5 ms·

I see what you're saying, and agree, but the description you give reminds me of this: http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_QNmG5af9rFs/R3ypiFV0XaI/AAAAAAAAAu4/VOYdzb_GeRY

I see what you're saying, and agree, but the description you give reminds me of this: http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_QNmG5af9rFs/R3ypiFV0XaI/AAAAAAAAAu4/VOYdzb_GeRY/s400/New+Image2.JPG http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_QNmG5af9rFs/R3ypiFV0XaI/AAAAAAAAAu... Or, to be a bit less flippant about it: * flip phones * phones with slideout keyboards * blackberries * palm pilot stylus The featureless slab beat all of those for a few important reasons, but probably the most important is aesthetic. Even the iPad Pro, which has a stylus, is much more aesthetic, and so less nerdy, than the old palm stylus. So I also understand the ambivalence toward deviating from the featureless slab.

heavenlyblue 9y ago
What you're speaking about may not be a question of aesthetic, but rather a question of functionality (hidden keyboard - clean, no-accidental-presses keyboard) and size.
- throwawayjava 9y ago
  There were a lot of factors, but I think aesthetics was a major component. The iPhone was a lot more than one more addition to the smart phone wars. IMO it created a product class for a bunch of consumers who probably never would've bought a blackberry or palm pilot. For a lot of reasons, some related to timing and others related to design. But a big component was the marketing, and aesthetics was a big reason for the success of the marketing.
  - heavenlyblue 9y ago
    Sadly, I've got to disagree with your point of view, and you do seem to have a hugely engineer-y viewpoint on what is "aesthetic". There's a functional aspect going together with the novelty factor in introducing a new, touchable screen that does not require physical buttons to be controlled - but it is just a matter of driving the wave of what is fashionable today (or well, tomorrow). The lack of detail _can_ be aesthetic, but it does not mean that something with a huge amount of detail could not be as aesthetic. Depending on when and where you're introducing your product: - single-button switch supporting voice control for your lights? Works for me. - voice-controlled power drill? Not so much (unless it's actually a hired human handling the power drill with his own hands and listening to my commands).
    - throwawayjava 9y ago
      > but it does not mean that something with a huge amount of detail could not be as aesthetic Yes, that's why my initial comment indicated I agree with jmull.
badsectoracula 9y ago
Isn't kind of weird that what is considered good aesthetic is removal of (visual) features? Why is that considered good looking? If you take it to its extreme conclusion, the best environment to live in from an aesthetic perspective would be a big white box with each side being made up of a material that changes its hardness based on what you want to do (lie down to sleep and becomes soft, walk on it, becomes hard, sit on a corner and becomes slightly soft on the floor with very soft walls) and all your communication and entertainment is done via floating images that materialize at a comfortable distance from your face so you can talk with your peers, watch videos, holograms and whatever else. Getting outside would have a part of the wall disintegrate (we'd call that a door, for historical reasons), although "outside" would now just be an aesthetically pleasing sea of white featureless cubes.
- checkyoursudo 9y ago
  I would live in that (Ikea?) house in a heartbeat, though not your white-featureless-cube dystopian horror outside. My ideal house has almost nothing in it. For some, aesthetic is certainly greeblies[0], but I think minimalism is widely accepted as one aesthetic ideal. Why? Why does anyone prefer anything? I'm not sure we exactly know yet, from an art/design/aesthetic perspective. Edit: OTOH, I am pretty sure my dad's mother preferred a mass of junk and clutter and mess in her house, to make it feel alive. [0]https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=greeblies https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=greeblies
- Jtsummers 9y ago
  The removal of visual features may make some things more aesthetically appealing, but it also allows the objects to be more easily fit into your particular preferences. As an example, I have a digital photo frame. It has a large bezel that's silver/grey with black trim. It does not fit well on my desk. I have a minimalist style in my home. Removing that bezel would allow the object to sit on my desk and actually look like it belonged. On the other hand, my girlfriend's home has a beach/Caribbean thing going on. Most of her photos and art are in wood frames (with an unfinished look). The bezel on this digital frame makes putting it inside a wooden frame of that sort difficult (it would need to be too large, or strategically positioned so you didn't realize it was just a façade). Reducing the bezel, for her, would allow the frame to be placed inside of a wooden frame that fit her styling much better. The object would not stand out, it would blend into the environment. My view: A minimalist aesthetic for objects is not desirable because the minimalist aesthetic is desirable. It is desirable because objects of this form are more easily placed inside any environment. An object with an opinionated appearance will stand out unless it fits the rest of your possessions. This may or may not be desirable. But it should be up to the owner of the object whether attention is drawn to it, not up to the creators of the object. EDIT: Fixed a word or two. This was my 3rd write-up of this because they kept disappearing so I wrote it rather hastily.
sliverstorm 9y ago
Or maybe the slab just had a big pretty screen and all of the potential of soft keys. Screen took up as much space as possible, ergo it was a slab.

