First, watch:

An unfinished, preview version of Windows 8 is available to the public. It’s more up-to-date than the video above, and looks like this:

(click all images for larger)

That above is the new “Start Screen”, which, at least so far, completely replaces the Start Menu.

It currently runs full-screen only, for some reason (like tablets), with no choice to opt back into the Start Menu. It uses an interface style called “Metro”, first seen in Microsoft’s new, failing phone OS, Windows Phone 7. (I did some commentary on the look of Metro at the bottom of this. Only read if you’re nerdy, artsy, or both.)

As pointed out in the link above, I personally don’t like the look of Metro. I think its style is suited for other things (like this pic), but certainly not computers/tablets/etc. Others might see it differently, but those others apparently haven’t been enough to circumvent this huge war that has sparked over the Start Screen. More on this later.

Fortunately, the desktop is still here, which currently looks like this:

I think I like the new “ribbon”, at the top of folder windows. Perhaps it has some clunk, but it brings dense functionality, and can auto-hide. (Someone has also shown that it’s quite a bit easier to reach most features than in Windows XP’s interface. Not sure, though, if it’s ultimately faster than Vista’s or Win7’s. (In the list of how many steps things take, more ‘weight’ has to go to things that are used more often.))

SO!

The Start Screen and Metro style are the major new things, this time around, and I think Microsoft has 2 main ideas lying underneath them… the second of which I like a great deal:

1) Make Windows more accessible and inviting on things like tablets – where Windows 7 failed – without having to make a separate UI for them.
(Not sure why not. I think absolute UI unity, across all systems, is an overvalued concept.)

2) On ANY system, make Windows easier for technophobes, and those who are new to this stuff.
(That’s most of the world’s population. Only 1 billion people have access to computers – a lowly 1 in 7 people – but mostly only through access at work and school. Only about 5% of households worldwide have at least 1 computer inside.)

Good ideas are one thing – and I love their pursuit – but then there’s good execution, which often doesn’t come so naturally…

To start, I believe the developmental progress of the entire world depends on computers not being presented as overly simple “easy-stations”, at least not for everyone. I really like the idea of making stuff easier for newbies, but, first, what about the people who DO STUFF, and, second, what about when the newbies aren’t newbies anymore?

At least right now, there’s no option to bypass the Start Screen, and just log straight into the desktop… and there’s no option to get the Start Menu back, for the gobs of people who are going to be repulsed by the Start Screen. (perhaps that’s not everyone, but I think it’s going to be a LOT.)

Going further, the OS we have right now, Windows 7, already made launching and managing open programs take more clicks and more time than Vista before it… and now, Windows 8 is looking like it might turn that into a continuing legacy. (For instance, switching between your open Metro apps is a slow, painful process. Even Windows Phone 7 Mango handles it better.)

The “Building Windows 8” blog, written by various members of the Windows Team, makes the case for the Start Screen being more efficient and faster to work with than the Start Menu… however, there are a few significant flaws with the way they present their argument. They first point out (rightly) that nearly every element of the Start Menu is not 100% optimal, and could use some rethinking… That’s fine, but then they miss the most immediate, natural solution of just saying, “So, since the Start Menu isn’t perfect, we need to MAKE it perfect.” Instead, they say more like, “So, the Start Menu is doomed, and the Start SCREEN is the only way to save it.”

Surely another influence is wanting to cater to tablets/touch… so, if that too is the case, why not just ask touch users if they’d like to activate a touch interface?

The biggest point that Microsoft made was something like this:

• These heatmaps (below) show how long it takes for the mouse to hover over an icon. Green means you can hover quickly. Red means the opposite. You can see how the Start Menu is less efficient, because your most-used icons go up on top, in the distant red zone. The Start Screen, however, can be freely organized, so, first of all, your most-used icons can theoretically all go in the green, and second, there’s tons more space on-screen, so, this cancels the need to have to dig stuff out of the cumbersome ‘All Programs’ menu.

Aside from how easy it would be to redesign the Start Menu, to boost its efficiency, Microsoft overlooks quite a few important things in this efficiency argument:

Argument Flaws

– To start, I doubt that many users are going to put their important stuff in the bottom-left of the Start Screen. I assume most people are going to put all that up at the top. That’s just how people sort stuff; top to bottom. See this heatmap below (which I made in Photoshop, using no analysis), showing where I assume people actually keep their most-used icons:

Also, on the Start Screen, when you create a new group of icons, everything is currently forced to start at the top. In order to put stuff at the bottom, you have to make the group packed full of icons.

The Start Screen DOES show more stuff up-front, which is good, especially if you have an app store where people mass-download all these little apps. However, later, I’ll get to a different way to serve these app-downloading people… (aside from just a new, larger Start Menu, or something).

Next:

– Microsoft forgets that the Start Screen has an opening AND closing animation, whereas the Start Menu instantly pops in and out. This throws a hefty wrench into the whole efficiency thing, and I doubt they’d change the Start Screen to ever appear instantly, like the Start Menu. Too abrupt for something full-screen.

– They forget that the Start Screen doesn’t have a taskbar, so, flipping through the open Metro apps is aimless and slow. (You thumb through them one by one, till you bump into the one you want.)

(I do love that Microsoft is trying to back its design with numbers and analysis. Using scientific info is very enlightening and rewarding, because it’s (supposed to) tell you exactly what’s what. However, one thing that scientific study always needs is “peer review”… which means getting an outside evaluation of the study, to make sure all the right questions were asked, and the info is being looked at the right way. It’s just *incredibly* easy to misinterpret what numbers are actually telling you. Analysis needs to be subjected to all factors, and put to the test. One of the problems is that people want their work (or study) to be fruitful, and not go to waste… so, they easily fall into the trap of “confirmation bias”, which means trying to see only the data that confirms what they want to see. They aren’t asking the question, “What does this info ULTIMATELY tell me,” they’re asking, “How much stuff here helps CONFIRM my theory (or reinforces my work)?” If not paying attention, a person can work with confirmation bias almost as naturally as breathing. Not a blamable thing.)

-

Based just on crucial looks, think about Windows Phone 7, which uses the Metro look. To start, Windows Phone 7 did NOT turn the heads of your common buyer, which should probably be a warning sign. When choosing products, I think the masses of uninformed buyers go by:

1) How a product “feels”, as in how the whole presentation tickles their brains.
2) Whether or not they can justify the price.
3) How much they think they can actually use it (…even if they aren’t thinking clearly about this one, and let the “feel” part coax them into over-estimating how much actual use it will be).

As such, why would an uninformed buyer choose the 3rd or 4th-place appealing product (Windows Phone 7), if it both costs the same as the more tickly phones, and doesn’t obviously boast superior functionality?

So, on top of Windows 8 having the same visual non-awesomeness, I think a much larger, more vocal group of people is going to be disgusted by the whole Metro thing, and feel that computing is being turned into something completely unintelligent, and unattractive. It’s clear that we’re dumbing down to serve lowest common denominator… but it’s not AT ALL clear if that’s necessary for the goals that Microsoft wants to accomplish here... like helping the world’s newbies get on board with computers.
(Regarding newbies, however, I do have a nit to pick with the invisible start button. [That’s not my video.])

