July 18, 2025 • 50 mins
Ernest & Joachim go deep on Raymond Loewy’s MAYA Principle: what it is & why it matters, with real world examples of MAYA in action, and what can happen when product teams fail to take the principle to heart.
FOLLOW-UPS – 01:00
Toolbox: How “Jobs To Be Done” Can Help You Make, Better
Fortis Marinemaster
A BRIEF INTRO TO RAYMOND LOEWY – 06:04
MoMA on Raymond Loewy
60 Minutes: Raymond Loewy, Father of Industrial Design
LOEWY’S MAYA PRINCIPLE – 09:07
The MAYA Principle in Design
The iPhone only exists because Steve Jobs ‘hated this guy at Microsoft’
Phil Knight: Shoe Dog
How One Designer Saved Tesla From Bankruptcy TWICE
IS MAYA INHERENTLY CONSERVATIVE? – 19:36
Apple and the MAYA Principle
Remembering Apple’s Newton, 30 years on
MUST BE ROOTED IN EMPATHY & COMPASSION – 24:44
Raymond Loewy and the Skylab Window
APPLICATIONS BEYOND PRODUCT – 28:20
The Secret Tesla Motors Master Plan (via Wayback Machine)
BMW Is a Surprise Winner in Electric Vehicles (paywall)
Goodbye to the BMW i3—an Icon of the 21st Century (paywall)
The Newton Messagepad was Well Ahead of its Time
General Magic documentary
Intellectual Distance, Novelty, and Resource Allocation in Science
RECOMMENDATIONS – 42:48
Patrick McGee: Apple in China
Hidden Forces podcast: Patrick McGee
EBL rechargeable AA batteries (link to Wirecutter review)
CLOSING – 49:34
****
Rant, rave or otherwise via email at LearnMakeLearn@gmail.com or on Threads @LearnMakeLearnShow.
CREDITS
Theme: Vendla / Today Is a Good Day / courtesy of www.epidemicsound.com
Drum hit: PREL / Musical Element 85 / courtesy of www.epidemicsound.com
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Ernest (00:04):
Hello and welcome to Learn Make Learn where we share
qualitative and quantitativeperspectives on products to help
you make better.
name is Ernest Kim and I'mjoined by my friend and co-host
Joachim Groeger.
Hey, Joachim, how's it going?
Joachim (00:19):
I'm good.
I'm just coming off a two weekvacation, so I am in a very
happy place.
Well actually like relaxedplace, but now I have to get
back to work, so I don't knowhow I feel about that anymore,
but yeah, it's nice.
The sun is out here in Seattle,so that's good.
Yeah.
How about you, Ernest?
Ernest (00:36):
yeah.
Yeah.
Good, good On my end, actually,um, my wife is away, uh, as of
today visiting her parents.
So, uh, I'm living the bachelorlife, at least, uh, for the next
week and a half.
Uh, me and the cats,
Joachim (00:50):
You and the cats?
Yeah.
Wait, are the, are the cats allboys as well?
Ernest (00:53):
Oh no.
Two boys and one girl.
Joachim (00:55):
Okay.
So kind of a bro fest, but notcompletely.
Ernest (00:57):
Yeah.
it is.
Yeah.
Well.
to today's episode.
This is actually episode 28,and, uh, today we're gonna bring
you our second toolbox episode.
Our first was way back inepisode three, where we
discussed the jobs to be doneapproach to customer centric
product and service innovation.
(01:18):
just as a refresher, the ideabehind these toolbox episodes is
to highlight tools that we hopewill help you in your day-to-day
work of making products.
Today our focus is the Mayaprinciple, was an approach to,
uh, graphic and product designestablished by Raymond Loewy,
who's broadly considered thefigure most responsible for
(01:39):
establishing industrial designas a commercial profession.
But before we dive into Maya, wewanted to share a follow up to
our previous episode.
You wanna dive into that?
Joachim (01:51):
Well, last time we were talking about watches and a
friend and listener had to bragabout his watch that he had just
acquired.
Uh, and, uh, so I said, well,I'll give it a, I'll give it a
shout out.
So it's, uh, watched by thecompany Fortis, F-O-R-T-I-S,
which has been around for, well,well over a hundred years.
(02:13):
They were founded in 1912 or so.
Their history is kind ofinteresting.
They've always been viewed as alower end budget friendly, uh,
watch manufacturer.
But, um, there's someinteresting heritage there.
So well, first self windingwristwatch was made by Fortis.
Yeah.
So, um, the company was foundedby Walter Vogt.
(02:36):
Uh, and then he set upproduction with John Harwood,
who was the inventor of theautomatic wristwatch.
And then he then released thisHarwood Automatic, which was the
first self winding wristwatch,uh, which was introduced in 1926
at Basel World.
Ernest (02:50):
Wow.
Joachim (02:51):
and, uh, yeah, so, which is crazy.
I, I didn't, I didn't realize, Idon't think it's something that
they, they play up very much.
Um.
And they also were one of thefirst manufacturers to work on
getting waterproof, uh,wristwatches.
So, so a lot of firsts from thiscompany.
Um, they also were one of thefirst companies that were
(03:14):
thinking about watches thatcould stand up to extreme
weather conditions, temperaturefluctuations with their space
matters.
Uh, the watch was tested bypeople on the space program, the
US Space program, and then since1994, they've been the official,
uh, watch for the RussianFederal Space Agency.
(03:34):
Um, so also kind of ainteresting connection to space,
kind of like Omega with theirspeed masters.
Um, so I, I just didn't, Ididn't know about this, but
unfortunately they wentbankrupt, uh, in the late two
thou.
Oh, well, late 2010s.
So about almost 10 years ago in2017, they were basically.
(03:59):
Done.
And the company was then takenover by a private investor, uh,
yup.
Philip, JUPP Philip.
And he was just a fan of thebrand and, uh, clearly as a man
of some means, and was able tobuy up the company and, uh,
renamed it for his watches ag asopposed to forties for the, you
(04:22):
know, turning a little bit moreinternational.
And they've relaunched the,their watches.
And so my friend has aMarinemaster, which is of course
everything with masters.
Always gonna be loaded withstuff.
But the watch he showed me is adiving watch, very subtle, very
tastefully done, uh, wearsnicely on the wrist and I was
(04:42):
really impressed with thefinishing on it.
It's a pretty impressive, uh,piece of equipment and it's
about$3,200.
It's a really it functional toolwatch and one that you could
have as your everyday.
If you want something that'smore elevated than just a Casio
or something like that, this isdefinitely a watch.
That's great.
So I think the brand is veryinteresting.
(05:03):
Uh, I would, we'll put a linkinto the website.
The Marine Master is one of manyof their line of watches.
They also, of course make pilotswatches that are really
interesting.
So there's heritage there andvery interesting clean design.
So that aesthetic is very muchjust trying to be.
Tool watches that are notflashy, uh, very wearable and
(05:26):
very usable.
And yeah, I rate the aestheticis, is a pretty, pretty cool
watch when I was holding it inmy hand.
So yeah.
For as a follow up to ourwatches and wonders discussion
about the excesses of luxury,which is exactly what my firm
was talking about, it's like,well, I've got, here's a watch
for you that's not excessive,overpriced,
Ernest (05:43):
Yeah,
Joachim (05:44):
very wearable and very smart looking.
So yeah, Fortis,
Ernest (05:47):
that's great.
I, I've only seen images, but itlooks great in pictures.
I, I, Fortis has been a bit of ablind spot for me, so
Joachim (05:55):
same.
Ernest (05:56):
with it.
So, um, it was great to see thatI.
Joachim (05:59):
Yeah.
Shout out to Ben.
Thank you for sharing.
Ernest (06:02):
That's awesome.
Alright, well now let's get intothe Maya principle.
uh, with a quick backgroundaround the man behind it.
Raymond Loewy, born in Paris in1893.
Loewy immigrated to New York inuh, 1919.
And in a career that spanneddecades, he would come to be
known as the man who shapedAmerica and the father of
(06:25):
industrial design.
am quoting here from a briefbiography from the Museum of
Modern Art in New York.
And, uh, we'll include a link tothe full version in the show
notes.
But, uh, here's their biography.
So quote, firm Raymond LoewyAssociates, was associated with
a steady stream of US designicons, including the cold spot
refrigerator.
(06:45):
Lucky Strike cigarettepackaging, Greyhound Buses,
Studebaker Cars, Coca-Coladispensers, radios, sewing
machines, and RosenthalDinnerware, well as corporate
graphics for Exxon Shell and theUS Postal Service.
This range testified to thepotential impact of industrial
design on the daily lives ofmillions and its power as a
(07:06):
commercial tool.
Loewy understood how essentialpackage design and branding
could be in the success of aproduct or an organization.
In this respect, one of his mostpotent designs was for John f
Kennedy's Air Force One, whichbegan flying in 1962.
His modern and elegant design ofthe plane's delivery transformed
(07:26):
this particular Boeing 7 0 7into an important element of the
Kennedy Administration's globalbrand.
just a quick side note here forme, Loewy's livery continues to
define the appearance of AirForce One to this day.
All right.
Now going back to MoMA'sbiography in his late career,
Loewy was again at the heart ofthe American establishment as a
(07:47):
consultant to nasa his firmproduced more than 3000 designs
for space related products Uh,at the same time, despite
intense rivalry between theAmerican and Soviet Union
superpowers during the height ofthe Cold War, Loewy also
designed prototypes for a rangeof industrial products at the
request of the Soviet State.
The episode demonstrates that asfar as industrial design was
(08:10):
concerned, the Iron Curtain wasmore permeable than the
political rhetoric of the timewould have us believe.
And, and I wanted to share that'cause Low as influential as he
was, you know, called it thefather of, uh, industrial
design, I think is not as wellknown these days as some other
figures like Dieter Rams or, um,you know, more modern figures.
(08:30):
Certainly, like everyone talksabout Johnny Ives.
Joachim (08:32):
Oh yeah.
Ernest (08:33):
Uh, had you heard of Loewy at all?
Joachim (08:36):
I had heard of the Maya principle in passing, but uh,
and then of course as youstarted naming the things you
designed, like yes, intimatelyfamiliar with all these things,
but not the name.
Ernest (08:45):
Right,
Joachim (08:46):
not the name.
Yeah.
Ernest (08:47):
Uh, now speaking of that, so in addition to a link
to this, uh, biography, I just,uh, quoted, also provide a link
to a, a wonderful 60 minutessegment from 1979 provides
visuals of many of Loewy's mosticonic designs and also features
an extended interview with theman he was still alive at the
time.
so, uh, that's definitely a funwatch.
(09:07):
Uh, now as I noted in the intro,the thing we're focusing on
today is the idea that was atthe core of Loewy's approach to
design, which he called the MAYAPrinciple.
explain it, I'm gonna referencean article from a digital design
agency called Visions.
They do a nice job of, uh,providing a synopsis.
Alright, so quote from the sleekdesign of the Greyhound bus to
(09:28):
the iconic Coca-Cola bottle,Loewy's work epitomized
innovation, intertwined withfamiliarity.
Central to his philosophy wasthe MAYA principle.
Most advanced yet acceptable.
concept that has since guideddesigners and marketers in
creating products that pushboundaries while remaining
accessible to the public.
(09:49):
At its core, the MAYA principleis about striking a delicate
balance between novelty andrecognition.
As explained by Derek Thompsonin his book, hit Makers, are
drawn to innovations, but alsocrave a sense of familiarity.
