Monday, June 28, 2010

Take That, Jesus Diaz!

Well, I’ve had my iPhone4 for a couple of days now and I love it! I have two years to sing its praises. There are some, though, who are similarly enthused aginast the iPhone. Some protest because they just bought an EVO 4G. Some don’t like anything Apple does. Then there are some who just seem to miss the point. This essay is in response to a particular member of the latter group.


Gizmodo.com is scarcely a reliable source of information. To the skeptical reader (me), much of what they post feels...let’s say “borrowed” from other sources. They’ve done some sketchy things in the past that’ve earned them a solid spot on the second-and-a-half tier of Internet news.


Most recently, they sort of stole the iPhone4 from an Apple employee. Okay, they only subsidized someone else’s theft of said phone from said employee. After that, they took it apart, posted photos and videos online, and then hid behind journalistic rights when Apple got pissed. Curiously, Giz didn’t get a review unit. It’s okay though, they let the users post their own review in a hive-mind, cluster-fuck style. Lame.


Even more recently--yes, even more recent than “most”--Giz published an article describing the iPhone4’s flaws and design “failures” entitled “Fragile Beauty.”


The real critique begins in the third paragraph, "Your industrial design sucks because, despite your sheer beauty, your blazing speed, and having the best software in any smartphone today, Jon Ive and his team didn’t completely follow their beloved Dieter Rams‘ guidelines for good design." Translation: “Your phone sucks except for all the awesome stuff.” The emphasis on "completely" is theirs. There’s a lot of article left; I’m sure Giz’s justifications will become more clear.


I agree with the next paragraph that good design is defined by durability, both physical and temporal. A well-designed object can’t be easily scratched or otherwise damaged. It should “arrive to the future and feel at home and natural.”


I can think of few other devices that more closely follow these principles than the iPhone. Actually, I can’t think of any devices. Perhaps the greatest evidence is that the one thing that most-consistently foreshadows an Apple product’s entry into obsolescence is the next Apple product.


The iPhone isn’t easily scratched or shattered. It took Giz several purposeful drops to get the shatter they wanted. Others have complained about shattered screens after only dropping them a foot or so. Dropping a car from 12 inches will shake pieces loose, why should a phone, that's designed to live its life in a case or pocket, be more durable?


This teaches me that my tech gurus are idiots. They get a device that fits very comfortably in a pocket with more processing power than desktops from the early 2000s, with a richer software environment than any competitor, and deeper tech support than any other industry, and they complain that it breaks when dropped on pavement.


Well, no shit.


Farther down the article, we learn that the reason we “never” see items made of glass is because it--the glass--can break. Even allowing some leeway for the hyperbole that is “never,” the assertion bothers me. Generally, the harder something is, the more easily it cracks or shatters. On the other hand, making something truly shatter-proof would yield a surface similar to cellophane. Also, it would scratch.


I imagine this is an issue that plagues material engineers all day long. The best we, the user, can hope for is a nice middle-ground. From what I can tell, the iPhone4 has that balance: it won’t scratch or shatter easily, but both can happen.


Giz emphasizes their point with the questionable statement, “The fact is that, at the end of the day, dropping the phone while handling it is something that everyone will suffer sooner or later.” Again with the hyperbole!


Wait! We have an anonymous expert who can fully explain the problem? Maybe this is real journalism, after all.


At least Giz offers some alternative materials to glass. After all, it’s silly to critique without offering a solution. “Steel, aluminum, ceramics, teflon-coated materials, even wood” could be used on the back face. Since Giz’s main problems with the glass thus far have been scratching, cracking, and being slippery, I’m not sure what these materials are supposed to do.


Oh, it’s explained in the next paragraph. These materials all “age more gracefully.” I’m not sure that’s true. Steel and aluminum can scratch and scuff and get ugly, even if the surfaces aren’t polished. Ceramics are famously prone to chipping. “Teflon-coated materials” is uselessly vague, but would probably still scratch. Also, I’ve heard that Teflon is kinda slippery. Wood? Don’t be stupid.


A more legitimate critique is the antenna issue. If the lower-left corner of the phone is covered by a conductive material like, say, a hand, then the cellular signal noticeably degrades. I’ve seen this degradation on my phone.


Fortunately, I’m right-handed.


Apple’s officially offered a solution: hold the phone differently. Okay, Mr. Jobs. Part of the issue, Giz contends, and a seemingly-partial source of ire, is that the people affected by the poor signal are “holding the phone exactly like Apple shows in their ads and webpages.” Exactly? Hyperbole...and nitpicky, I know.


Don’t tell me! Is it possible that some of the promotional images are not raw, candid photographs of users have the time of their lives? Could I be overusing sarcasm? I think so.


The implication that the affected users now favor their left hands because that’s what they saw online is silly. That happens because, for whatever reason, some people use their left hand to make calls.


While Apple’s solution pleases me with its tone, I agree that it doesn’t address the underlying issue. It would be better if the device had been engineered in such a way that this wasn’t a problem at all. Since this is and issue--one of which I’m sure Apple was aware--and they released anyway, I’m gonna guess that the engineering- and design-based solutions are really hard.


Did anyone notice that Apple released a case (of sorts) along with the phone? They’ve never released a case before and this one supposedly fixes the signal issue. Giz doesn’t see this as a real solution because the flaw still exists. Users have three choices: hold it differently, buy a case, or lose signal quality.


While not perfect, these are reasonable options.


“Good design is unobtrusive. It can’t limit the user expression, much less obligate him to act in a certain way.” In principle, I agree, but the design and “obligation” are not obtrusive. Non-ideal, perhaps, but that’s as far as I can go.


In an astonishing abuse of the rhetorical-question-to-prove-a-point structure, they have the following:


"Jon Ive, do you think Dieter Rams would have asked people to place his T 1000 world receiver in a certain place of the house to have clear reception? Do you think he would have asked consumers to hold his Braun T3 pocket radio in a certain way to listen to the Beatles with perfect sound quality?"


Giz asserts that the answer is “no,” but I’m not convinced. Let’s say I really wanted to use both radios in my lead-lined room inside a Faraday cage. Dieter might recommend I rethink that. If there are specific and predictable circumstances under which a device will not operate, it is not inappropriate for a manufacturer to recommend the consumer avoid those circumstances.


For the same reason I don’t bother warming my CDs in a microwave oven or I wait to make toast until before or after my shower, I have no problem simply avoiding the lower-left corner of my phone. Until I get one of those bumpers. Then, that corner is mine.


Perhaps it’s a personal failing that I’m not more up in arms over this. If I drop a call because I’m holding the phone wrongly, then I’ll say “damn,” call back, apologize to the other person, and go from there. If my phone breaks because I dropped it from any height, I’ll scream “MOTHER-FUCKER!” and then bring it to the Apple Store.


It’s foolish for users to expect a hammer-and-nail sort of intuitive functionality, adamantium-grade durability, with an Apple aesthetic. Apple has released a phone that’s more powerful, prettier, and more durable than any of its competitors. It’s not perfect though, so keep it tucked away in a safe place and grasp it carefully.

1 comment:

John Ramsey Miller said...

Brilliant. Just brilliant. This could be a paying gig for you, Kiddo.