Recently two of the electronic products in my household, a mobile phone and a tablet, both failed. Nothing unusual about that you would think, however they both failed due to one single component that in each case would have cost pennies to replace. After making enquiries the cost of repairing the failed devices was more expensive that buying a replacement. I think this is quite a common experience a lot of us have nowadays, but this seems to be in direct conflict with the world conscious on recycling and sustainability.

It seems we have accepted the mentality that things are not worth fixing anymore. As a child of the late seventies there was rarely a time when my dad didn’t have his head in the back of a washing machine or painfully dismantling the family television piece by piece on a Sunday night, hoping he could get it up and running by the 5pm deadline so we could watch Bullseye.[1] The picture would regularly flicker and then a hue of bright green would descend in the background, giving programmes a sickly looking tint. This was often rectified by the administering of the “sideways thump” the technical term coined for smacking the chipboard casing surrounding the television. This would stir the appliance back into life and we could enjoy another few hours of uninterrupted entertainment. This being the era before remote control technology, the “thumper” could also use this opportunity to cycle though the push buttons channels whilst they were stood there, to see what delights awaited us in the world of entertainment spread across those four channels.

[1] For the 90’s generation Bullseye was a darts based entertainment show, where contestants could win ludicrous prizes ranging from speedboats to fitted kitchens, which they had to often share.

He’d have a set of tools specifically assigned to each repair job, changing the brushes on a washing machine, replacing an element in the oven or putting a new cathode ray tube in the Television.  It didn’t matter what the task was, dad could buy the part and rescue the product from an untimely death upon the heap at the local landfill. Admittedly he got quite frustrated doing this, the air was punctuated with expletives and the occasional thud as a spanner was catapulted angrily across the kitchen; but the point was it was always more economical to repair the product than replace it.

Personally I think these skills and the desire to fix products are as prevalent in today’s generation. The incentive to do it isn’t there, particularly if the newer model is cheaper. I often wonder what has changed since those days. In this blog I have tried to drill down to the essence of the argument and here are some of the main reasons I believe why our gadgets aren’t built to last.

Planned Obsolescence

The idea behind planned obsolescence is that manufacturers feel that with technology moving so fast and with consumers demanding the latest features, the life cycle of products has been dramatically reduced. I don’t believe that there is a conscious effort to design things to fail, that would be damaging for a brand, but I do feel that the expectations of the consumer on how long a product should last has certainly changed.

Take mobile phones for instance. A mobile phone contract normally lasts two years, after that time the consumer owns the handset and they are normally offered a new one, with new features, bigger memory, higher processing power and the whole cycle continues once more. Whether this is an ethically and environmentally sensible thing to do remains to be seen. It’s a viscous cycle, consumers want the latest gadgets and companies want to launch new products to appear innovative. There has often being a suspicion that companies, particularly the ones manufacturing electronic goods, hold back features and development on their products, to give them something to sell when the next generation hits the shops.

In the computing market as soon as a new model of laptop is released, it’s immediately out of date. Faster processors, memory hungry graphics cards, improved operating systems that won’t run on certain specifications, it’s a race you can’t even hope keep up with, never mind win. If you add to this mix the fact that web developers and online content is advancing at such a rate that it demands more from your humble machine, it’s easy to see why your shiny new PC becomes an expensive paperweight in record time.

It may seem like the makings of an anti-capitalist conspiracy theory, but the concept of planned obsolesce does seem to be a reality; whether it’s happening intentionally or not it’s difficult to tell. Perhaps it goes hand in hand with the emergence of new technology and the need to give customers choice? However when the manufactures of mobile phones are only offering 1-2 years warranty on a new device it does make you question if its more about sales than product reliability.

Environmental Requirements

In some cases a product has to be mothballed due to its impact on the environment. It was no secret that in the 70’s and 80’s fridges and freezers were monumentally inefficient. The energy efficiency of modern fridges has improved massively since those days and manufacturers were given financial incentives to produce fridges that were developed with efficiency being a key design requirement. The discovery of the harm that CFC chemicals in the refrigerant did to the environment, in particular the ozone layer, made scientists look at alternative compounds. These factors coupled with the use of more advanced foaming agents and insulating materials means that the new fridges manufactured today are almost unrecognisable from their bulky, power hungry predecessors.

Aesthetic requirements

As designers its part of our job to try and push the envelope where product aesthetics are concerned. It’s an ongoing challenge to make objects sleeker, more economical in terms of size and material consumption and as lightweight as possible. This often means that there is an ongoing battle between the look of a product, the size of the internal components and the assembly methods specified. We have seen an increase in the use of bonding in electrical goods, as oppose to screws, this enables the designer to produce paper thin designs, but does have implications for recycling and repair.

The rise of cheaper manufacturing

It’s a fact that most of the products we use today are manufactured in the Far East and overseas. China has become a global superpower and it has done so by becoming the epicentre of manufacturing for many of the world’s most popular products. The cost of goods, particularly electronic items, is dramatically more affordable than it was even 20 years ago. When you combine this trend with the access of consumers to credit, it’s easy to see why the electronics market has exploded on a global scale.

