I was disappointed by the design of the iPad but I get it. The consumer electronics market is entering a new paradigm. In the past when a new technology (transistors, motors, silicon) was introduced, its size, shape and heat generation determined the design of the product. As companies improved on the new technology, the product’s design was less determined by it and more by established design principles*1. This paradigm is evident in the history of CD players, home stereos, computers, etc. For example, the transistor radio;
Here’s my theory: The paradigm for consumer electronics design is shifting. While the design of previous CE products evolved as the technology was miniaturized, the design of touch-related products will evolve through the software interface. Admittedly, the hypothetical iPad of 2013 will be thinner, lighter, and have a slightly different form-factor, but it will ultimately remain a bland screen because that’s where its function lies. In other words, The Technology is the Interface*2. Miniaturization of the screen would negate its benefit. In fact, I expect that Apple and others will be heralding larger and larger touch surfaces with little to no design differentiation between the devices when they are turned off.
Hence, most of it’s design elements will occur through the software interface. If this theory pans out, Apple, more than any other company, stands to benefit because they excel at software interface. This paradigm will conclude when flexible touch materials are introduced. At that point, we’ll return to our previous design paradigm and things will get really exciting! For example;
- Good design is innovative
- Good design makes a product useful
- Good design is aesthetic
- Good design helps us to understand a product
- Good design is unobtrusive
- Good design is honest
- Good design is long-lasting
- Good design is consequent to the last detail
- Good design is concerned with the environment
- Good design is as little design as possible