-

As I hope to show below, I don’t think we need to go for dead-simple in order to embrace touch-computing and newbie users. I think that if we just execute the Start Screen differently, using most of the same ideas, we can kill 4 birds with 1 stone…

1: Zero controversy, zero risk.
2: All the touch/tablet functionality that Microsoft wants.
3: All the newbie-friendliness.
4: Extra power for techies.

First, you’d choose between starting out with a simple interface, or a rich, advanced one:

Newbie Desktop

Click images for large versions…

You could also default to having the taskbar auto-hide, so that newbies get a stronger impression of simplicity.
(Note: there’s some intentional variance here and there, just to try out different stuff.)

It would be nice if the widget board came with a rich collection of additional widgets (or PROMINENT access to an online library), so you could add more stuff, like this YouTube panel:

You’ll note how I don’t believe in making things look TOO simple as a means to be newbie-friendly. To combat technophobia, I believe Windows should have something like simple, non-corporate-feeling training videos, and maybe intelligent boot-screen messages (like, “If you don’t know precisely who sent you an email, and the reason why, the odds that it’s spam hovers unbelievably close to 100%.”) If some computers are going to boot too fast, the messages could perhaps be added to the login screen, or presented in some other way.

Advanced Desktop

(here’s that Win 7 article)

By the way, some might point out that the Start Screen sits in front of everything, easily accessible, whereas this would sit behind everything, and require minimizing all your windows in order to get to it. Would that slow things down?

• 1: No, because the Start Menu is back, and, for launching apps, that’s actually your biggest Start Screen equivalent. (remember, the Start Screen is just a full-screen Start Menu.)
• 2: I’d introduce some quick ways to minimize, like perhaps turning that tiny ‘Minimize All’ button in the bottom-right into a larger, second Start Button, just for bringing you back to the widget board… and, if you have a bunch of non-maximized windows floating around, maybe double-clicking the desktop would make them minimize.

The advanced and simple desktops are technically the same one. The only differences are how cluttered they start out, what widgets are showing, which taskbar skin is used (maybe), and whether or not the widget board is set to “Full Desktop”. (That would be a simple option. It would block out having traditional desktop icons above and below the widget board.)

With a layout like this, newbie users could easily and naturally work their way up to an “advanced” layout… and advanced users could do the opposite, if they wanted.

Same story with tablets:

Tablet Desktop (with Start Menu open)

HERE, I chose a partially Win7-style taskbar. Not sure how comfortable I am with the fact that additional programs that you launch would alternate appearing on the left and right sides, but it’s an idea.

I think a Start Menu like this could do well on desktop PC’s too (you’ll see some desktop features above, like a disc drive icon), but more thinking would have to go into some of the details, like how to handle larger programs that actually come with several smaller side-apps, or that need to put some important files up front… like you see often in the Start Menu. Maybe some app icons could expand, and show you the stuff they’re bundled with… I dunno. Got stuff to do. :P

To refresh your memory real quick, here’s Windows 8, so far:

(Fun fact: After Windows 8 loads, you start out FOUR screens away from the desktop. Wading through them is a marathon.)

So, we have last:

The Choice Screen

(Something similar would come up whenever you create a new user account.)

Here’s a Windows 8 installation screen:

-

A little analysis…

Looking at Windows 8 so far, I feel that most people new to computers will be trained to feel that most tasks should be overly simple, as in dumb, without much to expect out of anything. Unfortunately, I think that would make people lazy, and less willing to use computers as anything more than enlarged smartphones (not in a good, convenience way, but like a candy-store app station way). The whole Start Screen / Metro interface is presented in this visually drained, educational-software fashion, and I think it would channel to the average person this pervasive feeling that computers aren’t important. It seems to come across as an “I-Serv-U” station (in a yucky sense), and not something intelligent.

There are GOOD ways to simplify, and I don’t mind the idea of simple, tablet-like apps on the PC, but I think this system-wide dumbing down will cultivate a laxy-lazy view of technology, more than anything. That overall scent of overbearing simplicity works on small convenience devices, like smartphones (and, to a degree, tablets), but I think this is a dangerous mentality to water down the mighty PC with.

For one, think about human progress in the upcoming times, and how reliant it will be on technology… Now, what do you think will happen if you tell people to start thinking of man’s best workhorse as a pony? The point: I believe you can still get EVERYONE on board here, without going the pony route… (and, like with ponies, newbies can still leisure-ride on workhorses).

Next, if these issues cause enough ruckus out there, and the whole thing is a flop, I think Microsoft might feel VERY awkward trying to later reintroduce things like the Start Menu, and overall “regular” approach to things. They might want to trash everything that was in any way part of the equation – including the past stuff that worked – and introduce something else completely new. (More risks.)

-

Now, I don’t question for a second that at least SOME of the people behind Windows 8 probably see it as “cool, lively modern-style”. (If that were NOT the case, they would have likely named Metro something like “kids” or “education”, and dumped it)… but here’s the thing: those who advocate things almost always see them from the best possible angles that you could see them from. It’s a psychological issue that all people face, which is part of how we get things like poor movies. Like with movies, those who are most closely tied to their creation (writer, director, etc) usually think everything is looking great… (just watch “making of” segments, and see)… but, had others been given a meaningful chance, they could have pointed out that there were serious flaws. Rarely does someone TRY to find flaw in their creation, because that is SO not what you want. (I have this theory that there are actually very few bad movies/books/etc; just a whole lot that have to be seen from very, very specific angles.)

In the world of creating things, it’s massively important to be self-critical, and also not turn away outside judgment. It helps us uncover the other ways in which our stuff might be seen, and not just the good ones.

By nature, I think we people go through this 2-step thought-process when analyzing our own creations, or the things we advocate. There’s some variance from situation to situation, but, in general:

1) We ask ourselves, “Can I find ANY angle from which to see this where it WORKS?” (We usually start out only interested in whether or not something of ours CAN work, almost trying to MAKE IT work.)
2) If we succeed in the above, we think we’ve got it, and try NOT to uncover anything contrary. From then on, we’re all set, and plant this seed of belief… which we furiously try to only water with further reassurances.

This thought-process is devastating to artists and all kinds of “creators of stuff”, which is why it’s SO important for us to be surrounded by respected opinions… corrective, often critical voices. (We just have to make sure that these are constructive voices, specifically trying to make our work BETTER, and not vampires, trying to discourage us. The key is: don’t only tell me you don’t like something. Tell me how you COULD like it.)

Being SELF-corrective is mighty useful as well, just as long as we’re willing to actually sit there, and try to find holes in ideas that we’ve already fallen in love with. On one hand, our minds may have a nasty aversion to allowing opposing thoughts to threaten our ideas… but being self-critical is probably the most useful approach of all, because instead of creating something, THEN getting feedback, you criticize your ideas before you’ve even done anything. (I personally save tons of time on my projects by trying to find flaws first.) I imagine that close to zero people do this, because, until you know its true value, it’s difficult… Trying to sink your own stuff can be very rapid-fire with the challenges, so, in one brainstorming session, you might easily offer yourself more opposition than you’d normally come across in a long time. However, the power it gives you in fixing and improving all of your aspirations is invaluable. It’s like… would you rather spend your life pursuing junk ideas that often fail, or almost always hitting the mark?

(I think the kinds of ideas we need to judge within ourselves are quite varied. It could be whether or not a project or hobby will be as worthwhile as we thought, whether or not a “good idea” of ours will ACTUALLY work, whether or not we’re over-estimating the quality of things we’ve created, etc… Now, we do need SOME defense from these thoughts, because even our everyday thinking can bombard us with all manner of false insecurities about things… so, it helps to really pay attention, and notice when our fears are either just blank illusions, or plausible but not ultimately correct.)

