
The Type of Companies That Publish Future Concept Videos - llambda
http://daringfireball.net/2011/11/companies_that_publish_concept_videos
======
rjd
I've worked for a few companies over the years, and there is a type of manager
I run into a lot. I can summarize them by a statement they make "Just get it
done."

The thing about these managers are they are delivery focused, not product
focused. The have no imagination, and no emotional attachment to the product.
They are there to make sure the books balance and revenue increases, thats it.

These people have always frightened me a bit because they just don't
understand what the people who work under them do. You can't sit in a meeting
and explain a new concept to them, you have to completely design a working
product and walk them through it step by step.

A verbal explanation will only confuse them, and often they get agitated...
because they don't understand. I'm sure most of us have been in a meeting
where every single person understands the speaker except for person who has
the authority to approve or deny the work... and all they can say is "I don't
get it" (and you are going holy crap 20 other people get it, I can see them
rolling there eyes and smirking).

I wouldn't mind betting that these videos are a sign of delivery managers
being brought into R&D departments. These videos are made so that the delivery
manager can understand what the people around him are doing, and so he can
explain it to the bean counters. Its a sign you have put the wrong people into
positions of authority.

EDIT: I just realized that the character Veronica on "Better off Ted" is
exactly what I'm describing. I recommend watching it if you've never seen it.

~~~
thesash
> _These videos are made so that the delivery manager can understand what the
> people around him are doing, and so he can explain it to the bean counters._

The irony is that concepts that intentionally ignore reality create the
impression among those same people who "don't get it" that these concepts not
only _are_ grounded in reality, but are as trivial to create as the concept
video makes it look.

It reminds me of this clip from Ali G:
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nkuOuxRD1Bc&feature=youtu...](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nkuOuxRD1Bc&feature=youtu.be&t=5m16s)

~~~
rjd
Oh that vid was brilliant, I have been in presentation like that, intact I
gave one the other that got extremely luke warm responses, and people staring
at each other going this guy has lost his marbles.

My concept was this (pitched to the news agency I used to work for). I did
some thinking about the next wave of devices and I thought I found a nice
market that no one else had tried before.

We modify the RSS subscription interface where users can select categories for
news stories they are interested, and email service already exists.

The RSS feeds already exist, and there are already staff curating the best of
the best etc... they are pretty good feeds.

We then run batch scripts every morning, compile the articles into ePub format
(essentially HTML), and push personalized pre-packaged news paper style format
to subscribers. Target eReaders, tablets etc... turn a passive website into
one that chases customers each morning.

Now this isn't difficult to implement, there is already a email service doing
exactly the same thing. Basically all this service would do is wrap up HTML
pages and build an index or two.

I felt like everyone in the room was the chap Ali G was talking to, they just
wanted me to shut up ASAP.

------
ethank
I saw this video at HP in 1992 or 1993 or so called HP 1995

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPKX5iuBvZg>

I was 13 or 14 at the time and to me it was a bit of a "wow" moment. Not
because I related to the topic (mostly this was manufacturing) but because of
the interfaces and the speed of information dispersal. I remember seeing other
concept videos (the famous AT&T ones, Apple's, Adobe, etc) and they were
likewise inspiring.

I know reality is often the best thing to market, and Apple and the like have
made reality as inspiring as a far future concept lately.

But concept videos from the late 80's -> mid 90's had a huge impact on why I'm
in technology today.

~~~
DavidSJ
As a kid, Star Trek was my concept video.

------
2arrs2ells
Has anyone else been in the Microsoft "Future Home" and "Future Office" in
Redmond? They're similar to this concept video, but actually have some working
features (although you quickly realize they're mostly staged).

They're more private than the video (used only by internal
staff/guests/partners), but a much bigger waste of money.

~~~
lambda
I was at the Microsoft office in Cambridge (MA, US) the other day, and they
had a Surface there. It was much the same; a neat toy, but ultimately a
distraction. They spent serious engineering resources on it, and it amounts to
something that will sell a handful for companies to put in lobbies as a
something fun to play with. Given the wear patterns on it, it looked like it
was mostly used for playing checkers.

Now, the Surface could actually be a neat product. If it were affordable
enough for any small office, or for people to use in their home, it would
probably sell well. If they actually developed only one tablet platform, that
scaled up from their phones to the Surface with only minor modifications to
UI, they'd have a serious contender for a touch based platform.

