Entelligence: Technology is fashion and the new fashion is technology
By Michael Gartenberg 
posted April 30th 2010 11:48AM
posted April 30th 2010 11:48AM
Entelligence is a column by technology strategist and author Michael Gartenberg, a man whose desire for a delicious cup of coffee and a quality New York bagel is dwarfed only by his passion for tech. In these articles, he'll explore where our industry is and where it's going -- on both micro and macro levels -- with the unique wit and insight only he can provide.
A vendor -- who shall remain nameless -- briefed us in the late 90s with the idea of creating a line of PCs targeted at a mass market audience, with a special focus on the female demographic. The idea was to build PCs in a range of and shapes and focus the marketing efforts through places like Cosmo instead of the usual PC magazines. We were asked to evaluate the plan, and without the slightest hesitation I responded that it was the dumbest idea I'd ever listened to -- period. (This is the tact that only an analyst can bring to the table.) I recall saying something to the effect of no user will ever buy a PC because it comes in five delicious flavors. The vendor forgot all about their plans and our analysis proved accurate -- until Steve Jobs and the iMac came along. If I had to put a stake in the ground that's when technology became fashionable.
It was that long ago that all PCs were created equal. PCs were PCs. If you wanted a server, you turned the box on its side, if you wanted a workstation, you painted it black (or blue), and if it was mobile you desired, you attached a handle to the top. Today, technology is as much about fashion and style as it is about feeds and speeds. Companies like Apple trumpet not only the functionality of their systems, but the fine grained leather cases available as accessories. Nearly every gadget you can think of today has been designed to stress form as much as function, which leads me to think of the classic maxim: beauty is in the eye of the beholder. As we saw with the Kin launch, there's a focus on not just functionality but how that functionality is presented.
My wrist watch and automobile were chosen in no small part due to aesthetics -- so why not my phone, desktop or laptop? |
I don't think it's bad trend at all. My wrist watch and automobile were chosen in no small part due to aesthetics -- so why not my phone, desktop or laptop? In fact, if more vendors spent more time on the physical design and attributes of their devices, they'd probably sell more of them.
So I ask you, gentle and tech-savvy readers: do form, color and material matter to you, or is all about feeds and speeds? I know my answer: I'm off to order a new suede case for my iPad.
Michael Gartenberg is a partner at Altimeter Group. His weblog can be found at gartenblog.net. Contact him at gartenberg AT gmail DOT com. Views expressed here are his own.
But I STILL love technology... Always and forever.
Technology was fashionable before those crap imacs, since devices were made smaller. The trend was not started by apple. I would say Motorola started it with their cell phones and pagers. Sure there was the standard colors of black or some shade of gray. but the aftermarket for cases were limitless!! (at least here in SF bay area, safe to say any place with a large amount of authorized resellers, that's how they differentiated themselves from the main stores.) Back then EVERYONE wanted to show off their electronics by wearing a belt holster to put them on full display. Cellphones had antennas with flashy lights when receiving calls, changing the ENTIRE case to a different color, translucent or even transparent. Same with pagers. I use to own a Motorola Jazz with a glow-in-the-dark case. This was also the time where Macs were known as Macintosh and Netscape was battling IE.
Colorful imacs didn't even exist yet...
@pvito
Ditto.
The fact of the matter is that computers do the same things for us today that they've always done. Most of our time is spent on the web, reading and writing emails, and so on. In any event, the mass market audience is more concerned with computers that fit their aesthetic -- be it styling or features or clever little touches -- than they are about raw HP. And why not? Hell, the only time I even hear the fans on my ancient (2006) Mac Pro ramp up is when I load one too many webpages with Flash ads :)
The thing doesn't break a sweat exporting/resizing/watermarking large Lightroom galleries. Ripping DVDs is no faster or slower today than it was 4 years ago. Sure, I suppose if I was trying to rip BR discs I'd want more horsepower, but I take one look at the size of the average BD rip and realize I have no desire to compete in this arms race of buying ever-larger hard disks every couple of years to keep up with my library.
@pvito Technology is fashion and the new fashion is technology -- And that's why it'll continue to evolve -- and even products like the Kin, will become successful. http://j.mp/microsoft-kin-opinions
Agree, girls hate me, but once i flip out my Motorola w233 they are all over me because they see how fashionable i am. In tech circles w233 is equivalent of Louis Vuitton.