—

So, my impression of the Windows 8 preview, so far:
I think it’s good ideas, just being presented wrong. I’m bothered by Metro and the Start Screen, but I think some of the underlying ideas are good. I’d just present the whole thing from a different angle.

(For further digging on Windows 8 issues, see this article, on CNet.)

E² (series)

A series of half-hour episodes, showing all manner of ideas in the world that try to fix our environment. It goes over the pursuit of green architecture, green energy, non-destructive production of food, low-emission transportation, designing cities that don’t drink resources, etc…

Season 1 – YouTube

Season 1 & 2 mixed – Hulu
(see the “List of Episodes” section near the bottom)

Season 3 and “Transport” Season – official site
(click the “Webcasts” button, at the top)

Here’s a sample episode, from YouTube:

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
- All Alphaila articles can be re-posted and sent around freely, without permission. See FAQ page.
- Get my free wallpaper pack   |   About the author]]> http://www.alphaila.com/articles/important_things/e2-series/feed/ 0 http://www.alphaila.com/articles/important_things/super-size-me/ http://www.alphaila.com/articles/important_things/super-size-me/#comments Fri, 17 Dec 2010 03:57:13 +0000 Dario D. http://alphaila.com/articles/?p=1207

Super-Size Me

An examination of the culture of fast food, with focus on McDonald’s.

(the experiment done in this documentary may be flawed, as pointed out in the (drastically over-criminalizing) counter-documentary “Fat Head”, but it’s still well worth the message and effect in every way)

____________________________________________________________________________________________

Google Shopping link |   Amazon link
Realizing the importance of spreading this message, the filmmakers have made this film available for free, on the internet. Still, consider buying a hard copy, if only to pass it around to people you know. Those who make films like this deserve your money probably more than 999,999/1,000,000 places you’ll ever come across. Being perfectly realistic, a tiny thing like this is one of the few things most people will do that have a direct global effect on things.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Also, see my article on fast food ads vs. reality, here.

Who Killed the Electric Car?

A documentary about why electric cars aren’t as “here” right now as we thought they’d be 10 years ago… and why they sure as heck should be. (Also, the sequel, “Revenge of the Electric Car”, just came out, but is not yet free to view.)

____________________________________________________________________________________________

Google Shopping link |   Amazon Link
Realizing the importance of spreading this message, the filmmakers have made this film available for free, on the internet. Still, consider buying a hard copy, if only to pass it around to people you know. Those who make films like this deserve your money probably more than 999,999/1,000,000 places you’ll ever come across. Being perfectly realistic, a tiny thing like this is one of the few things most people will do that have a direct global effect on things.

Frontline (series)

This is a series of documentaries about all manner of topics. New ones are always being made.

You can watch all Frontlines here.

Here’s one of them, about climate change:
(it’s just the beginning, so also see the link under it)

(you can see the rest of it here)

The Corporation

The story of the Corporation, with emphasis on the “bad apples”.

____________________________________________________________________________________________
Google Shopping link |   Amazon link |   The Book (the documentary is based on this)
Realizing the importance of spreading this message, the filmmakers have made this film available for free, on the internet. Still, consider buying a hard copy, if only to pass it around to people you know. Those who make films like this deserve your money more than probably 999,999/1,000,000 places you could ever come across. And, being perfectly realistic, a tiny thing like this is one of the few things that most people will ever do that has a direct global effect on things.

TED Talks

TED, which means “Technology Entertainment Design”, is a yearly ideas conference, covering all manner of important (and not so important) topics. The theme is “ideas worth spreading”. Basically, a bunch of the world’s geniuses and idea-people come and give 20-minute (max) talks, on all manner of topics, often targeting what to do about global issues, how to do things better, or just showcasing interesting things that people are working on.

Whatever the topic, it makes an absolutely fantastic replacement for your “not knowing what to do” time, and bored TV-viewing. The reality of being able to watch things like TED is part of why 100% of my anything-viewing nowadays is done via the internet. You can filter out the brainless, and immerse in all that is important and meaningful.

(I think TED Talks should be a subject in school. The world just can’t afford anymore slacking around, nor people having no vision of where humanity should head, thus resigning themselves to many of the same purposeless lifestyles of generations past. Anyone who follows this forward thinking with enthusiasm will become a dedicated futurist, and be stoked on life.)

Videos on the official website

Here are a few talks I like:

STILL, less than 4% of computers worldwide are Macs. (Around 10% in the US, but 4% worldwide.) I dislike that fact, because Macs are just as good as PC’s, in my opinion… Not better, but just as good. [silence, Mac nazis. I’m largely a Mac-user as well, with a big heart for Apple stuff. I’ll explain the “just as good” thing further down.] They also help the world move forward by coming with a huge psychological awesome-factor that, among other things, has prodded companies of all kinds to improve their often lousy designs, and think with a more “futurist” mentality. (Macs even inspire the people who get them to clean their rooms and houses, and generally ‘up’ the visuals of their living space. Completely serious. A Mac in a setup that actually looks like something adds perceived value to a room, and you can feel it.)

Now, on one hand, I’m not entirely convinced that Apple is reaching for total computer domination with the Mac, but I do think you’d have to be completely insane to believe that the people at Apple don’t dream about that every night. As such, I think the Apple guys should have figured out by now that, if they want to supplant PC’s/Windows, and become astronomically huge,  they can’t merely leave the Mac to business-as-usual. Sure, Mac sales have kaboomed in the last few years, but the growth is from tiny into tiny. It has been good for making money, but not for what the people on top at Apple WANT (winning), and not good for the world, which has to deal with VERY little competition outside of the US. : in the US (Mac-land), 1-in-10 computers now sold are Macs. (No, seriously, that’s after the kaboom everyone’s always talking about.)

Looking at Apple’s other products, they truly are making a huge profit. Their other products have grown so much, that Macs now only account for something like 15-20% of their total profits. Apple has now surpassed Microsoft to become the #1 most valuable technology company, and one of the top 3 most profitable companies in the world… mostly thanks to the non-Mac products. But the Macs themselves still do make Apple a nice pile of cash, especially per unit sold. (having ANY spot on this pie-chart equals lots of money). But thinking beyond today’s cash? (and maybe Apple doesn’t think beyond that) If we had an all-knowing Artificial Intelligence, don’t you think it would tell us that it is in fact possible for Macs to reach, say, 50% of all computer sales one day? At least? (never think for a second that a real A.I., with its perfect and complete deathgrip on all that is informational, would find it challenging to find a (natural) way to do something like that… and without having to turn the computers into compromised pieces of junk. The challenge is for us simpletons to find even a shred of that train of thought. Can be rough.)

Mac users who want that 50% have been banging on Apple’s doors for years to change all kinds of things, in order to help Macs become more widely used… Try things like, as I see it, lower their dang prices, since it seems to me that all the world’s computer users: 1) are already fully convinced they’d like to TRY a Mac… but 2) don’t want to pay 2x the price of a PC for one.

-
This pic I made, below, shows what I think most of Apple’s problem is… but reaching a lot further than just Macs, since I firmly believe that price is Apple’s alpha limiter in almost all fields.