Loewy believed that successfuldesigns seamlessly blend
innovation with elements thatresonate with the consumer's
(10:10):
existing experiences.
Take Apple's iPhone, forinstance.
its groundbreaking capabilities,apple introduced it as a phone,
leveraging familiarity to easeconsumers into a revolutionary
new device.
Each subsequent model broughtincremental changes, maintaining
the balance between advancementand acceptability.
(10:31):
By contrast, Google Glass withits ambitious technology,
struggled to gain acceptance dueto its intrusive and unfamiliar
design.
The lesson here, being ahead ofthe curve doesn't guarantee
success if consumers aren'tready for the leap for product
designers and marketers Applyingthe Maya principle involves
strategic steps, understandingthe audience's, familiarity with
(10:55):
the product, introducinginnovations gradually, and
framing new features within thecontext of user experiences and
needs unquote.
Now, uh, I thought theirreference to the iPhone was a
really interesting one in that,you know, it might seem now that
introducing Multitouch in theiPhone was just.
(11:15):
patently obvious, right?
But within Apple, the conceptwas actually originally
developed for a tablet stylecomputing device.
What would eventually come tomarket as the iPad, but at least
as the story goes well into theprogram, which was code named
Project Purple, Steve Jobsrecognized that Multitouch
technology was a huge departurefrom existing modes of human
(11:36):
computer interaction andtherefore had to be introduced
in a product that would beessential to cons customers'
lives, you know, that they'd getstraight away.
And so, uh, the Project PurpleTeam shifted their focus to a
phone form factor and then therest of the history.
So just to a point, I thinkbuttressing, the vision team's
highlighting of the iPhone asbeing a good example here, um,
(11:58):
of kind of easing people, givingthem that acceptable form
factors for something that wasotherwise very, very innovative.
Um, you know, what might seempatently obvious in hindsight
really was very much an exampleof the, my principle in action.
Um.
You know, ironically, I thinkyou could make the argument that
the failure of Apple's VisionPro, their, um, extended reality
(12:20):
headset is rooted in thecompany's failure to apply the
Mya principle.
Uh, and then by contrast, I'dsay you could argue that meta by
leveraging people's familifamiliarity with existing
eyewear form factors,specifically Ray Van Sunglasses
has found much greater successin the still nascent spatial
computing space.
now, you know, that's all in thetech world.
(12:41):
I can also set an example herefrom the world of footwear.
Um, and this is something we'veactually highlighted in the
past, but I think it's worthtouching on again, because it's
so germane to topic.
It comes from an anecdote thatPhil Knight shared in his
memoir, shoe Dog that waspublished back in 2016, now I'm
quoting Phil Knight here, aformer aerospace engineer.
(13:02):
M.
Frank Rudy came into the officewith his partner Bob Bogart, and
pitched their crazy idea, airinto a running shoe.
It sounded like something out ofa comic book, but Rudy was
persistent.
Finally, I agreed to stuff oneof his air souls into my own
shoes and go for a run.
Six miles later, I was convincedand Rudy began working on
(13:24):
prototypes for what became theNike Air.
In late 1978, we launched theTailwind, shiny silver shoe
stuffed full of a dozeninnovations, including Rudy's
patented aerosols.
We hyped this thing to theheavens with, with a splashy ad
campaign and dreams of somethingthat would eclipse even the
(13:44):
waffle trainer.
In a matter of weeks, the dreamturned to dust.
The tailwind was a disaster.
Customers were returning theshoes to stores complaining that
they fell apart.
A shoe autopsy revealed theproblem.
Bits of metal in that silverpaint acted like razor blades on
the shoe's upper shredding thefabric.
(14:05):
Half of the first generation oftailwinds ended up in the
recycling bins.
We were devastated, but we'dalso learned a valuable lesson.
Don't put 12 innovations intoone shoe.
just too much for a shoe tocarry and too much for a design
team to pull off, unquote.
And I, I think there's animportant point to highlight
(14:26):
here that's a bit of a build onLoewy's core, Maya principle.
Way Lowe talked about Maya wasalways from a consumer's point
of view, right?
What's gonna be the mostadvanced yet accept acceptable
product for your customers.
in this anecdote, Phil Knighthighlights the extension of Maya
that speaks to the people makingthe product right?
The people behind the product.
Knight says, don't put 12innovations into one shoe.
(14:49):
And I've heard him simplify thiseven further as just saying,
don't try to reinvent the upperand the midsole at the same
time.
Right.
You know, do one or the other,not both.
And in the case of the originaltailwind, the core innovation
was the air.
So unit within the midsole.
So focus on that and let theupper be that more approachable,
more acceptable thing, both foryour customers and for the team,
(15:12):
creating the product.
So I think, um, you know, thelearning here is that the buyer
principle can apply to the wayyou plan your products, both
from a consumer propositionperspective and from an internal
kind of planning perspectiveposition your teams for success.
Um, so Joachim, you hadmentioned that you had heard of
the My principal before.
Joachim (15:34):
Yeah, I didn't realize that I had heard it before.
So I will add a link to thisYouTube video that I'm gonna
reference now, the channel isDesign theory.
I don't know if you'veencountered this one, Ernest.
It's a very good channel.
It's run by John Ello, who's anindustrial designer.
And the video that I watchedyears ago was how a designer
saved Tesla from bankruptcytwice.
(15:56):
Um, and it's about Fon Holsen,the car designer, exterior and
interior car designer for Tesla.
Um, and if you look at, this isall about the model, the initial
version, the first electric carthat Tesla was gonna make.
Um, and it's a super interestingdesign problem because Tesla had
(16:18):
no lineage, so there was nothingthey could lean on.
The nine 11 from Pasha is thenine 11.
That's, that's very rigid andtells you how this thing is
supposed to look.
If you're BMW, you're gonna havea kidney grill.
I mean, many manufacturers canlean on their history to
initiate a design process andget going.
And then again they, it's bakedinto their lineage.
(16:41):
The Maya principle, like this issomething that, you know, and
then we're gonna tweak it..
And so Tesla didn't have any ofthat and so it's, the video
walks us through how heinitially looked at other cars
that were already on the roadand then built off of those for
their familiarity.
And he initially looked at AstonMartin cars from the mid two
(17:03):
thousands.
So if you look at an AstonMartin next to a Model S, the
lineage is very, very clear.
Um, but of course, the Model Shas been stretched out and
conceit, you know, actually upto seven people, I think, right,
with a little rear bench thatthey can add to it.
So they were able to referencesomething that's this two-seater
sports car expanded to a sedan.
So very, very clever design thatrelied on some familiarity.
(17:29):
People had seen the AstonMartins.
I mean, James Bond drove once,so there was already etched in
everyone's consciousness.
Plus he actually did have agrill on the front of the car.
If you recall, the first versionof the Model S actually had that
little oval.
So the car still had a face,which is what design, you know,
car designers talk about thecars having faces.
And so this car had a littleface.
(17:50):
Um, but of course, in lateriterations everyone knows the
model S well now we're gonna dothe model three, which is kind
of a shrunk down s and we'regonna lose the grill'cause we
don't need the grill.
Ernest (18:01):
Right.
Joachim (18:02):
Uh, so again, you're able to iterate through these
various things like the grillcompletely unnecessary, just
there to make you feel familiarto it.
So again, I, I was very struckby that whole thing and I didn't
realize Loy was of course, theoriginator of this Maya
principle.
So very interesting.
And I think electric cars are agood domain right now to see the
(18:24):
Maya principle in action becauseto a certain extent, these cars
have to point to the future.
They have to be futuristic, butthey can't be too crazy
futuristic because people arenot ready for all of that.
Um, and again, I think we'regonna, people are gonna think
we're like Korean carmanufacturer fanboy, but I feel
(18:48):
like Hyundai has really, theydid it in a very similar way
where they took a, a veryfamiliar shape in their
hatchback and then they said,that's gonna be what the
electric car looks like.
But it has this hyper futuristicfeel to it with the pixel, pixel
kind of grid of brake lights.
And the front lights lookdifferent.
(19:08):
Everything is much more modernfeeling, but it has this very
familiar hatchback shape to it.
Um.
It points to the future.
It references the past in justthe right way that it's
familiar.
I think once you know about theMaya principle, you start
realizing like, so many of theproducts that we encounter are
variations on this theme ofsomething that's familiar, but
(19:29):
it is new.
Um, and therefore it makes iteasier for us to consume and,
and adopt.
However, part of me is alsothinking there's a kind of
conservatism inherent in that,right?
That, that bothers me to acertain extent.
And, uh.
I think it, you know, when youstart reading about the Maya
(19:53):
principle, apple gets referenceda lot because they talk about
how the iPhone was thisrevolutionary product in a very
well legible and well understoodform factor, the phone.
And it also referenced manyproducts that they'd already
been making in the form of theiPods.
So they've, you know, they werealready on a journey of making
(20:13):
rectangular, thin, rectangularthings with screens.
Um, so, you know, here's thephone.
It makes sense.
You're almost there.
So people like that, and thenthey always in the same breath
say, and then the Newton was atotal disaster.
And that's why you should haveto, you should adhere to the
Maya principle'cause the mutantwas just so out there and no one
(20:34):
understood what it was.
And, and therefore it failed.
And I found that overlysimplistic.
So I think the Newton could havebeen a success.
I think it was just, there wereso many other factors there.
So just for.
For completeness, you know theNewton is so everyone
understands the Newton wasApple's attempt to make a
(20:56):
personal digital assistant.
Which is a phrase that the, uh,CEO Scully actually coined
himself.
Like PDA was his, uh, his, uh,acronym that he came up with to
describe the Newton.
Um, and it had to fit in hispocket was kind of like the, and
the industrial designers briefand all of these things.
The thing that's interestingabout the development of his,
(21:16):
you realize like this is a greatproduct.
Like it's actually a really,really great product.
It had an open ecosystem thatallowed people to create apps
for it, uh, that they could codein c plus plus natively.
Um, you could beam thoseprograms via infrared into the
computer, uh, into the NewtonWifi.
The protocol that we rely on nowfor wireless internet didn't
(21:38):
exist.
It was gonna get released in 97,so they were ahead there.
They're working within thesetight constraints without the
wifi that we take for grantedtoday.
Um, but they were really pushingthe boundaries.
I think what the undoing of thatproduct was was not.
The lack of Maya principle,because if you look at the
design of it, it's very, theform factor is kind of unusual
(22:00):
because it's exactly like a foamtype of thing.
We didn't have flat phones likethat, but there's a lot of skew,
amorphic UX elements in thatvery recognizable contacts
calendar type setting.
Um, you know, word documents.
All of the usual stuff they, youcould already do on your desktop
computer.
(22:21):
They just had to shove in otherstuff in there.
So, like the hand, uh, the handrecognition pieces was not
ready.
Um, would've been great if itcould have worked.
Um.
So why did they shove everythingin there?
And I think maybe that's the,that is the Maya principle.
It's not that the thing was tooahead of its time.
It was the Phil Night Mayaprinciple.
(22:42):
You shoved too much stuff in atonce.
And not only that, you shovedeverything into one product.
You did it on a timeline thatwas absolutely impossible to hit
the goal that you had set foryourself.
So it turns out I didn't knowthis, that the, the development
of the Newton put so muchpressure on people that they
(23:04):
were having mental healthissues.
This is so bad.
Yeah, it was pretty bad.
So I think, uh, I think it'skind of a lazy thing to say,
like the Newton is the failureof the, you know, the
traditional Maya principle isjust too, mar too new and too
crazy, and the iPhone was justperfect.
