Skip to main content

Technology that serves us

Sam PageSam Page

Strategy & InnovationAI
Technology that serves us

I still buy most of my books in a bookshop.

I know I could get them cheaper and faster online. But I like the process. Browsing the shelves, picking something up, holding it. Buying a book is part of the joy of reading it.

And I'm clearly not alone. The Booksellers Association counted 1,052 independent bookshops in the UK and Ireland at the end of 2024, close to a ten-year high and well up from a low of 867 in 2016. That's nearly 30 years after Amazon started selling books online.

It's a small example of something I've been thinking about a lot. When technology serves us, it gets adopted. When it detracts from life, it gets rejected, however impressive it is.

We don't want to outsource everything

Shopping is something people actually quite enjoy doing. So is researching holidays and places to go. We might sometimes look for some support along the way, but we don't necessarily want the whole thing done for us.

That's why adoption of things like e-commerce can be quite slow. Online accounted for 27.3% of UK retail sales in April 2026, according to the ONS. That's a big number, but it's still below the 37.1% peak in January 2021, when the shops were shut. Given the choice, most of our spending still happens in person.

Don't get me wrong, there are times when it's more convenient. Yes, it may take away a small amount of joy, but in the moment convenience is more important. It's a balance, and we're weighing it up all the time, often without noticing.

Where technology failed the test

You only have to look at 3D TV. Around 2010 it was meant to be the future of home entertainment. By 2017 Sony and LG, the last two manufacturers still making them, had stopped. It never was adopted.

There were technical reasons and the cost. But for me the bigger issue was what it took away. Everyone in the room needed their own pair of glasses, and the benefit of 3D over losing the time with those around you was a massive negative for most people.

VR in the living room has a similar problem. Meta's Reality Labs has lost around $88 billion since it started reporting in late 2020, and this year Meta said it would cut VR investment significantly and move spending towards smart glasses. Apple's $3,500 Vision Pro reportedly had its first-year target of one million units more than halved, with production reported to have stopped at the end of 2024.

Even when people are gaming, they want to be present in the room they're in, especially when there are other people around them.

But audio and gaming works great. It adds to the experience without cutting you off from the room. Same with mixed reality headsets in a business environment. You want to understand what's going on right around you.

Social media is the tricky one

Social media can be a great thing. It's a brilliant way to be in touch with people, and a majority of US teens tell Pew it helps them keep up with what's happening in their friends' lives.

But it can also be a negative thing, because it keeps you hooked in and damages your mental wellbeing. 48% of teens now say social media has a mostly negative effect on people their age, up from 32% in 2022.

On the whole it was probably a plus initially. I question that now.

What decides whether we adopt or reject

This has been studied for decades. The Technology Acceptance Model, developed by Fred Davis in 1989, boils it down to two questions: is it useful, and is it easy to use?

For me it comes down to a balance. Is there more benefit than negative? When I look at what's been adopted and what's been rejected, the same factors keep coming up:

  • Convenience. Does it save time or effort when it matters?
  • Joy. Does it take away something we enjoy doing?
  • Connection. Does it bring us closer to people, or cut us off from them?
  • Control. Do we still feel in charge, or is it making decisions for us?
  • Confidence. Do we trust it enough to rely on it?
  • Wellbeing. Does it leave us better or worse off over time?

Technology doesn't need to score well on all of them. But the benefit has to outweigh the negative, and the negative includes what we lose as well as what we spend.

Why I'm not sold on personal AI agents for everything

This is why I don't think personal AI agents will be as widely used as some people predict, at least in our personal lives.

An agent that plans my holiday or does my shopping? I'm not sure I want that. They're things people quite enjoy doing. We might want some support, but we don't want them done for us.

But difficult tasks, like group organisation and life admin? Yes, agents should do those for us. If they can do them really well.

Trust is a barrier too. Research from RTB House this year found 35% of consumers across the US, UK, France and Japan want a human to approve a purchase before an AI completes it. Even for a purchase of up to $250 with a seven-day return window, only 22% of US Baby Boomers and 42% of Millennials would let an agent buy for them.

Customer service bots show both sides. A bot can be great if you've got a quick, simple question, but it can be terrible if you need complex support and help. Gartner found 64% of customers would prefer companies didn't use AI for customer service, and their biggest worry was that it would make it harder to reach a person.

Complex considered purchases are different again

Then there are the bigger, more complex considered purchases. Buying a flat. Buying a car. They involve a lot of research, comparison and uncertainty, and for most people that part isn't much of a joy.

This is where AI and AI agents will increasingly help with the decision-making process. Researching options, comparing them, answering questions and narrowing things down.

But they won't remove the human touch entirely. We are slowly seeing a shift, and people are now prepared to put down deposits for cars online. You can even test drive a Tesla and buy one without seeing a human being. But it's a minority rather than a majority. It's still very rare someone would buy a car without having gone to try it physically and spoken to someone about it. You only have to look at brands like BYD, which opened its 125th UK retail site at the end of 2025 and is still investing in showrooms for that reason.

The bigger the decision, the more confidence we need before we act. And for a long time, I believe a human will still need to be involved to add the final layer of trust.

Serve a motive or fail

The test for any piece of technology is pretty simple. Does it serve one of our motives?

When it serves one of our motives, great. It gets adopted. When it doesn't, it fails, however advanced it is.

For anyone building products, services or experiences, we have to make sure the technology is serving people. Is there more benefit than negative? If not, it'll be rejected.

Sources

Continue Exploring

Back to Insights