But with something that's just a toy for companies with extra money to spend
entertaining their guests, with its own APIs so that software isn't portable
between it and other products, and no real significant tablet offerings to
fill in the gap between the phone and the Surface, it just doesn't make that
much sense. I doubt that they can be making much money on it.

~~~
tylermenezes
The non-profit I work with built one for about 1/10th the cost - $1400 in
total (<http://wiki.studentrnd.org/Surface_Computer> for anyone interested in
replicating it), but it's still mostly used as a "LOOK HOW COOL" sort of
thing. Maybe if you replaced all the tables with computers you'd get some
minor benefit, but having a single computer the size of a table is honestly
pretty pointless.

------
jordank
Publishing videos to the world may have issues, but these sorts of videos can
have extreme internal value (the OP mentions this). I've worked on quite of a
few of these — they've turned out to be useful tools in securing budgets and
coordinating teams.

These concept videos can also be useful when an ingredient brand wants to push
other players in their industry forward. When company A needs company B to buy
into building new types of hardware, far-out concept videos can go a long way.
By publishing concept videos, firms can essentially create reference designs
for the future.

~~~
pohl
_When company A needs company B to buy into building new types of hardware,
far-out concept videos can go a long way._

Compare this to how far (and how fast) one can get by letting your purchasing
power do the talking, rather than a concept video. I like concept videos,
personally. They are techno-lust candy to me. If this is a big part of how
they move other players in their industry forward, however, then this is an
inherent weakness in their business model. Industry players respond much more
quickly when you're handing them money.

~~~
dpark
> _Compare this to how far (and how fast) one can get by letting your
> purchasing power do the talking, rather than a concept video._

This makes a lot of sense when you're Apple, and very little when you're
Microsoft. Going to Samsung and saying "I'll buy 10MM units, guaranteed" isn't
very fiscally responsible if you don't sell hardware.

Disclaimer: I work for Microsoft

~~~
pohl
Exactly. That is the weakness in your business model to which I referred. I'm
not saying that it's a failing in your business model. Clearly you're doing
fine despite it. But it is a relative weakness against Apple's integrated
model.

~~~
dpark
Historically it's been a strength. Apple's resurgence is a pretty recent
thing, and most hardware+software companies have not done well. Look at Sun
and see how well the hardware+software model worked for them. For that matter,
look at Android, which is following the software-only model and has overtaken
the iPhone in most areas now.

~~~
pohl
_Historically it's been a strength. Apple's resurgence is a pretty recent
thing_

The historical context in which it was a strength is gone.

It was a strength during personal computation's ramp-up to ubiquity. It was a
strength while Moore's Law allowed Microsoft to confidently add features in
anticipation of more Mhz for less money in the nick of time. It was a strength
while the margins for hardware vendors were fat and Microsoft could benefit
from their race to the bottom as they competed with each other. That is when
the hardware vendors were the most innovative. It was a strength before
various governments around the world grew weary of its monopoly position on
operating systems. And, frankly, it was a strength back when consumers were
willing to eschew quality in favor of a cheaper, safer choice.

Those days are over. Computers are ubiquitous now. We've hit the Ghz barrier.
The race to the bottom is over, and hardware vendors have razor-thin margins.
Their corporate structures and cultures were formed around making things
cheaper. Microsoft can no longer tie products together without legal hassles.
And perhaps most importantly, humans have figured out open data formats and
protocols.

Biology is replete with strategies that were historically strengths until
environmental changes turned them into liabilities. For well over a billion
years being an anaerobe was the best game in town. Then cyanobacteria gave us
photosynthesis and free oxygen, rendering anaerobes' dominance an edge-case at
the dawn of life.

Microsoft's dominance is literally the edge-case at the dawn of personal
computers. They are now in a position where they have to look to concept
videos to inspire ossified and margin-starved cost-cutters to innovate.