I think it's more the Nike andMaya principle at work.
(23:25):
Too many innovations, too muchstuff happening.
Um, all of those things aretotally legible and
understandable, like hand havingyour handwriting be recognized
and converted into, uh, typedcontent.
I think everyone would'veunderstood that we know how to
write with, that's not crazy.
And, uh, they had to alsoinnovate on processor
technology.
(23:46):
Uh, it's probably the only pieceof the Newton that has
persisted, which is this chiparchitecture from ARM that they
still rely on to this day thatstill persists.
So they built that relationshipthen.
Um, so yeah, I think there's a,there's a lot of nuance and
subtlety to the Maya principle.
I feel like it's not just thisconservative thing like
(24:07):
iteratively moving throughsomething.
I like what you were saying,earnest, that it's more this
from the designers and acapacity perspective that you
should be asking yourself.
Wait a minute, can we actuallypull all of this off?
Or is this something that wecould actually phase?
Ernest (24:24):
Right.
Joachim (24:24):
And I wonder to what extent if they had given up on
the Newton with the stylus, ifthey'd said no stylist, but
maybe a small keyboard orsomething along those lines, it
would've been much moresuccessful.
But I do think it, it does comeback to the capacity of, the
producer, which is strangebecause the Maya principle is
always positioned in this veryconsumer centric way.
Um, however, again, reversingwhat I just said.
(24:47):
So I was reading about Loewyand, um, one of the last
projects he worked on was thespace station
Ernest (24:55):
Mm-hmm.
Joachim (24:56):
for nasa.
So for the space station, he wastasked with designing the
internals of this place.
And of course it had to besomewhat familiar.
So exactly that, Maya, likeyou're obviously in orbit around
the earth.
This is completely out of theordinary.
So how do you create anenvironment that is still.
(25:19):
Understandable and legible to ahuman being that they feel
reasonably comfortable despitebeing in zero gravity.
So that very human-centric viewof making it acceptable but
very, very crazy and out thereliterally in outer space is very
interesting.
The thing that he insisted onthat I think is really, really
powerful and I think is theperfect summary of the
(25:40):
principle, is that he insistedthat they put a viewing portal
Ernest (25:44):
Hmm.
Joachim (25:45):
that looked down on earth for the astronauts.
And that is just probably, Idon't know, the most
consequential and powerful thingyou could do for the mental
health of these people is totether them visually back to
earth where they're from, andgive them some sense of
familiarity of what it is, wherethey are and what they're doing,
(26:07):
and that they are human.
Um, so.
That to me is like, that's thehuman-centric version of my
principle, I think is reallygreat.
Like that compassion and empathyfor the person that's hurtling
around the earth and there's nogood reason to have a viewing
portal other than it makes youfeel better that this, the
person inside of this capsulewill feel good about being there
(26:30):
and know that they're doing thisfor the people down there
spinning around on the globe.
So, yeah.
Ernest (26:36):
Oh, that's such a great point.
I'm so glad you brought that upbecause.
Fundamental to Maya, you know,it, it, it stands for most
advanced yet acceptable.
So to be able to achieve that,you have to understand your
customer at,
Joachim (26:51):
Yeah,
Ernest (26:52):
at a intimate level.
And that's such a great pointthat he understood as a human,
you would have this need to havea connection back to your home.
Joachim (27:03):
yeah.
Ernest (27:04):
Uh, and so I'm sure that was a very challenging
engineering problem to solve ofa viewport, a window.
Right.
Uh, but that's amazing that hehad that, that level of
understanding of the humancondition to recognize that that
was essential.
Joachim (27:21):
Yeah.
I, I think to me that embodiesthe, that principle.
It's, it's not that it is aconservative principle, it's a
very human-centric principle.
Like, I think you can, I thinkit's okay to challenge your
customers and your, the peoplearound you.
I mean, art is, does that,right?
Art is all about challengingsomeone.
(27:41):
You're using materials thatsomeone is familiar with and
things that they've seen in somecontext, in another context.
But you're gonna challenge themto do something, but you're
doing that because you are stilltrying to get into their head.
So, and to get into someone'shead requires empathy and
compassion, all these things.
And I feel like when I've seendescriptions of the Maya
principle, it's been very eitherso focused on just being
(28:04):
iterative changes, so it becomesvery bland and not informative.
It doesn't get at the thing thatis, it's fundamentally about the
humanity of it.
And then I think what you areadding to this Es is the, the
capacities feature that I thinkthat is really, really essential
to the other side of it.
It's both pieces that have tocome to play that, yeah.
Ernest (28:20):
You know, one added layer, I think, um, that your
point about Tesla made me thinkof is can also help in terms of.
Um, more of like your long-termproduct planning in that, you
know, for example, um, Tesla,their first product was actually
their first Roadster, which wasactually a, just a re-matched
(28:42):
lotus or re-engineered lotus,uh, with, um, electric
underpinnings instead of an ice,um, engine.
you know, as you mentioned, ascrazy as Musk is at the time, he
was very clever aboutrecognizing kind of this what
would be the most advanced, yetacceptable version of an
(29:05):
electric car that he could bringto market.
And at that point it wasactually something very
impractical.
You know, it was a toy, but forhis audience, he understood his
audience and that's what hisaudience was looking for.
That was the thing that would beacceptable for his audience,
given the state of thetechnology at the time.
I think that.
(29:25):
a really, I think it was a very,you know, again, in hindsight it
seems very obvious, but at thetime it was a very clever thing
to do, um, to recognize thatthat was the right product for
the audience at the time,knowing that eventually he
wanted to take that know how andput it into the model S, which
would get to a little bit morescale and then take that knowhow
(29:47):
and put it into the three, whichgets to even more scale, right?
So it can be a way to help guideyour longer term product
planning and vision as well, by,know, kind of defining this
evolution, in, in a way that'sfundamentally in what your
customer is looking for andwhat's gonna be acceptable to
(30:09):
them, and helping you build fromthat.
Um, another thing that yourTesla example made me think of
is that right around the sametime that the Model S eventually
came to market.
also introduced their first bigEVs in the form of the I three
and the I eight, were very muchthe car example of the tailwind
(30:32):
with, you know, way too manythings going on at once.
and the products were hugely ununsuccessful.
It was, I mean.
Kind of close to the point oftaking the whole company down
because BMW is actually not thatbig of a company and they made a
huge bet on these products.
And both of them were hugefailures.
and you know, by contrast yousee the Model S, which just to
(30:55):
your point, looked like a car,looked like a beautiful car, you
know?
And even to the point of havinga full grill, you know, to give
people that accessible, um,acceptable entry point into an
EV experience.
and you could see to BMW'scredit, they learned from that.
And now, you know, they're backon the front foot of the EV
(31:18):
space.
They're actually one of theleading in that space now, and
it's based on basically makingEVs that look like their ice
cars and vice versa.
Joachim (31:27):
Yeah, I mean that's, they, they look, it's very hard
to tell when, when you'relooking at the internal
combustion engines or theelectric ones.
So, yeah, that, that's kind ofI, and back to my point, I like
of taking a risk and, andpushing things.
I do.
The I threes are so advanced,
Ernest (31:47):
Yeah.
Joachim (31:48):
there's so much going on in there and yeah, they
looked funky and I think theymust have thought they could get
away with it because SMARTexisted, right?
That had a funky, weird shapeand this was just a smarter
version of that.
But it obviously.
They just forgot what peoplewanted out of it.
I don't know.
It's something about, it justdidn't quite hit the mark, but
(32:11):
it, you know, it's still a greatdesign.
Ernest (32:14):
I know I still, I still love them.
I still every so often think,oh, you know, there's good deals
to be had on the use.
I threes,
Joachim (32:21):
Yeah,
Ernest (32:22):
because yeah, it's still remarkable technology.
The carbon fiber reframe.
It's, uh, and oh man, my,actually my car, my mini Cooper
SE is built on that fundamentalEV architecture that was
established in the
Joachim (32:36):
of course.
Yeah.
Ernest (32:37):
so I'm personally still benefiting from it.
Uh, it's just that they missedon the yet acceptable part of
Joachim (32:44):
Yeah.
Ernest (32:45):
principle.
Joachim (32:46):
Yeah.
Ernest (32:47):
one last thing I'll mention, you mentioned the
Newton.
I actually still have anoriginal Newton,
Joachim (32:52):
Whoa.
Whoa.
Ernest (32:54):
it, it, I'm guessing, I haven't broken it out in ages.
I'm guessing the battery'sprobably leaked, so it's
probably broken at this point,but it's still does things that
computers don't do today.
Like you could write in the likenotes app that was kind of at
the core of the operating systemlunch with Joachim at, uh, on
Joachim (33:15):
Hmm.
Ernest (33:15):
and it would, you know, if it was able to actually
translate your writing,
Joachim (33:20):
Yeah.
Ernest (33:20):
understand what you meant.
So it would actually then put ameeting, in your calendar for
Tuesday at 12:00 PM
Joachim (33:30):
Oh, wow.
Ernest (33:31):
and then cite, if you were in my contacts, it would
include a link to your entry.
In my contacts, it's, it wouldautomatically do all that.
Joachim (33:41):
Wow.
Ernest (33:42):
it's so freaking cool, you know?
Joachim (33:44):
That is so cool.
Oh my goodness.
Wow.
Ernest (33:47):
away that we still, our phones still don't really do
that today.
So,
Joachim (33:52):
Yeah.
Ernest (33:54):
but in a, you know, it is in a way also an illustration
of just, they tried to do toomuch, you
Joachim (33:59):
Yeah.
It's very impressive now inhindsight.
Yeah.
Ernest (34:02):
um, you know, they needed to just get the input
mechanism right.
Joachim (34:06):
Yeah.
Ernest (34:06):
Um, to start with and then layer on these other super
cool features on top of it.
But, uh, yeah, it was aincredible device.
And to your point, I do think.
From a hardware perspective, itwas very much that, uh, Maya
device, right?
Joachim (34:21):
Yeah.
Ernest (34:22):
it, it felt like a notepad
Joachim (34:24):
Yes.
Ernest (34:25):
and you interacted with it like a notepad.
Um, and so one last thing I'llmention is I'll include a link
in the show notes to this aswell.
There's a fantastic documentary,I think it's called General
Magic, that talks about thisdevice that followed the Newton
called the General Magic.
A lot of the folks who made itcame from the Newton team, and
(34:47):
they made this device thatactually, um, a lot of the
things that now are, uh, part ofmodern day, um, smartphones.
So they were way ahead of theirtime.
Again, another huge failure,but, um, it, it, I, it's a
really interesting documentary,kind of that, that gives you
(35:09):
some interesting lessons too, asto why it was a failure.
And a lot has to do with justtrying to do too much, um, as
well.
But, uh, uh, uh, a lot of thethings you mentioned definitely
brought up some, interestingthoughts on my end as well.
Joachim (35:24):
Yeah, I, there's so much stuff that is making me
think about Tesla again, andthen the Newton as well.
So I was, as I was doing morereading about Maya, um, I, I, I
will find the, we will link tothis original article, but some
researchers who are in businessschools who talk a lot about
innovation, they're trying tounderstand the innovation
(35:46):
process.
And so there's this paper calledLooking Across and Looking
Beyond the Knowledge Frontier,intellectual Distance, novelty,
and Resource Allocation inScience, long title.
But basically it's, it's anexperiment.
Um, they gathered about, Ithink, um, like.
Evaluators and proposals forscientific research.
(36:08):
So the evaluators are allresearchers and the proposals
are scientific projects.
