The Garden Of Technological Possibilities
Navigating the Multidimensional Labyrinth of Wearable Technology Development
Liked this piece? If so, you’ll want to check out other articles in Decoding Biology’s Wearable Technology & Biometrics collection. Additionally, you can show your support by tapping the ❤️ in the header above. It’s a small gesture that goes a long way in helping me understand what you value and in growing this newsletter. Thanks!
Borges’ Garden As a Framework for Innovation
In Jorge Luis Borges's short story, The Garden of Forking Paths, the protagonist Yu Tsun navigates a labyrinthine garden where each decision he makes creates branching realities. Unlike our everyday life where choices lead to singular outcomes, Borges' garden represents a multiverse where all possible choices exist simultaneously across parallel dimensions. This concept provides a surprisingly useful framework for understanding technological innovation, particularly in the rapidly evolving field of wearable technology.
The garden in The Garden of Forking Paths isn’t just a metaphor for decision making — it represents the non-linear, multidimensional, nature of time. As Borges explains, “In all fiction, when a man is faced with alternatives he chooses one at the expense of the others. In the almost unfathomable Ts'ui Pen, he chooses – simultaneously – all of them. He thus creates various futures, various times which start others that will in their turn branch out and bifurcate in other times.’’ This concept of simultaneous, branching realities offers a powerful lens through which to examine how technology evolves, with each innovation creating new possibilities that themselves branch into unexpected directions1.
In the wearable technology space, companies represent different parallel universes where initial design decisions—often seemingly minor at conception—create entirely divergent product ecosystems and user experiences. This article explores how these technological "gardens" form, evolve, and intersect, using examples from the NNOXX wearable, Apple watch, Oura ring, and others to illustrate the multidimensional nature of innovation2.
The Illusion of Unconstrained Choice
Before entering our garden of technological possibilities, we need to acknowledge what Borges subtly suggests throughout his short story — the illusion of unconstrained choice. While Yu Tsun appears to travel through the garden at will, it’s clear that some of his choices are predetermined for him. Similarly, in technology development, market forces, technological limitations, and user expectations create the illusion of unlimited design possibilities when, in reality, successful products often converge toward similar solutions as a result of these external constraints.
When developing wearable technologies, creators face what appears to be a near infinite number of design choices. However, physical limitations (battery technology, sensor capabilities, materials science), market expectations, manufacturing constraints, and regulatory requirements significantly narrow the field of truly viable options. What appears to be a vast garden of possibilities is actually a more confined space where innovation has to squeeze itself into the narrow channels between established pathways.
Consider how smartwatches, despite being developed by different companies with widely different products and design philosophies, have largely converged on similar form factors, interaction models, measurement capabilities, and feature sets. This convergence isn't coincidental but represents how external constraints funnel innovation through certain "preferred paths" in the garden. Understanding these constraints doesn't diminish the value of innovation but rather highlights how true breakthroughs often involve finding previously unnoticed openings in seemingly impenetrable walls.
The First Forking Path — Form Versus Function as Parallel Universes
The first crucial decision in wearable technology development—whether to prioritize form or function—represents not just a design choice but the selection of a parallel universe with its own physical laws and constraints. This decision doesn't only close off certain options; it fundamentally alters the technological reality in which all subsequent decisions must operate.
Form-first wearables like the Apple Watch, Oura Ring, and Whoop Band exist in a universe where aesthetic appeal and seamless integration with everyday life are paramount. These devices prioritize non-invasiveness, minimal footprint, and fashion-forward design. Their sleek appearances make strong visual statements, and their ubiquity stems partly from this design philosophy.
Meanwhile, function-first wearables like the NNOXX wearable, Levels constant glucose monitor (CGM), and Nix Biosensor inhabit a parallel universe where measurement accuracy, biomarker specificity, and data reliability dominate. In this reality, form follows function to a degree that would be unacceptable in the form-first universe. The placement of sensors, battery requirements, and even user interaction models stem directly from functional requirements rather than aesthetic considerations.
What's fascinating is that these parallel universes occasionally intersect. As technologies mature, form-first devices gradually incorporate more functional capabilities, while function-first devices evolve toward more elegant designs. This represents a unique phenomenon where parallel technological universes momentarily converge before diverging again as new innovations create fresh bifurcations.
Time as Non-Linear - When Past Innovations Become Future Possibilities
Borges' conception of time in the garden is fundamentally non-linear. Past, present, and future exist simultaneously, with paths converging, diverging, and sometimes circling back upon themselves. This non-linearity perfectly captures how technological development often revisits previously abandoned approaches when new enabling technologies emerge.
