Disney is redesigning the House of the Future. This makes sense. Anyone who has been on the Carousel of Progress knows how hopelessly out of date the attraction is. It’s a great example of trying too hard. When I was there a few years ago, I couldn’t help but get the feeling that everyone was thinking, uh, that’s it?, although it probably didn’t help that the ride got stuck, and we watched 1964 three times.

The original house of the future was in the same “let’s celebrate technology” vein, but Mr. Disney came to his senses and tore the thing down in 1967. This also makes sense. It was a blobject: some sort of quad-lobed turd where everything was constructed of a mildly carcinogenic resin, allowing you to wash the living room with a hose. It also featured an enormous wall-mounted television which did not work because it hadn’t been invented yet. The house of the future may have been different, but it wasn’t terribly appealing.

“The house of the future may have been different, but it wasn’t terribly appealing.”

Fast forward to now, and Disney is working on its New and Improved House of the Future, presumably for the New and Improved future we currently have in mind. It’s sponsored by—who else?—Microsoft, and Hewlett Packard, two companies who were at the top of their game late last century. Like with all things of The Future, its technology complex, but neither advanced nor does it make much sense as a livable space.

Let’s start with the advancement. From the description that’s provided, there is nothing in the house that is actually an extrapolation or step forward from anything we have now (although it may not be on the market yet). The only feature that doesn’t appear to have a direct correlation with existing technology is the closet that helps you choose clothes for a party. However, I suspect that if you’re the sort of person who needs help from their closet as to what they should be wearing to a party, you probably don’t have the problem of getting invited to too many parties to begin with.

Another thing I don’t understand is the counter that can recognize the groceries set on it, and suggest recipes based on those ingredients. It’s a currently feasible concept—and it completely ignores how people live their lives. From what I understand, most people shop for the ingredients they need to make the dishes they have in mind. They do not walk through the store picking up random foodstuffs, and then try to combine those into some manner of loaf when they discover there is not an actual dish they can make with what they bought. When you get home and set the ingredients on the counter, you already know what you’re going to make with them, and don’t need the counter to clue you in. Whiz-bang yet unhelpful.

This leads into a major issue I’ve seen with all things of the future: the livability factor. They put forth gadgets and concepts which do not at all translate into an actual living space. There is no digital lifestyle being presented here, because no one defines their life by what gadgets they have. They buy gadgets to support the type of life they live. The house of the future presumes technology, then tries to shoehorn human nature around it, and it always ends up absurd.

The underlying problem I see to this is much broader. It’s the problem of modularity. Every house of the future I’ve ever seen is technological—and completely integrated. It’s networked and computerized and even the coffee maker has a little touch screen on it. I’m not going to insist that coffee makers will never have screens on them, although I think it’s a superfluous feature, but I can guarantee that successful gee-whiz technology like this will not be widely adopted unless it’s modular and fully customizable.

The house of the future as imagined by Microsoft is never going to catch on because the cost of all the technology to do those great things is exponentially higher than picking and choosing which technology you want and actually use. What happens if I don’t want the wardrobe-suggesting wardrobe? Can I opt out? Is it built into the house’s AI? What if I don’t have a TV? Why would I need a TV, anyway? Can’t this house of the future convert the signal to my computer screen?

Interestingly enough, the answer to this last question could very well be no. Let’s not forget that Microsoft’s Vista prevents an HD signal from traveling to a non HD-certified device. I’ve had a 20″ HD monitor at home for a few years now, but if I had a Vista machine, it would not allow me to play HD content on it because it doesn’t have an HDMI connector, and also it’s not “HD certified” even though, technologically speaking, there’s no difference.

Modularity is the problem with the house of the future, but standards are the problem with modularity. Modularity means choices. It means no control of content. It means no vendor lock-in. It means less money for Microsoft and Hewlett-Packard because when you can plug your Apple into your Microsoft House of the Future (or your cheap Chinese knock-offs, even), now Microsoft has to compete. On the other hand, when the touch screen in built into the counter top, it’s likely to violate the EULA you “signed” (by walking through the front door) when you try to run non-Microsoft approved software on it.

We’ve seen this in the past. Companies do pretty well when developing standards within their domain of expertise, i.e. with media, or new ports and that sort of thing. But a House of the Future would need some communication standard that everyone from clothiers to farmers to the appliance manufacturers to computer makers to window installers to cable companies to telecoms to… you get the idea. Every company that manufactures anything with the intent to have it be “smart”—integrated into the house in some way—will need access to this standard and it has to be cheap enough to license so as to not adversely affect the price of the basics, like clothes or groceries. Otherwise people buy the non-smart stuff, and the model fails, once again.

The chances of so many disparate vendors coming together to design standards for something as complex as a House of the Future is practically nil. If a standard is developed at all, it would probably be done by a single company who then freely licenses it to anyone who asks, but even that does not guarantee widespread adoption.

I expect that in about ten years time—the same length of time that the original House of the Future lasted—this is going to be laughably naive. And ten years isn’t that long of a time. Anything futuristic is going to be outdated sooner or later, but we could be doing a much better job by imaging how people actually live in the first place, and imagining technology which aids that.

Then again, I suppose one must keep in mind that the new House of the Future is not supposed to show off the future at all. It’s just there to show off Microsoft and Hewlett-Packard, so the fact that it’s so absurd would make sense.

-Ted