So this is supposed to mimickind of the how the National
Science Foundation deals withgrant applications and so on.
So you, they had two, like over2000 evaluator and proposal
pairs.
So different combinations of anevaluator and a proposal.
And basically what they find atthe end of this is, oh, they
(36:32):
basically ask each evaluator togive a score to say, do you
think this is, you know, a 10out of 10 or a one out of 10?
What they find is that there's aspecific pattern in the data
that suggests two things.
If a person is a researcher inthe area that they are
evaluating, they will giveharsher scores than someone
(36:53):
who's not.
So that could just be like, theyknow more subtlety or they're
just more gatekeeping.
Right.
That's it's not clear.
Can't really ask them.
They won't tell you the truth.
The other thing that wasinteresting is, so, yeah, so
distance to that subject isrelated to this final score, uh,
(37:13):
but also kind of the novelty.
If something is very novel, theywould also give it a very low
score, so it would be negativelycorrelated, which is really
interesting in science, likethat the scientists would not
value the novelty in and ofitself.
(37:33):
And novelty, of course, youknow, how do you codify novelty
and all those things, but let'sjust take it all for granted
that they have a reasonablemetric for it.
And yeah, so you can, and if youlook at science, it does kind of
progress in these very smallthings.
And if you listen to thespeeches of current Nobel Prize
winner, a lot of them will tellyou, I wouldn't be able to do
this kind of research todaybecause everyone is so
(37:55):
incremental in it.
I would, I sit so far outside ofthe current disciplines, there's
no way for me to do this.
The Maya principle is takingadvantage of something in the
human mind, which is familiaritymeans it's easy for me to access
and easy for me to want to do,use this thing or engage with
something.
Um, but, taken too far becomes abias where you start potentially
(38:18):
there is a chance that ifsomething is too novel, uh, you
just dismiss it out of handbecause you say this is so
different from everything else,so therefore it must not be
good, which is a danger.
Right.
So I feel like another piece inthe toolkit is also just that
keeping in mind, like, I thinkwe'll catch ourselves when we
hear an idea that almost soundslike an idea.
(38:41):
We could have come up withourselves and we go like, Ooh, I
really like that idea.
You know, there's a, there's anelement of that kind of, ah,
that's kind of something I wasthinking about and therefore.
Ernest (38:49):
Right.
Joachim (38:50):
It's a good idea.
Um, but I think we should alsobe embracing kind of like the
anti Maya for when we'reevaluating new ideas because
that evaluation process is stillso early in the process.
Like you should just be veryopen to things.
And then the question is nowback to the Maya principle, how
do I bridge the gap to the otherperson?
(39:10):
What is it that I need to do tomake them understand this thing?
So I feel like that's the otherbroader piece of the picture
that makes Maya work in yourfavor, which is you might have
come up with something massivelygroundbreaking that is very,
very different from everythingelse.
The Maya principle's.
Not telling you don't do that.
It's telling you keep in mindthat the person on the other end
(39:34):
is subject to that need to beinvolved with something
familiar.
So I need to bring you alongwith a journey.
Broken down into these stagesand.
You kind of know where this isgoing.
There's a kind of inevitabilityto where they're going because
they already have this extremeendpoint in mind that they want
to go to, and they're gonna justbring people on for that
(39:56):
journey.
So I feel like that's anotherway to interpret the Maya
principle, which is there aregaps when you're innovating, but
you need to bring someone alongfor the journey so they can
learn and adapt to that thing asit's being developed.
And don't talk down to them.
Bring them along to the journey,which I think comes back to the
(40:16):
compassion thing again, and theempathy of, of a designer with
their customers and the peopleat the end of the day.
Yeah.
Ernest (40:23):
I, I love that.
That's such a great.
An important point to make.
In a way, I feel like maybe the,uh, the guidance is to, to think
about applying Maya at specificpoints your overall product
creation process.
Like, you know, we're talkingabout, it could potentially be
(40:44):
useful if you're at the earlystages of planning your product,
uh, portfolio and you thecadence of, uh, the way you're
updating your products.
Joachim (40:53):
Yeah.
Ernest (40:53):
then in terms of when you're developing sort of those
fundamental technologies thatunderpin those products, leave
that open, right?
Don't, don't kind of put thesetoo many filters on that because
you have to allow those ideas toflourish, right?
Joachim (41:07):
Yeah.
Ernest (41:07):
aren't you were thinking.
then when you're starting to getclose to the market.
You know, then maybe it's thetime to apply it again.
And, you know, really based onthat deep understanding of your
customer, what's gonna makethis, um, uh, approachable for
them and acceptable for them sothat, um, they have an entry
point to it.
Uh, and, and it's, it'ssomething that they can see
(41:30):
fitting into their lives aswell.
I think that's a way to end ourconversation about Maya, our,
or, uh, most advanced, yetacceptable, the Maya principle
that, um, was created by RaymondLoewy.
Um, and, but, you know, reallyending with your point, Heim,
that it's fundamentally rootedin an intimate understanding of
(41:54):
your customer's needs.
I thought your example of the,the Space Station was just such
a great example of that.
but hopefully this is somethingthat you can apply in your, uh,
kind of day-to-day of creatingproducts.
Um, and, you know, we'd love tohear what you think about our
perspectives on this.
(42:14):
If you have any questions, ifyou have any thoughts or follow
ups or corrections, please doget in touch with us at Learn
Make learn@gmail.com or onthreads at Learn, make, learn
show, all one word.
All right, now let's move on toour recommendations of the week
(42:35):
and, um, I can get us started
Joachim (42:36):
Sounds good.
Ernest (42:37):
okay.
Uh, I have a book I'd like torecommend.
I'm still pretty early on inreading it, but it's, it's
really been phenomenal.
So I feel, uh, pretty saferecommending it.
called Apple in China, and it'sby, um, a journalist named
Patrick McGee.
And I was turned onto it by BenThompson of the, uh, of Straty,
(42:58):
of, he runs a website as well asa popular podcast, he's someone
who's perspective I really, uh,respect and he described it as
the best book about Apple everwritten, one of the best books
about China ever written and oneof the best books about tech
period.
So that convinced me to, to it,uh, to get started on it, and it
(43:20):
has been phenomenal.
and, you know, lest you thinkit's just sort of a, a
celebration of Apple.
I'll read, uh, the conclusion tothe book's synopsis from its
publisher, which I believe isSimon and Chu.
So, uh, quote, apple and Chinais the sometimes disturbing and
always revelatory story of howan outspoken, proud company that
(43:43):
once praised Revels andtroublemakers the company that
encouraged us all to thinkdifferent into passively
cooperating with a belligerentregime that increasingly
controls its f its fate unquote.
it's definitely not, uh, aflattering account, uh, but it
is stunning.
(44:03):
Uh, some of the stats in theforward.
the scale of Apple's operationin China.
It's just, it's mind boggling.
You just can't even wrap yourhead around, the scale of
Apple's operation and, and theimpact that they've had, uh, on
China and you know, now as aconsequence that China is having
on the world.
(44:23):
um, I think it's absolutelyworth read if you have any
interest in, um, applecertainly, but also just any
interest in technology and inthe impact of technology on
societies.
So Apple and China by PatrickMcGee.
Joachim (44:38):
The podcast that I follow very regularly called
Hidden Forces, uh, featuredPatrick Bickie recently.
So we'll link to that as well.
Great interview.
Yeah.
Uh, great, great chat.
Really, really interesting.
And again, through theperspective of geopolitics
technology, the broaderimplications of what it means
for Apple to be.
Who they are right now and withwhom they work.
(45:00):
So yeah, fascinating stuff.
So yeah, before we startedrecording, Ernest asked me, do
you have a recommendation?
And I couldn't remember for thelife of me what it was, which is
also why Ernest went first onthe recommendation thing.
So everyone, you're getting thelittle BBTS here.
So it's actually rechargeablebatteries from a company called
(45:22):
EBL, echo, Bravo, Lima, EBL,
Ernest (45:26):
Huh?
Joachim (45:27):
and they sell, Nickel, metal hydride, rechargeable
batteries.
Um, and I think if you know, youknow, back in the day, think
back to when you were.
Using like aa, AA batteries thatwere rechargeable, they would
not last for very long at all.
I mean, they were terriblebatteries.
They wouldn't hold a damn chargeand they would always run out
and take forever to charge.
(45:48):
Um, and recently I was, um, I'vebeen trying to move some of my
music equipment to more batterypower because I just want fewer
cables.
And in fact, my audio interfaceuses four AA batteries.
And so I plugged in justDuracell batteries and of
course, I mean it drained themin no time because it's a very
power hungry beast withmicrophone, preamps and all
(46:12):
kinds of crazy stuff going on.
And I felt so foolish, likethrowing away those batteries
and then grabbing another pack.
So I thought, what is the stateof, uh, rechargeable batteries?
And it turns out EBL is a verygood manufacturer.
They have their own chargers andthey provide.
All kinds aa, AA, nine voltblock batteries and various
(46:33):
classes as well from more likeentry level ones.
I use the EBL 1100, which arejust really great and uh, charge
pretty quickly.
The charger that matches it, ofcourse, has been designed with
those batteries in mind.
Treats them with care, doesn'tcharge them super fast.
So like the whole chargingcycle, um, the way the power
(46:54):
gets fed into the batteries isoptimized for those batteries.
And they last a really greatlong time.
And I've just been slowlyexpanding the batteries that I,
I'm replacing with those.
I mean, uh, TV remote batterieswith AAA haven't had to change
them in at least a year now.
I, I mean, remotes don't use Venvery much either.
And so just knowing that I canrecharge this later on and, and
(47:16):
get another year out of it isvery powerful.
So I recommend this, like if youare in your house, and I mean, I
have small children that havebattery powered toys as well.
That's also another reason touse these.
But if you is finding yourselfusing disposable batteries for,
for various tasks, try an EBLset.
(47:37):
They sell them as packages withcharges and like about 10
batteries, and they're just avery high quality rechargeable
batteries.
So I would fully recommendthose.
And you always need batteries.
So yeah,
Ernest (47:50):
That's so interesting.
Do you know how they get aroundthe memory effect that nickel
metal hydride batteries used tohave?
Joachim (47:57):
I think, I don't know how they got around most of it.
I don't even know if they havegotten around it.
I think it's just a much moredelayed part of it.
I think they just have a, abetter life, life cycle than old
versions of it.
I'm not sure what it is.
I do think that their charger istreating the battery with
greater respect.
(48:18):
So I feel like that's the,that's the secret source, I
think because now we have smallenough microprocesses to be able
to regulate those thingsactively and monitor multiple
signals at the same time.
I was just looking fulldisclosure, wire cutter I think
is where I found these.
And then, um, and I just, youknow, I, I just picked that top
pick and only got like thebattery and the charger and just
(48:42):
thought I'll give it a try andsee what happens.
And I've now accumulated, Ithink I've got 30 of these,
like, and I'm using them invarious settings from very high
draining, uh, environments suchas my audio interface.
And I can get a good, yeah, Imean, if I run that thing full
blast.
10, 12 hours out of it, which isvery surprising.
(49:04):
Yeah.
And that comes from rechargingthem over and over again.
And I'm not very careful, youknow, sometimes I just train
them to death and then they comeback up, it's fine.
So, so far so good.
I've not had to replace any ofthem.
They're holding their chargereasonably well, so I would
yeah, get a, get a small pack.
You can get them in packs offour as well if you don't wanna
fully commit.
(49:25):
Um, but yeah, I'm actually allin right now.
