In 2009, a small team lead by Mark Shuttleworth, conducted a review of our key brand values and identity. Based on that work, a set of visual treatments were produced, and shared with key members of the Ubuntu Art community, spanning the core distributions, derivatives, and aligned efforts like the Forums. Representatives from Ubuntu, Kubuntu, Edubuntu, Xubuntu, Mythbuntu, SpreadUbuntu and more came to London and worked with the Canonical design team to refine the designs and work together. The results of that work are presented here.

Ubuntu rose to be the number one consumer Linux distribution pretty much since the day it was released, and it's no wonder why—it's the only distribution that even bothers thinking about design. It's nice to see how far come, but I feel like a lot of the roadblocks that will continue to prevent mainstream adoption are a result of focusing on the design elements that have to do with how the operating system looks and feels, and ignoring the design elements that have to do with how the operating system itself functions.

That being said, look and feel is a big part of getting people in the door, and stepping away from the brown humanistic theme is a giant leap forward. That theme was simple atrocious. Who thought that was a good idea in the first place?

Technologies tend to be global, both by nature and by name. Say “television”, “computer” or “internet” anywhere and chances are you will be understood. But hand-held phones? For this ubiquitous technology, mankind suffers from a Tower of Babel syndrome. Under millions of Christmas trees North and South Americans have been unwrapping cell phones or celulares. Yet to Britons and Spaniards they are mobiles or móviles. Germans and Finns refer to them as Handys and kännykät, respectively, because they fit in your hand. The Chinese, too, make calls on a sho ji, or “hand machine”. And in Japan the term of art is keitai, which roughly means “something you can carry with you”.

... Mobile phones do not share a single global moniker because the origins of their names are deeply cultural. “Cellular” refers to how modern wireless networks are built, pointing to a technological worldview in America. “Mobile” emphasises that the device is untethered, which fits the roaming, once-imperial British style. Handy highlights the importance of functionality, much appreciated in Germany. But are such differences more than cosmetic? And will they persist or give way to a global mobile culture?

Everyone feels the impending mobile revolution. As notebooks have largely replaced the need for desktops, so too will mobile phones supplant both. But how exactly that will happens isn't quite clear. People around the world use mobile phones differently. The concept of what a a mobile phone is for is different around the world. Can a revolution really happen without a clear consensus of what a mobile phone is for?

Google's Android may present a solution to this problem. Google's vision for Android extends beyond today's elite HTC smart-phones. They have expressed interest in creating a future for Android where all phones are "smart phones". Since Android runs on Java, this is actually possible. If a device has a fast enough CPU and enough memory, in theory, it can run the full Android operating system. Ten years from now the phones sold for $49 in the checkout lane at the supermarket will be capable of running an Android-like operating system.

When Apple came out with the iPod, it created what seemed like an entirely new market. Even today, there are "digital audio players" and then there are iPods. Apple's branding has lead consumers to see them as almost being two distinct kinds of products, and the iPod is now known around the world. Could we see the same thing in the mobile market in the not to distant future? A future in which there are mobile phones and there are Android phones? Can Google do for the mobile market what Apple did with the iPod?

I have no idea. Here's to finding out in the next decade.

Happy New Year.