This success has come at a price though. There have been many stories of questionable manufacturing practices, particularly when it comes to health and safety. There have been reports of companies placing exhausting manufacturing targets on suppliers and squeezing their margins to such an extent that the health of their workers has started to suffer. There have been factory collapses and stories of workers having to endure brutal hours and working conditions.  We have become accustomed to paying the lowest price possible for our consumer goods. A flat screen television is no longer such a big purchasing decision, we have the power to shop around online for the lowest price deals and we know that it’s no longer a lifetime commitment.

 So where does the future lie? The issue of product sustainability will only become more prevalent, especially as the world resources become more finite. Manufacturers and designers have to work together to improve the reliability of their products, with a focus on ethical manufacturing practices, whilst also making them future proof, to incorporate new technology and innovation. When products come to the end of their life cycle the focus should be on how they can be recycled, how the materials and energy used can be harnessed, offsetting against the resources used to produce the newer model.

Scott Bennett – Senior Designer – August 2016

It’s no secret that Apple has dominated the world of mobile phones for the past few years. Since its launch back in 2007 other brands have been racing to keep up with its sales, it was ground breaking, both in its design and the use of app development. It  was a

remarkable story of innovation and testament to the success that can be achieved when a company places the importance of design at the forefront of its business model.

However since the death of Steve jobs in 2011, rumours are abound that the sales of the iPhone are starting to slow down. I suppose this is to be expected as the market becomes saturated, but there are many voices coming from Silicon Valley that claim that Apple has lost its innovative edge.

There has been an aggressive challenge for Apples’ share of the lucrative mobile phone market, from Samsung, who have helped to pioneer the popular android operating system, to perhaps the newest kid on the block, OnePlus. Incidentally it’s not as if Apple has stagnated for the past five years, the iPad was and still is the most successful tablet of all time and they have launched the Apple Watch. The jury is still out on the Apple Watch, some critics have branded it “unoriginal” claiming it isn’t the breakthrough product Apple had hoped for. I suppose it’s like second album syndrome for a rock band, being judged against a debut album that went triple platinum. Apple will always face a challenge to follow their products; there is the very real danger that they could become a victim of their own success.

Although it’s unlikely that Apple will have a fall from grace, the brand is too established for that, but it’s not as if it hasn’t happened before. One has only to look at the story of Nokia. Once a market leader, in the start of early 2000, the company failed to join the dots on the way mobile technology was embracing the rise of social media, connectivity and email on the move. Instead they decided to take one eye off innovating and instead concentrate on maintaining their market share, focusing on battery life and the idea that phones were primarily used to make phone calls. It was, in hindsight, a catastrophic decision. I loved my old Nokia 3310, it was the first mobile phone I owned and whilst the game “Snake”, was highly addictive, (seriously you wouldn’t believe how much entertainment could be had from controlling a tiny line of pixels); they couldn’t compete with the world of the app.

That’s why we at FSW Design Ltd have been watching the rise of the OnePlus brand with keen interest. A couple of the members of the design team have parted with their hard earned cash and snubbed the big boys of the mobile phone world for this unsung but eager young pretender to the crown.

The pricing strategy is a huge selling point. The phone retails at £329 to buy outright and isn’t available on a contract. It’s a brave move and may cut down the potential to reach a wider audience, but it’s an interesting change to the purchasing decision of buying a phone. With many networks opting for SIM only deals now, it’s a trend which will only continue; consumers may see more financial sense in owning the phone at the start to give them the greatest flexibility with their network choice.  Effectively it cuts out the middleman and makes the choice more about the product rather than the deal. The product is now front and centre and it’s almost like buying a camera or a laptop computer, you care more about the item and as such take more interest in its design and features. With the closest rival the iPhone6 plus retailing at a staggering £859 to buy and own or two year contracts at £45 plus, it’s easy to see how tempting the OnePlus3 could be.

There are lots of reviews around of the handsets themselves, but in this blog we take a look at the product packaging and how that compares to its rivals.

Often in the past the packaging of products can seem like an afterthought. Hastily printed cardboard boxes, vacuum formed casings that can only be accessed through hacking at them with opened scissors; it’s never been particularly impressive.

This was until Apple brought a refreshing new injection of creativity into its packaging. Sleek, clean and streamlined, it added value to the product. Opening the packaging was an integral part of the user experience. In heavyweight gloss white card with embossed sharp graphics it immediately looked different. It’s more in the style of packaging for a fragrance bottle and this is reflected in that luxury feel.

OnePlus3 has taken this concept to the next level. The packaging is the first point of contact the customer has with the product and its certainly striking. They have decided not to follow Apples’ lead and have an image of the product on the front; instead they have kept the outer box deliberately vague, which makes the reveal of the product even more satisfying. The red and white colour combination has an immediate impact and the embossed textured lettering is a sleek an interesting touch. The presentation of the logo on the top edge as a textured red tab is a great way of bringing a touch of detail into the outer aesthetic. The matt finish red background around the white logo is punctuated by polished “+” markings which make the logo look modern and distinctive.