If anyone at Apple wants the realm of the Mac to finally expand (all hands raise), the question that arises is whether or not Apple’s plan-of-action is STILL worth pursuing. Notice: Macs haven’t even surpassed 4% global market-share, and we’re marching past 2011 now.

Gartner predicts that, in 4 years (2015), that number will increase to about 5%… an increase of 1%.

…
Versus the world, the Mac literally grows each year from tiny nothingness into tiny nothingness. Oh, but it grows. For some, that’s enough, but I know that the spirit of Apple isn’t about accepting eternal defeat, and living as but a small factor in shadow of Mount Windows. I know that nobody could ever work at Apple, if they thought such a fate was “enough”.

Some people only see money, though, and consider financial success to be everything. The thing is, if you know anything about the history of Apple, you know that money is SO not the main drive… unless you’re an investor, I suppose. (and I don’t necessarily respect the plight of investors.) Rolling in money was a victory won quite a while ago, and, when you think about those on top, at Apple, you realize there certainly has to be more to this. A whole freaking lot more.

There are these huge elements, like winning, and seeing the world embrace your gift to them. Otherwise, there’s losing, and feeling like the world thought your perfection somehow wasn’t enough, or something. I poop around with psychology quite a bit, and know a thing or two about how people think. If you call to mind the one-time college nerds who founded Apple, you just have to guess: it could only be that the prime underlying desires consist of winning, and seeing your deathless gift to the world embraced, and not spat out. And maybe they don’t need EVERYTHING, but life is about happiness, and connection (love from those you’re trying to serve, in this case)… and, simply put, money alone isn’t any of those things. (…especially when you’ve HAD it, for ages.) For Apple’s stake in this, letting the Mac rot in this state of worldwide nonexistence, while Windows laughs off with the cake, would mean forever dealing with the crush of defeat. It’s like living under a cloud… every time one’s mind goes to anything relating to computers, there’s that sense that Windows is everywhere, and Macs are nowhere.

There’s quite a legacy that could be brought back here, changing the world massively. But, before Apple could even get there, there’s all this stuff to deal with…

So, let’s start digging into it…

To begin, remember above there was that link, with the PC vs. Mac pricing. It points out that, at least in 2008:

Average Cost of ‘Desktop’ Computers
PC: $550
Mac: $1,543

Note: I want to make an adjustment here, however, because most lowest-end PC’s don’t come with monitors. So, let’s bump the PC’s up to $700:

PC: $700
Mac: $1,543

And there is NO lack of power in even today’s lowest-end PC’s (excluding those weird, super-mini cases). In fact, Macs are the ones that are routinely blasted by tech reviewers for being underpowered for their price range. Note that they still have better parts than the average PC, but not ones of their same prices. (more on that in a bit)

Even the Mac Mini – the cheapest of which is $600 – will actually cost closer to $800, after you buy its missing screen, speakers, keyboard, and mouse (probably bringing the average Mac’s cost up). There’s nothing “mini” about paying $800 for a computer with half the power of an equally-priced PC… and that $800 is for the lowest-end model only, which is EMBARASSINGLY low-end. The lowest-end 2007 Mac Mini would chug with just one Firefox window open, and barely run Google Earth at all. (how do executives okay a computer that fails two of the most crucial elements that will define the computing experience for the average, non-tech-savvy user?!) I can’t blast Apple for this, because user experience is still a prime goal over there, but I think the pursuit of profits still motivated this nice fail for anyone who bought that Mac Mini. And little toe-stubs like this frequently crop up in Apple’s decisions.

Many of these stubs might just be nits to pick, but I’m reminded of the quote: “Without nitpickers, the world would be full of nits.” And, if you’ve followed any tech news sites, you’ve seen that Apple products have more and more become covered in these nits, and it’s like the world’s tech writers are always scratching.

-
But aren’t Macs worth extra money? For a non-gamer (or someone who doesn’t NEED to use a PC), I personally think they are, but to an EXTENT… an EXTENT. The reason my answer isn’t, “Yes, totally,” is because, well, there are things that people need to be very aware of:

First, this is not 2001-2004. These are NOT the years when most peoples’ perceptions of Mac vs. PC were established… during the spyware HELL that befell Windows XP, during the time when gobs of computers were being sold without enough power to run themselves (not that some Macs haven’t done this), during the worst days of unwanted programs running in peoples’ System Trays.

Mac users need to understand how the times are changing, and what the reality of TODAY is. That may sound like a harsh reality to swallow, but, at the same time, it needs to be understood how much reason there is to be HAPPY about the state of things now…

I say this to Mac fans: your long-time desire to see everyone using a Mac – to have people “see the light” – didn’t develop because you liked Apple’s logo, and had to share its shiny smoothness with everyone… it developed because you found a computer that righted all the wrongs of the world’s PC’s, gave you something good and real to enjoy, which you thought just NEEDED the world’s attention. And so you decided that Apple was worth supporting, because you thought it was the only company that offered a system truly worthy of being peoples’ computers.

Psychology note: in mentioning this Mac fan mentality, I’m not counting in narcissistic people (society’s “evil people”), who, by definition, would prefer to focus on a belief that they have superiority over PC users, not actually caring if anyone “found the light” or not.

But, NOW, things are changing. PC’s are sprinting toward becoming just more Macs… and this is happening in a way that should be incredibly relieving. I mean, let’s face it: at the rate that Macs are growing, you’ll likely be dead or graying before PC’s are overtaken, and what better way to spread everything that you like about Macs than to merely transfer some of their qualities to the systems that people USE?

Again… nothing that anyone treasures is GOING anywhere; it’s just spreading to PC’s now.

-
Going forward, what I’m going to explain is, first, the ways in which PC’s are simply becoming what Mac users wanted in the beginning, then, why I think Apple’s pricing for the iMac isn’t worth supporting nowadays.

Let’s start with some misunderstandings, via questions and answers:

Question: I own a PC, and it’s a frustrating, slow, unstable pile of junk. Doesn’t that mean PC’s are still like that?

Answer: No. Not one that you buy today (give or take your usual exceptions, which are certainly present in the Mac world as well). See next…

Question: Software-wise, isn’t a Mac more reliable?

Answer: Yes, but to an EXTENT. There are a few important things to consider here, that most people don’t realize:

- Already, the PC’s that you buy today are nowhere near as troublesome as those from several years ago. Vista has become VERY, VERY stable/reliable (unlike when it was first launched), and Windows 7 has been good in this department from day 1. You will find innumerable Windows 7 reviews that say OSX has now found its match. (I believe Vista can boast the same, but its reviews were written in 2007, when it was still in a sad state.) You might still experience less issues on OSX, but not by much anymore.

- Regarding spyware/viruses (I don’t say “virii”), yes, Macs are more reliable… (I don’t think numbers exist for virus/spyware infestations, strangely enough), however:

- The reason for the above advantage is that not enough Windows users know about this and this (yet), and I think word is spreading fast. (the first one there is Microsoft Security Essentials – a free and powerful antivirus/spyware program. The second is a browser plugin, for most modern browsers, that tells you which internet search results are safe, and if you’re about to enter any kind of dangerous site) Windows Vista and Windows 7 both come with anti-spyware installed, and Windows 8, the next version of Windows, is going to come with full Microsoft Security Essentials (so, anti-everything). They’re moving it under the Windows Defender title, and it’s going to mark the end of the virus/spyware insanity that the unprotected go through.