I've got everything.
Yeah.
Ernest (49:29):
that's a great, super useful recommendation.
Thanks for that one.
Joachim (49:32):
Yeah, absolutely guys.
Ernest (49:34):
All right, well, I think that does it for us.
Thank you so much for joining ushere at Learn Make Learn, and as
I mentioned earlier, we want tohear from you.
you have any thoughts onanything we discussed or
recommended this week?
If so, what's your perspective?
Or maybe there's a product orservice you'd love to hear us
focus on through the lens ofproduct marketing, whether it's
(49:54):
a request, a question, or anobservation.
Please do share your thoughtswith us at Learn Make
learn@gmail.com or on threads atLearn Make, learn Show, all one
word.
Thanks for listening and we hopeyou'll join us for the next
Learn.
Make, learn.
Hello and welcome to Learn Make Learn where we share
qualitative and quantitativeperspectives on products to help
you make better.
name is Ernest Kim and I'mjoined by my friend and co-host
Joachim Groeger.
Hey, Joachim, how's it going?
Joachim (00:19):
I'm good.
I'm just coming off a two weekvacation, so I am in a very
happy place.
Well actually like relaxedplace, but now I have to get
back to work, so I don't knowhow I feel about that anymore,
but yeah, it's nice.
The sun is out here in Seattle,so that's good.
Yeah.
How about you, Ernest?
Ernest (00:36):
yeah.
Yeah.
Good, good On my end, actually,um, my wife is away, uh, as of
today visiting her parents.
So, uh, I'm living the bachelorlife, at least, uh, for the next
week and a half.
Uh, me and the cats,
Joachim (00:50):
You and the cats?
Yeah.
Wait, are the, are the cats allboys as well?
Ernest (00:53):
Oh no.
Two boys and one girl.
Joachim (00:55):
Okay.
So kind of a bro fest, but notcompletely.
Ernest (00:57):
Yeah.
it is.
Yeah.
Well.
to today's episode.
This is actually episode 28,and, uh, today we're gonna bring
you our second toolbox episode.
Our first was way back inepisode three, where we
discussed the jobs to be doneapproach to customer centric
product and service innovation.
(01:18):
just as a refresher, the ideabehind these toolbox episodes is
to highlight tools that we hopewill help you in your day-to-day
work of making products.
Today our focus is the Mayaprinciple, was an approach to,
uh, graphic and product designestablished by Raymond Loewy,
who's broadly considered thefigure most responsible for
(01:39):
establishing industrial designas a commercial profession.
But before we dive into Maya, wewanted to share a follow up to
our previous episode.
You wanna dive into that?
Joachim (01:51):
Well, last time we were talking about watches and a
friend and listener had to bragabout his watch that he had just
acquired.
Uh, and, uh, so I said, well,I'll give it a, I'll give it a
shout out.
So it's, uh, watched by thecompany Fortis, F-O-R-T-I-S,
which has been around for, well,well over a hundred years.
(02:13):
They were founded in 1912 or so.
Their history is kind ofinteresting.
They've always been viewed as alower end budget friendly, uh,
watch manufacturer.
But, um, there's someinteresting heritage there.
So well, first self windingwristwatch was made by Fortis.
Yeah.
So, um, the company was foundedby Walter Vogt.
(02:36):
Uh, and then he set upproduction with John Harwood,
who was the inventor of theautomatic wristwatch.
And then he then released thisHarwood Automatic, which was the
first self winding wristwatch,uh, which was introduced in 1926
at Basel World.
Ernest (02:50):
Wow.
Joachim (02:51):
and, uh, yeah, so, which is crazy.
I, I didn't, I didn't realize, Idon't think it's something that
they, they play up very much.
Um.
And they also were one of thefirst manufacturers to work on
getting waterproof, uh,wristwatches.
So, so a lot of firsts from thiscompany.
Um, they also were one of thefirst companies that were
(03:14):
thinking about watches thatcould stand up to extreme
weather conditions, temperaturefluctuations with their space
matters.
Uh, the watch was tested bypeople on the space program, the
US Space program, and then since1994, they've been the official,
uh, watch for the RussianFederal Space Agency.
(03:34):
Um, so also kind of ainteresting connection to space,
kind of like Omega with theirspeed masters.
Um, so I, I just didn't, Ididn't know about this, but
unfortunately they wentbankrupt, uh, in the late two
thou.
Oh, well, late 2010s.
So about almost 10 years ago in2017, they were basically.
(03:59):
Done.
And the company was then takenover by a private investor, uh,
yup.
Philip, JUPP Philip.
And he was just a fan of thebrand and, uh, clearly as a man
of some means, and was able tobuy up the company and, uh,
renamed it for his watches ag asopposed to forties for the, you
(04:22):
know, turning a little bit moreinternational.
And they've relaunched the,their watches.
And so my friend has aMarinemaster, which is of course
everything with masters.
Always gonna be loaded withstuff.
But the watch he showed me is adiving watch, very subtle, very
tastefully done, uh, wearsnicely on the wrist and I was
(04:42):
really impressed with thefinishing on it.
It's a pretty impressive, uh,piece of equipment and it's
about$3,200.
It's a really it functional toolwatch and one that you could
have as your everyday.
If you want something that'smore elevated than just a Casio
or something like that, this isdefinitely a watch.
That's great.
So I think the brand is veryinteresting.
(05:03):
Uh, I would, we'll put a linkinto the website.
The Marine Master is one of manyof their line of watches.
They also, of course make pilotswatches that are really
interesting.
So there's heritage there andvery interesting clean design.
So that aesthetic is very muchjust trying to be.
Tool watches that are notflashy, uh, very wearable and
(05:26):
very usable.
And yeah, I rate the aestheticis, is a pretty, pretty cool
watch when I was holding it inmy hand.
So yeah.
For as a follow up to ourwatches and wonders discussion
about the excesses of luxury,which is exactly what my firm
was talking about, it's like,well, I've got, here's a watch
for you that's not excessive,overpriced,
Ernest (05:43):
Yeah,
Joachim (05:44):
very wearable and very smart looking.
So yeah, Fortis,
Ernest (05:47):
that's great.
I, I've only seen images, but itlooks great in pictures.
I, I, Fortis has been a bit of ablind spot for me, so
Joachim (05:55):
same.
Ernest (05:56):
with it.
So, um, it was great to see thatI.
Joachim (05:59):
Yeah.
Shout out to Ben.
Thank you for sharing.
Ernest (06:02):
That's awesome.
Alright, well now let's get intothe Maya principle.
uh, with a quick backgroundaround the man behind it.
Raymond Loewy, born in Paris in1893.
Loewy immigrated to New York inuh, 1919.
And in a career that spanneddecades, he would come to be
known as the man who shapedAmerica and the father of
(06:25):
industrial design.
am quoting here from a briefbiography from the Museum of
Modern Art in New York.
And, uh, we'll include a link tothe full version in the show
notes.
But, uh, here's their biography.
So quote, firm Raymond LoewyAssociates, was associated with
a steady stream of US designicons, including the cold spot
refrigerator.
(06:45):
Lucky Strike cigarettepackaging, Greyhound Buses,
Studebaker Cars, Coca-Coladispensers, radios, sewing
machines, and RosenthalDinnerware, well as corporate
graphics for Exxon Shell and theUS Postal Service.
This range testified to thepotential impact of industrial
design on the daily lives ofmillions and its power as a
(07:06):
commercial tool.
Loewy understood how essentialpackage design and branding
could be in the success of aproduct or an organization.
In this respect, one of his mostpotent designs was for John f
Kennedy's Air Force One, whichbegan flying in 1962.
His modern and elegant design ofthe plane's delivery transformed
(07:26):
this particular Boeing 7 0 7into an important element of the
Kennedy Administration's globalbrand.
just a quick side note here forme, Loewy's livery continues to
define the appearance of AirForce One to this day.
All right.
Now going back to MoMA'sbiography in his late career,
Loewy was again at the heart ofthe American establishment as a
(07:47):
consultant to nasa his firmproduced more than 3000 designs
for space related products Uh,at the same time, despite
intense rivalry between theAmerican and Soviet Union
superpowers during the height ofthe Cold War, Loewy also
designed prototypes for a rangeof industrial products at the
request of the Soviet State.
The episode demonstrates that asfar as industrial design was
(08:10):
concerned, the Iron Curtain wasmore permeable than the
political rhetoric of the timewould have us believe.
And, and I wanted to share that'cause Low as influential as he
was, you know, called it thefather of, uh, industrial
design, I think is not as wellknown these days as some other
figures like Dieter Rams or, um,you know, more modern figures.
(08:30):
Certainly, like everyone talksabout Johnny Ives.
Joachim (08:32):
Oh yeah.
Ernest (08:33):
Uh, had you heard of Loewy at all?
Joachim (08:36):
I had heard of the Maya principle in passing, but uh,
and then of course as youstarted naming the things you
designed, like yes, intimatelyfamiliar with all these things,
but not the name.
Ernest (08:45):
Right,
Joachim (08:46):
not the name.
Yeah.
Ernest (08:47):
Uh, now speaking of that, so in addition to a link
to this, uh, biography, I just,uh, quoted, also provide a link
to a, a wonderful 60 minutessegment from 1979 provides
visuals of many of Loewy's mosticonic designs and also features
an extended interview with theman he was still alive at the
time.
so, uh, that's definitely a funwatch.
(09:07):
Uh, now as I noted in the intro,the thing we're focusing on
today is the idea that was atthe core of Loewy's approach to
design, which he called the MAYAPrinciple.
explain it, I'm gonna referencean article from a digital design
agency called Visions.
They do a nice job of, uh,providing a synopsis.
Alright, so quote from the sleekdesign of the Greyhound bus to
(09:28):
the iconic Coca-Cola bottle,Loewy's work epitomized
innovation, intertwined withfamiliarity.
Central to his philosophy wasthe MAYA principle.
Most advanced yet acceptable.
concept that has since guideddesigners and marketers in
creating products that pushboundaries while remaining
accessible to the public.
(09:49):
At its core, the MAYA principleis about striking a delicate
balance between novelty andrecognition.
As explained by Derek Thompsonin his book, hit Makers, are
drawn to innovations, but alsocrave a sense of familiarity.
Loewy believed that successfuldesigns seamlessly blend
innovation with elements thatresonate with the consumer's
(10:10):
existing experiences.
Take Apple's iPhone, forinstance.
its groundbreaking capabilities,apple introduced it as a phone,
leveraging familiarity to easeconsumers into a revolutionary
new device.
Each subsequent model broughtincremental changes, maintaining
the balance between advancementand acceptability.
(10:31):
By contrast, Google Glass withits ambitious technology,
struggled to gain acceptance dueto its intrusive and unfamiliar
design.
The lesson here, being ahead ofthe curve doesn't guarantee
success if consumers aren'tready for the leap for product
designers and marketers Applyingthe Maya principle involves
strategic steps, understandingthe audience's, familiarity with
(10:55):
the product, introducinginnovations gradually, and
framing new features within thecontext of user experiences and
needs unquote.
Now, uh, I thought theirreference to the iPhone was a
really interesting one in that,you know, it might seem now that
introducing Multitouch in theiPhone was just.
(11:15):
patently obvious, right?
But within Apple, the conceptwas actually originally
developed for a tablet stylecomputing device.
What would eventually come tomarket as the iPad, but at least
as the story goes well into theprogram, which was code named
Project Purple, Steve Jobsrecognized that Multitouch
technology was a huge departurefrom existing modes of human
(11:36):
computer interaction andtherefore had to be introduced
in a product that would beessential to cons customers'
lives, you know, that they'd getstraight away.