heavenlyblue 9y ago

What you're speaking about may not be a question of aesthetic, but rather a question of functionality (hidden keyboard - clean, no-accidental-presses keyboard) and size.

throwawayjava 9y ago
There were a lot of factors, but I think aesthetics was a major component. The iPhone was a lot more than one more addition to the smart phone wars. IMO it created a product class for a bunch of consumers who probably never would've bought a blackberry or palm pilot. For a lot of reasons, some related to timing and others related to design. But a big component was the marketing, and aesthetics was a big reason for the success of the marketing.
- heavenlyblue 9y ago
  Sadly, I've got to disagree with your point of view, and you do seem to have a hugely engineer-y viewpoint on what is "aesthetic". There's a functional aspect going together with the novelty factor in introducing a new, touchable screen that does not require physical buttons to be controlled - but it is just a matter of driving the wave of what is fashionable today (or well, tomorrow). The lack of detail _can_ be aesthetic, but it does not mean that something with a huge amount of detail could not be as aesthetic. Depending on when and where you're introducing your product: - single-button switch supporting voice control for your lights? Works for me. - voice-controlled power drill? Not so much (unless it's actually a hired human handling the power drill with his own hands and listening to my commands).
  - throwawayjava 9y ago
    > but it does not mean that something with a huge amount of detail could not be as aesthetic Yes, that's why my initial comment indicated I agree with jmull.

badsectoracula 9y ago

Isn't kind of weird that what is considered good aesthetic is removal of (visual) features? Why is that considered good looking? If you take it to its extreme conclusion, the best environment to live in from an aesthetic perspective would be a big white box with each side being made up of a material that changes its hardness based on what you want to do (lie down to sleep and becomes soft, walk on it, becomes hard, sit on a corner and becomes slightly soft on the floor with very soft walls) and all your communication and entertainment is done via floating images that materialize at a comfortable distance from your face so you can talk with your peers, watch videos, holograms and whatever else. Getting outside would have a part of the wall disintegrate (we'd call that a door, for historical reasons), although "outside" would now just be an aesthetically pleasing sea of white featureless cubes.

checkyoursudo 9y ago
I would live in that (Ikea?) house in a heartbeat, though not your white-featureless-cube dystopian horror outside. My ideal house has almost nothing in it. For some, aesthetic is certainly greeblies[0], but I think minimalism is widely accepted as one aesthetic ideal. Why? Why does anyone prefer anything? I'm not sure we exactly know yet, from an art/design/aesthetic perspective. Edit: OTOH, I am pretty sure my dad's mother preferred a mass of junk and clutter and mess in her house, to make it feel alive. [0]https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=greeblies https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=greeblies
Jtsummers 9y ago
The removal of visual features may make some things more aesthetically appealing, but it also allows the objects to be more easily fit into your particular preferences. As an example, I have a digital photo frame. It has a large bezel that's silver/grey with black trim. It does not fit well on my desk. I have a minimalist style in my home. Removing that bezel would allow the object to sit on my desk and actually look like it belonged. On the other hand, my girlfriend's home has a beach/Caribbean thing going on. Most of her photos and art are in wood frames (with an unfinished look). The bezel on this digital frame makes putting it inside a wooden frame of that sort difficult (it would need to be too large, or strategically positioned so you didn't realize it was just a façade). Reducing the bezel, for her, would allow the frame to be placed inside of a wooden frame that fit her styling much better. The object would not stand out, it would blend into the environment. My view: A minimalist aesthetic for objects is not desirable because the minimalist aesthetic is desirable. It is desirable because objects of this form are more easily placed inside any environment. An object with an opinionated appearance will stand out unless it fits the rest of your possessions. This may or may not be desirable. But it should be up to the owner of the object whether attention is drawn to it, not up to the creators of the object. EDIT: Fixed a word or two. This was my 3rd write-up of this because they kept disappearing so I wrote it rather hastily.

sliverstorm 9y ago

Or maybe the slab just had a big pretty screen and all of the potential of soft keys. Screen took up as much space as possible, ergo it was a slab.