Antithesis of Apple Design

DMC-FX7

ƒ/2.8

5.8 mm

1/20

150

Why do companies release “converged” consumer electronics products with designs that seem so random to the user? (Is it the complexity of task? UI mode blur? Diversity of customer expectations?…)

After trying to use the Kodak EasyShare-One, I associate “pen on a camera” with Snakes on a Plane. Both are strange bedfellows.

For example, a pen can be helpful for photo editing and sharing, but that is a very different use mode than photography.

Fumbling with a pen does not make sense when taking photos.

Is this obvious to you too, or am I just expressing a personal opinion?

This camera requires the pen for basic photography settings (photo mode, exposure, etc). For example, to set the 2 second auto-timer takes 19 taps of the pen… for each photo! (Palm used to have a “tap counter”… a person who job it was to make sure that nothing on the Palm took too many taps.)

There is not a lack of button real estate for the typical photography functions. Kodak instead dedicates buttons for “Share” and “Back”, which are used in Edit/Share Mode… when you have to use the pen anyway. The hardware design decisions on buttons vs. pen seem like a random blend among modes of use. With camera in one hand and pen in the other, the handoffs are cumbersome. You can’t use the pen to push the buttons.

Needless to say, there is a long list of quirky hardware design decisions (the screen pivots the wrong way, the battery cover slides open when pulling the camera from the case), but the concept of modes of use seems so fundamental.

And the software UI seems to be inspired by Windows (note: not a role model). After taking a photo, the camera puts a progress bar over the image, so the user can’t review their shot during the processing delay. And like Windows, even shutting down is not a simple press of the power button. It generates a dialog box and prompts the user to spend a few seconds holding the button.

What would Apple do? Soon the iPod will be a method to generate and consume media. That means a camera. Apple will face similar convergence challenges, but I’d bet they keep it simple, elegant and intuitive.

Expanding the iPod will be an important and interesting test for Apple, and a canonical example of Winblad’s prediction, earlier this year, that Design Will Rule.

18 responses to “Antithesis of Apple Design”

biotron

Apr 19, 2006 at 11:36 pm

a worthy rant! seems plain daft to me…

Reply
Ross Mayfield

Apr 19, 2006 at 11:58 pm

Because (at least possibly):
a) in the absence of connections, nodes are state attractors
b) the paradox of choice

Reply
angry shock

Apr 20, 2006 at 12:25 am

Because they don´t teach "Common sense" at Industrial Engineering / Design universities. And I have come to discover with time of observation that it (common sense) neither comes in humans as a default setting.

Now, more seriously, one interesting thing I learned at a Creative Ideas workshop, is the odd ratio 60:1. It requires 60 random ideas on something to eventually get 1 good idea. Every 60 ideas you get a cool one. I bet, you may correct me, that a similar or worse brutal ratio works for projects you receive from entrepreneurs: 1 may be good among 60. (59 which are not necesarilly ‘bad’, but they don´t make it)

My point is that despite the evident lack of common sense in this device design, it looks -seeing the big frame of technology advancement- that this belongs to the necessary 59 designs you need to finally get a good one. Perhaps in Design the ratio lowers -compared to the ‘raw’ Ideas area-, for you have to have passed a lot of filters already (60:1 nested filters). Nontheless, you see many of these incomprehensible hybrids which made it to the market.

This device would work for people with 3 hands: 1 for the pen, the other 2 for the cam.

Excellent post, Jurv. I hope Apple follows the steps you forsee. =)

Reply
ranjit

Apr 20, 2006 at 2:36 am

I blame it on radioactive potassium!

Reply
Todd Huffman

Apr 20, 2006 at 3:15 am

It’s the consumer… Apple’s consumers have more sophisticated UI choices, and are vocal with thier desires (someone at apple is reading the forums). When Apple releases substandard features, people bitch, and someone listens.

I sent an e mail once to apple, bitching about thier mice… and lo! the Mighty Mouse!

Perhaps Kodak will change, given your extensive feedback.