The thing is, anyone using ANY kind of antivirus + anti-spyware is already well off (and the Mac isn’t immune either). In short, the safety-gap between Windows and OSX has been closing very rapidly. A Windows user who does full-system backups onto a secondary internal or external hard drive (on top of using normal antivirus/spyware programs), will be nearly bulletproof. And this applies to Mac users as well, who DO need to protect themselves. Full-system backups, via programs specifically designed for that, are incredibly important for everyone, and remove the need to EVER reformat your hard drive as a means to recover from issues. Read this, sometime…

So, in summary: Are Macs more reliable? Yes, a little… but no more more gaping differences, and the hole that people speak of has largely closed in today’s systems. (Pretty soon, it will probably barely exist at all.)

Question: Hardware-wise, isn’t a Mac more reliable, and less prone to breaking down? (not related to software issues; talking about problems like the computer not turning on anymore…)

Answer: While we don’t know the numbers for PC vs. Mac desktop breakdowns, we do have some info on laptops, which might at least give us some hint…

(via SquareTrade, here)

Everyone thinks Macbooks are of vastly superior build quality, compared to regular laptops, but their breakdowns, at least by the end of 2009, were as you see above. I assume desktops couldn’t be THAT much different.

(by the way, it’s INSANE that one in five laptops won’t last 3 years. For crying out loud, all these sadistic companies need to extend their basic warranties…)

Question: I’ve heard that PC’s are expensive to own and maintain, and that Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) for a Mac is actually lower. Right?

Answer: Well, in a BUSINESS environment, they’re (usually) cheaper to maintain – like to keep running, and do work on – but we don’t know if that makes their TOTAL cost lower than that of a PC or not. Regarding home AND work, I’ll tell you why I think the answer is no.

For home computers, just ask yourself this question: have you EVER paid anywhere near, say, $500 to fix a PC that wouldn’t turn on? Slim, slim chance. Most local PC repair shops will fix your computer for $50-100, plus parts (which rarely exceed $150… usually much less). Even NOT getting it fixed, and just buying a whole new one ($700 for the broken PC, then another $700 for the new one), probably wouldn’t total you much more than the lowest-end standard iMac. System-builders probably have the highest cost of repairs, but still not even close to $500, unless they use the opportunity to upgrade (hey, upgrade, then it’s almost like you’re getting an entirely new system)… and, if it’s your MAC that won’t boot, and you’ve past your first year without buying one of those expensive warranties, you’re likely buying a whole new one.)

Today, the notion that Macs are cheaper overall mostly rides on a very misquoted survey of 460 business IT administrators (the guys who keep the computers running, in companies). If you want, you can view it here (free registration to view). See, there are some important details:

First, it was only talking about computer costs that COMPANIES have to pay, in a business environment. And second, it was only factoring costs of maintenance – just the maintenance – without any measurement at all of overall cost. (the mention of overall cost is referring to some comments that a few of the surveyed IT people made on the side… and my personal, unbiased guess is that they were Mac guys, pushing their views… but take or leave that part; up to you)

Now, I don’t doubt for a second that Macs MUST be cheaper and easier to keep running than PC’s… but to an EXTENT. And not in all situations (as reflected by the survey).

Here are the numbers:

• 46% of the IT people said Macs were cheaper to maintain. Note: articles everywhere say 60%, but the actual report says 46%. (close to half of those said Macs were 0-20% cheaper. A little more than half said cheaper by 20% or more)
• 29% said both platforms cost the same to maintain.
• 18% said PC’s were cheaper to maintain. (about half of those said 0-20% cheaper, and the other half said 20% or more)
  Note: When counting up the percentages, 46+29+18 only equals 93 (not 100), but that’s the best you can do with the graphs published with the survey. (they’re vague) I don’t know where the 60% came from.

Remember, this is cost of maintenance only. The price of the computers is not factored in.

If it’s hard to crunch what the above actually means, let me just show you my conclusion: the overall cost of PC’s has to be lower for at least 50% of companies… (namely, the ones that said Mac maintenance was either the same or more expensive). Now, for the other half, those companies have some calculation to do… They’d need to ask: does PC maintenance + purchase price overtake a Mac maintenance + purchase price?

Let’s see:
Average PC price-tag = $700
Average Mac price-tag = $1500

Maintenance on the PC would have to be $800 in order for overall cost to surpass the average Mac… and we haven’t even added the Mac’s maintenance yet. (according to the survey, it likely wouldn’t be THAT much lower than the PC, at least on average).

It’s difficult to make the PC look expensive here. To put it simply, I think chances are slim that a PC can overtake a Mac’s overall cost. But there’s still more to the puzzle:

-
What if working on a Mac is FASTER, helping the company make more money by getting more work done? Can THAT fill in the cost difference?

Nobody knows the answer to this. But, I do believe that if a business is using old, run-down, non-IT-maintained PC’s (not today’s computers, with today’s stable, largely trouble-free versions of Windows) people MIGHT be able to get things done, say, 5-10% faster on a Mac. This would also be dependent on what software you’re using, though. (see, if Microsoft Office is all a business uses, well, that’s available on both platforms. And any company with IT is going to have all PC’s in GOOD order, so there aren’t going to be significant kinks in the workflow. Small businesses could suffer more, since they might troubleshoot stuff manually, and could be using old pieces of junk…  including run down old Macs. They might just need to upgrade, so employees can work faster.)

If a business can get things done 5-10% faster on Macs, that might fill in the holes of computer cost… but, then again, I really think a business should only be using TODAY’S computers, given the lost ground they’ve made up for. (Remember, this article isn’t about today’s Macs vs. yesterday’s PC’s. It’s about what you buy today, to tackle today’s debate, over which system is more worth going out to get.)

-

So, final answers:

• At home, I believe it’s safe to say that a PC is usually way, way cheaper. I don’t believe that home maintenance on today’s PC’s brings the Total Cost of Ownership up much. If you own a piece of junk from yesterday, well, that PC came from a different world.
• At work, my best guess is that a PC is USUALLY cheaper, but a business would have to carefully consider a few things in order to figure that out… like:
  1) How much does it cost you to buy one PC vs. one Mac?
  1) Exactly how much does your IT cost for the average Mac vs. PC?
  2) Exactly how fast does work get done on each system? (If Mac is faster, does it make the company enough money to be able to say that using Macs is cheaper?)

And now, price-wise, let’s dig into how things are changing…

Let’s start with gaming:
On a PC, keeping up with the latest games is cheaper than it has EVER been… because, now, any PC that has at least a dual-core processor, and 3gb RAM, will likely only need a $100-200 video card upgrade. And this could last 2-4 years now, especially if you don’t NEED to play the latest games at max settings. (Here’s why lower settings aren’t a big deal anymore, at least in most cases. Leave the resolution high, and just lower everything else.)

Here’s a small illustration of that, showing one of the highest-end-always game series, Call of Duty:

2007

(from IGN) – Modern Warfare

2011

Modern Warfare 3

Game graphics aren’t bounding forward at the pace that they once did. Several reasons for that include:
- For game studios, it’s simply getting too expensive to take new games so far ahead.
- Most PC games are also developed for weaker consoles (Xbox 360 and PS3), so, those act as a natural anchor. (though not as much as you might think, if you know how weak a console is…)
- Near photorealism has been reached, and, visually, nobody really CARES what comes next. (We want depth, and more/better interaction with the world… but few companies seem intent on delivering that, except in terms of how much more stuff reacts to violence.)
- Some companies are realizing that simply having superior art can bring visuals forward, without necessarily requiring extra computing power.
- Companies are realizing that lower-end graphics are simply good enough to carry many games. Having weaker graphics means less money required, and tons more people have computers that can run them.

