Innovation shaped by products – from Sony and BlackBerry to Intunio

When products were genuinely different

My early years as a designer at Sony Ericsson coincided with a period of rapid development in mobile phones. Cameras, music players, video calls, sensors, and connectivity gradually became part of the device, and the interplay between hardware and software opened up significant space for innovation.

Feature phones evolved in many different directions. There were clear attempts to create distinct products for different needs: music phones, camera phones, business devices, and simpler models for other target groups. Form factors such as candy bar phones, clamshells, swivel designs, and more experimental constructions were explored in parallel.

That variation influenced how teams worked. When products were clearly different and competed on different qualities, an innovative mindset was encouraged. New ideas around interaction, functionality, and overall experience had room to be explored, and innovation was rewarded when it contributed to clearer positioning or better usability.

Research, touch, and innovation ahead of its time

During my time at Sony, I had the opportunity to work at Sony Computer Science Laboratories in Tokyo, where I had the privilege of working directly with Jun Rekimoto. I had followed his work in HCI during my studies, and his ability to think beyond existing technical limitations made a strong impression on me.

At the lab, we worked on future interaction concepts, including an idea at the time known as PreSense. It was a pressure-sensitive touch technology capable of detecting different levels of pressure and combining this with haptic feedback. I worked on adapting the technology for potential future Sony phones and exploring what new types of interaction it could enable.

It opened up many interesting possibilities, but also made the boundary between ideas and innovation very clear. The technology was promising, but not yet mature enough for mass production or the durability and reliability requirements of commercial products.

A few years later, similar principles became reality when Apple introduced Force Touch in its products. Not because the idea was new, but because the technology, manufacturing processes, and ecosystem were finally ready.

That experience has influenced how I view innovation. New ideas are often the starting point, but they become real innovation only when they can be integrated into a context where technology, usability, and long-term sustainability work together. When that happens, ideas can move from demonstrating what is possible to actually improving how products are used.

The smartphone revolution and the pace of innovation

When the iPhone was launched, it did not just change the market, but fundamentally reshaped what was considered good usability. Touch became central, and expectations around how direct, responsive, and intuitive a product should feel shifted in a very short time.

The iPhone introduced several new interaction paradigms that quickly became second nature to users: flick scrolling, pinch to zoom, and a completely new way of navigating content with fingers rather than buttons. This sparked an intense wave of innovation around touch and interaction, both among established companies and new players.

During this period, I worked at Sony Mobile with UX strategy and concept development for the company’s early Android phones. There was a strong sense that we were entering a new era of interface innovation, where new gestures, new patterns, and new ways of interacting would continue to emerge rapidly.

In hindsight, that turned out to be only partly true. Surprisingly few fundamentally new interaction patterns have been introduced since the first iPhone. A handful, such as swipe to unlock and later swipe to multitask, have become established. But much of what we still use today is built on the same core paradigms introduced at that time.

It became an early reminder of how innovation often works: major leaps are rare, but when they happen, they establish patterns that persist for a long time.

Efficiency as innovation at BlackBerry

At BlackBerry, we worked with UX at a platform level, with a strong focus on communication, efficiency, and pace. Innovation rarely lived in visual expression, but in how quickly and smoothly users could accomplish their tasks.

Gestures and shortcuts were used to reduce friction and cognitive load. Many solutions built on thinking from keypad-based phones, adapted for touch. Communication such as SMS, BBM, and email was central, as was the ability to switch quickly between apps and tasks without losing context.

One concrete example is the gesture of swiping up and holding to enter app multitasking. This type of solution was not intended to feel like a new feature, but like a faster and more natural way of working. Similarly, a gesture from the bottom edge made it possible to directly access the communication hub where all messages were collected.

This was innovation designed not to be noticed. The goal was for solutions to feel obvious when used, not to demand attention.

In that environment, we also worked systematically with innovation through patents, as a strategic way to build a strong portfolio against competitors and create space for long-term product development.

Innovation as responsibility, not expression

After working in fast-moving product environments, one thing became clear: innovation has no value in itself. It is only meaningful when it improves how products are actually used, over time.

Ideas that do not solve real problems disappear quickly. Those that do become patterns, and eventually standards. This applies whether you work with consumer products, apps, or professional tools.

When we started Intunio, we brought this product perspective into new contexts. Today, we work with everything from digital products and apps to technical platforms and systems used in professional environments, often closely connected to hardware and physical products. Regardless of context, the same requirements apply: solutions must work in everyday use, be able to evolve over time, and earn the trust of those who use them.

In this kind of work, innovation often takes a different form. Familiar interfaces create confidence and efficiency. Innovation tends to deliver the most value in the product as a whole: in functionality, architecture, data flows, and how systems support real-world workflows over time.

My experience has convinced me that the most responsible innovation is often restrained. Choosing well-known patterns in the interface creates space to change what truly matters.

It is not about avoiding change, but about choosing it carefully. Building products that last, that can be developed further, and that users can rely on, often requires fewer visible novelties and more thoughtful decisions.