And so, uh, the Project PurpleTeam shifted their focus to a
phone form factor and then therest of the history.
So just to a point, I thinkbuttressing, the vision team's
highlighting of the iPhone asbeing a good example here, um,
(11:58):
of kind of easing people, givingthem that acceptable form
factors for something that wasotherwise very, very innovative.
Um, you know, what might seempatently obvious in hindsight
really was very much an exampleof the, my principle in action.
Um.
You know, ironically, I thinkyou could make the argument that
the failure of Apple's VisionPro, their, um, extended reality
(12:20):
headset is rooted in thecompany's failure to apply the
Mya principle.
Uh, and then by contrast, I'dsay you could argue that meta by
leveraging people's familifamiliarity with existing
eyewear form factors,specifically Ray Van Sunglasses
has found much greater successin the still nascent spatial
computing space.
now, you know, that's all in thetech world.
(12:41):
I can also set an example herefrom the world of footwear.
Um, and this is something we'veactually highlighted in the
past, but I think it's worthtouching on again, because it's
so germane to topic.
It comes from an anecdote thatPhil Knight shared in his
memoir, shoe Dog that waspublished back in 2016, now I'm
quoting Phil Knight here, aformer aerospace engineer.
(13:02):
M.
Frank Rudy came into the officewith his partner Bob Bogart, and
pitched their crazy idea, airinto a running shoe.
It sounded like something out ofa comic book, but Rudy was
persistent.
Finally, I agreed to stuff oneof his air souls into my own
shoes and go for a run.
Six miles later, I was convincedand Rudy began working on
(13:24):
prototypes for what became theNike Air.
In late 1978, we launched theTailwind, shiny silver shoe
stuffed full of a dozeninnovations, including Rudy's
patented aerosols.
We hyped this thing to theheavens with, with a splashy ad
campaign and dreams of somethingthat would eclipse even the
(13:44):
waffle trainer.
In a matter of weeks, the dreamturned to dust.
The tailwind was a disaster.
Customers were returning theshoes to stores complaining that
they fell apart.
A shoe autopsy revealed theproblem.
Bits of metal in that silverpaint acted like razor blades on
the shoe's upper shredding thefabric.
(14:05):
Half of the first generation oftailwinds ended up in the
recycling bins.
We were devastated, but we'dalso learned a valuable lesson.
Don't put 12 innovations intoone shoe.
just too much for a shoe tocarry and too much for a design
team to pull off, unquote.
And I, I think there's animportant point to highlight
(14:26):
here that's a bit of a build onLoewy's core, Maya principle.
Way Lowe talked about Maya wasalways from a consumer's point
of view, right?
What's gonna be the mostadvanced yet accept acceptable
product for your customers.
in this anecdote, Phil Knighthighlights the extension of Maya
that speaks to the people makingthe product right?
The people behind the product.
Knight says, don't put 12innovations into one shoe.
(14:49):
And I've heard him simplify thiseven further as just saying,
don't try to reinvent the upperand the midsole at the same
time.
Right.
You know, do one or the other,not both.
And in the case of the originaltailwind, the core innovation
was the air.
So unit within the midsole.
So focus on that and let theupper be that more approachable,
more acceptable thing, both foryour customers and for the team,
(15:12):
creating the product.
So I think, um, you know, thelearning here is that the buyer
principle can apply to the wayyou plan your products, both
from a consumer propositionperspective and from an internal
kind of planning perspectiveposition your teams for success.
Um, so Joachim, you hadmentioned that you had heard of
the My principal before.
Joachim (15:34):
Yeah, I didn't realize that I had heard it before.
So I will add a link to thisYouTube video that I'm gonna
reference now, the channel isDesign theory.
I don't know if you'veencountered this one, Ernest.
It's a very good channel.
It's run by John Ello, who's anindustrial designer.
And the video that I watchedyears ago was how a designer
saved Tesla from bankruptcytwice.
(15:56):
Um, and it's about Fon Holsen,the car designer, exterior and
interior car designer for Tesla.
Um, and if you look at, this isall about the model, the initial
version, the first electric carthat Tesla was gonna make.
Um, and it's a super interestingdesign problem because Tesla had
(16:18):
no lineage, so there was nothingthey could lean on.
The nine 11 from Pasha is thenine 11.
That's, that's very rigid andtells you how this thing is
supposed to look.
If you're BMW, you're gonna havea kidney grill.
I mean, many manufacturers canlean on their history to
initiate a design process andget going.
And then again they, it's bakedinto their lineage.
(16:41):
The Maya principle, like this issomething that, you know, and
then we're gonna tweak it..
And so Tesla didn't have any ofthat and so it's, the video
walks us through how heinitially looked at other cars
that were already on the roadand then built off of those for
their familiarity.
And he initially looked at AstonMartin cars from the mid two
(17:03):
thousands.
So if you look at an AstonMartin next to a Model S, the
lineage is very, very clear.
Um, but of course, the Model Shas been stretched out and
conceit, you know, actually upto seven people, I think, right,
with a little rear bench thatthey can add to it.
So they were able to referencesomething that's this two-seater
sports car expanded to a sedan.
So very, very clever design thatrelied on some familiarity.
(17:29):
People had seen the AstonMartins.
I mean, James Bond drove once,so there was already etched in
everyone's consciousness.
Plus he actually did have agrill on the front of the car.
If you recall, the first versionof the Model S actually had that
little oval.
So the car still had a face,which is what design, you know,
car designers talk about thecars having faces.
And so this car had a littleface.
(17:50):
Um, but of course, in lateriterations everyone knows the
model S well now we're gonna dothe model three, which is kind
of a shrunk down s and we'regonna lose the grill'cause we
don't need the grill.
Ernest (18:01):
Right.
Joachim (18:02):
Uh, so again, you're able to iterate through these
various things like the grillcompletely unnecessary, just
there to make you feel familiarto it.
So again, I, I was very struckby that whole thing and I didn't
realize Loy was of course, theoriginator of this Maya
principle.
So very interesting.
And I think electric cars are agood domain right now to see the
(18:24):
Maya principle in action becauseto a certain extent, these cars
have to point to the future.
They have to be futuristic, butthey can't be too crazy
futuristic because people arenot ready for all of that.
Um, and again, I think we'regonna, people are gonna think
we're like Korean carmanufacturer fanboy, but I feel
(18:48):
like Hyundai has really, theydid it in a very similar way
where they took a, a veryfamiliar shape in their
hatchback and then they said,that's gonna be what the
electric car looks like.
But it has this hyper futuristicfeel to it with the pixel, pixel
kind of grid of brake lights.
And the front lights lookdifferent.
(19:08):
Everything is much more modernfeeling, but it has this very
familiar hatchback shape to it.
Um.
It points to the future.
It references the past in justthe right way that it's
familiar.
I think once you know about theMaya principle, you start
realizing like, so many of theproducts that we encounter are
variations on this theme ofsomething that's familiar, but
(19:29):
it is new.
Um, and therefore it makes iteasier for us to consume and,
and adopt.
However, part of me is alsothinking there's a kind of
conservatism inherent in that,right?
That, that bothers me to acertain extent.
And, uh.
I think it, you know, when youstart reading about the Maya
(19:53):
principle, apple gets referenceda lot because they talk about
how the iPhone was thisrevolutionary product in a very
well legible and well understoodform factor, the phone.
And it also referenced manyproducts that they'd already
been making in the form of theiPods.
So they've, you know, they werealready on a journey of making
(20:13):
rectangular, thin, rectangularthings with screens.
Um, so, you know, here's thephone.
It makes sense.
You're almost there.
So people like that, and thenthey always in the same breath
say, and then the Newton was atotal disaster.
And that's why you should haveto, you should adhere to the
Maya principle'cause the mutantwas just so out there and no one
(20:34):
understood what it was.
And, and therefore it failed.
And I found that overlysimplistic.
So I think the Newton could havebeen a success.
I think it was just, there wereso many other factors there.
So just for.
For completeness, you know theNewton is so everyone
understands the Newton wasApple's attempt to make a
(20:56):
personal digital assistant.
Which is a phrase that the, uh,CEO Scully actually coined
himself.
Like PDA was his, uh, his, uh,acronym that he came up with to
describe the Newton.
Um, and it had to fit in hispocket was kind of like the, and
the industrial designers briefand all of these things.
The thing that's interestingabout the development of his,
(21:16):
you realize like this is a greatproduct.
Like it's actually a really,really great product.
It had an open ecosystem thatallowed people to create apps
for it, uh, that they could codein c plus plus natively.
Um, you could beam thoseprograms via infrared into the
computer, uh, into the NewtonWifi.
The protocol that we rely on nowfor wireless internet didn't
(21:38):
exist.
It was gonna get released in 97,so they were ahead there.
They're working within thesetight constraints without the
wifi that we take for grantedtoday.
Um, but they were really pushingthe boundaries.
I think what the undoing of thatproduct was was not.
The lack of Maya principle,because if you look at the
design of it, it's very, theform factor is kind of unusual
(22:00):
because it's exactly like a foamtype of thing.
We didn't have flat phones likethat, but there's a lot of skew,
amorphic UX elements in thatvery recognizable contacts
calendar type setting.
Um, you know, word documents.
All of the usual stuff they, youcould already do on your desktop
computer.
(22:21):
They just had to shove in otherstuff in there.
So, like the hand, uh, the handrecognition pieces was not
ready.
Um, would've been great if itcould have worked.
Um.
So why did they shove everythingin there?
And I think maybe that's the,that is the Maya principle.
It's not that the thing was tooahead of its time.
It was the Phil Night Mayaprinciple.
(22:42):
You shoved too much stuff in atonce.
And not only that, you shovedeverything into one product.
You did it on a timeline thatwas absolutely impossible to hit
the goal that you had set foryourself.
So it turns out I didn't knowthis, that the, the development
of the Newton put so muchpressure on people that they
(23:04):
were having mental healthissues.
This is so bad.
Yeah, it was pretty bad.
So I think, uh, I think it'skind of a lazy thing to say,
like the Newton is the failureof the, you know, the
traditional Maya principle isjust too, mar too new and too
crazy, and the iPhone was justperfect.
I think it's more the Nike andMaya principle at work.
(23:25):
Too many innovations, too muchstuff happening.
Um, all of those things aretotally legible and
understandable, like hand havingyour handwriting be recognized
and converted into, uh, typedcontent.
I think everyone would'veunderstood that we know how to
write with, that's not crazy.
And, uh, they had to alsoinnovate on processor
technology.
(23:46):
Uh, it's probably the only pieceof the Newton that has
persisted, which is this chiparchitecture from ARM that they
still rely on to this day thatstill persists.
So they built that relationshipthen.
Um, so yeah, I think there's a,there's a lot of nuance and
subtlety to the Maya principle.
I feel like it's not just thisconservative thing like
(24:07):
iteratively moving throughsomething.
I like what you were saying,earnest, that it's more this
from the designers and acapacity perspective that you
should be asking yourself.
Wait a minute, can we actuallypull all of this off?
Or is this something that wecould actually phase?
Ernest (24:24):
Right.
Joachim (24:24):
And I wonder to what extent if they had given up on
the Newton with the stylus, ifthey'd said no stylist, but
maybe a small keyboard orsomething along those lines, it
would've been much moresuccessful.
But I do think it, it does comeback to the capacity of, the
producer, which is strangebecause the Maya principle is
always positioned in this veryconsumer centric way.
