look man, tell your design team that if no matter how good it looks, if the actual features are ******** then sure a lot of stupid people will buy it at first, but word will get around that its crap REAL FAST. people read reviews... and then people will stop buying your digital camera or whatever it youve been told to market research lol and just because its good quality doesnt mean the features cant look good. at the end of the day thats what a good design is. function AND form. no dominance of either, because they are both dependant on each other
Basically, this, like any other "what's cool" conversation, is pointless because people have the tendency to like different things. The one which is overused is black, it's really the new beige. Second of all, it's too damn inpractical, same thing with black cars, the dust shows... Yet another beige. Every second mod has black chassis and UV reflective insides. Besides, I've never liked the way it looks, just plain ugly. Well, I like 'em. Like the lastest doom3 case in building or several nicely built HL2 mods or... If executed correctly, theme makes the mod look unified, which is one of the basic rules of any design. Not to mention, the next question is completely irrelevant: Why? Because in this example, forms has two completely different functions. Compact camera is just for snapping holiday photos, whereas someone, who sees photography as hobby, would certainly go for optical zoom and better image quality. [offtopic] You know, only the very latest TFT displays (overdrive VA-panel) have achieved level of performance which can be compared to the abilities of CRT. So basically there has been only the fact that it fits to your desktop. [/offtopic]
Well... you post something about ugliness on a modding forum..... Hmm, what would case modders do to something that looks ugly? Size doesent bother me (don't take that the wrong way), the only things that I actually need to be small are things like phones and mp3 players: the stuff I carry. I dont carry a camera around everywhere (but some people do), and when I go on holiday, I carry my school bag, so theres no need for a camera to be small(to me), to a certain extent of course. And I wouldent say a "whats cool" conversation is pointless, people get their opinions across, and offer people more options on what to think. Some people have very different, and sometimes bizzare ideas that no-one has ever thought of, it gives others the chance to think about these ideas, decide whether they agreee or not, and possibly put them into practice.
[offtopic] What liquid do you plan to use? Because the need of periodical coolant change was the reason I went back to air cooled setup. I have plans for new project, which I would like to have liquid cooled however, I don't want to do any mainentance, unless something is broken. [/offtopic]
i feel that in a way appearance plays a larger part in how customers buy products than you would think. take the example that i took with the digital camera...some of you here say that people at first would buy for looks but then if the quality is crappy then they would stop...look at the ipod. it is widely known to have battery problems, and many people often complain about how the unit breaks as soon as the warranty runs out, yet many people go out and buy these instead of the alternatives. sure it looks cooler, but other than that, does it offer anything more than something like a creative zen? is it really a more widely known (and bought) product because of its functionality or because of its simplistic and attractive design? the razr v3 is another example...market research says it has poorer ui than current phones and more limited options (internal memory, etc) yet the number of people who buy it or are interested in it are HUGE - hell, i want to buy one! on the other hand, another phone might have a much better interface, blah blah blah functionality but it wont receive as much sales as something like the razr v3 because it is not as chic. Yes the ipod and the razr v3 offer decent functionality, but it appears that the reason for their enormous sales stems more from their appearance than their functionality. the whole point of this topic is so i can get a feel towards what people are drawn to in a product. you can't say that you would buy a product just for its looks or just for its functionality. some people say that functionality is more important that appearance but look at the examples i gave above. i'm not part of any design team or anything haha, i am just one man. i am a creative thinker, however, and part of the purpose of this discussion is to help me come up with ideas for the next big thing. obviously chances of me inventing anything that goes to public is slim, but even if that does not happen this discussion gives me more insight into what people like, what their psychology is when buying products, etc.
Not planning, actually using right now. I have PF-5080 Fluorinert running through my computer's veins. It is a totally inert, non-conducting liquid. It does not cause corrosion, does not cause shorts, and lasts forever (for all practical purposes). Obviously nothing can grow in it either. Does the trick nicely. Bit expensive though, and somewhat hard to get your hands on at the moment.