Reply
Telstar Logistics

Apr 20, 2006 at 5:02 am

Seconded. A very worthy rant. I just got done test-driving four pocket digicams, and inevitably I return to the same conclusion: What matters most in a camera (nay, any device?) is usability on a day-to-day level. Interfaces. Tactile feel. Intuitiveness. And, FWIW, these were also the fatal flaws in the Kodak V570. The wide-angle lense is fantastic to have, and the chassis design is gorgeous, but in the end, the UI (both on screen and tactile) was so cumbersome that I gave up on the thing for daily use.

Reply
boring fact

Apr 20, 2006 at 1:09 pm

so with this one, self portraits only?:) (ducking and running from academia)very timely subject as I am looking at so many of them (cameras). Very interesting, thanks again!

Reply
pfflyerpf

Apr 20, 2006 at 1:12 pm

eye…eye…; "

Reply
jurvetson

Apr 20, 2006 at 10:47 pm

Ross: parsimonious and intriguing…. Care to elaborate on state attractors?

Alieness: very interesting. Yes, creative breakthroughs come from volume. No question. Edison had over 1000 patents, and we don’t fault him for the huge number of them that never saw the light of day.

Do you know if the 60:1 was for products released to market or just developed internally?

Here’s the IDEO toy design data I have: Per year, 4000 early drawings -> 200 Detailed Designs -> 10 brought to market -> 1 commercial success. (from Sutton ’98)

In the early stage venture business, it’s not that different: we get 30K business plans a year -> 750 first meetings -> 150 follow-on meetings -> 20 investments -> 2 eventual successes

(Of course, there is a big sample selection bias to draw any conclusions about how many of the 30K become successful; we only have data on the ones we choose to pursue)

If it’s a numbers game, is there any reason to expect Apple to have a string of success? Might the series of iPods be a one-hit wonder like the Sony Walkman series? Oddwick would seem to disagree…

Oddwick: Kodak has connected me with the product manager for this camera…

Sol1: yeah, the pivot is pretty silly on this camera… you can’t use it for low-down nature shots as I had hoped (like you can with a Nikon or Sony pivot screen).

I have used several pocket cameras in the past 2 years. I highly recommend 1) the Casio Z55 or 2) the Panasonic FX-9 (better battery than the FX-7 I use)

Reply
katiemparker

Apr 21, 2006 at 12:33 am

Very strange camera.

But Apple did make a digital camera once upon a time (1994). en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Quicktake_200_front.jpg

I bet Apple could make another very well-designed, gorgeous camera, but I probably wouldn’t buy it simply because they aren’t in the photo industry.

Reply
BenODen

Apr 21, 2006 at 2:04 am

Ranjit, I love that radioactive potasium estimate! We could even assume 100% radioactive potasium salt and be no better off! Haha.

Great rant Steve, I agree wholeheartedly. I think that a lot of UI design falls short because too little user design testing is done, which yeilds unrealistic theoretical usage patterns. It’s expensive to do user design testing/review, sure, since you have to pay representative users or good usability experts money to look at your stuff, but all these UI issues that pop up, from PC software to cameras to toys could be vastly reduced if you have users use even mockups or computer simulations of the product to see what happens when the target consumer trys to use it. I guess this approach has the risk of letting secrets wander out though.

I really like canon’s interface design for the A95. Nothing frequently used is more than, say, 4 or 5 clicks away, and it remembers where you were, so related adjustments are fewer clicks.

Reply
Ross Mayfield

Apr 22, 2006 at 3:32 pm

to elaborate upon request…

Greg P, CTO of Sun, gave a great presentation at the first Accelerating Change conference where he tried to explain why we were cramming everything into a PDA. He viewed it as a network. When devices (nodes) have a scarcity of connections, the devices are state (feature) attractors. Conversely, when connectivity is abundant, you can expect state to be dispersed.

Today there is enough connectivity (wifi, bluetooth, USB, etc.) for devices to trend towards single purpose (iPod).