Consider early wearable computers from the 1980s and 1990s—bulky, impractical devices that failed commercially. The fundamental concept was sound, but the supporting technologies (miniaturized processors, efficient batteries, wireless connectivity) hadn't sufficiently matured. Decades later, these abandoned paths became viable again, leading to today's smart glasses, as well as the ubiquity of smart watches, fitness trackers, and wearable biosensors.
At NNOXX, non-linearity manifests in how certain measurement technologies, like near-infrared spectroscopy based muscle oxygenation measurements, once deemed impractical for consumer applications due to power and data processing constraints, and other factors, became viable years later with advances in hardware, battery efficiency, and data processing algorithms. In this way, ideas once abandoned have been resurrected as technological enablers evolved.
This non-linear progression in how technologies develop also underscores the importance of organizational memory within companies. Solutions discarded as impractical today might become tomorrow's breakthroughs when paired with newly emerging technologies. So, like Yu Tsun in Borges' garden, developers must maintain awareness of seemingly abandoned paths, as these might unexpectedly reconnect with the main journey when circumstances change later on. For example, consider how the Apple Newton, which was a commercial failure, later paved the way from the iPhone by demonstrating the potential of handheld devices and touchscreen technology3.
Constraints as Creative Catalysts — The Paradoxical Freedom of Limitation
One of the most counterintuitive aspects of technology development is how constraints often drive innovation rather than impede it. This parallels Borges' garden, where the very limitations of the labyrinth—its walls and boundaries—create the conditions necessary for exploration and discovery.
When my teammates and I at NNOXX first started prototyping our optics, we determined that accurate muscle oxygenation and nitric oxide measurements required specific LED-photodiode separation distances. This constraint eliminated certain form factors off the bat. However, this limitation catalyzed creative thinking about alternative designs, ultimately leading to the distinctive pill-shaped device that optimally balanced technical requirements with aesthetic considerations.
The constraint-driven innovation phenomenon explains why function-first wearables often pioneer breakthrough technologies. By embracing certain limitations (like larger form factors, specific body placements, higher power requirements), these devices can explore measurement modalities impossible within the constraints of form-first designs like smartwatches, rings, etcetera. Paradoxically, by accepting certain restrictions, function-first wearables gain the freedom to innovate across other dimensions.
This principle extends beyond hardware to software design, business models, and user experience. Constraints in one area often spark creativity in others, creating a complex interplay of limitations and innovations that propels technology forward in unexpected ways. In Borges' terms, the walls of the garden don't just restrict movement—they define the very paths that make navigation possible.
The Adjacent Possible — How Innovation Creates New Paths
Stuart Kauffman's concept of the adjacent possible provides another dimension to our garden metaphor. This concept suggests that innovation happens at the edge of what's currently possible with each new technology opening doors to possibilities that weren't accessible before. Similarly, in Borges' garden, certain paths only materialize after specific choices have been made.
The wearable technology landscape exemplifies this principle perfectly. Early fitness trackers like the original Fitbit, or even the Omega Wave, created adjacent possibles that led to more sophisticated health monitoring later on. These, in turn, opened pathways to today's advanced wearables that measure previously untrackable biomarkers.
At NNOXX, the development of a sensitive, miniaturized, sensor for measuring muscle oxygenation, nitric oxide bioactivity, and movement acceleration created adjacent possibles in data analytics and personalized exercise recommendations that simply couldn't have existed without the foundational technology. The company didn't just choose a path in an existing garden—it created new paths that extended the garden itself. This phenomenon explains why technological forecasting is so challenging. We can only see the paths immediately adjacent to our current position — the paths that will emerge after the next innovation remain invisible until we reach them. Like Yu Tsun in the garden, technologists must make decisions with incomplete knowledge of how these choices will reshape the landscape of future possibilities.
Users as Co-Creators — The Interactive Labyrinth
Borges' labyrinth isn't static. It responds to and is shaped by the people who navigate it. Similarly, users aren't passive recipients of wearable technology but active co-creators who reshape technological trajectories through their usage patterns, feedback, and unexpected use cases and applications.