Um, however, again, reversingwhat I just said.
(24:47):
So I was reading about Loewyand, um, one of the last
projects he worked on was thespace station
Ernest (24:55):
Mm-hmm.
Joachim (24:56):
for nasa.
So for the space station, he wastasked with designing the
internals of this place.
And of course it had to besomewhat familiar.
So exactly that, Maya, likeyou're obviously in orbit around
the earth.
This is completely out of theordinary.
So how do you create anenvironment that is still.
(25:19):
Understandable and legible to ahuman being that they feel
reasonably comfortable despitebeing in zero gravity.
So that very human-centric viewof making it acceptable but
very, very crazy and out thereliterally in outer space is very
interesting.
The thing that he insisted onthat I think is really, really
powerful and I think is theperfect summary of the
(25:40):
principle, is that he insistedthat they put a viewing portal
Ernest (25:44):
Hmm.
Joachim (25:45):
that looked down on earth for the astronauts.
And that is just probably, Idon't know, the most
consequential and powerful thingyou could do for the mental
health of these people is totether them visually back to
earth where they're from, andgive them some sense of
familiarity of what it is, wherethey are and what they're doing,
(26:07):
and that they are human.
Um, so.
That to me is like, that's thehuman-centric version of my
principle, I think is reallygreat.
Like that compassion and empathyfor the person that's hurtling
around the earth and there's nogood reason to have a viewing
portal other than it makes youfeel better that this, the
person inside of this capsulewill feel good about being there
(26:30):
and know that they're doing thisfor the people down there
spinning around on the globe.
So, yeah.
Ernest (26:36):
Oh, that's such a great point.
I'm so glad you brought that upbecause.
Fundamental to Maya, you know,it, it, it stands for most
advanced yet acceptable.
So to be able to achieve that,you have to understand your
customer at,
Joachim (26:51):
Yeah,
Ernest (26:52):
at a intimate level.
And that's such a great pointthat he understood as a human,
you would have this need to havea connection back to your home.
Joachim (27:03):
yeah.
Ernest (27:04):
Uh, and so I'm sure that was a very challenging
engineering problem to solve ofa viewport, a window.
Right.
Uh, but that's amazing that hehad that, that level of
understanding of the humancondition to recognize that that
was essential.
Joachim (27:21):
Yeah.
I, I think to me that embodiesthe, that principle.
It's, it's not that it is aconservative principle, it's a
very human-centric principle.
Like, I think you can, I thinkit's okay to challenge your
customers and your, the peoplearound you.
I mean, art is, does that,right?
Art is all about challengingsomeone.
(27:41):
You're using materials thatsomeone is familiar with and
things that they've seen in somecontext, in another context.
But you're gonna challenge themto do something, but you're
doing that because you are stilltrying to get into their head.
So, and to get into someone'shead requires empathy and
compassion, all these things.
And I feel like when I've seendescriptions of the Maya
principle, it's been very eitherso focused on just being
(28:04):
iterative changes, so it becomesvery bland and not informative.
It doesn't get at the thing thatis, it's fundamentally about the
humanity of it.
And then I think what you areadding to this Es is the, the
capacities feature that I thinkthat is really, really essential
to the other side of it.
It's both pieces that have tocome to play that, yeah.
Ernest (28:20):
You know, one added layer, I think, um, that your
point about Tesla made me thinkof is can also help in terms of.
Um, more of like your long-termproduct planning in that, you
know, for example, um, Tesla,their first product was actually
their first Roadster, which wasactually a, just a re-matched
(28:42):
lotus or re-engineered lotus,uh, with, um, electric
underpinnings instead of an ice,um, engine.
you know, as you mentioned, ascrazy as Musk is at the time, he
was very clever aboutrecognizing kind of this what
would be the most advanced, yetacceptable version of an
(29:05):
electric car that he could bringto market.
And at that point it wasactually something very
impractical.
You know, it was a toy, but forhis audience, he understood his
audience and that's what hisaudience was looking for.
That was the thing that would beacceptable for his audience,
given the state of thetechnology at the time.
I think that.
(29:25):
a really, I think it was a very,you know, again, in hindsight it
seems very obvious, but at thetime it was a very clever thing
to do, um, to recognize thatthat was the right product for
the audience at the time,knowing that eventually he
wanted to take that know how andput it into the model S, which
would get to a little bit morescale and then take that knowhow
(29:47):
and put it into the three, whichgets to even more scale, right?
So it can be a way to help guideyour longer term product
planning and vision as well, by,know, kind of defining this
evolution, in, in a way that'sfundamentally in what your
customer is looking for andwhat's gonna be acceptable to
(30:09):
them, and helping you build fromthat.
Um, another thing that yourTesla example made me think of
is that right around the sametime that the Model S eventually
came to market.
also introduced their first bigEVs in the form of the I three
and the I eight, were very muchthe car example of the tailwind
(30:32):
with, you know, way too manythings going on at once.
and the products were hugely ununsuccessful.
It was, I mean.
Kind of close to the point oftaking the whole company down
because BMW is actually not thatbig of a company and they made a
huge bet on these products.
And both of them were hugefailures.
and you know, by contrast yousee the Model S, which just to
(30:55):
your point, looked like a car,looked like a beautiful car, you
know?
And even to the point of havinga full grill, you know, to give
people that accessible, um,acceptable entry point into an
EV experience.
and you could see to BMW'scredit, they learned from that.
And now, you know, they're backon the front foot of the EV
(31:18):
space.
They're actually one of theleading in that space now, and
it's based on basically makingEVs that look like their ice
cars and vice versa.
Joachim (31:27):
Yeah, I mean that's, they, they look, it's very hard
to tell when, when you'relooking at the internal
combustion engines or theelectric ones.
So, yeah, that, that's kind ofI, and back to my point, I like
of taking a risk and, andpushing things.
I do.
The I threes are so advanced,
Ernest (31:47):
Yeah.
Joachim (31:48):
there's so much going on in there and yeah, they
looked funky and I think theymust have thought they could get
away with it because SMARTexisted, right?
That had a funky, weird shapeand this was just a smarter
version of that.
But it obviously.
They just forgot what peoplewanted out of it.
I don't know.
It's something about, it justdidn't quite hit the mark, but
(32:11):
it, you know, it's still a greatdesign.
Ernest (32:14):
I know I still, I still love them.
I still every so often think,oh, you know, there's good deals
to be had on the use.
I threes,
Joachim (32:21):
Yeah,
Ernest (32:22):
because yeah, it's still remarkable technology.
The carbon fiber reframe.
It's, uh, and oh man, my,actually my car, my mini Cooper
SE is built on that fundamentalEV architecture that was
established in the
Joachim (32:36):
of course.
Yeah.
Ernest (32:37):
so I'm personally still benefiting from it.
Uh, it's just that they missedon the yet acceptable part of
Joachim (32:44):
Yeah.
Ernest (32:45):
principle.
Joachim (32:46):
Yeah.
Ernest (32:47):
one last thing I'll mention, you mentioned the
Newton.
I actually still have anoriginal Newton,
Joachim (32:52):
Whoa.
Whoa.
Ernest (32:54):
it, it, I'm guessing, I haven't broken it out in ages.
I'm guessing the battery'sprobably leaked, so it's
probably broken at this point,but it's still does things that
computers don't do today.
Like you could write in the likenotes app that was kind of at
the core of the operating systemlunch with Joachim at, uh, on
Joachim (33:15):
Hmm.
Ernest (33:15):
and it would, you know, if it was able to actually
translate your writing,
Joachim (33:20):
Yeah.
Ernest (33:20):
understand what you meant.
So it would actually then put ameeting, in your calendar for
Tuesday at 12:00 PM
Joachim (33:30):
Oh, wow.
Ernest (33:31):
and then cite, if you were in my contacts, it would
include a link to your entry.
In my contacts, it's, it wouldautomatically do all that.
Joachim (33:41):
Wow.
Ernest (33:42):
it's so freaking cool, you know?
Joachim (33:44):
That is so cool.
Oh my goodness.
Wow.
Ernest (33:47):
away that we still, our phones still don't really do
that today.
So,
Joachim (33:52):
Yeah.
Ernest (33:54):
but in a, you know, it is in a way also an illustration
of just, they tried to do toomuch, you
Joachim (33:59):
Yeah.
It's very impressive now inhindsight.
Yeah.
Ernest (34:02):
um, you know, they needed to just get the input
mechanism right.
Joachim (34:06):
Yeah.
Ernest (34:06):
Um, to start with and then layer on these other super
cool features on top of it.
But, uh, yeah, it was aincredible device.
And to your point, I do think.
From a hardware perspective, itwas very much that, uh, Maya
device, right?
Joachim (34:21):
Yeah.
Ernest (34:22):
it, it felt like a notepad
Joachim (34:24):
Yes.
Ernest (34:25):
and you interacted with it like a notepad.
Um, and so one last thing I'llmention is I'll include a link
in the show notes to this aswell.
There's a fantastic documentary,I think it's called General
Magic, that talks about thisdevice that followed the Newton
called the General Magic.
A lot of the folks who made itcame from the Newton team, and
(34:47):
they made this device thatactually, um, a lot of the
things that now are, uh, part ofmodern day, um, smartphones.
So they were way ahead of theirtime.
Again, another huge failure,but, um, it, it, I, it's a
really interesting documentary,kind of that, that gives you
(35:09):
some interesting lessons too, asto why it was a failure.
And a lot has to do with justtrying to do too much, um, as
well.
But, uh, uh, uh, a lot of thethings you mentioned definitely
brought up some, interestingthoughts on my end as well.
Joachim (35:24):
Yeah, I, there's so much stuff that is making me
think about Tesla again, andthen the Newton as well.
So I was, as I was doing morereading about Maya, um, I, I, I
will find the, we will link tothis original article, but some
researchers who are in businessschools who talk a lot about
innovation, they're trying tounderstand the innovation
(35:46):
process.
And so there's this paper calledLooking Across and Looking
Beyond the Knowledge Frontier,intellectual Distance, novelty,
and Resource Allocation inScience, long title.
But basically it's, it's anexperiment.
Um, they gathered about, Ithink, um, like.
Evaluators and proposals forscientific research.
(36:08):
So the evaluators are allresearchers and the proposals
are scientific projects.
So this is supposed to mimickind of the how the National
Science Foundation deals withgrant applications and so on.
So you, they had two, like over2000 evaluator and proposal
pairs.
So different combinations of anevaluator and a proposal.
And basically what they find atthe end of this is, oh, they
(36:32):
basically ask each evaluator togive a score to say, do you
think this is, you know, a 10out of 10 or a one out of 10?
What they find is that there's aspecific pattern in the data
that suggests two things.
If a person is a researcher inthe area that they are
evaluating, they will giveharsher scores than someone
(36:53):
who's not.
So that could just be like, theyknow more subtlety or they're
just more gatekeeping.
Right.
That's it's not clear.
Can't really ask them.
They won't tell you the truth.
The other thing that wasinteresting is, so, yeah, so
distance to that subject isrelated to this final score, uh,
(37:13):
but also kind of the novelty.
If something is very novel, theywould also give it a very low
score, so it would be negativelycorrelated, which is really
interesting in science, likethat the scientists would not
value the novelty in and ofitself.
(37:33):
And novelty, of course, youknow, how do you codify novelty
and all those things, but let'sjust take it all for granted
that they have a reasonablemetric for it.
And yeah, so you can, and if youlook at science, it does kind of
progress in these very smallthings.
