Strategic Design Research Journal, 10(1): 12-22 January-April 2017 Unisinos – doi: 10.4013/sdrj.2017.101.02 This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0), which permits reproduction, adaptation, and distribution provided the original author and source are credited. Abstract This paper unpacks Sterling’s concept of spimes and outlines how it can be developed as a lens through which to speculate and relect upon the future of more preferable and sustainable technological products. The term spimes denotes a class of near future, sustainable, manufactured objects, and unlike the disposable products, which permeate our society today, a spime would be designed so that it can be managed sustainably throughout its entire lifecycle. This would have the goal of making the implicit consequences of product obsolescence and unsustainable disposal explicit to potential users. With the current rhetoric associat- ed with the so-called Internet of Things promoting existing production and consumption models, the time is right to explore Ster- ling’s concept in greater depth. In doing so, this paper examines the meaning of the term spimes, distinguishes the concept from today’s Internet-connected products and posits design criteria for potential near future spime objects. The paper concludes with an initial evaluation of a speculative design iction created by the author – the Toaster for Life – which seeks to embody several of the spime design criteria in order to facilitate audiences in considering the unsustainable people-product relationships which deine present day behaviour, and also aid the author in relecting upon the design iction process itself. Keywords: spimes, sustainable product design, internet of things, speculative design, design iction. Spimes and speculative design: Sustainable product futures today Michael Stead m.stead1@lancaster.ac.uk Lancaster University. HighWire Centre for Doctoral Training, The LICA Building, LA1 4YW, Lancaster, Lancashire, United Kingdom Introduction As populations continue to grow in size and afflu- ence, so too does the consumption of material goods and services. Allied to the linear production model of “take, make and dispose” that defines much of our global manufacturing industry, such profligate consumption has been shown to be highly detrimental to environmental sustainability (Webster, 2015). Electronic products have been shown to be distinctly unsustainable, with electronic product waste (e-waste) now said to be the fastest grow- ing waste stream in the world today, while the material resources needed to manufacture such goods are becom- ing ever more scarce (Greenpeace, 2014). Product manu- facturers’ penchant for planned obsolescence drives this culture. By using cheap, subpar materials and purposely failing to incorporate effective means for repair, upgrade and recycling, the lifecycles of most electronic products are designed to be brief. They are further curtailed by routine changes to functionality, aesthetics and software, resulting in older devices becoming quickly outmoded by newer designs (Slade, 2007). The inherently iterative nature of digital technolo- gy also plays an important role in product obsolescence. Since the 1960s, deference to Moore’s Law throughout in- dustry and academia has led to continual updates to com- puter software and hardware. Moreover, both the cost and scale of components such as resistors and semiconductors have significantly reduced, and global wireless networks and infrastructures have become almost ubiquitous. The result is that in recent decades we have seen computation- al capability spread beyond conventional screened devic- es to a plethora of other products. Dourish and Bell (2011) note how over the last 25 years, ubiquitous computing and Moore’s Law have in many ways consolidated their position as the dominant rhetoric throughout computing research and industry. Towards preferable futures Recent years have witnessed a growing interest in a corollary of ubiquitous computing, the so-called Internet of Things (IoT). The term is increasingly being used to de- note a class of everyday objects whose material elements are augmented by digital capabilities such as embedded software and connectivity through mobile Internet and radio-frequency identification (RFID) (Coulton et al., 2014). Seeing opportunities for product innovation and business growth, designers, technologists and manufacturers have been quick to explore the potential of the IoT. The Pebble Watch, iRobot Roomba Vacuum Cleaner, Nazbaztag Rab- bit toy and Nest Smart Thermostat (Figure 1) are cited as some of the first IoT products to find mainstream popular- ity amongst consumers (Rose, 2014). Whether or not one subscribes to the hyperbole, the possible futures that the IoT may bring stirs the imagi- nations of many. The UK government’s recently commis- sioned Blackett Review (Government Office for Science, 2014, p. 5) for example, eulogises the IoT as “a transforma- tive development [with] the potential to have a greater im-