When NNOXX first developed its wearable biosensor, my team and I envisioned certain use cases based on the device's capabilities and our own experiences beta-testing it. However, once adopted by professional athletes and teams, users discovered novel applications we hadn't anticipated. Professional cycling teams used the technology to optimize training intensity during high altitude training camps, where power-based training models established at sea level falter, professional climbers used it to quantify tissue-specific training effects, and ultramarathon runners employed it to fine-tune pacing strategies during extreme endurance events.
These user-driven applications created entirely new development paths that wouldn't have emerged from internal R&D efforts alone. User feedback loops transformed the garden itself, opening paths that weren't visible during initial design phases. In some cases, users even created informal modifications or usage protocols that were subsequently incorporated into official product features.
This co-creation dynamic demonstrates why the garden of technology development isn't predetermined but constantly evolving through interaction between creators and users. The most successful wearable companies embrace this iterative collaboration, recognizing that their products will invariably be used in ways they never imagined.
The Second Forking Path — Target Users and Business Models
The selection of target users represents another critical juncture in our technological garden—a decision with profound implications for business models, distribution strategies, and value propositions. Different user segments inhabit distinct realities with their own needs, preferences, and willingness to make tradeoffs. Consumer-focused wearables like Apple Watch target mass-market users who prioritize ease of use, aesthetic appeal, and broad functionality. This path leads to retail distribution channels, subscription-optional business models, and features accessible to non-specialists. The marketing emphasizes lifestyle enhancement rather than specialized performance metrics.
Professional and high-performance wearables like NNOXX target elite athletes, teams, and researchers who prioritize specialized measurements, raw data access, and performance optimization. This path necessitates different distribution channels (direct sales, professional networks), education-heavy marketing, and often subscription-based models that fund ongoing future and analytics development.
Medical wearables like continuous glucose monitors target patients and healthcare providers, creating yet another universe with unique regulatory requirements, distribution through medical channels, and often insurance-based payment models.
Each of these paths represents a fundamentally different universe with its own physics of business. The target user decision doesn't just influence marketing strategy—it reshapes every aspect of the business, from product development priorities to long-term viability metrics. Companies that attempt to simultaneously inhabit multiple universes often struggle with contradictory requirements and diluted value propositions.
The Ethics of Path Selection — Values Embedded in Design
Borges' story contains profound ethical dimensions often overlooked in technical analyses. Similarly, the ethical implications of design choices in wearable technology merit deeper examination, as these decisions embed values and assumptions that shape user behavior and potentially influence health outcomes.
When a wearable company decides which biomarkers to measure, how to present that data, and what recommendations to derive from it, these aren't just technical decisions but value judgments about what constitutes health, performance, and wellbeing. A device that primarily tracks caloric expenditure implicitly reinforces different health values than one measuring recovery metrics or cognitive performance.
The algorithmic interpretations of raw data represent another ethical dimension. When software interprets biometric patterns to suggest training adjustments, these recommendations contain embedded assumptions about training philosophy, risk tolerance, and performance priorities. Similarly, sleep trackers that score sleep quality make implicit judgments about optimal sleep architecture that may not apply universally across populations.
Data privacy represents yet another ethical dimension. Form-first consumer wearables often monetize user data, creating business models with different privacy implications than function-first devices aimed at professional users who demand data sovereignty. These ethical dimensions aren't peripheral considerations but central to the paths companies choose in the technological garden.
The most thoughtful wearable companies recognize these ethical dimensions and make transparent choices aligned with coherent value systems. Like Yu Tsun in Borges' garden, they understand that path selection isn't merely about efficiency or commercial viability but about the kind of world their choices help create.
The Third Forking Path — Data Visualization and User Experience
Data visualization represents a particularly fascinating junction in our garden of technological possibilities. How companies choose to present biomarker data reflects fundamental philosophical positions about user agency, data transparency, and the relationship between technology and human decision-making.
Form-first consumer wearables often adopt abstraction and simplification, translating complex physiological measurements into easy-to-understand scores or recommendations. Whoop's "Strain" and "Recovery" scores, or Oura's "Readiness" metric, represent attempts to distill multidimensional data into actionable insights accessible to non-specialists. This approach prioritizes accessibility over completeness, making an implicit judgment that most users need guidance rather than raw data.
Function-first wearables like NNOXX often take a different approach, providing both simplified insights and access to raw data. This philosophy assumes users (or their coaches) possess the expertise to interpret complex physiological patterns and derive personalized insights. The resulting interfaces often feature more detailed visualizations, time-series graphs, and export capabilities for integration with external analysis tools.
