In 2012 Tim Cook answered a question about merging OS X and iOS by saying:
“You can converge a toaster and a refrigerator, but those aren’t going to be pleasing to the user.”
This year, at the BoxWorks conference, Cook was again questioned about whether OS X and iOS would merge. His response was similar:
“We don’t believe in having one operating system for PC and mobile…We think it subtracts from both, and you don’t get the best experience from either. We’re very much focused on two.”
The philosophy behind these statements is, of course, that the best user experience comes when the software is perfectly suited for the form of the device it will be running on. Devices intended to be put in one hand or two hands or on a lap or on a desk are radically different. Cook’s argument is that this requires that the OS itself be suited to the form of the device. Apple has consistently refused to make toaster-fridges. With one glaring exception: iPad. Continue reading
In the second to fourth centuries, the philosophy of Gnosticism became popular. Though it had many variants, a key tenet was that matter was a lesser emanation of a kind of divine spirit. Human spirits were thus spiritual and good, but human bodies and matter were physical and evil, a limitation that had to be escaped in order to achieve true gnosis or enlightenment.
Why on earth do I start an article about technology–and this is an article about technology–with an ancient philosophy?1 Because good design of technology has to be based on an anti-gnostic notion that humans, fundamentally and irreducibly, are physical creatures and use physical products in a physical world. Those physical products, just as fundamentally and irreducibly, have a specific physical form that can be well or poorly suited to a human’s physical body or to the physical world.2 These forms both limit and enable functionality that is unique to that form. This interplay between a form’s function, it’s suitability to the human body and it’s appropriateness for the physical world is what design considers–and it is the interaction of these elements that has led to the success and failure of many technological products.3
This is part 4 in ongoing series of reflections based on my experience with Apple Watch. Previous pieces are: Week 1: You Can’t Put Delight In a Spreadsheet, Weeks 2-3: Its Form Is Its Function, Week 4: A Foundation for the Future.
It’s that time of year again, when Apple critics, analysts, and skeptics release their expectations, analysis, and wish lists for WWDC. In this piece, I hope to approach the pre-WWDC ramp-up somewhat differently. These other approaches are based, typically, off of rumors or personal frustrations with the software. I hope to present a more timeless list of strategic wrist-centric ways where Apple Watch should mature in order for its long-term potential to be reached. Continue reading
If you have something neat you want to share, check out how you can promote it via markdmill.com to thousands who enjoy this site.
In my first piece in this series, I wrote that the value of Apple Watch can’t be explained monetarily, but I’ve found in these last weeks that the value is hard to explain in functional terms. Part of the reason is that its delight comes from tiny moments of joy that compound over time, a compounding that outside observers don’t experience.1 But another part of the reason is that what the watch does is so different than what many expect.
This last week, I was on vacation with my family (who gave the watch to me) and at a conference where my watch was noticed (a lot!).2 Amidst the oohs and ahs and people calling it iWatch, I was repeatedly asked the question, “What does it do?” As I answered that question, I realized that the functions of Apple Watch are unique to its form. It’s an oft-quoted maxim that “form follows function,” but in the case of Apple Watch, I believe the exact opposite is true: the Apple Watch’s form is its function. It is Apple’s discipline to allow the form to dictate its function that has set up the Watch for success in a way only Apple could. Continue reading