BRANDING The iPods marketing team are a team of geniuses. They're the sort of people I'd call my heroes (yes, I'm amazingly sad, I also call Gates, and Richard Branson my heroes). Do creative have a marketing team? Actually, who the hell are this 'Creative' company?
Not entirely true. The iPod is successful because notwithstanding its battery problems, it is in other respects a very polished product, in terms of shape, materials used, build quality, elegance and ease of interface and tactile feedback of the controls. Its design is not just attractive, it is also very, very functional and elegant. Again not entirely true. Its UI is basically no different from a V600. And although Nokias for instance do have a less cumbersome interface, the Razr again excells in size and build quality. It is basically what most people want in a mobile phone: small, light, sturdy, good looks. I'm saying that if you get it right, functionality looks good in and of itself. OK, look again at Metaversa (See link in sig. Go on, you know you want to...). What do you think I focussed on: looks, or functionality? Most (if not all) mods on it are purely functional. But I tried to make it really good functionality, so it would look pretty all by itself. And "branding" is overrated. People do not buy just on branding, if the brand hasn't been able to establish a reputation in the first place.
other products may be equally functional, although functioning perhaps in a different way (my guess is no other products in the market feature the touch wheel thing but probably some include scroll wheels that work in the same way). however, the ipod is the undisputed leader in sales. you talk about material used and elegance...dont both these have to do with appearance? one could argue that build quality implies that it is harder to break than other similar players, but are other players that much less durable? on the other hand, if you use build quality to improve the overall look of the ipod in addition to providing certain functionality, wouldnt this be included in appearance as well? -shape contributes to form more than functionality...maybe you mean that it is small in size and easy to hold so it is functional in that it is portable...but other mp3 players offer functionally attractive shapes as well. -materials used and build quality contribute partially to functionality, but there is no hard evidence that the ipod is that much more durable than other players; materials used and build quality also contribute to form -elegance by definition is refined beauty, yet another quality of appearance -ease of interface and feedback controls-yes these are functional assets of the ipod, but as i said above, are some other similar mp3 players so much less functional in these aspects? i could possibly make a similar argument about the v3, but i dont know enough about it to really say anything. my point is that, beyond whatever functionality that the ipod has which you claim to set it apart from other mp3 players, it is arguably very similar in quality of functionality to a competitor mp3 player...yes the touch wheel is sweet and the interface is intuitive, but others offer alternative forms of the same intuitive interface. if we can agree that functionality wise the ipod does not offer that much more than a competitor, what really sets it apart? what makes it so in demand that the ipod can charge a higher price than all its competitors for similar functionality? my theory is that there are certain aspects of appearance that draw consumers to it, so much so that they can look past whatever problems or costs that are associated with the ipod. there are certain physical characteristics of the ipod that differ from all other types of players. what makes these design elements so successful in further marketing the ipod as a must-get item? this is what i am interested in. i think you hit on some key points, in that it looks more elegant than other products. i believe that its use of clear material / white / light colors, the use of curved edges on both sides of the product, as well as a symmetrical front panel are what make the ipod look elegant, refined, and they are the main selling points to the ipod...it's what makes a consumer want to have it as soon as he/she sees it. of course, all of this is speculation...i could be completely wrong. i would love to hear what other people think. also, you talk about your own project metaversa. i am very impressed by your work and do in fact find the clean-ness of the design to be physically handsome, but i find it hard to believe that you will be mass-producing this unit to sell. build it the way that you have it now and mass-produce, and you will only sell (i would think) to the most hardcore of modders. build it this way, but put a lot more thought into appearance (for example, adding rounded edges to the case, maybe a clear outside coating, maybe changing the case to look like an antique piece of furniture or adding chrome and black steel to make it every techie's must have new gadget) and it has a chance to be a very successful product because the functionality is already there. obviously not all the things i suggested you to do make sense in this situation because of what you intend to do with your machine. when designing personal products, your concept of beauty can vary a lot more...but when designing a public product, there must a consensus in terms of what elements contribute to a product's beauty. it was my original goal when setting up this topic to gain some insight into what elements are commonly found to be appealing to most people. thanks for the replies nexxo! everybody please continue to participate!
