3 ms·

I love it! All those grey and beige machines still feel like someone is about to do something amazing on them, even though modern stuff is better in basically e

I love it! All those grey and beige machines still feel like someone is about to do something amazing on them, even though modern stuff is better in basically every way. It's like seeing the alternate possibilities for how tech could have developed, and invites you to ask "What if we had tech just like now but used it differently". Is the fact that all tech has mostly the same look related to the fact that it's mostly all just used for consuming the same content? Smartwatches have greatly changed how I use tech, what other possibilities are we still ignoring? I wonder why we don't have tablet cases that look like old laptops. Even thought form and function are more separate than ever, we have way more boring aesthetics, just ever thinner phones I'll immediately put a rubber case on as soon as I take them out of the box, and cases that all kinda look the same. It's a good thing partly, because stuff is thin and light and cheap, but I'd think there'd be some serious products that keep the old 2000s look, or at least accessories that have it.

YurgenJurgensen 4y ago
There's a lot of niche communities out there (cyberdecks, console miniaturisation, case mods, new-old-retrocomputing, custom mechanical keyboards, custom arcade cabinets) that basically do what these mock-ups do, but for real. It is however an expensive and difficult hobby to get into (and I would bet that 90% of the people doing it happened to pick up the skills in their day jobs), and when it goes wrong you're typically out hundreds of dollars in components. Tooling and prototyping-as-a-service have gotten a lot better in the last decade, but it's still something that requires a lot of trial and error. The AI revolution I want isn't chatbots and anime girls with mutilated fingers, it's one where it's as easy to make a real novelty piece of hardware as it is to make a mock-up in Photoshop.
dfxm12 4y ago
Is the fact that all tech has mostly the same look related to the fact that it's mostly all just used for consuming the same content? I think this is part of it (but then again, we're consuming mostly the same content we always have), but I think there are bigger reasons. It's more about how fewer companies are designing/producing tech. Add that to the fact that each company's design is branding, and we're unlikely to see such radical changes to the designs of popular tech, like a ThinkPad, and many companies want to copy the successful look of say, a MacBook, rather than risk creating something new (all these look-a-likes are probably all using the same off the shelf parts, so that lends itself to having a similar design as well). The next is the advance of touchscreens. A flat panel can be the UI for anything, and it's probably so much cheaper than developing purpose built UIs. For this reason, all UIs are the same flat panel touchscreen with different graphics on them instead of a unique-looking array of physical buttons, switches, dials, etc., let alone any custom parts. It's like seeing the alternate possibilities for how tech could have developed, and invites you to ask "What if we had tech just like now but used it differently". I just watched the Running Man over the weekend. Even though it was set in a dystopian 2019, the tech that the film imagined for 2019 looked so much more playful and interesting than what we have today. Compared to some more recent film's guesses about future tech which usually involve graphics on a touch screen that may or may not be invisible. Is this just nostalgia for physical buttons or is do we all get excited to play with physical objects? That, I really don't know...
- eternityforest 4y ago
  Functionality flat screens are wonderful. No scrolling through menus with buttons that get sticky when someone spills juice on it, no confusing unique UI, no physical knobs that can respond to digital controls. Im definitely happy everything is flat, it's so much more durable. But they could still do more with case design. I wonder why physical controls never advanced to be as good and cheap as touch. I mean, they still have them on cheap low tech stuff, but it's craptastic switches that break. Hall sensors could be even cheaper and magnets don't cost much, physical UI doesn't have to have real contacts and mechanical linkages. The nest thermostat is a good example besides still having the boring minimal aesthetic. Part of the problem is that if someone did make something unique I'd wonder if it was novelty kickstarter trash that barely works made by people new to the industry, unless it was an established company, and the established companies don't innovate for the reasons you mention. Scifi UIs are specifically meant for emotional impact and storytelling, and early IRL tech seemed to take more inspiration from that, so I guess that's part of it. Also, screens have the mental association with scrolling TikTok and browsing HN, so if someone used an iPad to control a spaceship people might think "Why is she using the crap scroll machine to save the world" just like some people don't like seeing wedding photographers use a phone camera. Even reading books on a tablet invites you to think of the other more instant gratificationful things. In movies physical buttons, or screens with obviously unfamiliar UIs reinforce the fact that a character has a certain set of capabilities at the moment and they are doing what they can. They're not at home with a door dash app, there's no play store, there's no time to reboot, they're trying to get the shields up with only what's available at the moment. Real life tech is meant to be anything to anyone at any time, but only by having a huge library of predefined stuff, not by allowing on the fly creativity. Old analog stuff was less reliable and less capable but more hackable, it makes a better story, and most people want some trace of adventure even though it seems like most of us prefer life in general to be more safe and managed. Looking at real life from a storytelling perspective, for a user screens can be Mary Sues, and associated with places where everything is so safe there's no story to tell. Maybe analog stuff is like dressing up for a formal event. We want to change stuff so it looks and feels different, and use different words, and stand up straight, because it seems right for something that's supposed to be different from a boring trip to McDonald's.