Eventually, I was getting somewhere with that… let’s see if I can remember. Oh:
Like a PC, a desktop iMac will carry a gamer for longer than ever before… but, when it comes time to upgrade, you aren’t just popping in a $100-200 video card. You’re replacing the whole thing… for $1000-2000.

We have to be really honest with ourselves: we don’t freaking need to do that.

-
Moving on:
$1,000 will allow you to build TWO ‘Crysis 2’-capable PC’s, now.

Apple has stated before, “We don’t know how to make a $500 computer that isn’t a piece of junk.” (-Steve Jobs in a 2008 conference call for Apple investors) Unfortunately, Apple seems to be the only computer-maker in the WORLD that can’t figure this out. Today – which, to be fair, isn’t 2008 – they could even just request a computer from a company that already makes a cheap, Mac-like non-piece-of-junk, then put OSX on it. (note: a hacked version of OSX can already run on a full-fledged PC.)

Let’s see what we can do:

If you paint this $600, 23” Dell white, and flatten its little grooves, you’ve got a capable little iMac, lacking only in gaming (ironically). Compare designs. It’s already possible to even install OSX86 on it, as-is, and dual-boot Windows/OSX.

We’ve also got this $500, 20” HP, below, which is the same story as the Dell…

-

Next, Apple seems to orient Macs so that they’re only in reach of those with money (in defiance of today’s economy). I like the way late-night TV host David Letterman put it (clip): “…frankly, I’m a little sick and fed up with the Apple people, because, first of all, nobody’s got any money…”

And, outside of the world’s few rich places, there’s NOTHING to compete with PC’s. This is very important. If Apple were a mega-player in the computer market, the pressure from the competition would fuel the fires of progress all over the world. The industry needs this badly, especially in developing countries, where computers are still so expensive.

Similar to that, we have another colossal problem in the world, which we “rich” westerners conveniently ignore: only 1 in 7 people on Earth have access to a computer… and, when they do, it’s mostly through work. At home, only 5% of households have at least 1 computer… and Apple’s approach does NOTHING to help get ANY kind of technology into these non-rich peoples’ hands. (Not even most Americans can afford Apple’s ways. America is 4.5% of the world population… and only a fraction of those people will even consider paying for a Mac.) It’s bothersome when you know that everything Apple sells seems to have a HUGE profit-margin vs. the cost of making it.

Understanding this area is tricky, because there are multiple factors at play. On one hand, there are signs here and there that Apple too ONLY cares about money… like when you walk into an Apple store, and see the prices of iPod and iPhone accessories. (You can get slightly lesser-grade stuff on Amazon for a FRACTION of the price.) So, that’s on one hand. On the other hand, the Mac Mini was first introduced at $500, seemingly in reach of most computer shoppers… just that it never really went anywhere. I think people who MUST have “the Mac experience” feel they need a legit, real Mac, and/or realize that they’ll still be paying a load of money, after they buy the screen/keyboard/mouse/speakers. I bought a Mac Mini in 2007, when the price went up to $600, and it was still totaled around about $850 after buying the missing parts. Let me also just complain real quick how very, very slow and unconvincing it was. (Upgrading the RAM to 2GB helped, but “slow” was still the name of the game.) I remember even 2009’s Mac Mini started at 1GB of RAM (!), with a slow, 120GB hard drive… and earned some raps like this.

Here’s a question I ask: if the price of a gorgeous, “real” iMac had always been dead-center mainstream, what non-gamer today WOULDN’T have one? (and, if more people used Macs, more games would be designed to run on them, perhaps solving the non-gamer issue)

(speaking of games, if Apple is so concerned with games not being made for Mac right now, they could merely collect $500 million, even from just among the board members (oh, where EVER are they going to get that money?) and say to anyone making games, “Hey, we’ll give you EVERYTHING you need to hire a staff to port your games to Mac… past games, present games, future – everything.”

Today, a blockbuster game’s entire budget often tops out around $20 million. Right now, at this very moment, Steve Jobs alone could use $1 billion out of his total 8 to start a game-producing COUNTRY.)

-
Aside from those who have money to spare, one of the only groups of people that Apple has remaining are those who have simply been seduced and deceived into believing that a Mac will unrealistically inject happiness into their lives. (quick note: read this if you’re confused about why I say “deceived”. Though I like Macs, and though they are good computers, they still ride a huge wave of myth) When people believe that something will make them happy like this, they can make crazy buys. Have you ever known someone who had ZERO money, yet went out and bought something stupidly expensive? Well, that person fell in love with that thing… with actual non-romantic, flowery feelings. Logic gave way to the understanding that the item would do this special thing for them: make them happy.

To a degree, the promise of real happiness can bypass an empty wallet… and it can be like that with Macs. Just look at how popular Macbooks are with college students. These are people who are often broke, but have 2 factors riding on their minds:

1: They believe that a Mac will satisfy their life-long craving for a PC that “just works”, and also come with a magical kick that makes them happy.
2: They’ve grown up on the now-obsolete idea that a new Windows PC will just be a slow, troublesome piece of junk, that will soon bring back the nightmares that make them UNhappy.

Unfortunately, the happiness that comes from things you can buy is usually very temporary… and “things”, in and of themselves, aren’t a means to happiness. (even a rich person with an entire movie theater in his house might easily still feel like he doesn’t have a thing. If he has PEOPLE, however, who actually love and stand by him – who don’t occupy that room in a shallow “let’s party” context – he may truly be the richest person around…)

To my observation, materialism is mostly an illusion-powered world. You may feel genuine happiness in the first couple days of buying something, but then your mind normalizes it. This is a psychological function that MUST happen, to avoid you becoming addicted to mass volumes of “things”. (imagine how distant and detached everyone would become if, instead of getting used to all the mere things in life, we became attached to them, and couldn’t peel ourselves away. THAT is why we have to get over things; to maintain our connection to humanity.) Similarly, a week after buying a Mac, you’re likely over the magic. The flowery feelings get replaced by the whatever promise lies in the computer tasks that you’re actually going to do… (and, if there is no promise, the Mac becomes a fancy paper-weight). (“promise” is a really big concept in human happiness, and makes up a large part of what we like about material things. There’s promise that we’ll find enjoyment in something, even if we don’t understand how yet.)

-
[The following section has been updated heavily for 2011’s iMacs, which are quite different from 2010’s. To see the 2010 section, click here.]

Another thing I’m tired of hearing is that Apple prices its standard iMacs like this because they’re absolutely top-of-the-line, so, you’re getting what you pay for. That’s… not the case.

Here’s the deal:
Desktop iMacs spank other all-in-ones, especially with their video cards, but, for what you’re PAYING, they can’t even compare to the value you get with regular, box PC’s. But you may ask: should an iMac be compared with a non-all-in-one PC? I think yes, because the vast majority of computer-shoppers likely aren’t go to the store with any demands whatsoever on what shape their computer has to be… So, if those people are going to be considering iMacs alongside regular box PC’s, you have to compare them.