I couldn't care less how my iPod looks, what matters is that it does exactly what I want, when I want, and the way I want to do it. Other players may come close to the overall polish, but when I'm buying an MP3 player I'm paying for polish. I don't care that everyone has one, I'd rather be contrary to the crowd, but not if I have to sacrifice the player's flawless UI or impeccable attention to detail all around. I think the white face looks pretty bad and scratches too easily, but it doesn't matter because it never leaves my pocket. That's not even mentioning iTunes, another textbook-worthy example of UI design, and how it dovetailes perfectly with the iPod. I can handle a dead battery. I agree with pretty much everything Nexxo has said. Form should build on functionality, never guide it. Carelessness and trite superficial design is what makes a case look bad. As long as everything is done correctly a good case will have its own beauty stemming form its function like a race car.
design! aie, all kinds of aspects of design make some products winners and others losers, and the first on the path to loser-dom is a lack of uniqueness and innovation. i happen to own a razr v3. believe it or not, i got it free [after rebate] by signing up for my plan online. i got the black one for two reasons; 1. my friend owned the silver one 2. black and angular is the way to a business man's heart. there's not one cubic centimeter of wasted space in the design [most people can't believe it's as thin as it is], yet it's wide and efficient[i don't see an external antenna]. it's a beautiful union of matte finish and glossy. the flat keyboard is, to my knowledge, new, and the screen is very large, while the whole phone is lightweight. no removeable media? i for one don't NEED any removable media, it's a phone, not a camera! i take pictures on the phone for pleasure, for fun. when i'm done i use my mini-usb [yes, it uses some standard usb cable] and the mobile phone tools software to upload the pictures to my computer, and then i upload those to my website [ http://agent.youngprer.com/ go to 'pictures'] for more design tips, look at cadillacs! the cadillac 16 is a perfect example. it has sharp angles and smooth curves! don't believe me? take your eyes to that rear wheel. see how the door curves towards the wheel and then there's an unmistakable sharp angle before the body stops around the tire? what about the cadillac sts? it's more angled, but shares many of the same traits. when it comes to other mp3 players, there are great looking [i'm talking beautiful] ipod alternatives on the market, too. i would never want an archos because of quality issues and a lack of attempt with the design. i instead got the iriver H10[trance red], and, while the photos don't quite do it justice, the thing is GORGEOUS, and you know what? so are the grey and blue version. what's wrong with the silver one? simple - it's monotone. i imagine that if it shared the black touch pad of the darker versions, it would be quite nice, but it's silver all over. i wouldn't say that the h300 is striking either, but it's predecessor, the h100 was. another mp3 player that iriver is doing right is the t10. it doesn't have to angle off, but it does, and that's a new feature. i have to agree with you guys, some cars are timeless, like the mustang [i'm not a car lover period, but it's got a timeless design], and some cars people think are cute when they come out, but don't have what it takes. i've seen plenty of these "H2's" on the road, and I can't stand them. it's the hummer's little brother! i was driving in front of a hummer the other day and had to stop at a stop light, with it behind me. i was intimidated just by looking in the rear view mirror. the first hummer isn't bloated, but the H2 doesn't look wide and menacing like it's big brother. i certainly agree that powder coating is still a thing of beauty. the red portion of the h10 strikes me as appearing powder-coated, and that's not something i've seen much of, commercially. the innovative designs themselves are beautiful. i'm going to go ahead and introduce you to ideo. they did a design bit called without thought, a focus on essentials and nothing else. the cd player, i think, only needs to have angular edges like everything else, and it would be something to look at. the first phone, while not appearing very ergonomical, is still a work of art. they also design kitchen tools for zyliss, and in doing so rethought traditional use and necessity. a few of the designs to call to your attention are of the whisk, the ladel, and the pizza cutter. they were right, the pizza cutter doesn't need a handle to grab onto, it can be the handle. right now i think my ultimate case would be a rich color, a deep color, like one of the blues in this image. it would have to have nice accents, and nothing would have to feel cheap. nexxo's point about the system running itself is spot on. i stopped overclocking and stopped running motherboard monitor. i took the edge off my fan speed to ditch the subtle whine. i think it would have a slot-loading optical drive, so the front panel could be seamless in all the places that tradition hasn't allowed. it might be powder coated and would able to give off a sleek glare. what i would really love is a case with no seams on 5 of the 6 sides [we're talking maybe a machined out piece of plexi, or some other clever design, painted flat black on the inside like macroblack was] with a computer rack inside that would slide out [your ultimate motherboard tray]. most of all, though, it couldn't look like everyone else's case design, it couldn't be flashy. this case would have to have soul, or like my fellow pirsig fan said, Quality.