And if you listen to thespeeches of current Nobel Prize
winner, a lot of them will tellyou, I wouldn't be able to do
this kind of research todaybecause everyone is so
(37:55):
incremental in it.
I would, I sit so far outside ofthe current disciplines, there's
no way for me to do this.
The Maya principle is takingadvantage of something in the
human mind, which is familiaritymeans it's easy for me to access
and easy for me to want to do,use this thing or engage with
something.
Um, but, taken too far becomes abias where you start potentially
(38:18):
there is a chance that ifsomething is too novel, uh, you
just dismiss it out of handbecause you say this is so
different from everything else,so therefore it must not be
good, which is a danger.
Right.
So I feel like another piece inthe toolkit is also just that
keeping in mind, like, I thinkwe'll catch ourselves when we
hear an idea that almost soundslike an idea.
(38:41):
We could have come up withourselves and we go like, Ooh, I
really like that idea.
You know, there's a, there's anelement of that kind of, ah,
that's kind of something I wasthinking about and therefore.
Ernest (38:49):
Right.
Joachim (38:50):
It's a good idea.
Um, but I think we should alsobe embracing kind of like the
anti Maya for when we'reevaluating new ideas because
that evaluation process is stillso early in the process.
Like you should just be veryopen to things.
And then the question is nowback to the Maya principle, how
do I bridge the gap to the otherperson?
(39:10):
What is it that I need to do tomake them understand this thing?
So I feel like that's the otherbroader piece of the picture
that makes Maya work in yourfavor, which is you might have
come up with something massivelygroundbreaking that is very,
very different from everythingelse.
The Maya principle's.
Not telling you don't do that.
It's telling you keep in mindthat the person on the other end
(39:34):
is subject to that need to beinvolved with something
familiar.
So I need to bring you alongwith a journey.
Broken down into these stagesand.
You kind of know where this isgoing.
There's a kind of inevitabilityto where they're going because
they already have this extremeendpoint in mind that they want
to go to, and they're gonna justbring people on for that
(39:56):
journey.
So I feel like that's anotherway to interpret the Maya
principle, which is there aregaps when you're innovating, but
you need to bring someone alongfor the journey so they can
learn and adapt to that thing asit's being developed.
And don't talk down to them.
Bring them along to the journey,which I think comes back to the
(40:16):
compassion thing again, and theempathy of, of a designer with
their customers and the peopleat the end of the day.
Yeah.
Ernest (40:23):
I, I love that.
That's such a great.
An important point to make.
In a way, I feel like maybe the,uh, the guidance is to, to think
about applying Maya at specificpoints your overall product
creation process.
Like, you know, we're talkingabout, it could potentially be
(40:44):
useful if you're at the earlystages of planning your product,
uh, portfolio and you thecadence of, uh, the way you're
updating your products.
Joachim (40:53):
Yeah.
Ernest (40:53):
then in terms of when you're developing sort of those
fundamental technologies thatunderpin those products, leave
that open, right?
Don't, don't kind of put thesetoo many filters on that because
you have to allow those ideas toflourish, right?
Joachim (41:07):
Yeah.
Ernest (41:07):
aren't you were thinking.
then when you're starting to getclose to the market.
You know, then maybe it's thetime to apply it again.
And, you know, really based onthat deep understanding of your
customer, what's gonna makethis, um, uh, approachable for
them and acceptable for them sothat, um, they have an entry
point to it.
Uh, and, and it's, it'ssomething that they can see
(41:30):
fitting into their lives aswell.
I think that's a way to end ourconversation about Maya, our,
or, uh, most advanced, yetacceptable, the Maya principle
that, um, was created by RaymondLoewy.
Um, and, but, you know, reallyending with your point, Heim,
that it's fundamentally rootedin an intimate understanding of
(41:54):
your customer's needs.
I thought your example of the,the Space Station was just such
a great example of that.
but hopefully this is somethingthat you can apply in your, uh,
kind of day-to-day of creatingproducts.
Um, and, you know, we'd love tohear what you think about our
perspectives on this.
(42:14):
If you have any questions, ifyou have any thoughts or follow
ups or corrections, please doget in touch with us at Learn
Make learn@gmail.com or onthreads at Learn, make, learn
show, all one word.
All right, now let's move on toour recommendations of the week
(42:35):
and, um, I can get us started
Joachim (42:36):
Sounds good.
Ernest (42:37):
okay.
Uh, I have a book I'd like torecommend.
I'm still pretty early on inreading it, but it's, it's
really been phenomenal.
So I feel, uh, pretty saferecommending it.
called Apple in China, and it'sby, um, a journalist named
Patrick McGee.
And I was turned onto it by BenThompson of the, uh, of Straty,
(42:58):
of, he runs a website as well asa popular podcast, he's someone
who's perspective I really, uh,respect and he described it as
the best book about Apple everwritten, one of the best books
about China ever written and oneof the best books about tech
period.
So that convinced me to, to it,uh, to get started on it, and it
(43:20):
has been phenomenal.
and, you know, lest you thinkit's just sort of a, a
celebration of Apple.
I'll read, uh, the conclusion tothe book's synopsis from its
publisher, which I believe isSimon and Chu.
So, uh, quote, apple and Chinais the sometimes disturbing and
always revelatory story of howan outspoken, proud company that
(43:43):
once praised Revels andtroublemakers the company that
encouraged us all to thinkdifferent into passively
cooperating with a belligerentregime that increasingly
controls its f its fate unquote.
it's definitely not, uh, aflattering account, uh, but it
is stunning.
(44:03):
Uh, some of the stats in theforward.
the scale of Apple's operationin China.
It's just, it's mind boggling.
You just can't even wrap yourhead around, the scale of
Apple's operation and, and theimpact that they've had, uh, on
China and you know, now as aconsequence that China is having
on the world.
(44:23):
um, I think it's absolutelyworth read if you have any
interest in, um, applecertainly, but also just any
interest in technology and inthe impact of technology on
societies.
So Apple and China by PatrickMcGee.
Joachim (44:38):
The podcast that I follow very regularly called
Hidden Forces, uh, featuredPatrick Bickie recently.
So we'll link to that as well.
Great interview.
Yeah.
Uh, great, great chat.
Really, really interesting.
And again, through theperspective of geopolitics
technology, the broaderimplications of what it means
for Apple to be.
Who they are right now and withwhom they work.
(45:00):
So yeah, fascinating stuff.
So yeah, before we startedrecording, Ernest asked me, do
you have a recommendation?
And I couldn't remember for thelife of me what it was, which is
also why Ernest went first onthe recommendation thing.
So everyone, you're getting thelittle BBTS here.
So it's actually rechargeablebatteries from a company called
(45:22):
EBL, echo, Bravo, Lima, EBL,
Ernest (45:26):
Huh?
Joachim (45:27):
and they sell, Nickel, metal hydride, rechargeable
batteries.
Um, and I think if you know, youknow, back in the day, think
back to when you were.
Using like aa, AA batteries thatwere rechargeable, they would
not last for very long at all.
I mean, they were terriblebatteries.
They wouldn't hold a damn chargeand they would always run out
and take forever to charge.
(45:48):
Um, and recently I was, um, I'vebeen trying to move some of my
music equipment to more batterypower because I just want fewer
cables.
And in fact, my audio interfaceuses four AA batteries.
And so I plugged in justDuracell batteries and of
course, I mean it drained themin no time because it's a very
power hungry beast withmicrophone, preamps and all
(46:12):
kinds of crazy stuff going on.
And I felt so foolish, likethrowing away those batteries
and then grabbing another pack.
So I thought, what is the stateof, uh, rechargeable batteries?
And it turns out EBL is a verygood manufacturer.
They have their own chargers andthey provide.
All kinds aa, AA, nine voltblock batteries and various
(46:33):
classes as well from more likeentry level ones.
I use the EBL 1100, which arejust really great and uh, charge
pretty quickly.
The charger that matches it, ofcourse, has been designed with
those batteries in mind.
Treats them with care, doesn'tcharge them super fast.
So like the whole chargingcycle, um, the way the power
(46:54):
gets fed into the batteries isoptimized for those batteries.
And they last a really greatlong time.
And I've just been slowlyexpanding the batteries that I,
I'm replacing with those.
I mean, uh, TV remote batterieswith AAA haven't had to change
them in at least a year now.
I, I mean, remotes don't use Venvery much either.
And so just knowing that I canrecharge this later on and, and
(47:16):
get another year out of it isvery powerful.
So I recommend this, like if youare in your house, and I mean, I
have small children that havebattery powered toys as well.
That's also another reason touse these.
But if you is finding yourselfusing disposable batteries for,
for various tasks, try an EBLset.
(47:37):
They sell them as packages withcharges and like about 10
batteries, and they're just avery high quality rechargeable
batteries.
So I would fully recommendthose.
And you always need batteries.
So yeah,
Ernest (47:50):
That's so interesting.
Do you know how they get aroundthe memory effect that nickel
metal hydride batteries used tohave?
Joachim (47:57):
I think, I don't know how they got around most of it.
I don't even know if they havegotten around it.
I think it's just a much moredelayed part of it.
I think they just have a, abetter life, life cycle than old
versions of it.
I'm not sure what it is.
I do think that their charger istreating the battery with
greater respect.
(48:18):
So I feel like that's the,that's the secret source, I
think because now we have smallenough microprocesses to be able
to regulate those thingsactively and monitor multiple
signals at the same time.
I was just looking fulldisclosure, wire cutter I think
is where I found these.
And then, um, and I just, youknow, I, I just picked that top
pick and only got like thebattery and the charger and just
(48:42):
thought I'll give it a try andsee what happens.
And I've now accumulated, Ithink I've got 30 of these,
like, and I'm using them invarious settings from very high
draining, uh, environments suchas my audio interface.
And I can get a good, yeah, Imean, if I run that thing full
blast.
10, 12 hours out of it, which isvery surprising.
(49:04):
Yeah.
And that comes from rechargingthem over and over again.
And I'm not very careful, youknow, sometimes I just train
them to death and then they comeback up, it's fine.
So, so far so good.
I've not had to replace any ofthem.
They're holding their chargereasonably well, so I would
yeah, get a, get a small pack.
You can get them in packs offour as well if you don't wanna
fully commit.
(49:25):
Um, but yeah, I'm actually allin right now.
I've got everything.
Yeah.
Ernest (49:29):
that's a great, super useful recommendation.
Thanks for that one.
Joachim (49:32):
Yeah, absolutely guys.
Ernest (49:34):
All right, well, I think that does it for us.
Thank you so much for joining ushere at Learn Make Learn, and as
I mentioned earlier, we want tohear from you.
you have any thoughts onanything we discussed or
recommended this week?
If so, what's your perspective?
Or maybe there's a product orservice you'd love to hear us
focus on through the lens ofproduct marketing, whether it's
(49:54):
a request, a question, or anobservation.
Please do share your thoughtswith us at Learn Make
learn@gmail.com or on threads atLearn Make, learn Show, all one
word.
Thanks for listening and we hopeyou'll join us for the next
Learn.
Make, learn.
Popular Podcasts
Fudd Around And Find Out
UConn basketball star Azzi Fudd brings her championship swag to iHeart Women’s Sports with Fudd Around and Find Out, a weekly podcast that takes fans along for the ride as Azzi spends her final year of college trying to reclaim the National Championship and prepare to be a first round WNBA draft pick. Ever wonder what it’s like to be a world-class athlete in the public spotlight while still managing schoolwork, friendships and family time? It’s time to Fudd Around and Find Out!
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.