Recently I wrote about the difficulty choosing a camera among many choices. Essentially, the problem was that Canon had several cameras that were essentially the same. In the comments to my original post, Jason gave a reason that manufacturers might have so many models:

“I’m sure GE would rather produce one product, but the large stores refuse to carry products that aren’t unique, in order to give them pricing freedoms, and not be held to their price matching promises if a competitor runs a special.”

Given that they must create so many similar products, it makes sense that companies resort to pseudo-random product numbering. The side effect is that not only can I not decide which item to buy, once I do, there’s no way for me to understand its place in the world. If we all went by our social security numbers, I might not have as many friends that I care about.

Des Traynor says to give your products names, not numbers, using mobile phones as the largest example:

“Funnily enough, the only people I know who can say it with certainty own the Motorola Razr. It’s easy to write that off as a result of impressive advertising, and a distinctive look and feel. There is one other big reason though, the Razr has a name.”

There are some humorous counter-examples in the comments (Levi’s, BMW, Chanel perfumes), but the point remains: names mean something, numbers don’t.

Here’s an idea that will help you save everybody’s time by applying constraints. Crunching your own time is easy. Just have a POWER HOUR, Four Day Work Week, or create a Seven Day Product.

To save others time, try time-boxing:

Time-boxing is “the setting of artificial time constraints for tasks like brainstorming and issue resolution. The objective is to cut down on exhaustive consideration of endless possibilities. With pressure to stay focused and disciplined, we can reduce the amount of time it takes to reach consensus.”

This idea comes from Ryan Freitas in an article comparing designers and chefs. For all four kitchen analogies, read the three page article Cooking Lessons for Designers (PDF 850K).

The real new web lies in off-the-cuff self-expression. Some are calling this microblogging.

It is easy for anyone to participate, because it easily integrates into your current activities:

• If you find a link on the web, share it (with friends or the world). Possibly include a bit of commentary about what you think. Example: del.icio.us
• Let people know what you’re up to. Answer from the web or your mobile phone. Example: Twitter, Facebook status.
• Upload a picture to a service that resizes and shares it. Easier than emailing digipics. Example: Flickr

And there are probably many other examples, with lots more added all the time. Each will be a tiny piece of letting me express myself during my regular routine. If it takes too much additional effort, 1) I might not do it and 2) it’s not really off-the-cuff.

The missing piece, which some are undoubtedly working on, is the connector between these, something to aggregate your digital life. Someone will figure it out and then there’ll be better ways to get a complete view of someone in near real-time.

Once these rivers of self-expression are flowing, the death of permanence will be even more obvious. Which leads me to wonder… as much as I like this off-the-cuff stuff, wouldn’t it be great if more permanent expression was just as easy?

The numbers out of Facebook are staggeringly large:

• 0ver 40 billion page views in May 2007
• Over 150,000 registrants daily.
• #1 photo sharing app on the web. 2.7 billion photos on site.

Many would point to these and say they are an example of amazing scaling. Instead, another jumped out at me:

• Half user are outside college. That number was zero in Sept. 2006.

Facebook started in 2004 at Harvard. When they got that down, they added three more universities. After over a year, the site expanded to cover 800 schools. Then they added high schools, they went international, and added work networks.

Finally, after they had things down pretty well, and after two years and eight months, Facebook opened up for everyone to join.

It’s not only about server scaling. It’s about idea scaling.

Do you have big ideas and dreams? I do.

I also believe that ideas alone aren’t worth much. Execution matters.

From there, you might get that the game plan for success is to jump completely into a huge undertaking. Unfortunately, you could end up biting off more than you can chew.

Tenet to live by: be wary when there’s an idiom about your situation–you may end up screwed.

I have done plenty of jumping in. I’ve been burnt and I’ve become burnt out. As great as big dreams are, you need to take small, simple steps to get to them. You need to worry about scaling. Yourself, your servers, but most importantly, your concept.

Whatever your big idea, other people don’t get it all at once. You might not even really get it until you start working on it.

In Mathematics, there’s a type of proof that uses induction. You start with a base case and show that something works for it. Then, you show that if something works any step, it will work for the next step.

Put that to work on your idea. Get something out, because that’s vastly better than nothing. Then see what you can do with that something, and how the next thing fits.