Let’s test power and value here. We’ll do a price war, and see what kinds of computers you can configure on HP and Dell’s websites, versus the desktop iMacs… (HP and Dell are as “regular” computer companies as you can get.) Unfortunately, this is going to hurt anyone who has recently bought an iMac.

Price War (high-end iMac)

Apple iMac 27”	HP Pavilion Elite HPE-h8z
Intel Core i5-2400 quad-core	AMD FX-8100 eight-core
AMD Radeon HD 6970M, 1gb	nVidia GeForce GT 550 Ti, 1gb
27” screen	Dual 23” screens
4gb RAM	8gb RAM
1TB Hard Drive	1.5TB Hard Drive
DVD Burner	DVD Burner
Really Nice Wireless KB/Mouse	Really Nice Wireless KB/Mouse
Built-in Speakers	5.1 Surround w’ Subwoofer
Total: $2,000 (before tax)	Total: $1,480 (before tax)

For those who don’t follow computer parts closely, the iMac basically gets spanked.

A couple things to understand:
- Processors: No benchmarks are out for the AMD yet, but expect it to be at least a little faster. By the way, ignore number of cores. That doesn’t necessarily tell you anything about speed.
- Video Cards: The iMac’s AMD 6970 is a lot more powerful. (Bear in mind that the nVidia GTX 550 Ti is still extremely sufficient for almost all games, though. By the way, don’t picture the HP doing dual-screen GAMING. You need triple-screen for most multi-monitor gaming.)
- Screens: In the pictures above, the 23” screens look small compared to the 27”, but, for a monitor, 23” is already way huge. 27” is just enormously huge… It’s like working on a (very sharp) TV.
- RAM/Hard Drive: Most people don’t NEED more than the iMac’s RAM or hard drive, but, of course, there’s the big point to make here about how much you’re paying for, versus how much you’re getting.

Price War (entry-level iMac)

Apple iMac 21.5”	HP Pavilion Elite HPE-h8z
Intel Core i5-2400S quad-core	AMD FX-8100 eight-core
AMD Radeon HD 6750M, 512mb	nVidia GeForce GT 550 Ti, 1gb
21.5” screen	23” screen
4gb RAM	8gb RAM
500gb Hard Drive	1.5TB Hard Drive
DVD Burner	DVD Burner
Really Nice Wireless KB/Mouse	Wired KB/Mouse (really nice)
Built-in Speakers	2.1 Speakers w’ Subwoofer
Total: $1,200 (before tax)	Total: $1,220 (before tax)

This one isn’t cremation with burial-at-sea, but still, look at that. (By the way, the HP starts out with the same base model as before, just with a different configuration.)

Notes
- Processors: No benchmarks are out for the AMD yet, but expect at least a little faster.
- Video Cards: The HP’s nVidia card is about 25% faster.

Now, let’s try the Mac Mini:

Price War (entry-level Mac Mini)

(Like I said above, it isn’t necessary to compare a computer with one of its
exact same shape, but we’ll try it anyway.)

Mac Mini	Dell Zino HD ($400 model – update: discontinued)
Intel Core i5-2410M dual-core	AMD Athlon II X2 P360, dual-core
Intel HD Graphics 3000 (uses the system’s RAM)	ATI Radeon 4250 (uses the system’s RAM)
(no screen)	(no screen)
2gb RAM	4gb RAM
500gb Hard Drive	1TB Hard Drive
(no disc drive)	DVD Burner
(no keyboard/mouse)	Wired KB/Mouse
Built-in Speakers	Built-in Speakers
Total: $600 (before tax)	Total: $400 (before tax)

After buying the missing parts, you’re looking at:
Mac Mini: $800
Zino HD: $580
(Remember, the Zino doesn’t need a new mouse or keyboard, so, less is tacked onto its price. The final prices are assuming: $150 screen, $15 keyboard, $10 mouse, and $30 2.1 speakers with okay subwoofer.)

Notes
- Processors & Video Cards: The Mac Mini’s are about 2x faster.

What about MacBooks?
Same story, but let Microsoft’s “Do The Math” site show you those comparisons. It’s a bunch of price-wars, like these here, minus video cards (?).

-
Now, just make sure you don’t walk away from this with the understanding that Macs are SLOW. Most new computers haven’t been slow for a couple years now, excluding a couple oddball micro-PC’s, and some netbooks (<read that carefully. I didn’t say NOTEbooks). Just about any new or almost new system can do all your ordinary tasks with ease. The issue is that Macs are just WAY overpriced for how much computer you’re getting.

This is especially bad for people who don’t have much money, but think that paying up is the only way to escape the hell of PC’s (and they want that magical happiness thing). You’ve also got the people who really need power, and think they need to pay top-dollar for that, and don’t realize they can get the same or better, for a lot less.

-
Having gone over all that, see this video below, where we’ll consider one last piece of food for thought:

Details about the above computer (a blog post, on my personal site, also with a video correction)

I’ve never hated USB. I’ve just marveled that, for the companies that created it – all 7 of them – I didn’t think it was possible to get wrong the ONE thing they shouldn’t have gotten wrong: making the plug have an obvious up side, and an obvious down side.

I took two online polls, and, even among my fellow nerds (the people I polled), 40% said they didn’t know what the up or down side was… and, among those who did, 50% said they still randomly try plugging in each side, until one goes in.

So, if only 30% of this tiny, elite tech crowd tries to plug in a USB port the proper way, I wonder what it’s like for everyone ELSE.

Think about how this statistic would look up on a projector, in a USB development board meeting:

- 92% of all user attempts to plug in a USB device are done with no sense of what’s up or down..

Someone would have to stand up in that meeting, and say, “We all need to go home, and try to remember who we’re making this stuff for.”

USB plugs have one major thing going for them: everything uses them. They’re used by cell phones, cameras, tablets, external hard drives, printers/scanners, and just about anything that might need to transfer info with a computer. We like not having to go out and buy an adapter for things, because our computers and gadgets are already swimming in USB ports.

Now, as for the issues, I think people usually don’t notice this stuff – or at least they don’t give it deep thought when they do – but there’s still more to be said about how low the USB companies went, when it came to the user experience. For example, tons of USB ports feel ANYTHING but smooth to plug stuff into. You’re often pushing a metal rectangle into a slot that feels pretty uncertain that it wants anything there. (usually loose and wobbly) I wouldn’t be surprised if this affects half of them. (Even 10% is absurd.)

And then you get issues like this, related to other companies:

And this:

Almost ALL rear USB ports are standing up on their sides.

 

The whole thing reminds me of this “Success Kid” meme I bumped into:

-
I hope we soon enter an era of plugs and other parts that are very well-designed, properly suited for people… surprisingly, unlike Apple’s unfriendly, gigantic iPhone/iPod plug:

(The newest one they’re using is shorter, but still wide like that.) I think most people can tell the iPhone plug’s up from its down better (its marking on the “up” side seems to be noticed and understood a lot more), but it’s another example of a plug that, while people get used to it, simply could have been a lot better. Still, Apple IS undoubtedly the torch-bearer for good product design, so you couldn’t dare say that they don’t do design well, overall.
[update, 4-10-11: looks like Apple is working on a much, much smaller plug, according to patent-filings. We’ll see if they ever use it, or something similar. Filing for patents doesn’t necessarily mean a company is going to use an idea.]

