The Conflicted EE: Designing for better or for worse?
I came across an article about a recently approved patent application for a “complete multimedia home platform system” from Philips IP&S that would force television viewers to pay a fee to allow fast-forwarding and channel changing during commercials. As a consumer, I'm dizzied by the fact that someone thinks I'd buy into this.
Have you ever worked on a design you knew was destined for the scrap heap?
That “someone” is probably some savvy marketing executive who doesn't have a clue about technology. That's OK; it's his job.
But what about the EEs who designed this technology? What do they think?
As engineers, I'm sure they take pride in their accomplishment, and found the project exciting, challenging, and stimulating. But they're consumers, too. And I have to believe that most consumers would react similarly to me in this particular case.
So, what do you do when you're the one who is working on a design that may not see the light of day, or, worse still, you wouldn't buy even if it was on the shelf at your local Circuit City? Don't get me wrong: there are so many cool products out there and it must be a blast working on those. In this instance, however, I can imagine the design group biting its collective tongue when they learned how the technology would be implemented.
For instance, perhaps it could've been the basis for a highly interactive home theater system that would blow the doors off the competition. Or improve channel-blocking technologies for parents who don't want their children exposed to certain content.
I know; those decisions were probably made way in advance�and out of the engineer's hands�probably by that same savvy marketing guy. So, I guess EEs just continue to do what they do best�design, for better or for worse.
�Ralph Raiola
Advertisement