Inside the box the top section comprises of a red wallet containing the phone instructions and an injection moulded tray to support the phone. Again this isn’t an original decision as Apple has done something similar, but whereas the Apple version feels a bit flimsy and weak the OnePlus3 offering is strong and rigid. The way the tray is embedded into the wallet beneath it also looks modern; looking like it’s almost suspended within the package layer.

Underneath the top tier of the box things are more predictable with a vacuum formed tray to house the charger and the cables. I think the graphics on the interior leaflet warrant a mention though. They make excellent use of hard edged styling and clean fonts; the gradient “sprayed effect” spatter around the number three is an excellent example of how OnePlus is looking to do something a little bit wilder with their artwork.

In conclusion then, there is no doubt that Apple remains a big player in the phone market, there are a few worthy contenders jockeying for position in the background. They are approaching things from new angles, with new business strategies, which although may be bad news for apple, is certainly something to celebrate for the design conscious consumer.

Scott Bennett – Senior Designer – August 2016

FSW Design Limited have won an award at this years Plastics Industry Awards for Best Industrial Product design, our 3rd award and 5th time nominated!

At the event at the London Hilton Hotel, Philip Forrest Smith collected the award from TV star Dara O’Brian for Best Industrial Product Design. The product, a revolutionary blow moulded ballast board for the rail industry, was designed for Trojan Services Ltd and looks to replace the current offering constructed from concrete.

Trojan Services Limited (TSL) specialise in marketing innovative products for the rail industry and other civil engineering applications. TSL commissioned FSW Design Limited to work on a specific problem they had identified.  Currently 1.8 metre long concrete ballast boards retain ballast, which is used at the side of a railway line.  These are held in place by steel posts, which are either piled or set into concrete foundations.  The ballast boards are exceptionally heavy and consequently very difficult for contractors to manoeuvre into position and install.  TSL set FSW Design the challenge of designing a unique ballast board, which would be lightweight, simple to transport and install, but still meet the rail industries functional criteria.

The key objective of the design development programme was to identify suitable materials and manufacturing processes.  It was important that the finished product could be made in appropriate volumes to meet the demands of the market and at a price that was competitive with existing concrete boards.

After detailed research and drawing on knowledge from previous projects, blow moulding was identified as an appropriate route for manufacture. Because blow moulding is a low-pressure process we were able to produce inherently durable components with limited in built stresses created by the manufacturing process. We, also, were able to repeatedly produce a double skinned moulding which had numerous kiss off faces linking the inner and outer skins to increase strength and rigidity.

The final product is a completely unique ballast board system branded TroBord and manufactured in recycled HDPE. It is lightweight and can be produced competitively at high volume. Each board has interlocking features so that one board can be connected to the next creating a rigid structure. The board is flexible in design so that it can use existing fixings or be specified with extruded composite polypropylene wood fibre posts. The product is fully recyclable and has the environmental benefit of replacing large volumes of concrete. TroBord has proved a huge success with the rail industry and solves the current health and safety issues created by concrete ballast boards.

FSW are pleased to announce that they have won Design Week’s Industrial Product Design Award for the second year running.

Attending a black tie event at London’s Hilton Hotel, FSW’s Philip Forrest-Smith and Scott Bennett collected the award, beating Seymour Powell to the post in front of major design practices such as Apple Inc, Virgin Atlantic, Seymour Powel and Fitch.

FSW collected the award for their design and development of the Razor Deck product for the construction market.

FSW wanted to design a product that would meet the gap in the construction market for a lightweight, self-erecting platform. Razor deck had to fold down as compactly as possible, needed to avoid using detachable parts to prevent components being lost when in use, and it had to be possible for a single user to deploy the system.

Following our recent success at the Design Week Awards 2008 and the Plastics Industry Awards, the Razor Deck Self Erecting Tower has been specifically selected for the Prize of Prizes!

The Design Award of the Federal Republic of Germany is the highest official design award given in Germany. It is awarded by the Federal Minister for Economics and Technology and organised by the German Design Council.

It is not possible to submit an entry for the Design Award. Instead, products must be nominated either by the Ministries or Senators of the Federal States or by the Federal Ministry of Economics and Technology. Moreover, the products must already have won a national or internal award. thus, the Design Award is known as the Prize of Prizes.

FSW scooped their second Design Award of the Year at the Plastics Industry Awards with their design for the Power Pod – a transformer for power tools. Beating off competition from Kinneir Dufort Design, London Associates, Product Partners and Satherley Design Associates.

The Power Pod was described by the judges as a “visually appropriate design, completely right for its intended use”. They also said it had a “good rugged look, materials and shape with good styling”.

Partner, Philip Forrest-Smith collected the award at the London Hilton. Philip commented “At FSW we pride ourselves on our level of technical knowledge, so its great to receive an award that has been judged by a panel of specialists from the Plastics Industry”.