Increasingly, I feel the long-lived desktop model is a poorly implemented one. Anyone who has relatives with computers should attest as much. My grandmother called me once because she couldn't find her files ... it turns out she had simply saved everything she had ever done to the desktop, until the desktop had run out of space, stacking files on top of files and rendering them un-clickable.
Now, in my Gentoo days, I would have (and probably did) rail on her. How does lack of user training somehow reflect on a system's performance? "Gosh," I would say, "how can someone not understand something as simple as a hierarchical filesystem?!" One of the more transformative things that has happened to me is overcoming this attitude. Nobody worries about using their microwave because they're "going to break it", and yet this is a common concern we hear about the desktop. I feel we as developers and HCI experts have failed users every step of the way for over thirty years. We should be literally ashamed of what we have allowed computing to become.
Gizmodo would go on to put it in more concrete terms for me, describing what an HCI expert from the 70's named Jef Raskin called an "Information Appliance." I thought the description brilliant: a device that could immediately transform itself to be purpose-built to any task. Gone was the stress of being surrounded by ten attention-demanding windows floating on top of a hierarchical filesystem; what we were left with was a device that was good at everything, just when it needed to be. In retrospect, it was this power that initially attracted me to the iPhone. While my interest piqued only after I could develop for it, I immediately understood the potential of the decision.
So too was I pleasantly surprised when Apple announced the iPad, but the potential this time seems greater. Instead of challenging meek opponents* in an underdeveloped market like smartphones, Apple now has laptops and netbooks in its crosshairs. They intend to expand this brilliant metaphor to increasingly robust devices. Yet off of it hangs one terrible caveat: the App Store.
As an iPhone developer I've been there: the ludicrous provisioning profiles, the vague app store rejections, the $100 per year fee just for the privilege of riding the new wave ... it was enough to make Joe Hewitt leave the development scene, a terrible loss for the community. Despite its shortcomings, however, I cannot bemoan this decision too much. I understand the desire to provide a user with a cohesive, consistent user experience. Apple has done it best for years and it continues to do so now, with the App Store acting as a very public way to muscle developers into thinking like Apple wants them to. "Most people" will benefit from this decision, and for that I can't fault it.
However, claims of a dystopian future where Steve Jobs beams Apple-approved software into our heads are knee-jerk reactions at best and deceptive FUD at worst. I'm not saying that the app store is necessarily the most healthy decision ever made in computing history, but diversity will never disappear. Open source projects like Google's Android, companies like Dell, Asus, and HTC ... they are making the same strides as Apple, but in a significantly more transparent manner. Nokia's N900 is probably the most "open" device you can buy, and from what I understand it is doing quite well with the Linux/hobbyist crowd. Palm's WebOS has its own application portal, and brings with it one of the best user interfaces available on an embedded device. This market space is literally booming right now, and we have focused our attention solely on one device and declared it the devil.
This sort of vilification is, in short, wrong. We should be applauding their innovative approach, attempting to learn from it and refining it. It is my opinion that Android has done exactly this from the get-go. Many parts of the interface feel pleasantly reminiscent of my time with the iPhone, and yet the notification bar and multitasking bring back important elements of a powerful user interface. I'm extremely excited about the future of embedded computing with Android at the helm, just as I'm excited about the iPad and its potential transformative effects.
Rather than being afraid of new technologies, or dismissing them outright, we need to look at the bigger picture of what these devices bring to the table and how it could potentially impact how we interact with computers. The iPad is a great start, but we need to keep pushing, refining, tuning, and enhancing the user experience for everyone, "end users" and "power users" alike.
* If you honestly believe that RIM/Blackberry was moving in the right direction, you and I need to have a long discussion so I can ascertain exactly what people see in those devices. My experience with them has been so lackluster I can barely remember using them.
I really like this post.
ReplyDeleteGranted, I don't think I'll get an iPad personally, I can see a market for it - one that I'm not especially a part of, but that's no excuse for me to condescendingly say that it's not a valid market.
While both mac proponents and PC proponents can have their elitist side, I definately think that on the PC side of things we tend to be very intolerant of anyone who both A) has a smaller base of technological skill than us and B) shows no aptitude for improving that, but I totally agree with you that that's something of a selfish way of looking at things.
