
From BBC, "Apple's 'magical' iPhone unveiled"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6246063.stm
Steve Jobs is selling hot air, and everyone is buying it as fast as they can. Apple creates/innovates/steals technology, makes it so that it can only be used in their Draconian fashion, colors it pretty, doubles the price, and then hypes it in a way that makes people want to buy it. And they do.
iPod. Give me a break, 20Gb mp3/video players were available for four years before Apple brought out the iPod. They were better then than what Apple offers now; however, Creative Labs and Archos were not the manipulators of public passion that Jobs is (credit where credit is due). He managed to convince people that what they really wanted (4 years ago) was a bigger, heavier device that could hold less songs smothered with Digital Rights Management (we aren't grown up enough to use our music the way we want to). Oh yeah, and it had to be White, cause, it like worked for the Beatles and all. And did I mention it connects easily to a pay-as-you-go service so that they can start making money off of artists and musicians as well?
C'est la vie. I remained smug, content in my knowledge that *I* wasn't throwing away my money on sub-par technology marketed to those who have more money than technological common sense.
I should say that I
became smug rather than remaining such, but only after repeated failed attempts to enlighten others.
Case in point, I'm in the Apple Store in San Jose (after just spending the afternoon lunch in the lion's den - Apple HQ in Cupertino). I'm looking at a nice-looking (of course) sound system for the iPod. Plug and thump bass with two speakers. The issue? I'm looking all over for the technical specifications of this device.
I'm curious to see the frequency response for such a large subwoofer (how low can you go?), and curiouser still to see if there was any digital 'magic' (ie, filter processing) in the mix, since most media played on an iPod is roughly of radio quality.
I looked everywhere on the package to no avail. I then notice there aren't specs on any other audio devices they have. I finally get a poor guy to help me, but he can't find the information on their website. After we open up a package to find the answer (a paltry 60hz) the manager admits that most Apple consumers don't care about the technical specifications.
Hello? I'm sorry, but - work with me on this - it seems that
if ever there was a time to care about 'the technical specs,' it would be when shopping for or buying technology!
Back to the article. Technology is not, capital EN, capital OH, capital TEE, in any sense of the word, MAGIC, yet this is precisely what Jobs wants us to believe given his incessant use of the word to describe his, ho-hum, overpriced telephone that can play mp3s and video.
It ain't magic; it's two-year old technology. If one were so inclined to have such a device years ago, one could, if one knew where to look.
So why does he call it magic? To make you think it's cool, duh. To make you think it's someone more advanced than you or modern technology. It ain't.
But let me be fair and address the 'magic' in question. The magic is in the way the software handles the new technology they are pushing... touch-sensitive displays. You know, the kind that have been on PDAs for over a decade? Only, these displays have a bit of a problem... they are susceptible to mistaken touches! You can "push a button" from merely holding the device!
So the technology is basically a faulty (by design) touch-sensitive panel. Big whoop. We've had those for years (he flat out lies when he says it's the most accurate one shipped). Jobs thinks so much of the PC-style desktop metaphor, that he thinks he's doing a noble thing by bringing it to touch-sensitive devices. His big innovation? You don't need a stylus... Erm... No. What you've done Steve, is you've worked really hard to mis-apply a metaphor to a phone.
But let's set that aside for now. What really astounds me is his claim that the interface is 'super-smart,' knowing difference when you accidentally press a button and when you intentionally press it.
In other words, the 'magic' is the operating system of the phone selectively either
ignoring or processing your input based on whatever algorithms were programmed into it at Cupertino. In other words, the device has the power to veto your input!
I've used products with a similar interface. Hated it. Unless you're flying a Jet at Mach 3(where human reflexes are too slow), I don't see any reason why user input should be so complicated. You see, buttons have what we call 'affordances'. When was the last time you tried to pull a button? Probably never... that's because the button itself gives you clues on how to use it. It affords pushing. Now contrast that with how many times you've pulled a door when you should have pushed (or vice-versa). Some door knobs and handles, such as curved handles, afford pulling, while some, such as a flat plate, afford pushing. Others still are ambiguous, like a simple door knob. Do you know by just looking at it if the door opens or closes? That's affordance. The more you have, in theory, the easier your interface is to use.
But you see, what Jobs has done by putting a button on a flat screen is take a perfectly good button, and remove all of its physical affordances. Oh, he added some pretty graphics to the device, but um... your thumb is blind and relies on touch.
But Jobs wants pretty, and... wow, it sure is pretty... I want one!
But now we have to deal with the MANY limitations of the desktop metaphor (clicking on icons) on a touch-screen display. Not the least of which is unintended button presses from simply holding the device, which is why Apple has to make their device 'super-smart' in the first place. LOL
Psst- wanna know what's 'super-smart?' Not building a device that is prone to accidental touches which require unnecessary monitoring of the device to tell if it's being used or not.
Why spend good money on unnecessary technology? Ever?
It's a cell phone-mp3 player, not a health-care system. It doesn't need to be smart. It needs to make phone calls and play music/video. That's all. Any extra technology needed to accomplish these goals is the result of an inferior design. Full stop. But it sure is pretty!
Over a decade ago, when researchers discovered they could program more than computers... they could program
environments ... people tried to build 'smart homes.' The idea is that if the home knew more about you and your habits, it could make like easier for you, turning on the lights automatically, regulating the AC/heating based on occupancy, automatically ordering food when stocks were low, etc.
I'll summarize my views then (as a researcher in the field) which are still the same: We don't need smarter light switches, we need smarter light switch designers and smarter light switch operators.
We don't need smart gadgets that try and compensate for poor design. What we need are gadgets that are smartly designed to work seamlessly with the real world (with us in it!)
Any device that limits your use of it or the media designed for it is ... wait for it ... BAD TECHNOLOGY. DON'T BUY IT!
But they won't listen to me... they've probably already bought an iPod mini, nano, and original, and they probably can't wait until July when they can buy at three times the price what we could get 2 1/2 years ago. But hey, this one isn't even white! Oh well, they'll just buy new iUpGrades in black.
I should end this by saying I don't hate macs or people who use them... some of my best friends... wait for it... are Mac users! But sometimes, I have dreams where I hear
this guy!