after the war after we invented 61:25 all the technologies that helped us win 61:27 the war. Could we do this at peace? And 61:29 so we use that science, the endless 61:32 frontier, which becomes um really the 61:34 NSF and all the funding, all these 61:36 things. I bring it up because one of the 61:38 things he says in there is something you 61:40 and I could witness today for these 61:41 folks. And that is he says we can only 61:43 achieve it and it's for for the US. So 61:46 you can think the world uh but he's 61:48 talking about the US with the full 61:50 creative and productive energies of the 61:52 American people. And so thinking about 61:55 belonging and inclusion, one of the 61:58 things Tony and I have experienced is 62:00 that we got to be mentored by a hugely 62:02 diverse team of people who created 62:06 General Magic. And I we don't always 62:07 tell that story, but Lucia Hicks 62:09 Williams, an amazing African-American 62:11 technical leader, Joanna Hoffman, course 62:13 eight from here, who is Steve Jobs 62:15 sparring partner. Steve doesn't do that 62:17 magical stuff alone. It's teamwork. And 62:19 so one of the things I noticed when like 62:22 the Jobs movies came out and all of a 62:24 sudden like one of the lines in the 62:26 Steve Jobs movie is Susan made the bag. 62:29 >> Yeah. 62:29 >> And I was like wait Susan made all the 62:32 she's probably the most prolific artist 62:33 you've ever had because she made all the 62:34 icons and the emojis that you look at 62:36 every day. My point is a little bit 62:38 about hidden figures and the unusual 62:40 opportunity that Tony and I have to 62:42 share with you that we lived and 62:44 witnessed a super diverse team that 62:46 taught us and we can think of who taught 62:48 them 62:49 >> and we have to remember 50% of the the 62:51 the employees at General Magic were 62:54 women 62:54 >> women and people in 1990. Yeah. And so 62:58 so that's not as well known and so 63:00 sometimes we have this weird idea and as 63:02 history is told it it gets told wrong. 63:05 Like even Tony and I on the patent he's 63:07 talking about, I'm actually on the 63:09 original patent and I got dropped off it 63:11 and it's really no one's fault. It's 63:12 just hidden figuring. And so this like 63:15 happens and it's real. And so I want us 63:18 to have Tony and I share with you like 63:20 the full creative and productive 63:22 energies of the American people. 63:23 Whatever language and words you want to 63:24 use, that's how we're going to fix 63:26 everything. 63:28 >> Well said. Well said as always, Megan. 63:32 [applause] 63:32 >> Thank you. 63:33 >> Thank you, Megan. Please. 63:37 >> Hi, Tony. My name is Evan. I'm an Irish 63:39 industrial designer here in Boston. Um, 63:42 I probably speak for everybody. It's 63:43 such a pleasure to sit down, listen to 63:45 both of you on stage. Um, I actually 63:47 became or figured out I wanted to be an 63:49 industrial designer from a iPod I got my 63:52 birthday in 2005. So, I I credit a lot 63:55 of what got me interested in design from 63:58 the team that you, Johnny, and Steve and 64:00 everybody else working on the iPods um 64:02 created. This could be a really simple 64:05 question. Um, I'm always interested when 64:07 is done done when designing hardware. 64:10 Um, I'd love for you to talk about your 64:12 time working as an individual 64:13 contributor versus as a founder at Nest. 64:17 When do you decide when is hardware 64:18 done? You can noodle forever on an idea 64:21 or a product. Um, but when do you rely 64:25 on expertise from Johnny or Steve or you 64:28 to know when a product is ready to ship? 64:31 Um, well that's a great question and 64:34 what I learned what not to do with 64:36 general magic which we we did it wrong 64:38 but what I learned over time and and and 64:40 it's something I also wrote in the book 64:42 is what you do is at the outset of the 64:45 project is that I say and and this is 64:49 you know um is something incredibly 64:52 important is that when you start to 64:54 understand the why and the customer and 64:56 all the kind of various details you 64:58 write a press release. You write a one 65:02 page, one and a half page press release 65:04 about what that product's going to ship 65:06 and it has the fundamental four or five 65:09 key differentiating features, the price, 65:11 the access, which customer, how you're 65:14 selling it, the pain point you're 65:15 solving, all that stuff. And so when you 65:18 know that you've fulfilled that thing 65:20 that you really believe in and the 65:22 market hasn't changed, let's say, 65:24 because you've done it and you've done 65:25 it usually in a year or nine months or 65:28 14 months, you don't really don't want 65:29 to go longer than that because the the 65:32 the environment changes outside. Your 65:35 team can change. Sometimes people leave. 