Anaerobes probably thought the first air-breathers were an anomaly, too.

~~~
dpark
Most of what you just said is irrelevant. The question is not just whether
Microsoft is in a weaker position, but whether software-only has become a
weaker position. Microsoft's antitrust scrutiny, GHz barrier, open formats,
etc. What do any of these have to do with the software-only strategy?
Antitrust scrutiny? Well, that would only get tighter for Microsoft if they
started selling hardware. GHz barrier? Affects everyone whether they sell
hardware or not. Open formats? Seems irrelevant, and Microsoft generally
supports widely-popular open formats.

I also don't think the environment has changed as much as you say. We've still
got numerous PC manufacturers selling "IBM compatibles" running Windows. On
the phone front, we've got a similar situation, with Android in the lead. On
tablets, it's likely just a matter of time before someone dethrones Apple.
Really, when you talk about historical context being gone, I think you're just
talking about Apple becoming so huge. And that is a big deal. I'm not sure it
fundamentally changes the software-only strategy, though.

I would personally (and this is just me, and obviously has no relation to
Microsoft's plans) love to see Microsoft sell hardware. I would love to buy a
sleek tablet, phone, and laptop made by Microsoft. I'd love it if we sold a
premium product designed exclusively in-house. But would this be a good
strategic move for Microsoft? Honestly probably not.

~~~
pohl
As characterizations of Microsoft's historical strategy go, I'd say that
merely calling it a "software-only strategy" is pretty anemic. The real
strengths of that strategy were drawn from the details that you claim are
irrelevant.

I couldn't disagree more on that point. You ask what those details have to do
with the software-only strategy? Well, they were the historical context in
which that strategy allowed them to dominate. Did it matter that the hardware
innovation of that era had to do with cost reduction? Yes. Did it matter that
Microsoft was able to keep customers captive through closed document formats &
protocols? Yes. Did it matter that Microsoft both had and leveraged a monopoly
position? A thousand times yes. Did it matter that Microsoft had OEMs over a
barrel and got them to sign anticompetitive distribution terms? Of course.

I would be reluctant to point to Android phones as an example of a software-
only success, because that knife cuts both ways for Microsoft. How is
Microsoft going to sell Windows Phone in a market where Google is dumping a
free operating system as a loss-leader for potential ad-revenue? Android is
just yet another way in which the historical context that allowed Microsoft's
software-only strategy to thrive has changed. You have to be able to actually
sell the software, after all.

Regardless, here's a great illustration of the effects of Android's software-
only model:

[http://theunderstatement.com/post/11982112928/android-
orphan...](http://theunderstatement.com/post/11982112928/android-orphans-
visualizing-a-sad-history-of-support)

~~~
dpark
> _Did it matter that the hardware innovation of that era had to do with cost
> reduction? Yes._

Why is this relevant? If the hardware innovation had been about attractiveness
or energy efficiency or portability or any other factor, would Microsoft have
been unable to compete? Would Windows have been non-viable if Compaq had been
selling sleek aluminum boxes instead of beige boxes? Have hardware
manufacturers stopped competing in price now? Last I checked, that was still a
major selling point.

> _Did it matter that Microsoft was able to keep customers captive through
> closed document formats & protocols? Yes._

This has nothing to do with the viability of the software-only strategy. Would
anyone be less locked-in by Microsoft Office if it were running on a Microsoft
Machine?

> _Did it matter that Microsoft both had and leveraged a monopoly position? A
> thousand times yes. Did it matter that Microsoft had OEMs over a barrel and
> got them to sign anticompetitive distribution terms? Of course._

Sure, and you still haven't explained how any of this makes Microsoft's
software-only business weak now. Microsoft reached their dominant position as
a result of their software-only strategy. Software-only allowed them to
partner with every PC maker to make sure that 95% of people would buy a
Windows machine.

> _I would be reluctant to point to Android phones as an example of a
> software-only success, because that knife cuts both ways for Microsoft. How
> is Microsoft going to sell Windows Phone in a market where Google is dumping
> a free operating system as a loss-leader for potential ad-revenue?_

That's a good question, but I think the end answer will come down (partly) to
price. If Windows Phone is a better experience than Android, but it costs an
extra $15, will anyone care? Is anyone going to reject Windows Phone because
it adds a couple percent to the price of their phone? (Especially when many
Android phones are probably paying as much for patent licensing anyway.)

> _Regardless, here's a great illustration of the effects of Android's
> software-only model:_

That's an illustration of how crappy the carrier lock-in model is. Or perhaps
how little Google cares about its phone users. There's no intrinsic reason
Android couldn't use the Apple model and push directly to consumers.
Nonetheless, Android is selling extremely well in spite of this.

------
pnathan
I see a concept video as something that would serve as the unifying vision for
a company. Something that delineates something along the lines of this kind of
template:

We are going to work on creating a set of products X, which will enable these
ways of living and working Y, which in turn will spawn these associated needs
Z, and here is a scenario acted out where we can make a case that this is a
vision that we should go for. When designing our products, this video is the
high level reference point for the product world we are moving towards.

------
Tichy
At the very least I thought the design in the video was pretty cool (the
fonts, colors and what not on the various screens). I haven't followed Mango
or whatever, so I am not sure if that was just an interpolation of the Mango
theme or something new. Also, I totally suck at design, so I am easily
awestruck by people who can do it.

In any case, I wouldn't think too much about it. MS is a really big company,
and they probably pay for something like that from their pocket change.
Whatever.

Also I like reading science fiction, and isn't a video like that also a kind
of science fiction?

I didn't think the video was "creepy", but it made me think: it showed
essentially how people are being pushed from location to location by their
devices. I guess that is an interpolation of the life of office workers today,
who are dominated by Outlook. But it struck me that in the end humans might
become merely processes executing the program their devices and management
software sets up for them. I doubt that is what humans really desire, so I
suppose MS got it wrong in the video. But it was sufficient to evoke some
thoughts.

------
guelo
I'm pissed at HN for wasting my time with this article. A rant against concept
videos is not only totally useless information to me it is completely boring.
I guess it could supposedly be useful to "visionaries" at giant companies or
their marketing department but, fuck, are we going to be analyzing their
brochures next? Who cares!?