These divergent approaches reflect different conceptions of the user—one as a consumer seeking guidance, the other as a collaborator in data interpretation. Neither is inherently superior, but each creates a different relationship between user and technology that shapes how the device influences behavior and decision-making.
The most sophisticated wearable companies recognize the need for multiple visualization layers that serve different user needs at different times. Like Borges' garden with its network of intersecting paths, these interfaces allow users to navigate between simplified overviews and detailed data explorations based on their current needs and expertise level.
The Final Forking Path — Feature Evolution and Product Lifecycle
The ongoing evolution of features represents the final and perhaps most complex manifestation of our garden metaphor. Unlike physical products that remain static after manufacturing, digital wearables continue to evolve through software updates, creating an ever-branching tree of possibilities throughout the product lifecycle.
When a wearable company introduces new features, these don't merely add functionality but often fundamentally alter the product's identity and value proposition. A device initially focused on fitness tracking might evolve toward health monitoring, sleep analysis, or stress management based on user feedback and competitive pressures. Each feature addition represents a fork in the garden that permanently alters the product's trajectory.
This evolutionary dynamic creates interesting tensions between original vision and market responsiveness. Apple Watch began primarily as a communication device but evolved significantly toward health monitoring based on user adoption patterns. Similarly, NNOXX's initial focus on muscle oxygenation and nitric oxide bioactivity for endurance athletes expanded to include more general applications, like readiness assessments and guided workouts, based on unexpected user demand.
The challenge for wearable companies lies in navigating this evolving garden without losing coherence or diluting core value propositions. Adding features that create adjacent possibles can strengthen the product ecosystem, while those that diverge too far from core capabilities can create confusion or undermine performance in primary use cases.
This dynamic explains why product roadmap decisions in wearable companies aren't only about resource allocation but about fundamental identity and positioning. Like Yu Tsun in Borges' garden, product teams must make choices that balance exploration of new paths with fidelity to the journey's original purpose.
Navigating the Multidimensional Garden
Borges' "Garden of Forking Paths" offers more than a metaphor for technological decision-making—it provides a framework for understanding the multidimensional, non-linear nature of innovation itself. The development of wearable technology doesn't follow a predetermined path but unfolds through a complex interplay of technical constraints, market forces, user co-creation, and ethical considerations that continuously reshape the garden itself.
The most successful wearable companies recognize this complexity and approach navigation with both intentionality and adaptability. They make deliberate initial choices about form versus function, target users, and core value propositions while remaining responsive to the unexpected paths that emerge through technological advancement and user interaction.
For creators and innovators in any field, the garden of forking paths offers a valuable lesson. The decisions we make don't just select between pre-existing options but actively create new realities with their own physics, constraints, and possibilities. In this multidimensional labyrinth, success requires both clear vision and peripheral awareness—the ability to pursue a chosen path with conviction while remaining alert to unexpected openings in the garden walls.
As we continue to develop technologies that interface ever more intimately with the human body, the philosophical dimensions of these choices become increasingly significant. The garden we create through our technological decisions isn't merely a collection of products but an environment that shapes human experience, health, and performance in profound ways. Navigating this garden mindfully requires technical expertise, market awareness, and ethical consciousness—the same qualities that guided Yu Tsun through Borges' labyrinth toward a destination he couldn't fully envision at the journey's start.
Interested in working together? I advise small companies, startups, and VCs on topics ranging from biosensor development, multiomics and biometric data analysis, network modeling, and product strategy. Contact eva♦peiko♦@gmail.com (replace the ♦’s with n) for consulting inquiries or newsletter sponsorship opportunities.
This idea— that each new technology gives rise to other new technologies, often unrelated to the initial innovation, in a process similar to evolution— is explored in both W. Brian Arthur’s The Nature of Technology: What it Is and How it Evolves and Kevin Kelly’s What Technology Wants. The former influenced by thinking when writing this piece, whereas I just recently read the later (months after originally writing this article).
I can only speak with first-hand experience about the development of the NNOXX sensor, having been involved in everything from conceptualization to development to commercialization. All other accounts are second-hand and have been informed by conversations i’ve had with current/former employees at the companies who development these technologies and/or what I’ve been able to read about how these technologies we’ve developed online.
At the time of the Apple Newton’s release, touch screen technology was imperfect, handwriting recognition was subpar (the Newton used a stylus, which you can draw and write with), and multi-touch didn’t yet exist. But, years later these same concepts were recycled, refined, and perfects in the iPhone as enabling technologies gave way to new developments.