65:37 You know, I always wonder like how do 65:39 they build these bridges and and 65:41 buildings when they take 15 years and 65:43 you're like the teams change over five 65:45 times before, you know, they actually 65:47 get it done. It's like it's crazy. So, 65:49 you want to make sure that because the 65:51 world of technology, the world of of 65:53 product um and design moves so rapidly 65:55 because there's and it's going to go 65:56 even faster. You want to have a a 65:59 defined time bound, but make sure you 66:01 understand what the script is. Just like 66:03 when they make a movie, they don't make 66:05 a typically what happens is, you know, 66:08 in Silicon Valley or around the world is 66:11 they shoot the movie. I'm I'm giving you 66:13 analogy. They shoot the movie and at the 66:15 end they go, "Let's have the script." 66:19 [laughter] You would never make a movie 66:20 that way. And so, make sure you have the 66:22 script when you're ready to start the 66:24 project in earnest after you've done the 66:26 prototyping. So you know when you're 66:28 done 66:29 >> and you don't start going you get at the 66:31 end and you go, "Oh, we need to add this 66:32 one feature and we need to add this one 66:34 feature." That's that's the exact wrong 66:36 way to do it because you're not 66:38 confident in what you're you're you're 66:39 building and because most people can't 66:41 get more than four features in their 66:44 line and in the to buy something. So you 66:46 you really have to distill it down, 66:49 understand, and then you'll know that 66:50 you're ready to go and then you put it 66:52 out in the world and then you get 66:54 feedback and you know what you wished 66:56 you would have done and then you make 66:57 the next one. That's why we have an 66:58 iPhone 17 and we didn't stop at iPhone 3 67:01 or 18 generations of iPod, right? Cuz 67:04 you know there was always more to do. 67:06 But you got to know at the beginning 67:07 what you're really trying to achieve 67:09 with that instance. 67:10 >> May I ask a quick followup to that? 67:13 >> Happy if it's a no. M I'm going to Can 67:16 you hold it? Can you come go back to 67:18 your 67:19 >> to the end of the line and then just 67:21 stay there. Don't sit down. You know, 67:23 you we might get to you again, please. 67:26 >> Hey, so uh it seems like I'm going home 67:28 tonight with so much inspiration from 67:30 your talk, Tony and Paula. Thank you so 67:31 much. Uh so my name is TK. I'm 67:34 originally from Lebanon as well. And uh 67:36 coming from design background you know 67:38 um architecture teaches us how to detect 67:40 the pain points uh how to uh approach 67:43 them with nice solutions and lots of 67:45 people detect problems and uh they 67:48 understand the problem and they find 67:50 solution but here's the question how to 67:52 approach those problems for example uh 67:54 in Lebanon I faced a problem some one 67:57 day where I found a friend who wanted to 67:59 drop out of college because of 68:00 difficulty of transportation that's that 68:02 I detected that pain and decided to go 68:05 to a startup my company Ria and to uh 68:08 building carpooling app for making 68:10 student transportation more affordable. 68:12 So what was the why did you tackle that 68:14 pain point that was behind the iPod, 68:18 iPhone, Nest and all those products? Why 68:21 did you go for all this while lots of 68:24 other people might have detected that 68:25 same pain point and those same problems? 68:27 Why did you choose to do that? 68:29 >> Well, number one was I was already 68:30 making that at my startup fuse. So, I 68:32 was already doing m, you know, like 68:34 digital music players because I felt the 68:37 pain cuz I love music. So, sometimes 68:39 it's you love something, you love 68:41 something so much you're going to amp it 68:42 up, right? So, we you get a thousand 68:44 songs in your pocket. Like, that's 68:45 great. It's in your pocket and you have 68:46 all day battery life and and so that was 68:48 that like I explained with the iPhone, 68:50 it was really about taking all three 68:53 products that you were carrying with you 68:54 and trying to put them together in one 68:56 thing. Nest was the same thing, trying 68:58 to save energy. So, so it was really 69:01 personal things where I I felt pain or