Ahh Peter Day, still learning the lesson of the matchbox salesman and the NWO.

This is a possibility, it has not happened.

Google is not an example. Google automates services, which is entirely different from mass production of artefacts, but which still has similar economies of scale.

There are also lots of reasons why customised production may not take off:

1) The economics may not work out: mass production will still be cheaper, so, except where there is a great need for personalised products (like the prosthetic limb covers), it may not take off.

2) Regulation: the difficulties of imposing patent and copyright laws on people making one-off are likely to lead them to be treated as potential pirates by government, and the only fix will be tight regulation that will send costs up, or even limit scale (I can imagine 3D printers requiring licences and inspections).

3) The claim consumers know what they want it rubbish. Wants are created by advertising and PR, and are therefore likely to remain uniform.

The 21st Century is about millions of markets of dozens of consumers.

With the iPhone 5C and Moto X examples of all that customization per product but if you think about it, just the sheer volume of smart phone SKUs is a testament to the revolution.

Every vendor is making a slightly different batch of products for every service provider and then all those products are customizable and then there's the entire ecosystem of aftermarket parts and accessories.

It's not a revolution, it's insanity.

They are becoming much more like creators than they have ever been allowed to before.

Even more so with sites like [kickstarter.com...] where the consumers can actually crowd source new products and be the first to get those new products as part of their investment.

That site is a prime example of where millions of markets are finding their dozens of consumers.

Moto X? The customisation is very superficial: you can choose the colours, have text printed on the back, and set some boot-up options, and you can pre-load some data.

Colours and software settings! Cars have had more customisation than this for decades!

Crowdsourcing is interesting, but its essence is just angel investment using the internet to reach a larger audience. Some countries (like the UK) are already moving to regulate (and restrict) it. Its a good thing, but not arecolution in production.

Are we all going to go back to customised and personalised products?

Ummm no.

- Why would I pay for cable packages when I can get a dozen open air channels for free?
- Why would I pay for cell service plans when a hardline costs me $20/mth and skype is free?
- Why would I pay for faster internet packages when services are designed to run on the slowest speeds?
- Ipads? Already have a desktop, thanks.

My point is you can't customize what someone doesn't have and some people are rather enjoying the $200-$300 a month savings by not having products to personalize. You won't miss your gadgets if you never get addicted in the first place, there is a good life lesson in that, somewhere. Not having ports attached to your every move for data collection by who knows who? That's just a bonus.

These are all things I can control too. As for where 'the net' is going... there are some pretty rich people wanting to monopolize it and they are getting better at what they do. If you don't bite they can't reel you in. Unfortunately this generation bites.

Ah predictions!
I remember those from my youth, luckily we never did get aluminium jump suits but what happened to computers giving us all a 2 hour working week?

I see customisation as being like the long tail. There was a pretty interesting article on Marketing Land about why the long tail isn't this goldmine, and it's actually more risky to concentrate on mid-list actors/musicians/whatever, rather than betting on big winners.

[marketingland.com...]

So whilst we may want personalisation, we won't get it until it pays. The stumbling block there is technology: who will develop the Netflix/Pandora of art, clothing, books, gadgets, food, toiletries, and so on? Who will create the gadgets that let you customise everything from home with minimum effort, and can they be made profitable?

I've lately been looking at selling photo prints, partly as magazine etc market shrunken.
Come across some sites where you can set up shop, and indeed have customisation: type of prints you want, size you want, paper, frame...
Looks easy to set up shop on such sites; but I suspect HARD to achieve sales. Could be that, rather like huffington post, the main spoils will go to site founders, and contributors will mostly live in hope.

So there we are: maybe some webmasterworld members will be the folks creating ways to get customised products, including from 2D and 3D printing.

what happened to computers giving us all a 2 hour working week?

Thanks to being distracted by all the junk on the web we now work about 2 hours a week after playing on linkedin, facebook, twitter, tumblr, youtube, blogs, forums, etc. as those aren't actually part of the job description.

- Why would I pay for cable packages when I can get a dozen open air channels for free?
- Why would I pay for cell service plans when a hardline costs me $20/mth and skype is free?
- Why would I pay for faster internet packages when services are designed to run on the slowest speeds?
- Ipads? Already have a desktop, thanks.

"Because I want it" is, I think, the standard answer. And then after a few years it becomes "because I need it." Raise your hand if you know a nine-year-old who needs a cell phone. Raise your other hand if the assertion is being made by the parents of the nine-year-old. Raise your third hand if ... Oh, never mind.

Thanks to being distracted by all the junk on the web we now work about 2 hours a week after playing on linkedin, facebook, twitter, tumblr, youtube, blogs, forums, etc. as those aren't actually part of the job description.