Here’s about 2 hours worth of work, to try to design some kind of USB-like universal plug, just to make a point:

(click image for larger view)

It’s inspired by the deathly-simple headphone/speaker jack; just a rod, with no up or down, and insane durability (it won’t snap off if you step on it, like a USB head). It’s shaped like a tube, not a spike, so that the port (right) is instantly distinguishable from headphone/speaker ports. (in the diagram, you can see a metal circle sitting in the port opening). It’s meant to be super tiny – about the same size as a headphone jack – able to fit into the most overly thin smartphone.

In the center diagram, you can see that I also toyed with the idea of a swivel handle that can face any direction. With this, you can force the wires coming out of your phone/computer/etc to immediate run a certain direction, rather than having them sticking out into the open. The thick, stubborn wires coming out of the back of a computer often stick way out, stopping you from pressing your computer back against a wall. (Of course, a swivel head like this adds 1 nano-cent to overall costs, so you’ll never see it used. Hence the one on the left.)

Anyway, it’s just an idea. I call it a Z-port, for “zebra”, since it has stripes. The plug itself would be called a Z-plug, and the logo could be a lightning-bolt ‘Z’, perhaps like this Winamp logo here:

—

And now we cross into plugs that are PAINFUL.
(No, seriously… last time I opened my computer, I came out with several small cuts, and raw, chaffed knuckles.)

Computers are the Hell of plug design. It’s horrible, because you would think that computers are the central nexus of all that we consider “high tech”… you know, we think of the labs where computer stuff is designed as NASA-like places where they put brilliance in the coffee, and genius is a snack at the vending machines… yet computers are held together by many parts that are some of the worst-designed things you could imagine. And certainly not just plugs.

(Once, I read through a roundup review of tons of processor cooling units – like fans and heatsinks – and a HUGE number of them were canceled from the review; the reviewer simply wouldn’t finish testing them, because they were such garbage, they were a threat to computers, and even your hands. Among these were brands that techies usually trust, just that the quality produced from one product to the next is so inconsistent, it’s like they put each design into a randomizer, and use ANYTHING that comes out…)

Even motherboards are often suspect…

A motherboard (the largest chip in a computer) can be easy to work with. You could probably learn how to plug everything into one in about ten minutes, on YouTube… but some motherboard designs are just insulting to anyone who buys them. If you get the wrong board, watch out: I’ve seen more motherboards with the SATA ports right behind the video card than I have fingers on both hands. (If you don’t follow, that’s like putting the glove box in your car right behind the accelerator.)

SATA cables carry info from the hard drive and DVD drives to the motherboard. At first, I was stoked that they replaced the large IDE ribbon cables that we used to have, but the ones in my computer are seriously so loose, that two different ones have slipped out, by themselves, several times… plus 2 complimentary slip-outs EVERY time I install something new around my hard drives. Today, anything is better than the old ribbon cables, but, seriously, if the makers of SATA knew it was to become the new standard, shouldn’t they have made it a LOT better for us people to actually use?

Speaking of things that remind you of Satan… This below is the Molex connector; the plug first requested by the prince of darkness himself, in order to become one of the most effective generators of stress/frustration in the 20th century.

See, I’d say that 1/2 of all Molex connectors are very difficult to pull out, with 1-in-4 being like AAARGH to pull out, and 1-in-10 just not coming out. Period.

Plugging them in can also be a nightmare, just a little less often. In the pic above, look at the metal pipe things that sit in 4 hole. They wobble like CRAZY, and are sometimes are so disoriented – looking out at you like little googly-eyes – that they don’t let anything go in. (so, you have to use a screwdriver, or something, to straighten them yourself.) Was it so hard to make the opening surrounding the metal things a little smaller, so that those pipe things couldn’t move around? I’m sure there’s some brainless adjustment (or 3) that well-intentioned employees at Molex have pitched, which were simply never okayed. I hope they realize that I WOULD pay the extra nano-cent for a better Molex plug.

The other half of Satan’s plot with these was to cause widespread deforestation, as system-builders all over the world mailed paper death-threats to the clowns on top at Molex (having to forego email for paper, due to having launched their computers through their windows).

Right now, at this very moment, there are maybe 40,000 system-builders out there, imagining that they are doing this…

When companies do things like this, it’s very important for people to know about it, because the public holding a gun to a company’s public image forces them to at least try harder.

Now, one might wonder if holding a gun like this would have much effect, because you might think that a company only has to worry if its image looks worse than its competitors’, whereas here, almost ALL computer companies would be labeled together… meaning there wouldn’t be any one of them that stands out, taking the hit. That’s true, but there’s more to the picture… See, I believe that competition in the business world isn’t ONLY about companies competing with their immediate rivals – it’s not just Microsoft vs. Apple – it’s also about companies competing with other industries, trying to get peoples’ attention off one type of product, onto another. (so, it’s Microsoft and Apple vs. TV makers and car companies)

A person who doesn’t care about cars usually will be happy with one that works… whereas someone who loves them will probably invest his surplus cash into getting something nice (even if the existence of that surplus cash is sometimes still up for debate). What I think, and what computer companies don’t seem to realize, is that people giving even SOME hobby-status to owning nicer cars is a direct assault on computers, and things that nerds will argue have more purpose in life.

The idea here is that if companies can actually release products that are likable enough to divert peoples’ attention away from other things, not only will more money be made, but the improvements put into the products will result in the world having less trash and unhappy experiences to push through. (Junk computer products slow down the progress of both the high-tech world and the developing world.)

I think the target achievement for the computer industry here should be to greatly enlarge the overall “hobby status” of computers, changing them from something that the average person thinks of more as a curiosity, to something that actually excites them, and gets them into it – like computer enthusiasts are. (Apple does this very well, just that only a microscopic fraction of the world population can even afford their stuff.)

So, I think companies believe too strongly that business is a game of poker against other similar companies, when, more than that, it’s a contest of positive psychology against other industries.  It seems to me that most companies either have no concept of how positive input guides peoples’ desires, or they just make it look like they don’t. (The direction coming from their board rooms is often just really off-target, in my personal opinion. If you follow tech news, you can see the vast multitude of company practices that just don’t end up working.) (It’s also possible for companies to fully understand the concept of positive psychology, and think they’re followers, but not actually materialize the belief. Sometimes, you’re too distracted by other ideas to really put much thought on certain things, even if you would normally think they’re really important. It’s like when a parent believes that junk food and sugar snacks could very well shave off 10 years off the lives of all of their kids – and themselves – yet they can’t find the motivation to really think into that, and realize what it all MEANS. Had such a person ever seen the end, their mindset would’ve become fanatically careful… but, instead, their beliefs don’t materialize. (this is a “thought sickness” that plagues ALL people, but in different areas. Right now, there are MANY things that you believe, without materializing.))

-

You’ll notice that I take a stance in favor of computers vs. most other industries. The reason for this is that I believe computers have an incredibly important role to play in the upcoming times, when people will actually start to understand their depth and use. (today, computers at home are largely used as little more than email and YouTube machines… and when I say YouTube, I don’t mean the useful “how to do stuff” videos, but the “people being stupid” videos.) Also, for the developing world, I personally think that computers will probably be second only to psychology in helping many countries get on their feet. (those two areas – technology and psychology – are prime things that I strongly advocate moving forward…)

For reference, consider this: Right now, 85% of the world population lives in a developing country… and only 5% of households worldwide own a computer. For things to improve, technology is needed out there like plants need water.

Click here for a recap on some thoughts.

Translators, please click here.