@Sea Urchin
Why settle for the equivalent. Wrap your iPad in genuine Louis Vuitton and waste twice as much money.
http://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/entertainment/articles/2010-04/26/gq-gadgets-louis-vuitton-ipad-case-cover-sleeve/monogram-damier-graphite-slide#ContentTop
A vendor who shall remain bitter is more like it.
Aesthetics play an important role for me, but it's always function first.If a device does what I want, AND is beautiful, it's just icing on the cake.
To us Engadget readers, loyalty matters most. PC guys aren't about to buy an Apple box and vice versa. To less hardcore users (i.e. my wife), aesthetics are all too important, sometimes even to the detriment of functionality.
@GMoney I'm an Engadget reader and I am a technology pragmatist. Whoever can distill the best value and design in their products win in my book. I don't care if its Apple, Microsoft or anyone else... I try to be as objective as possible but I definitely value design and function equally.
It's one of the few reasons why I tend to dislike Apple... their functionality just keeps degrading in comparison to the much more attractively-priced competition.
@GMoney I'll recommend tech to my friends depending on what they're like, rather than my personal idea. If they don't know what a device is like, I'll tell it to them straight: Apple make great-looking and well-performing hardware with nice, clever features like the design of the mouse pad, magnetic charger etc., and not with bad battery life either, but Windows is secondary to Mac OS and therefore, if you want to run a Windows program, you've got to hope they made it for Mac OS as well, install Windows in bootcamp/a virtual machine or tit about with Wine.
PCs are often cheap and, "good enough" devices, the same reason you'd buy a Nokia over an iPhone. Windows also has a huge ecosystem of applications not available on Mac OS, but yes, you'll likely want to smarten-up on your web security and set up a firewall/antivirus software properly.
It's useful to keep a Linux CD around, even if you don't install it and just use it to recover files from a trashed Windows/Mac OS install (yes, it can happen on a Mac too!). Ubuntu is pretty bare-bones when it comes to software available, but it often comes with the essentials for reading and writing to your most common file types like Office document and images. If it's important to you that EVERYTHING work out-of-the-box, though (3D graphics drivers aren't necessary for system recovery, but if you're wanting to actually install Linux), then choose Linux Mint or Mandriva Linux. It's trivial to install most proprietary drivers you'll need in Ubuntu, but you have to do it, which is always one more thing you have to do yourself. It's typically fast and STAYS fast, software in the Software Centre is well organized and trusted, and it also comes with some nice features like Cloud Syncing of files (including music bought in the recently-added Ubuntu One Music Store) and a universal instant messenger program. However, if hardware doesn't work and isn't detected by default, you're screwed, probably having to resort to getting a crash course in kernel development and writing the bloody drivers yourself, which no user wants to do. The exception is printers: though many drivers come on the CD, space constraints force some drivers into a package in Synaptic, e.g. "cups-brother-drivers-extra" for Brother printers.
If they know about all the different systems, I'll have a good bitch and moan and praise and debate with them about what I like and don't like and hate and think could REALLY be improved.
@GMoney
I think we all have a different balance of form, function, and value in our purchases. My mom has an HP Mini Vivienne Tam netbook because she likes the design, even though it's weak (even by netbook standards) and overpriced. I have an Eee PC 1000HE, because it was the most power for its value at the time (I got it about a year ago), and it was easy for me to upgrade to 2GB of RAM and install Windows 7 on it. Ideally, everything would be high-quality, low-price, and aesthetically pleasing, but that can't always happen, so each of us has our own priorities for what's more or less important in our gadgets.
That's all great but the imac is not exactly the best selling computer out there.
@fourthletter
Apple also eventually dumped their technicolor lineup.
Now Apple is just dressed up business machines.
Silver box with rounded corners (Mac) vs. Black box with sharp corners and a tray loading optical drive (Asrock).
@jedi Is the iMac not? What model sells better?
I always imagined that because of the large number of vendors, most of which have a large number of models, the iMac would by far be the best selling desktop.
I also would have thought that the same argument would work with laptops and the 13 inch macbook pro, and possibly even the iPhone.
@Maxwell
What exactly are you talking about?
It's shit like this that makes people buy the crappiest of products. Thanks Mr. Jobs for creating a trend in "Five different flavors" so that others may copy you.
"My wrist watch and automobile were chosen in no small part due to aesthetics -- so why not my phone, desktop or laptop?"
I'll give you wrist watch, phone and maybe laptop... But I don't care what my desktop looks like, nobody ever sees that thing.
@TheTabe That's like choosing a car depending on what it's motor looks like - we don't really care all that much, as long as the screen is worth a damn!