I 69:04 wanted more more pleasure in a way to to 69:07 be able to do that. So, but there 69:09 there's all kinds of other things that 69:10 we do um businessto business uh uh 69:13 companies, these kinds of things. Like a 69:15 real big pain for me is the plastics 69:16 problem on here and we're we have a one 69:18 company that we've been working on seven 69:20 years that's solving that actually and 69:21 we're already shipping the you know 69:23 shipping the solution but it took a long 69:25 time. So it depends one what it is and 69:28 but it's always something that it's a 69:30 pain that I want to take on that I can I 69:32 can feel myself so it drives me and then 69:34 I can also communicate it when I can 69:36 feel it I can communicate it that to the 69:39 other people on the team other investors 69:41 whatever else and then people adopt that 69:43 as their own as well and then they 69:46 continue to say we're on a mission let's 69:48 go for it right so you really want to 69:50 pick something that is you can take on 69:53 personally that you can also allow other 69:55 people to take on personally and and and 69:57 drive together. 69:58 >> Beautiful. 69:59 >> Thank you. 70:00 >> Please. 70:01 >> Thank you so much for being here. My 70:03 first digital device is one of those 70:04 wide iPods without screen. So, this is 70:07 like a crazy moment for me. I also read 70:09 a book. I have a nest at home. It's like 70:11 just crazy. Um, [laughter] 70:12 >> thank you. Thanks for being sorry. Um, I 70:15 um I'm an entrepreneur. Um, my 70:17 grandmother has Alzheimer's, so I'm 70:18 building something in senior care. I 70:20 think one thing I find really 70:21 interesting that you shared today is the 70:23 time horizon it takes to build something 70:24 that's really good and the company you 70:26 mentioned that it took them eight years 70:28 you mentioned 10 years of failure before 70:30 you actually put everything together and 70:31 creating something that's really 70:32 meaningful. So my question is today I'm 70:34 an entrepreneur like I raise money and 70:36 then you have all those expectations 70:37 from investors external people your 70:40 employees right like people you're 70:42 working with around you how do you think 70:44 about it takes time to build something 70:46 that's great while also you need like to 70:48 get a salary your employees need to like 70:50 get a salary you need to iterate and 70:52 make mistakes in this process how should 70:54 you be grounded thinking about the 70:56 mistakes that we will be making along 70:57 the way but also making sure the 70:59 investors align making sure you still 71:00 have funding making sure you can keep 71:02 iterating 71:03 Great. 71:04 >> Yeah, I get it. Um, I think the biggest 71:06 thing to understand is that that's the 71:09 way we learn. And so you can see it as 71:12 failure like if you're you're really 71:14 stressed and it's failure or you can say 71:16 this is something we've learned and 71:18 we've taken it to a certain we we've 71:20 taken it this far like the first iPhone 71:22 and then we had to throw it away and we 71:23 had to throw it away. So you have to 71:25 understand that is the learning process. 71:27 The iteration process is the learning 71:29 process and it's not failure. It's not 71:31 like when you go to school here and then 71:32 you fail a test or who knows what, you 71:35 know, like that's typically it's be just 71:38 the um just the beginning, right? And 71:42 and so you have to treat it as such and 71:44 if you can make sure you have investors 71:46 who are aligned with that and you make 71:48 sure that you don't 71:50 over overshoot like in other words 71:54 setting the expectations wrong but also 71:57 taking on too much risk. you know so 71:59 many projects and everybody has such big 72:02 appetites and they have such big ideas. 72:04 It's about you have to understand that 72:07 in the fullness of time maybe you can 72:08 get to that. So, what are the way 72:10 stations along the way to get there that 72:13 you can sh that you can ship or what 72:15 have you to get feedback to get the 72:17 business going to to to go along? And 72:20 you have to make sure your team 72:21 understands that, your investors 72:23 understand that. If they're all trying 72:24 to shoot for it's got to work the first 72:27 time, it's not going to go. You have to 72:29 understand, and I have a whole chapter 72:31 on it. It takes three times. First, you 72:33 build the if you build a good 1.0. You 72:36 build the product first, then you fix 72:38 the product. That's 2.0. And then 72:40 version 3.0 is build the business. 