61–70 of 93 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
tactile was certainly a poor choice of words- but nobody can deny there is room for improvement. i still can't type without looking.
it's really not that hard. the buttons are always in the same place i can type with like 70% accuracy without looking on the iphone, with 1 hand
The problem with his article besides being obviously wrong in retrospect is his focus on usability as a defining factor for the success of the product. Usability and simplicity isn't why a product succeeds, it needs to be understood in context with engineering, marketing, luck, timing and so many other things. The iPhone succeeded because at the time it was such a fresh breath of air.
>As I expound in great detail in my book Why Software Sucks (Addison-Wesley, 2006, http://www.whysoftwaresucks.com/ ) your user is not you. Seems that the author was really looking for a promotion vehicle for his book and looked to take a big product launch like the iphone and use it to his advantage. Everyone that bought the book based on this ridiculous article should get their money back like everyone that bought…
So on the one side I don't know who this guy is, why I should have cared about his opinion back then... but at least now I know not to touch on of his books with a 10 foot pole... exactly because of the reason you explained.
>Sell your Apple stock now, while the hype's still hot. You heard it here first. AAPL on June 21, 2007 - $123.9 a share AAPL on September 4, 2010 - $258.8 http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=AAPL+JUNE+21,+2007 http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=AAPL+September+4,+2010
I can never understand why people give advice like that. If they are right, nobody will remember or credit them, and if they are wrong they look terrible. I certainly avoid making such statements, as I cannot bear the thought of my advice destroying the wealth of the people close enough to me to listen to me.
I still can't quite understand why you keep hearing people who could predict nothing (say many economic "experts" or technology "analysts") and journalist still go to listen to their prediction like they are Delphi's Oracle.
How embarassing for this guy. I guess the lesson is that armchair UI experts shouldn't underestimate Apple's product design skills. All his critiques are obvious issues that Apple was probably thinking about from day 1 of product design in 2005 or whenever. Buttons too small for touchscreen; make them bigger. No tactile feedback; make the UI super-responsive. On the other hand you can cut the guy some slack since he…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You've got to admit that Apple has an uncanny ability to find such things though. It's no random event.
No doubt. They've done remarkably well but this (1) hasn't always been the case with Apple and (2) they do benefit from a brand halo they have from the iPod which did change the game. It'll be interesting to see if they can extend their wins into a new realm like with their social network - ping. That would be a testament to the firm's brilliance.
I don't think Ping is a major product for them, I'm pretty sure that it's more a feature like Genius playlists or iTunes LP. I might be wrong here, but I don't get the feeling that they're trying to enter social networking as a realm. Just like MobileMe still hasn't been Apples big entry into cloud computing, it's just a nice add-on feature.
The first comment hit the nail on the head though. [...] Now the iPhone. When it hits the streets I guarantee it will sell like hot cakes (though not to you or me!). It is the must-have yuppie accessory of the decade. I predict they will sell millions of the things before anyone even stops to evaluate what they have actually bought.
first day: massive queues ==> Everyone on the net: "This is meaningless: they are just the Apple drones following their Apple master's orders"
first month: still in high demand ==> Everyone on the net: "Sure, it's going fine now. But wait until all the Apple zealot have got one and then demand will collapse"
first year: still in high demand ==> Everyone on the net: "Of course it's a good design, but I may as well buy X from company Y that will only come out in Z months: it's going to completely kill the iPhone. Anyone who is not a zealot will get one".
The common theme is that from day one people dismiss Apple gadgets as something that will only appeal the yuppies or the zealots. They said the same of the iPod. But they ended up selling more than 250 million iPods and something like 100+ million iOS devices (though there's a slight overlap between the two groups).
At which point do those that buy Apple gadgets stop becoming the minority of zealots/yuppies and _you_ become the minority?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You've got to admit that Apple has an uncanny ability to find such things though. It's no random event.
No doubt. They've done remarkably well but this (1) hasn't always been the case with Apple and (2) they do benefit from a brand halo they have from the iPod which did change the game. It'll be interesting to see if they can extend their wins into a new realm like with their social network - ping. That would be a testament to the firm's brilliance.
Apple got successes because they didn't shun risk. Often they got it right (e.g. the iMac, dropping the floppy, etc...). Others they got it wrong (e.g. the Mac cube, and their adding DVD players instead of CD-RW back when you couldn't have both easily).
But if you don't risk you get nowhere. Sony used to take risks... sadly not so much now (apart from the play station, but they got so burnt with the PS3 that I doubt they'll try again). I miss more gutsy companies.
The problem with his article besides being obviously wrong in retrospect is his focus on usability as a defining factor for the success of the product. Usability and simplicity isn't why a product succeeds, it needs to be understood in context with engineering, marketing, luck, timing and so many other things. The iPhone succeeded because at the time it was such a fresh breath of air.
True, but I actually think it succeeded very much because it was the first usable "smartphone". The author of this blogpost didn't realize this. Although he could do exactly same stuff on his old Nokia N-series, it wasn't until my dad got an iPhone that he began sending mails, browsing the web and listening to music on his phone. Now my mother's got one as well and she's doing the same.
What Apple realized was that you can't extend the current desktop metaphor to the mobile screen.
So yes certainly usability have much to do with it. But factors such as control over the user experience also had a lot to do with it.
In other words, apple could probably have done a worse job and still be successful because they controlled everything on the phone.
And obviously the ecosystem have been a huge factor just as it was for the iPod.
> The designers and technophiles who encouraged development of the iPhone have fallen into the trap of all overreaching hardware and software designers; thinking that their users are like themselves. Actually, I think both the worst and the best designers think their users are like them. It's just that the best ones are right.
The best designers have an accurate mental model of their users. In their mind, they can put their product in the hand of the 30 year old floor manager at the Borders at the mall and predict what will happen with shocking accuracy. They can predict it because they've watched the floor manager interact with past products in the usability lab dozens of times. And because they have watched that person dozens of times, t…
Apple don't do any kind of usability testing in any normal sense.
They build products they want themselves and then they see what happens. The feedback they get back from that is the feedback they use.