However, in the book Paradox of Choice, while there is an argument for simplcity as consumers are paralized by choice, the iPod a rare accomplishment. Most consumers will prefer something feature laden to make them more comfortable about the choices they make, even though they don’t need or use most features.

Even more however, in the 1930s they held summits where economists deliberated the impending drought of physical space. Could the engine of economic growth slow if the average household ran out of rooms for appliances? God bless miniturization for saving GDP. Today we face a scarcity of pocket space, so the long bet is a fashion trend of man purses, velcro, pockets everywhere and implants.

Related:
ross.typepad.com/blog/2006/03/pc_forum_the_pa.html
ross.typepad.com/blog/2003/11/social_capital_.html

Reply
jurvetson

Apr 22, 2006 at 5:10 pm

Great stuff. Thanks. Network connectivity also influences the location and adaptability of features. It’s the old client-server functionality split decision, migrating to a thin client in a well-networked world. So we can rely on web services for more of the functionality and complexity as long as the basic client UI is extensible, like a browser metaphor. In theory, there could be 21 features, but if you use only 3, that’s all you need to see.

But there is a business argument that runs counter to this – the desire to own and lock in users. In a free and open network, the core commoditizes (ISPs) and value migrates to the edge. Content creators and eyeball owners have all the power. So owning the client is a very powerful position – to steer people to certain revenue-generating experiences. It used to be the OS; arguments could be made for the browser or desktop search/IM client. If TiVo could act without non-market retribution from incumbents, they could commoditize the networks and own the user since they are closer to the eyeballs in the information stack. Nobody would care if their content came from ABC or NBC (but they would care if it’s PIXAR content, and so the content creators would have to embed revenue generation in the content, like BMWs in the James Bond movies).

So this is why Kodak puts a big red “Share” button on their devices, and tries to lock the user in to Kodak web services. The camera requires the user to sign up for Kodak web services, and it does not integrate with flickr. Kodak’s EasyShare Photo Viewer does not sync with iPhoto. (reviewed here: Kodak makes you install their viewer, register online for Kodak services, and duplicate photos from iPhoto before you can see how one of your photos looks on the device. In trying so hard to switch users from Apple software, they have crippled their own product, IMHO.

I don’t think Kodak has innovated enough to create a new market position, nor do they have a incumbent position of power large enough to make this gamble likely to succeed, but I can see why they feel like they have to try.

Reply
angry shock

Apr 22, 2006 at 8:18 pm

Apropos of the Paradox of Choice we have been on a good discussion not long ago at Esthr´s album, for she had a meeting with the author.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/edyson/99474492/
At the end of the thread there is another link to a related post on the topic.

I believe that odd design in devices for people to use is the epitome of the deafness of many corporations -in regard to consumers´ real needs- and as well a clear mark on how deviatied the original purpose of building a useful gadget is (biased and deformed by the company´s internal needs, such as: keep the Creative department working, compete with the new gadget from their competitors -"No matter what we have to put something in the market too"-, justify in front of their share holders they are doing something, they are innovating… etc.

Is it plausible that Kodak has no common-sense to make new stuff? Not to me, I have to think that there are underlying reasons for this. And I guess that some that I mention above may resemble the actual situation inside many corporations.

The Paradox of Choice in my humble opinion is out of these people scope of understanding of the problem. While they should have to weigh, to make the evaluation on whether releasing a product:

1) 80% usability for the ordingary consumer (this implies appling principles as "keep it simple", "keep it eye-catching", etc)
2) 20% corporation´s worries (mentioned above: "other companies released new products", "our share holders are questioning that we released nothing this year" etc…)

The proportions are inverted: 20/80.

Therefore, what the consumer thinks and would like and enjoys and feels prepared to deal with ("keep it simple") is the 20% of the total worry that designers at some corporations have when making a new product. The corporative pressures are the fat ones.

There is a saying I like and may apply: "If you can´t convince them, confound them." and another one… "No matter reasons why, have them talking about you."