72:44 You're not building the whole business 72:46 at the same time you're building the 72:47 product. You have to figure out what 72:48 you're doing. Then you can figure out 72:50 the right business around it and all the 72:52 other the other pieces of the puzzle to 72:55 go. And you have to understand this is a 72:56 marathon and it isn't the first product. 72:59 You got to know, you got to push through 73:00 and you're going to fail along the way 73:02 and learn. 73:03 >> Okay. Thanks. 73:05 >> Please. Hi. Um, my name is El. Sheffle. 73:08 I'm a student of art history at Welsley 73:10 College and architecture here at MIT. 73:12 And my question is actually for Paola. 73:15 Um I'm really interested in how MoMA has 73:17 sort of created an archive of these like 73:19 great design objects. And I'm wondering 73:21 how you see your work as sort of a 73:23 collaboration between designers and 73:25 innovators and sort of what 73:27 conversations you seek to open in 73:29 exhibitions and in interactions with the 73:31 public. 73:32 >> Thank you for the question. And you know 73:33 there's an exhibition right now that is 73:35 con like really condensing everything 73:37 that you asked and everything that we 73:39 discussed today. It's uh an exhibition 73:41 that's mostly objects from the 73:43 collection. It's called piouette because 73:45 I wanted to call it pivot but you know 73:47 the name is taken by a podcast. So I 73:49 wanted to do piouette. So objects that 73:52 changed society that changed the way we 73:55 live either directly in a disruptive way 73:58 or indirectly through other designers. 74:01 And part of that exhibition are the 74:04 emojis, the ones by entity docom are the 74:09 icons by Susan K is the Sony Walkman is 74:12 the Macintosh 128K and also you know 74:16 there's also Spanx and there's also the 74:18 monoblock chair and Crocs. I mean it 74:21 really is about showing how design 74:24 changes behaviors 74:26 and the collaboration. you know, I've 74:27 been a mom for 31 years and um it's 74:31 amazing and beautiful the power that you 74:33 have to u make people come to a museum 74:36 to see Matis and Picassos and you know 74:39 because the doctor said they had to take 74:40 those vitamins but then they come into 74:43 the exhibitions of design and all of a 74:45 sudden they stay there two hours because 74:47 they recognize themselves in these 74:49 objects. Those are their objects, but at 74:51 the same time, there's this distance 74:53 because they're in a museum. All of a 74:55 sudden, they're in a ped on a pedestal. 74:57 So, we create that void to fill with a 75:01 deeper understanding of what that object 75:03 means for life. So I'm trying to just 75:06 say it very con in a very condensed way. 75:09 But what I said before is my motto which 75:12 is revolutions might happen in science 75:15 and in technology and in politics but 75:17 designers are the ones that make them 75:19 into life. And that's why I want to be 75:23 close to designers. I want to be close 75:26 to scientists. That's why I want to be 75:29 close to artists because as Megan said, 75:31 it's by all working together that we can 75:34 make something good happen. 75:37 >> So, thank you for doing what you do. 75:40 >> Thank you for doing what you do to 75:41 really show. 75:42 >> Thank you, too. 75:43 >> Yeah. No, [laughter] because it's people 75:45 can really learn from that and you have 75:47 a special eye on how design can really 75:50 change the the world or change change 75:52 humanity. 75:53 >> People and then the world hopefully. 75:55 >> Humanity. [laughter] 75:56 Thank you. Thanks. 75:57 >> Um, hi, my name is Hale from the 75:59 critical matter group. Um, so I really 76:02 agree with like the like product designs 76:04 started with the why and started with 76:06 the pinpoint and I also did a lot of 76:08 startup before and have I have really 76:10 great teams of the design teams. So 76:13 every designers in the teams like they 76:15 going to find the pinpoint and say we 76:17 want to fix the problem because the user 76:20 have this problem this problem so we can 76:21 try to do that. But then because I think 76:24 my design philosophy is kind of 76:26 different. So I'm telling them said that 76:28 this is a problem but I think as a 76:30 designers what we have to do is like to 76:32 have the designs intuition to really to 76:35 make the innovation is not for I'm 76:38 having a problem to fix a problem but 76:39 then it's like to we I know there's a 76:42 problem that with the new technology 76:43 what's the really innovation is to 76:45 change the behaviors with the design 76:47 intuition rather than I always 76:50 understand the problem and fix the 76:51 problems. So we did a lot of experiment. 