YurgenJurgensen 4y ago

There's a lot of niche communities out there (cyberdecks, console miniaturisation, case mods, new-old-retrocomputing, custom mechanical keyboards, custom arcade cabinets) that basically do what these mock-ups do, but for real. It is however an expensive and difficult hobby to get into (and I would bet that 90% of the people doing it happened to pick up the skills in their day jobs), and when it goes wrong you're typically out hundreds of dollars in components. Tooling and prototyping-as-a-service have gotten a lot better in the last decade, but it's still something that requires a lot of trial and error. The AI revolution I want isn't chatbots and anime girls with mutilated fingers, it's one where it's as easy to make a real novelty piece of hardware as it is to make a mock-up in Photoshop.

dfxm12 4y ago

Is the fact that all tech has mostly the same look related to the fact that it's mostly all just used for consuming the same content? I think this is part of it (but then again, we're consuming mostly the same content we always have), but I think there are bigger reasons. It's more about how fewer companies are designing/producing tech. Add that to the fact that each company's design is branding, and we're unlikely to see such radical changes to the designs of popular tech, like a ThinkPad, and many companies want to copy the successful look of say, a MacBook, rather than risk creating something new (all these look-a-likes are probably all using the same off the shelf parts, so that lends itself to having a similar design as well). The next is the advance of touchscreens. A flat panel can be the UI for anything, and it's probably so much cheaper than developing purpose built UIs. For this reason, all UIs are the same flat panel touchscreen with different graphics on them instead of a unique-looking array of physical buttons, switches, dials, etc., let alone any custom parts. It's like seeing the alternate possibilities for how tech could have developed, and invites you to ask "What if we had tech just like now but used it differently". I just watched the Running Man over the weekend. Even though it was set in a dystopian 2019, the tech that the film imagined for 2019 looked so much more playful and interesting than what we have today. Compared to some more recent film's guesses about future tech which usually involve graphics on a touch screen that may or may not be invisible. Is this just nostalgia for physical buttons or is do we all get excited to play with physical objects? That, I really don't know...

eternityforest 4y ago
Functionality flat screens are wonderful. No scrolling through menus with buttons that get sticky when someone spills juice on it, no confusing unique UI, no physical knobs that can respond to digital controls. Im definitely happy everything is flat, it's so much more durable. But they could still do more with case design. I wonder why physical controls never advanced to be as good and cheap as touch. I mean, they still have them on cheap low tech stuff, but it's craptastic switches that break. Hall sensors could be even cheaper and magnets don't cost much, physical UI doesn't have to have real contacts and mechanical linkages. The nest thermostat is a good example besides still having the boring minimal aesthetic. Part of the problem is that if someone did make something unique I'd wonder if it was novelty kickstarter trash that barely works made by people new to the industry, unless it was an established company, and the established companies don't innovate for the reasons you mention. Scifi UIs are specifically meant for emotional impact and storytelling, and early IRL tech seemed to take more inspiration from that, so I guess that's part of it. Also, screens have the mental association with scrolling TikTok and browsing HN, so if someone used an iPad to control a spaceship people might think "Why is she using the crap scroll machine to save the world" just like some people don't like seeing wedding photographers use a phone camera. Even reading books on a tablet invites you to think of the other more instant gratificationful things. In movies physical buttons, or screens with obviously unfamiliar UIs reinforce the fact that a character has a certain set of capabilities at the moment and they are doing what they can. They're not at home with a door dash app, there's no play store, there's no time to reboot, they're trying to get the shields up with only what's available at the moment. Real life tech is meant to be anything to anyone at any time, but only by having a huge library of predefined stuff, not by allowing on the fly creativity. Old analog stuff was less reliable and less capable but more hackable, it makes a better story, and most people want some trace of adventure even though it seems like most of us prefer life in general to be more safe and managed. Looking at real life from a storytelling perspective, for a user screens can be Mary Sues, and associated with places where everything is so safe there's no story to tell. Maybe analog stuff is like dressing up for a formal event. We want to change stuff so it looks and feels different, and use different words, and stand up straight, because it seems right for something that's supposed to be different from a boring trip to McDonald's.