No. material and elegance have to do with functionality. The iPod has a durable metal and polycarbonate shell. The Apple iBooks stand out, as laptops, for their durable polycarbonate shell instead of the much flimsier plastic of most laptops. The metal casings of their Titanium range again deliver smaller size, lighter weight and tougher shell. The iPod controls are elegant in their functionality --no other MP3 player has been able to improve on that. Sure, there are variations on the theme, with scrollwheels, touchpads etc., but nobody has actually come up with something better. If you believe that, better go back to product design school! Where the iPod goes right and others often go wrong, is that the iPod has rounded corners, which are better able to absorb or deflect knocks and impacts. It also has no seams that can collect fluff, dirt and grime. Fragile bits are recessed. It has a fairly universal shape and dimensions --the shape and size of a pack of cigarettes-- so you can tuck it in most shirt or jacket pockets, briefcases, handbags, whatever. The iPod Mini is shaped much like a mobile phone, again allowing you to tuck it in those little mobile phone compartments that have started to appear in handbags, briefcases, and even jackets. Good shape also guides your eyes, your hands (or other parts of body you use teh product with) to the right places to hold or use the object in the right way. Drop both on a hard floor from hand-held height and see which is more likely to survive --especially if both land on a corner. My theory is that "Object Value" is a Gestalt. The whole is more than the sum of its parts. If you get every aspect of the object's functionality right, you get something that far exceeds another otherwise quite similar product that has one small but obvious basic flaw. Voodoo PC would disagree. They are commercially producing quite similar products quite happily. It would be very easy to mass-produce Metaversa --and quite cheap. A lot of components are already mass-produced, simply for other applications. The aluminium brackets I designed can be knocked up very cheaply in any workshop. And of course the market would be very specific --not everyone wants a liquid-cooled PC. I think what you are struggling to get a hold on is: "What gives a product its identity?" That is what we are observing with the iPod. First, it was revolutionary in that it was the first really functional, well built MP3 player that looked like a mature, sophisticated mainstream product, not some cheap weird geeky gadget made in Taiwan somewhere. This allowed it to become a mainstream lifestyle/fasion statement rather than a "geek identity badge", so to speak. From there it went on to sort-of cult status. The same happened with the Sony PSOne. Before that, video game consoles were, well, a bit geeky. Sony made it sophisticated, hence mature, hence mainstream. Soon, eveyone who was "with it" wanted one.
I somewhat agree the function should define form but I feel the aesthetics should be kept in mind. I often design cases in sketchup (not that I have the time/means to build them), usually inspired by somthing I see. Basicly I suppose my "creative process" starts with form, rather than function. Though, I admit, after the intial idea is somewhat established, function doesn dominate the desgin process and little details pop into mind as I go along that say "that'l work and if I do it like this, it'l look cool." A more specific example was last year, at a LAN party, I saw the Saitek Gamer's Keyboard for the first time. Design ideas instantly flooded my head. I opened up sketchup and started modeling away. After I had the idea in the model, I began working on the more practical elements of the case like cooling, hardware placement, ect. I eventfully ended up redesigning the case 3 times before I got to a point where everything worked. Gah, thinking about that design again makes me want to go work on it some more (one of the other reasons I never started any of my designs..I never stopped working on them). Short version I suppose is this: While function may govern form, the latter does not always come last. Everyone brings up good points. The variance in those points reflect upon the variance opinion. I suppose as far as product identity goes...well, I think we're starting to stray from modding. For me, modding is building/modding things in such a way that they work and look as I se fit. Identity and distictivness follows naturally. All the same, many spects give products thier identity but, as pointed out, function usually dominates all other aspects. If it works, and works well, then thats enough ('It does exactly what is says on the tin!'). You get a truly great product when you can bring good form to that function. However, you cannot use form to compensate for function. Now I'm gonna stop before I say 'form' or 'function' again.