~~~
dextorious
1) Nobody wasted your time with this article, and surely not HN (which is just
a posting engine). People chose to vote on it, and you chose to read it.

2) Who cares? The people who voted for it on HN maybe? What part of "social
news website" don't you understand? (rhetorical question: the "social" part of
course)

------
dredmorbius
"You Will"

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZb0avfQme8>

The company that brought it to me wasn't AT&T.

------
InclinedPlane
Concept videos are ill-founded in general. Indeed, I'd say it's better to have
a vague, handwaving long-term goal than a crisp, sharply focused, highly
detailed concept like these videos. The basic fallacy at play is the idea that
it's possible to predict the future so far in advance. In reality this is only
possible if your products are boring and mundane. When you make products that
transform people's lives and the way the world works then it becomes
impossible to predict how people will use them and how society, industry, and
the economy will change as a consequence. That's true even from generation to
generation of a device or piece of software, making it utterly useless to try
to predict anything several generations ahead.

Worse yet, concept videos make it all too easy to fall into the trap of
working to make a product that looks cool in a demo but in reality is either
hugely impractical to make or use or simply not very useful. For example, you
could make a demo video of people commuting to and from work via rocket
powered skateboard. And it would look _awesome_ , and after watching the video
everyone would want to commute to work via rocket powered skateboard. But in
reality it's not practical, and possibly not even as fun as it may seem (after
the first 100 times the novelty would wear off, and then you're just riding a
death trap and getting rained on and stuck in rocket-powered-skateboard
traffic ... ok, it still sounds awesome, nevertheless...).

When you skip so many intermediate steps you can generate a false sense of
what's possible, or even mislead yourself on what you're working on.
Eventually smartphones are going to have no bezel and be super thin, so what?
That's cool, but what does it have to do with what you are doing in the mean
time to make smartphones better? It's easy to make a demo about voice control
but the hard part is making it work in the here and now, how do you do that?

~~~
JEVLON
Concept videos are important. They are not saying 2019 will be exactly like
this, but they are looking at potential use cases for various interfaces
etcetera. When they come up with a idea they particularly like, they don't sit
on their hands for ten years. They look at their idea of the future, then they
start taking the best parts of that idea and implementing it in the products
they are creating.

Since that video they have released or announced two products with the metro
interface (Windows 8 & Windows Phone 7). Microsoft also has announced a
version of the metro interface for the game console (Xbox 360). The part of
the video where the guy takes a photo of the display and transfers it to a
page is already possible in a less exciting capacity on WP. Take a photo of
something, and it instantly shows up on your skydrive account. The children
communicating through the wall display is a possibility today, but less
impressive, with the use of a Kinect and a projector/screen. Microsoft
actually has developed wall displays in their research division. They also
announced yesterday that they will be partnering with a bunch of companies to
provide the Kinect in enterprise environments.

Every good microsoft product already has implementations of an idea that is in
their concept videos. The average person doesn't go watch their concept
videos, so it has no negative effect on their image. Also, thinking of the
future does not have to be a distraction from the present. Why is Apple doing
better than Microsoft with consumers? They are not associated with viruses, IT
departments, ugly products, and office suites. Microsoft = Painful & Not-Cool.
Apple also gives their employees more freedom and they push products out when
the market is ready, but only when they are ready for them. If Windows Phone
came out instead of the iPhone, when it was announced and released, WP would
have failed completely.