76:54 So we make 10 designs. Maybe nine of the 76:57 designs are really bad. User says this 76:59 is not not happy. But there's one design 77:02 they will say this is really cool really 77:04 interesting because this is something 77:06 new. 77:06 >> Let's get to the question. 77:08 >> The question is like in this time of the 77:10 AI how can we really balance because AI 77:14 is really new things. How can we really 77:15 balance the user need the innovations 77:18 the intuition of the design? 77:20 >> Thank you. 77:21 >> Okay. Thank you. So here's the thing. 77:26 That's why there is the designer or the 77:30 a clear point of view and it has to come 77:33 from a the leader or the team the design 77:35 leader or what have you of what is the 77:38 absolute intent and what falls in and 77:40 what falls out because you know now what 77:43 we've done is we can turn with AI we can 77:45 turn um just like we did with AB testing 77:47 of websites of different designs and 77:49 does this and people click more here and 77:51 so you get this datadriven design you 77:55 know um thing and Now, what you can do 77:56 is you can make 20 different interfaces 77:58 and then go test them and say that's 78:00 what the users like more than this. 78:02 That's that that might work for 78:05 optimizations of something that's 78:07 working well, like further 78:09 optimizations. But when you're doing a 78:10 1.0, 78:12 you have to have I believe you have to 78:14 have a real point of view of how you're 78:17 what who you're fixing it for, why 78:19 you're fixing it, and how you're going 78:21 to fix it. And what is that critical eye 78:23 of how it's going to work? And you have 78:25 to project yourself into say I believe 78:28 this is the re right reason that it 78:30 should exist for these reasons and it 78:32 shouldn't be that and that's where the 78:34 critical eye of design comes in and 78:36 saying yes and no not a tool tells me or 78:39 a set of data tells me it's an informed 78:42 gut that I get from some of those tools 78:44 and data but there's still a a a a 78:47 critical eye that makes those selections 78:50 says this is in or that's not and that's 78:52 what was so amazing about Steve Jobs is 78:55 because he was the critical eye. He 78:57 might not have been the designer, but he 78:58 was that critical eye that say yes, no, 79:01 a little bit like this, right? And those 79:04 kinds of things. So, it's still the 79:05 human in the loop 79:07 >> to figure out what it is you're really 79:09 trying to do and the tools just help to 79:11 inform your gut. 79:13 >> Thank you. 79:13 >> Okay. Thank you. Thank you. 79:14 >> So, I think we'll take the last two. I'm 79:17 I'm sorry, but yeah, go ahead. You and 79:19 then the lady. I'm going to be quick 79:21 because it's a bit similar to the other 79:22 question. But so basically you spoke 79:24 about the pinpoint for the iPod and I 79:27 feel like it solve like a problem and a 79:30 pinpoint for many people but also it 79:32 create a lag for like all the other 79:34 people that like didn't necessarily add 79:36 this pinpoint but it create a lag. So my 79:38 question is how can you predict that 79:41 you're solving a pinpoint but then you 79:43 also like create a lag to other people 79:44 that didn't necessarily add this 79:46 pinpoint. 79:46 >> Yeah. for without a doubt, there's 79:48 always unintended consequences, right, 79:50 with any design. So, I had people come 79:52 to me, "Oh my god, the iPod's so great. 79:54 I love it." Blah, blah, blah. And then I 79:56 had another friend who's a really close 79:57 friend and a a a ex-magician, general 80:00 magician. She was like, "I can't stand 80:02 the iPod." Because now it's isolated 80:04 everybody from each other and they, you 80:06 know, it's like, so you're always going 80:08 to get these kinds of people who say one 80:10 thing versus the other. And you just 80:12 have to understand that with any 80:14 technology, it's just neutral. it's good 80:16 or bad and you have to really try to 80:18 understand the unintended consequences 80:20 and you know make sure you un try to 80:24 understand them and make sure you know 80:25 you're doing it for the right reasons 80:26 but yeah there there can be ways that 80:28 you might be hurting something else but 80:30 you also have to look at improvement so 80:32 people come to me and go you know you 80:33 made the iPhone you you did you killed 80:36 you know you killed uh because of social 80:38 media you killed the planet and you know 80:40 all I'm like look technology can be used 80:43 for good or bad and it was never the 80:45 intention to create social media types 80:49 that just was an unintended consequence. 