SO not true for most people. First of all, huge numbers of jobs don't even involve sitting at computers (food service, customer service, retail, coal mining, meat packing, etc.). Second, most of the people I know with desk jobs are being pressed like never before to get a certain quota of work done.

No, the reason we still have the 40 hour workweek - longer in many cases - is simply that the work week was never about how much should be gotten done, but how much can be gotten done. Instead of decreasing our expectations of the hours people will work to get stuff done, we increased our expectations of how much productivity the work week could yield with automation.

There are some good thoughts in the article but most of things he's considering revelations have been true for the past decade at least. I can't help but look at it as someone discovering something that everyone already knew and getting a little too excited about it. :-)

I have to admit I had some similar thoughts when I first read about 3D printing years ago... that is until I read more about it and discovered that the current technology is an indeterminate, but large, number of years from being able to print most functional items. The layering method creates hopelessly weaker and less durable objects, while having the added bonus of being more expensive, than molding.

He's right, of course, about the digital world. Everything is personalized and will continue to be... But that's old news isn't it?

Are we all going to go back to customised and personalised products?

Nope. The main difference between "then" and "now" is that it's easier to obtain customized and personalized (or simply non-mainstream) products that it was in the pre-Internet era, but that doesn't mean everybody is going to switch from Target, Macy's, and the local Toyota dealer to Bob's Bespoke Widget Shop.

Example: Thanks to the Web, the guy who wears size 16 or has one foot larger than the other no longer needs to track down a mail-order vendor by word of mouth. He can find a vendor via Google Search or AdWords and place an online order with a minimum of fuss. But Most people will continue to buy standard-size, name-brand shoes at the local mall or from Zappos.

I thought it worth reflecting upon some of the thinking in the article. Yes, the statement I pulled out is not new, but I see so many people that have still not grasped the concept.

Many are not involved in sectors where that idea works, but they must have come across it as a consumer, perhaps without realising it.

The idea that our phone has become our PDA, and a payment device, and a surfing device, and a social media device, a camera, a video or audio media device, etc, means that it alone is disruptive. I wrote some time ago about low-cost cameras being doomed, and all those manufacturers now have little business for their product. We can go back and cite the case of a camera and traditional film maker which failed to grasp the idea of digital photography. It was certainly disruptive to those involved (shareholders, workers and even customers).

The printed product is a fascinating concept, and i've been involved with this to a lesser degree, but have followed some of the higher technology sides where price is not the key factor. I understand that my local electronics store now sells low cost printers for those that want to experiment with the technology.

As webmasters, there have to be many opportunities for us in many of the disruptive sectors, so the other idea behind this discussion was to remind us to do some blue sky thinking, and to go where the new concepts are taking us. Whether they would be in our active sector, or how our sector connects with the audience, or whether an entirely new sector is an opportunity to be taken.

Blue sky thinking please.

Blue sky thinking please.

Here you go:
[youtube.com...]
Oh and speaking of ghosts (in that video) where's our member leosghost, lurking? He's usually good at some blue sky thinking. I miss the rebel :(

@paitkow,

what greater productivity leads to is not greater leisure, but:

1) Greater consumption. Anyone in a developed country could probably support a 1950s standard of living on shorter hours.
2) Higher prices for things in limited supply: e.g. land. They are not making any more, so prices rise with incomes.
3) Artificial limits on supply: planning laws, patents etc. strengthen 2.
4) reduced working hours are not even distributed. Some people become unemployed, while other continue to work as many )or even more) hours.

5) Higher expectations. The less time and effort it takes to clean (self / house / clothes), the more often you are expected to do it.

could probably support a 1950s standard of living

Where do you get the "probably"? 900sq ft house, one car, one (at most) b/w TV, one telephone (possibly on a party line), two or three major appliances* ... ### yes.


* By actual count: refrigerator, stove, washing machine.

For webmasters, maybe this means worthwhile to aim for more personalised experience for users.

Facebook, pinterest - say - are extreme examples.
But I've a google news page that's "mine", can choose some options w bbc.
And can't really think how to achieve anything like this with my sites, but for me a point to ponder.

I came across a very good presentation related to this topic. I found the original source embedded into a Western American University website but I'll provide the YouTube URL here.

We currently live in a (mostly) global market based economy? That's kind of a statement/question because I was daydreaming throughout economic classes in high school. I missed that part.

This presentation is based on a resource based economy and is very interesting and informative. If anyone chooses to watch it please do consider loosening your tin foil hats and relax your way into it. I say that because the term "New World" that appears in the video title is typically enough to give some people a panic attack. It's not about conspiracies. It's a very sane, sober and intelligent 50 minute presentation. It's called The Venus Project. Venus is love.

This is what the 21 Century Revolution should look like:
[youtube.com...]