~~~
brown9-2
But why do they need to make a video to then make the products? How does a
concept video help in product development?

You say that they are "important" but you don't say how or why - you're
listing a bunch of stuff MS has done since/alongside the video. But I don't
see where the proof is that a video like this was necessary.

~~~
Skalman
As a student (in user experience/computer engineering) I enjoy these concept
videos, and they help me get inspiration for future projects. Companies that
release them are much more likely to be viewed in a positive light by me, and
I'd much rather work for a company with a creative mindset than some company
that I feel is behind. This is a great way to communicate with future
employees.

It's also an inspiration for the various design challenges/competitions that
some of those companies do.

~~~
absconditus
Do you find MS's concept videos more compelling than Apple's accomplishments?

~~~
WayneDB
What accomplishments? Making lots of money?

They haven't introduced anything new, they've taken ideas that have been
around forever and made some high-quality versions of them. Big deal. How
excited can you get about that?

Meanwhile, Microsoft gives us things like Kinect which I find much, much more
compelling than anything Apple's ever come up with.

~~~
WayneDB
The idea of tablets and portable devices has been around since the fifties,
they didn't invent multi-touch and they built OS X on the back of Unix. How am
I wrong?

~~~
brown9-2
Was the idea for Kinect one that didn't exist before, or that required no
previous accomplishments (such as Unix --> OS X)? That seems unlikely.

~~~
WayneDB
Fine, Microsoft didn't do anything new with Kinect either. That still doesn't
prove that Apple did anything original.

------
mgunes
"Real artists ship, dabblers create concept products" --
<http://counternotions.com/2008/08/12/concept-products/>

------
joebadmo
Apple is obviously doing very well. But that doesn't mean everything Apple
does is right, or that everyone should do things the way Apple does.

I love when companies do this kind of concept video, and if anything, I think
these don't look far _enough_ in the future. I've never seen these as
predictions of the future. More like sci-fi vignettes. I think it's great that
big tech companies allot resources to look beyond the next product, out to the
horizon of imagination and inspiration.

------
trout
I think there's some value to them. Sure, apple doesn't do them - but apple
operates in a shroud of mystery and nobody knows their next move, so no
surprise there. Apple has had the ability to nail technology inflection points
and truly innovate so they don't need to. Apple doesn't write the rules for
companies in different positions.

Gruber argues that this is lost attention on the Windows phone, but is it
really? Would there be conversations about the video and would it have this
type of debate and conversation about a video about the Windows phone?

How does one criticize both science fiction that isn't daring enough, not
inspiring enough, and corporate future concept videos that are too futuristic
and unrealistic? Is it that both sit in the unimaginative future, or is it
insulting when a company attempts to claim credit for generic futuristic
visions?

I think if you take a look at most big tech companies they have these visions,
will talk about it, put it in slideware, and slip some into their advertising.
Making a video is taking it one more step. The videos are probably not for the
HN crowd, but instead those that haven't seen or thought of similar things and
have now painted that company as the innovator.