Apple has absolutely moved in some good directions here. Granted, with my particular philosophy of computing, it does chafe me a little bit how proprietary they tend to be, but hearing you talk about it from the end-user's perspective, rather than from the idealistic computer nerd's perspective, suddenly makes that make much more sense to me.
Here's to Droid, which seems to be finding a happy middle ground, at least thus far.
A good read!
I liked this post too! :)
ReplyDeleteI could probably put together a defense of the direction RIM/Blackberry has moved in, because I enjoy my Blackberry Bold a lot and have no need at all for an iPhone. I've also tried using an iPod touch and just didn't take a liking to it. My initial thought is that RIM hasn't brought much to the table that really pushes the boundaries of mobile devices, but it has been able to neatly package the functions needed by most business-oriented people.
http://www.blackberrycool.com/2010/01/04/blackberry-vs-iphone-in-enterprise-the-blackberry-scenario/
This article sums it up pretty nicely... RIM needs to continue to finesse the Blackberry OS, app store, and hardware to be able to keep up, but they do have an advantage in a certain market.
Android does look exciting to me, too. :D
Agreed. But the fearful part is how it is reflecting the same move the auto industry made years ago.
ReplyDeleteLast night Patrick's car died at JFK while I was waiting in the cell phone lot. It wouldn't turn over completely. I opened the hood after several attempts at starting it, only to find a veritable wall of plastic. Aside from the oil level and the windshield washer fluid, there was almost no part of this engine that allowed for user service. After a very cold 2 hours, AAA arrived and was able to start the car. Had his car not been so locked down, I might have been able to at least get some kind of diagnosis, and maybe even fixed it.
I've seen it done before in individual pieces of software, having a "dumb" mode and an "advanced" mode might be a good thing. It seems like mac and pc people alike have been trying to use "ADMINISTRATOR/user" models as if they were just "USERS". Sacrificing our right to "open what we own" rubs me the wrong way. It bothers me about Patrick's car, gaming consoles, video cameras, phones and computers, especially considering how much you and I and others rely on them to handle personal information. I think I'm trying to say that the ipad is a step in the right direction, but it is a step too far.
John: I disagree. A "walled garden" solution is not a step too far, so long as there are viable alternatives to it that do not hold such restrictions. You would never buy Patrick's car. As you have a level of technical proficiency that he does not, you would have chosen a car that allowed you to more easily work on it. Patrick, however, had no such requirement, opting to purchase a car for other reasons.
ReplyDeleteThe argument moves the same way in the embedded device industry. I bought an Android phone because I didn't like the restrictions Apple placed on both the App Store and device functionality (multitasking being the most critical,) yet I would never say that the iPhone is a poorly designed device. For even more control I could have opted for a Nokia N900, which provides you with admin-level rights from the start. The Nexus One is a few fastboot commands away from being rooted out of the box, a decision that was definitely made intentionally.
It is the gradated requirements of users that will ensure that we always have devices with the level of control we need, while "most people" are walled off from this kind of access, perhaps permanently. That's fine by me; people should not be afraid of technology because they can "break it."
It seems like a poor compromise though, having to sacrifice design for freedom.
ReplyDeleteAnd you are right, I would never buy Patrick's car. But you and I are going to live our lives in a world full of Kia Spectras and iPads, and when they break (and they will) we'll have to reign in that part of our nature that breeds self-sufficiency, swallow that lump and raise the white flag.
Once again, I disagree, and on both points. First: this is not a decision you and I have to make, our technical skill gives us the best of both worlds.
ReplyDeleteSecondly, if people want to own cars like Kia Spectras and own tech like the iPad, that's fine; they can take them to their respective dealers when they break. People who would own such devices have no interest in self-sufficiency. You can claim that's a poorly chosen lifestyle and in my own domain I agree, and yet 95% of car owners are not capable of even changing their own oil. Is every driver on the road "doing it wrong"? Lord no, they simply lack the domain knowledge of a mechanic.
It would be foolish to ask every motorist to understand the idea of fuel injection, and yet we ask every computer user to grasp the concept of a hierarchal file system. I think we can do better.