@John Stathakis you had to be "that guy" eh'.
@John Stathakis
Plus, writing an article about the acquisition would require some actual thinking. Why should Gartenberg do that, when he can spill 5 para's of blabbering nonsense and afford to buy his delicious cup of coffee and cream cheese bagel.
@(Unverified)
"I've been a technology industry analyst for some time now... the benchmark of a great analyst is the quality of the advice you give based on how well you're able to forecast trends. In my tenure, my team hasn't often been wrong."
"This is the tact that only an analyst can bring... and our analysis proved accurate..."
He would do well to check commandment # 13... the one forbidding sucking thine own richard.
@F C
I think he was joking about tact. I hope.
"My wrist watch and automobile were chosen in no small part due to aesthetics -- so why not my phone, desktop or laptop?"
Umm.. why any of them? Usually people buy what is practical, affordable and fits their needs. People that buy based on aesthetics are generally self conscious, egotistical and insecure.
@Darkseider Do you say this about people who hang art on their walls as well? Or appreciate beauty found in nature?
We are creatures with eyes, we use them. I don't think there's any harm in appreciating aesthetics in something. I didn't buy an ugly couch, why should I buy an ugly computer -- considering I spend more time at my computer than sitting on my couch, that doesn't make sense.
The one who sounds egotistical is you, for holding yourself above others for daring to use the eyes they were born with.
@DoctarPeppar
Yup. Some people buy based on quality while others buy based on what the crowd will think. There's certainly room for electronics companies to pander to both sets of sensibilities.
Technology that blends into the environment is an under served niche.
@Uncontrol It's because Darkseider has no taste.
@Uncontrol
I'm not sure if the couch analogy works here. You buy pretty things to decorate your living quarters with, computer included, but as with the couch aesthetics =/= comfort/performance etc. You may use one thing more but does that justfy having to buy a prettier one?
@Uncontrol Hanging art on a wall or observing beauty in nature is quite different than buying a watch for $10k which looks the same as the $100 knock off and does the SAME thing. TELL TIME. For that matter buying a piece of technology that performs to an equal or lesser standard than one that can be obtained for half the price but doesn't "look" quite as good is just as absurd. Then again you would probably say it's worth buying the $1500 handbag or $700 pair of shoes too. Which begs me to ask... when someone with a $700 pair of shoes that looks good steps in dog shit what do they have? The answer: The same thing a person with the $70 pair of shoes has. Shitty shoes. Get the point? People place value on a name more than they do on the function.
@Darkseider
I spend a ridiculous amount of time at my computer everyday. I don't see what is wrong with me wanting it to look nice? It makes it just a little nicer to use. It's not shallow.
@Darkseider Ehh, it tends to be mainly the gaudy stuff and/or last years stuff that is bootlegged. And you say that buying a fake is the same as buying real, but the materials used are often leagues apart, and obvious to an astute eye... just the same as a real iPod is discernible from a knockoff to anyone under 30. So buying fake goods is still the realm of mainly people without taste or a discern for quality.
@Darkseider
I would like to see cars built out of rugged materials that won't rust, dent, and crack.
My 1995 Saturn has plastic body panels to save weight, dents, and rust. If they could make them without paint, that would be better.
@Darkseider
Actually, it's not different. Both are subjective in beauty or attraction.
Hey, I can make extreme examples too. Why eat a $50 steak dinner when you've got steak tacos from taco bell? Why go for a pretty girl? All girls have the eyes, nose, mouth, etc. Why appreciate a sunny day when I can just stay inside and turn on the lights? Both illuminate my environment. Why choose a cartoon ninja turtle-looking icon for my Engadget profile when the default one is just fine as it is?
As for your watch example, having something authentic is a much better and satisfying prospect of owning a fake for some people. Authenticity is important. But apparently not to you.
Yes, some overdo it by buying name brands only but it can be said that brand loyalty means that you'll know, for the most part, that you are getting what you expect from a company's products you like and enjoy.
I don't expect people like you (people who value specs at the expense of everything else) to understand but at least respect that the opposite opinion is just as valid.
@Darkseider
If I were rich I'd love to buy a custom tailored suit from good materials and spend a lot on it rather than to buy an I'll fitting one from Men's Warehouse.
Now I'm not saying Macs are "handmade," but I do think there are different kinds of excesses. The ones that are stupid and the ones I find justifiable. :)
I think there are superficial people and then I think there are people who want a quality product. I think it just so happens that there is more of an overlap of those two groups with Apple products.