------
cateye
With the same logic, how about BMW:
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTYiEkQYhWY>

~~~
MaxGabriel
When I first watched the BMW video, I thought you had a good point, but then I
watched the Microsoft video. The difference is that BMW is innovating on an
_actual_ product they can make now and learn from. Microsoft's video envisions
translucent, credit card size touchscreen phones and people interacting with
holograms.

There's some value in Microsoft's video, but given the unnecessary production
costs, acting, etc., all of which is divorced from the engineering team[1], it
sounds like their time would be better spent taking an approach more like
BMW's.

------
jamesrcole
_“Knowledge Navigator” didn’t help Apple in any way. Apple never made such a
product. It didn’t bring Siri to us any sooner than if that video had never
been made. It only served to distract from and diminish Apple’s then-current
actual products._

For all I know he could be 100% right about this (I'm not claiming he's
wrong), but he just asserts it without giving any explanation or
justification.

------
protomyth
A long time back, I knew a group of consultants that were big into Shockwave.
They were the types that would throw parties with their animations projected
on the walls.

They would use Shockwave professionally to visualize the interactions of a
business workflow. It was really a animated use case when you get right down
to it. They had a lot of success and it was easy to get people onboard with a
new process because they could "see it". Really not sure what happened to
them.

I can see using a concept video like this as an internal "Does this make
sense?" and "Prototype Modeling", but I am at a loss as to why you would
release it the public. You aren't selling it now so you cannot profit off it,
and various critics will point out the flaws in usage inside the video. Plus,
Gruber is right, it does take away headlines that could be about your now and
selling. The worst part is having a obviously struggling and clueless
competitor decide they too need a video.

------
AccordionGuy
As the author of the article to which Gruber is referring, I think I'll simply
say "Well played, Mr. Gruber, well played."

------
jrodgers
I think a concept video, as long as it isn't too outrageous, is a decent way
to inspire people. Some people watched minority report and said "I want to
build that" -- concept videos could achieve the same. At the end of the
article he mentions RIM's videos. I would say those are totally different as I
think most of the basic components of that world are in the device or rumoured
to be coming soon. That is cool. If someone can grab their latest device and
make one of those workflows happen how good will they feel and what could come
next?

Yes there are bad videos and they may have an unclear purpose but I think it
is all about the context of the video.

------
ryanwaggoner
I can think of at least one potentially valuable use of concept videos:
customer validation. Dropbox used this to great effect, as I recall. I could
be wrong, but I thought that the video Drew launched (here on HN) was of a
product that didn't fully exist yet. But I could be mistaken.

Either way, I think there's tremendous value in being able to sell (or get a
verbal commitment of a sale) a product before you have to build it. Just make
sure you _can_ build it.

EDIT: Here's the thread where Drew showed Dropbox to HN. Video is long gone
though... <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8863>

~~~
InclinedPlane
There's a difference between a concept which addresses an obvious, immediate
need and a concept which just shows a bunch of vaguely cool stuff happening.
The problem isn't that videos of not-yet-existing products are universally
bad. The problem is that when you use fiction to portray a concept the farther
away it is from the here and now the easier it is to go astray.

------
mrbgty
Surprised the car in the beginning wasn't a self-driving car

~~~
ctdonath
Speaking of cars, reading the article I was thinking of automotive
"prototypes" featured in magazines and trade shows, but nigh unto never on the
road.

Cars or computers or phones, stop wasting time giving us lofty promises and
prototypes of a future that won't happen, give us tangible purchaseable
incremental and revolutionary improvements of real products NOW.

------
UjjwolL
I think there needs to be distinction between concept videos and
advertisement. Concept videos which are glamours like advertisement are not
"concept videos" because it not practicality of the concept they are showing
but how can we market and make this product cool "if we make this." There is
fundamental problem with this. As Gruber said, concept videos are the sign of
warnings that you are not doing anything.

------
mindstab
Nokia did it too with the Nokia Morph <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IX-
gTobCJHs>

Doesn't seem they are doing too well now either? Nokia Windows Morph phone 7
anyone?

------
Andi
With this videos you demonstrate the will to create something, but delivering
is a completely different challenge! Keep quiet, keep informed about your
field, focus!

------
Andi
With this video you demonstrate the will to create something, but to deliver
is a completely different challenge! Keep quiet, keep informed about your
field, focus!

------
bane
Maybe a good time to show these: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PJcABbtvtA>

------
MatthewPhillips
Is Daring Fireball a technology blog or a business-strategy blog?

~~~
DavidSJ
Both.

------
DodgyEggplant
The actual real competition to Apple is Samsung-Android. As business insider
pointed out, Android caught up with the software, than the hardware, than the
single big manufacturer.

------
fuzionmonkey
Apparently in the future, we use lots of Gotham.

------
teyc
there is nothing wrong with concept videos as long as they are proof of
concept. Otherwise, it is no better than watching CSI.