guys, thanks for all the responses...whether you disagree with me or not, i am very appreciative of your continued participation, as it helps me broaden my perspective. theagent, thank you for your analysis of physically attractive design techniques, as well as redirecting my attention to a great site in ideo. your post embodies my original intent for this topic. nexxo, i believe that what we are arguing about concerning the ipod comes down to opinion. you argue those qualities contribute to functionality, i argue they contribute to form...whatever. perhaps it does a little of both. i have never gone to design school haha i am an electrical and computer engineer...this was just a question i asked out of curiosity. the more i think about it, the more i believe what you (nexxo) said about my curiosity is correct - i am trying to figure out what gives a product its identity...through its appearance. ultimately, the ipod or the ps1 that you talk about DO embody improved functionality, but i still believe that the main selling points to MAINSTREAM society are twofold: what new functions it gives, AND the fact that, as you said, they "looked like a mature, sophisticated mainstream product, not some cheap weird geeky gadget made in Taiwan somewhere." Had these companies just come out with new products with new functionality but not spent as much time on designing its appearance, perhaps it would not have become even remotely popular? thus, even you seem to agree (albeit in a somewhat reserved manner) that the appearance of the product gives it its identity to a certain extent. concerning metaversa...a high-cooling / low-maintenance computer? who wouldn't want one purely based on functionality? but as you say the market would be very specific BECAUSE of its design. yes, it is liquid-cooled, so it seems that not everybody needs one...but before the ipod, did everybody NEED an mp3 player? ultimately i believe it would not be main-stream not because of its good functionality, but perhaps because of its physical appearance...because i believe it does not embody the appearance of a mainstream, mature product. as far as i'm concerned though, i am still interested in design aspects that influence the physical appearance of the product. so far here is what i have gathered from your posts: things that make a product attractive (to some): -smooth, reflective -metal, flat finish -no wasted space -straight lines, no bumps -large on bottom, small on top -windows -symmetry / consistency..as in if one part has a quality, all parts should -polished or textured surface, depending on situation -minimalization (not a ton of buttons, etc) -clean lines, nice edge -powder coated / anodized aluminum -matte finish / glossy -sharp angles and smooth curves -rich color -seamless things that make a product unattractive (to some): -silver, black -windows -wheels -gold
First, a big thank you to theagent, who provided us with some cool design links. DrDing: my argument all along is that in good design, form and function are inseparable. If someone has spent a real amount of thought on how a product functions best, its ease of use, quality of material etc. then of course it will start to look like it has those qualities. It will start to look good. And that is what makes it desirable. As for need: sometimes a new product highlights a need (or more often, desire) that was there all along but because the ideal solution was not available, people made do. We had walkmans (now there's another design story) to respond to the desire to have your music where you want it, when you want it (radio rarely plays what you want to hear --if you can receive it-- and most DJs are not all that fascinating to listen to, no matter what narcissistic delusions they live in). But music storage was limited, and who wants to lug about a stack of cassettes or CDs? Sort of defeats the whole portability thing, doesn't it? The MP3 player however solves that problem, and neatly addresses also those other issues walkman units had: battery life and mechanical functioning/robustness/wear issues with the rough and tumble of being carried about. So yes, people wanted MP3 players because they wanted walkmans before then. Only the MP3 player is better. people wanted the PSOne because before they wanted the Atari 2600. only the PSOne is better. They are all just improvements on a theme. This is different from techology making things possible which the consumer then has to be persuaded they need. Cameras in mobile phones are such a thing. People never needed one. When they were lugging bricks about, did people say: "hey, wouldn't it be cool if it could take pictures too?" They are just not very desirable (--in a mobile phone). However there is just not much further that you can take a mobile, from a technological innovation point of view. Hence companies are trying to incorporate better, higher-res cameras and make mobile commercials in which people do not talk, but take pictures. They are trying to sell this luke-warm thing for all it's worth. Yet people flock instead to the V3 with its weedy low-res camera (Hell, I bet that when you desired one you didn't even think about its camera). Why? Because when people were lugging the brick about, they just wanted something (much) smaller, lighter, with longer battery life. The V3 is the logical conclusion of this desire. The V3 is a mobile phone, but a better (smaller, lighter, sturdier) mobile phone. Just when people thought the limit was reached, Motorola took it one step further. Now that's cool.