@Darkseider
This is one of the most short-sighted geek-think comments I've ever read. If there are several devices that are practical, affordable, and fit the needs, then the differentiating factor is aesthetic. There are lots of wristwatches in my price range--less than $100. The only function I need is that it tell time. Beyond that, it's personal taste. There are many different netbooks available, that all perform nearly the same, and are all in the same price range. If that is practical, affordable and fits your needs, then, by all means, pick your favorite color!
This article isn't even discussing the Louis Vitton phones, or the diamond encrusted watches that are purely fashion-based. This is talking about the trend toward variety in style, design, and color that different companies are using to appeal to a broader, not as geeky audience.
Personally, I'm glad the days of the old steel beige box are gone.
Just think, it all started with a man who can't dress.
@HurricaneDC
"a man whose desire for a delicious cup of coffee and a quality New York bagel is dwarfed only by his passion for tech"
What does that even mean? Is that how your parents would describe you? Would they be proud of that? Its many of us uneasy in the stomach.
God were those coloured iMacs ever terrible computers. I remember having that stupid error many times where the computer would literally say something along the lines of "Oh man, everythings screwed up man" with a picture of a bomb and the only option to restart.
I mean, like if the only thing I'm allowed to do is press the "restart" button without being able to save documents or anything, why even show me that button?
@Ownaginatious
Well, yeah, they were not the most stable (a lot of computers seemed to suffer from that). They were designed in an interesting way - everything fit together in multiple layers. I took three of them apart once to make one that worked. Some of them will still run tiger well enough for general web browsing and email. So unlike my
(now) ancient powermac that I got for college, which was totally obsolete about 2 years later with no real possibility for upgrade. That was the last mac I purchased (aside from my ipod, which is the last ipod I will purchase). Strangely now I'm running a dual boot linux/hackintosh.
@Eddie W not strange at all, that boot conf. I see a lot of people doing that and also windows/hackintosh boot is growing.
@Ownaginatious
The iMac wasn't any more terrible than any other computer of the time. The problems you are referring to were the pre-Mac OSX operating systems (OS 8.6 was on the first iMacs), obviously because of the "bomb" you mentioned, which was never included in OSX. My recollection is that the Windows '98 machines of the time weren't more reliable. Those of you who never got to use these older OSes cannot begin to appreciate how reliable Windows 7 and Mac OSX are now.
It would seem to me that the readers of this blog would like to have a device that does the most for them; be it the fastest operation or the largest capacity. The form factor is important, but I do not believe that a gaming PC (with no frills added such as lighting inside of the case) was built to be as aesthetically pleasing as say the iMac. It was built for the performance. All others can buy their out of the box PC with it's special closure system or extra design feature. For the typical consumer it is about the form not function.
@Sean Connery
I just read that with Sean Connery's voice.
Made it much better.
@John Stathakis (and everyone): Gartenberg's intro was written by Joshua Topolsky. We like it. We're not going to change it.
- Love,
Laura
@Laura June
I think you used banhammer really heavily on this article over a very harmless discussion!
@who said what hmm. wasn't me. i swear!
I think Gartenberg is spot on with his observations. Moore's law is becoming more and more irrelevant each day.
I used to be really excited about computers when I could read about them in advertisements with crazy numbers like 300MHz, 256MB RAM, 4GB HDD, 17inch screen, 24X CD-ROM drive, etc. Nowadays it's like... so what? So I can play HD video? And then what? My OS is still pretty much the same (Win&Mac), how is that extra 4th core going to help me surf the web, listen to music and do my work? The only reason I would be excited now would be if I'm always trying out the latest games, doing video editing or maybe compiling codes.
At this point, function becomes irrelevant because they are all the same, and form becomes a greater factor. Until a "paradigm shift" such as VR, neural interface or something involving robots, anyway.
@onlymyrailgun
So true, it seemed to matter more before about the specs, this like the cd drive speed, I remember I was so stocked when I upgraded from a 4x cd drive to a 40x or some high number like that.
Now days it just feels like every computer is more then capable of running whatever (aside from netbooks and slates obviously)
That's probably another reason why my current five year old computer is still relavent tech wise.
Specs just seem so overkill for everything now days, perfect example my boss in his 70's bough a quad core, 8 gig ram and 500gig hard drive...... He is never going to use any of that even close to the capacity it's capable of.
Grandma NOOOOOOOO!
Flat black with a red dot in the middle. That's how I roll.