\r"; ?> http://kitblog.com/notes/2009/01/objectified_and_oxygenated.html Kit·Blog Notes — Comments on “Objectified and oxygenated” en Cristian -Kit- Paul Thu, 15 Jan 2009 14:02:31 +0200 http://www.movabletype.org/?v=5.031 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss 1. On 15 Jan 2009, 2:02 PM, iulian wrote: ]]> <p>I'm gonna go on a limb here and say that Apple is a lot more about hype, buzz, sleekness, being-the-hip-iPod-wearing-dude and not THAT much about usability and ergonomy, thus not that much about Design.</p> <p>I'm not trying to start a fight, but they showed the MacBook in that lovely trailer and I kinda remembered the sleekness of my iPod's USB plug that lacks any trace of grip or tactile feel and a few other things.</p> Any thoughts? Reply to this comment.
Too narrow? Subscribe to global comments feed.

]]> seed('Objectified and oxygenated', 'http://kitblog.com/notes/2009/01/objectified_and_oxygenated.html#comment-901'); ?> Thu, 15 Jan 2009 14:02:31 +0200 2. On 15 Jan 2009, 4:47 PM, Kit wrote: ]]> <p>Mmm, so the iPod became a de facto standard, a market leader and cultural icon while a mediocre product with an unappealing enclosure, poor usability and awkward ergonomics...</p> <p>Man, those consumers are really stupid!</p> Any thoughts? Reply to this comment.
Too narrow? Subscribe to global comments feed.

]]> seed('Objectified and oxygenated', 'http://kitblog.com/notes/2009/01/objectified_and_oxygenated.html#comment-902'); ?> Thu, 15 Jan 2009 16:47:15 +0200 3. On 15 Jan 2009, 7:23 PM, iulian wrote: ]]> <p>I'm just saying that the cool factor cand override a lot of other factors. I bought my iPod Touch because it was cool. I may have been superficial, but that's the way that product spoke to me. </p> <p>My iPod continues to be one cool item, but that's where it stops to impress, because it comes with a wide set of negative assets, from my point of view: the entire concept of iTunes, lack of features and important buttons (that's been resolved for iPod Touch 2nd generation) etc.</p> <p>Apple products are impressive machines that deserve respect and appraisal, but not exactly from a strict Industrial Design point of view. </p> Any thoughts? Reply to this comment.
Too narrow? Subscribe to global comments feed.

]]> seed('Objectified and oxygenated', 'http://kitblog.com/notes/2009/01/objectified_and_oxygenated.html#comment-903'); ?> Thu, 15 Jan 2009 19:23:53 +0200 4. On 15 Jan 2009, 10:44 PM, Kit wrote: ]]> <p>Food for thought: I bet there is not a single design icon in the book—not one!—that is unanimously recognized as such.</p> <p>Design is a strong language, but cannot translate everything in the same way for everybody. The problem is when "I don't like it" or "I don't get it" get replaced with "it's not good".</p> <p>Maybe Apple design is just not your style—different people enjoy different brands of computers, phones, cars or home appliances. There's a lot of stuff out there—explore until you'll find something that fits your expectations.</p> Any thoughts? Reply to this comment.
Too narrow? Subscribe to global comments feed.

]]> seed('Objectified and oxygenated', 'http://kitblog.com/notes/2009/01/objectified_and_oxygenated.html#comment-904'); ?> Thu, 15 Jan 2009 22:44:04 +0200 5. On 16 Jan 2009, 12:40 PM, Iulian wrote: ]]> <p>Point very well taken. If a lot more people were to think like that, I guess we'd be a lot better off and everyone would just focus on using what suited them best.</p> Any thoughts? Reply to this comment.
Too narrow? Subscribe to global comments feed.

]]> seed('Objectified and oxygenated', 'http://kitblog.com/notes/2009/01/objectified_and_oxygenated.html#comment-905'); ?> Fri, 16 Jan 2009 12:40:39 +0200