Thanks for the appreciation Products have been about function for a while now. Cell phones were ugly, walkmans were ugly, my sister's car was ugly, but they had function, and that was important. Audio cassettes let people make mix tapes, and that was a very popular function while they dominated the market. CD players let you take a good collection of high quality music around, but they were large and, honestly, broke all the time. I bought one of those "ugly, made in taiwan" mp3 players, but it was better than trying to lug a bunch of cds around [or, for that matter, burn them]. My cds always got worn out anyways, and I was careful with them, but that ugly [cute at the time] mp3 player I had possessed great function. I was an early adapter of the hard drive mp3 player. I always thought the early flash ones were neat, as I had a few friends with one, but if they couldn't hold 10 cds, I would be stuck listening to the same one until I replaced it - not cool. Since I was an early adapter and supporter of the underdog [the "mom and pop" store, if you will], I didn't get the best product, but you know what? I made mix tapes. This iriver I have now doesn't have a function to save the "quicklist" [playlist]. How bogus is that? Even with the ipod you can't [lest my sources be wrong] properly name it until you connect it to the computer. When I had that creative, I made a new playlist at least once a month, and was always updating my favorite cds playlist. When I got that "taiwan player," it was when the ipod was out, but expensive, and before everyone in my grade had one [just graduated from high school, and let me tell you, last christmas was a white christmas for half the school ]. I got a new mp3 player as a graduation present because my creative was wearing down, and I wanted something more reliable and less huge for college. I also was focused on the v3 for the same reasons, but one thing I decided i really wanted to have was a phone with a camera. Why? Because it's a toy. I can take pictures of my friends doing something stupid, without lugging a camera around. If I want good pictures, I'll lug around my Pentax ME Super and take a quality photo that I can hold on to. I don't want to bust out a full size [or even small] digital camera in the vet's to take a picture of my cat, sad in a cage, but I have no problem pulling out the cell phone I'm already attached to anyways. But yeah, props on this thread. I've been wanting a new case for a while now [my treasure chest is really too big for college, even though I'm bearing with it for a year], but haven't know what I wanted to build. This thread did do what you intended and created an idea. May I draw your attention to the new design. I'm thinking now I would use smokey plexiglass with one or maybe two layers of window tint on the back. That way it's dark and even, but not too solid. I won't ramble about the details, but you can check it out there. Speaking of cameras, fun, and my projects, I've also been playing with my old rc car, and started a project with it. Mainly, I want to control it through the computer so I can work to some sort of advanced, trackable movement system to build a robot off of, but it's a start. Just today I duct-taped my old webcam to it, drove it around, and made a little video. You can download it from the project link, but if someone with a lot of bandwidth wouldn't mind mirroring it, I would appreciate not raping my friend's low bandwidth level. Sometimes we want to have fun, other times we want to get down to business. The best products are a union of both. For those of you who've actually read Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, you should understand that. Pirsig explains "classical" and "romantic" modes of thinking. This book, though, came out a little while after the left and right brain stuff was discovered. Classical characteristics, really, are kindof like the left-brained characteristics [scientific, down to earth], while the romantic ones are like the right brain's [creative thinking, philosophical or spiritual]. Obviously they get shared to some extent, but they play a role. The ipod, really, is everything to everyone. It's a union of aesthetics and function. I like Apple's computers, but they really aren't a union of function for a lot of people. They don't play most games, currently, and cost a lot more, yet, the iPod was a beautiful union of both and now look and see who's on top and where all of Apple's revenue is coming from. That's all I've got for now. I really need to stop writing a book every time I post in this thread -agent
No worries. While we are onto case designs (kinda cool, that), allow me to show what I've been working on for Metaversa 02. I have made some changes since, so this is an old, early (and very rough!) sketch. It is supposed to be a case specifically for high performance, low noise watercooling, fitting an EATX size Tyan dual Opteron SLI board. It can be used upright, or stacked horizontally. It can be carried and withstand a few knocks. Form follows function. PS hope your cat is OK.