80:51 Now we need to go and fix it. Same thing 80:53 with AI. We have to go and fix it. We 80:55 because there are too many unintended 80:57 consequences right now that we're 80:58 seeing. So as a designer, you can't just 81:00 drop the mic and say I'm done and I'm 81:02 out. You got to keep working on it. And 81:04 even if I'm not at Apple, I go on TV and 81:06 I go, you know, and I go on all these 81:08 news programs. I say Apple, fix this. 81:10 This is a problem. Because I feel really 81:13 attached to it. And I say we need, you 81:15 know, you need to uh look look more 81:17 closely on what how we're affecting 81:19 societies. And that was something that 81:21 Steve was really really drove home for 81:24 me when I was there was make sure you 81:26 have your design intent of how you 81:27 trying to not just how how to affect 81:30 humanity, but affect humanity in the 81:32 right way. 81:32 >> Yeah. 81:34 >> Thank you. 81:35 >> You're the dessert. 81:36 >> All right. [laughter] 81:37 >> Hi, thank you for taking this last 81:38 question. Um I'm Nick. I'm a 81:40 aereroastroph student working on 81:42 wearable electronics for space suits. 81:45 And so my question comes from when you 81:47 talked about fuse existing at maybe a 81:50 time that was too early for its 81:52 existence and not sitting at the right 81:54 place or right time. And so what advice 81:56 would you have for technologies that 81:58 maybe depend on um the outside 82:00 infrastructure meeting you at a certain 82:02 place in development? 82:04 >> Good question. 82:05 >> That is a great question. And and that 82:07 was General Magic as well. General 82:08 Magic, we were solving problems that 82:10 were gonna that weren't going to happen 82:12 for 15 years. So in Nest, it took 10 82:15 years from the time I had the idea till 82:17 I actually implemented it because the 82:20 technologies weren't aligned yet. So you 82:22 have to understand it's not just having 82:24 the technology be ready, but it's having 82:26 society be ready to adopt those, right? 82:30 And having and society understands the 82:32 problem, especially if it's new. a 82:34 society or a certain set of a society 82:36 understands the pain point you're trying 82:38 to solve. So, it's all of those things. 82:40 Now, you know, everyone's running around 82:42 with meta glasses, you know, the meta 82:44 glasses, but I remember when it was 82:46 Google Glass and people were glass 82:47 holes, right? 82:48 >> Oh my god. 82:49 >> Right. It was I remember when people 82:51 were running around with Bluetooth 82:52 headsets in in the '9s, you know, in '9s 82:56 and early 2000, every like, "Oh, that's 82:58 crazy." I remember, and you guys won't 83:00 know this cuz most of you are not. 83:01 People were running around with pagers. 83:03 Oh my god. Yeah. 83:03 >> And it was like pagers, those are only 83:05 for drug dealers and you know and and 83:07 and and doctors, you know, like why are 83:09 you wearing that? So, so you have to 83:11 remember it takes time for society to 83:13 catch up with all this stuff. So, it's 83:15 not just a technology. So, you have to 83:17 look at all of those things. And that's 83:18 what I mean by the customer journey. 83:20 >> So, even if you can make it, make sure 83:22 that it fits in the customer journey of 83:24 how they make the decisions and and what 83:26 would be the detractors. And sometimes 83:28 you just sit on it and like Nest I just 83:30 sat on it for a while until it was like 83:32 now's the time. 83:33 >> So awesome. 83:34 >> Thank you so much. Thank you. 83:36 >> Well, well, I have to say MIT, you're in 83:38 for a treat. I think [laughter] No, I 83:40 think it's going to be really one 83:43 chance. Um, there's been many, but there 83:46 are these like individuals that embody 83:47 all the potential of MIT and definitely 83:50 you're one of them. So, I can't wait to 83:51 see what you'll do in January. And 83:54 [snorts] it was wonderful to be on stage 83:56 with you tonight. I want to say good 83:59 luck to all of you, but to John, to 84:01 Hashim, to Jessica, to like everybody 84:04 that's involved in this adventure. Thank 84:07 you, Tony. 84:08 >> Thank you. Thank you. 84:09 >> And thank you all. 84:10 >> Thank you, everyone. Thanks. See you 84:13 around campus. [applause] 84:25 Hey, 84:35 [music] 84:41 hey, hey.