Why would Kodak release this little monster? Perhaps to bring their name to discussions on design? To make people don´t forget them? To confound the consumers ("is this really a good ensemble of utilities?" "do I need a camera with a pen? sounds good", "is Apple so good if they can´t make what Kodak did?", "I gotta have them, it´s Kodak" etc)? To drive their attention to them (our discussion here is an example)? To try to catch up with the innovation flow no matter what with? Etc.

This all, apart from my thoughts -previously explained- on the necessary number of designs that make the bulk that will eventually give birth to 1 good design that will be the success.

J, your reply was very interesting (the one to my first post I refer to). Thank you. The figures are impressive. And shows perfectly the point we agree on: On creative ideas, more is better.

You asked me on this ratio 60:1… this would have to be placed as the very first figure in any of the chains you describe. This 60/1 as I got to know, is observable in the early creative process, happening in our minds when we need to come to creative solutions for a problem ("problem" can be from how to go to a party to making a work of art. It is an abarcative word). As well you see this in groups who are brainstorming, a creative department at a company… always the moment before you begin with your scratchs. Those scratchs will already have passed a first 60:1 filter.

Taking IDEO´s example,

"Here’s the IDEO toy design data I have: Per year, 4000 early drawings -> 200 Detailed Designs -> 10 brought to market -> 1 commercial success. (from Sutton ’98)"

You see first you have this huge filter(s) 60:1 before they finally recollect the first 4000 drawings. Part of the creative process of the creators. 200 selected out of 4000 makes a 20:1 ratio, 10 from 200 keeps the same ratio 20:1 and finally (as all those nested filters have done a great discrimination already) the final ratio is 10:1.

But never in the early stages the ratio can be 10:1. This is the interesting thing: More is better.

One -last- crucial factor in creative processes is Time. Creation needs time. Unfortunately, lack of time, for corporations which have presures as I describe above, put their designers in a big problem. And many bad products make it to the market simply because it was more important to accomplish the deadlines, than accomplish a good result.

I think that in this Apple may give a good example. See the time they take to release products… It makes sense: good designs need time to be conceived, made, tested, modified or even re-done, tested, etc. When pushing this, results are terrible. And the company may blame it to the designers, when the real problem is the little time they gave to the crew to work seriously in bringing up a product that will be enough mature when reaching the real world (the market).

Some thoughts. Sorry for post´s extension. Thanks.

Reply
TheDamnMushroom

Apr 25, 2006 at 12:47 am

George Carlin: "If you nail two things together that have never been put together before, someone in America will buy it."

This is the only explanation I can find for PDA-phones that play music files. Put a phone on one hip, an organizer on the other hip, and your MP3 player in your shirt pocket — so if one breaks or a battery goes flat, the other two things still work! geez!

Reply
benjiman

May 19, 2006 at 1:43 am

WOw, can’t believe I missed this post.

UI and usabillity are one of my biggest pet peevs.

I’m astounded at the products that get shipped with all these cockamamie features that are either essentially unusable or irrelevant to the essential nature of the device.

It borders on the hilarious were it not for the *illions of dollars being spent on countless product cycles filling our landfills with unusable shite.

Where is the usability testing???! I guess Alieness’s post speaks to that…

[end rant]

Reply
jurvetson

Sep 8, 2006 at 6:43 pm

hmmm…. From AppleInsider:

"Wu noted the challenges companies face when trying to produce a converged product of high quality. However, he said Apple chief executive Steve Jobs "is finally satisfied with the end product Apple engineers have produced in terms of quality and the right blend of cell phone and portable media player."

Reply
ahhyeah

Dec 13, 2006 at 3:18 pm

jurvetson, I have the 6MP version of this cam and I can’t agree with you more on all the flaws of this camera. I had to "hack" to get the photos to auto upload to flickr via wi-fi. Good thing I got it for free.

Reply

Antithesis of Apple Design

18 responses to “Antithesis of Apple Design”

Leave a Reply Cancel reply