oh, nexxo, i just remembered something i thought of at work. it has to do with this comment: i don't have a book to write about that, but i came to the conclusion that while it is true that the media convinces us with need things we dont, like cameras in phones, the acceptance of the technology pushes us towards further innovations. think if the original digital cameras were never accepted, because they weren't any good, would we have the better-than-film digital cameras that exist today? i certainly don't need a camera in my phone, but to a lesser degree, i don't really need a phone either. yet with these things being mass produced and the consumers showing the industry there's money available for better technology, we gets things that are better AND smaller, and in the end, we all win.
Different thing, though. Digital cameras were, again, an attempt at improvement on an existing theme. People desire cameras (history shows). However cameras have films that run out quickly, need to be sent off for development, and you do not get to see the result until weeks later, when it is too late to take another shot because your pinky got in the way. Wouldn't it be nice if you had a camera that could hold a few hundred shots, would show you the result rightaway and you didn't need to send for development (and pay for the privilige)? People were prepared to put up with a certain loss of picture quality for the convenience (mostly because those people who want photography to be convenient are holiday snappers, whereas those who care about picture quality are skilled amateurs or professionals, who are happy to lug rolls of film around, develop in their own lab and have anough skill and experience to know what a picture is going to look like even before they take it). A digital camera, to most, is still a camera, just a better camera. Same with CDs. Did not sound as good as vinyl (improved a lot now, but still not quite as good), but it sure was more convenient. It was still a music record, but a better music record. Mobiles were again an improvement on a theme. People want phones. Phones are handy --they speed communication considerably. But not if you are nowhere near one. Wouldn't it be great if you could have a phone wherever you go? hence the mobile. It's again an improvement on a theme. Cameras on mobiles, now that is different. On what you said about your sister's car being purely functional; not true. It's indeed a fugly car, and it is functional enough, but not optimally functional. It has that shape because some designer guy tried to impose an aesthetic look on it, with little regard as to how that would contribute to functionality (I mean, it's hardly aerodynamic, is it? And it has lots of bling that has no function at all). Form came first. Actually, production cost came first, then form, then function. So you get an averagely functioning car with average-looking, pointless aesthetics and lots of compromises to its construction, making for limited functionality, reliability and performance. But then again it was aimed at a consumer who understands little about cars, except the price tag on it, and what (s)he can see. You look at a Lotus Elise, that's a different story altogether. Function dictates form and cost. So you get a pure, essential car that looks good and peforms great. But that one is aimed at people who understand how cars function, and are prepared to pay a price for that functionality.
i don't really have much to refute that point, but i wanted to point out that early digital cameras weren't like 640x480, bad but managable, they would remind you of those magazine shots where you see the green, yellow, and red, and somehow you can kindof recognize what the image is of, even though the pixels are huge. i was scouring the internet for an example, but came up with nothing, so i'm just talking based on what i saw on tech tv [before it got bought out] out of curiosity, once you know what your design is supposed to look like, to some degree, what do you do the hard design work in? sketchup is cute an' all, but i couldn't see really designing a final product in it, and would expect to go with a more sincere CAD program like autocad. -agent
