Simplicity
When the iPod shuffle was announced last week, I had to chuckle at the timing of it because at that time I was just in the middle of reading Edward de Bono's book Simplicity. I don't know why I was reading that book -- it somehow ended up on my reading list for this year (along with How To Be More Interesting). De Bono is the guy who coined the term "Lateral Thinking" and has written fifty or sixty books. He's a smart guy, but not the most captivating author out there. Frankly, I think he's getting a little tired of writing books, but he just has so much to say that he keeps doing it. His style can be very terse -- almost point form in some places. (And no, I'm not missing the point: I realize he summarizes things before he tells them to you).
Anyway, back to the iPod. Back when the rumors of a flash-based iPod were all over the place, I was skeptical for many of the same reasons that John Gruber was. Mainly, I had a difficult time with the idea of a very small iPod with a tiny screen -- how much smaller can you get than an iPod mini's screen anyway? -- or, conversely of an iPod with no screen. My skepticism about the latter came from having worked with the ludicrously expensive and underpoweredBang & Olafsen BeoSound 2, which is beautiful to look at but nearly impossible to use because it has no screen, but about seven buttons, all with similar labels.
To paraphrase de Bono: Simplicity isn't easy. It looks easy, but it's very hard. The BeoSound tried to let you have multiple playlists and give you the controls that you needed to access them. De Bono says to make things simpler by throwing things out. The iPod shuffle is a study in how to make things simpler. Throw out the screen, throw out the playlists. Reduce the number of controls to the barest minimum to be useful. I love the big switch on the back to control power and mode. Trying to get some MP3 players (even the iPod, IMHO) in and out of shuffle mode is a pain in the butt.
When I heard that the president of another company that makes audio players was criticizing the iPod shuffle because it was years-old technology, I thought: you know, he's right. The shuffle is actually less capable than many of the first generation MP3 players. No screen even. And that's the beauty of it, because it's simple, and it doesn't suck. Less is more. I want one.
Anyway, back to the iPod. Back when the rumors of a flash-based iPod were all over the place, I was skeptical for many of the same reasons that John Gruber was. Mainly, I had a difficult time with the idea of a very small iPod with a tiny screen -- how much smaller can you get than an iPod mini's screen anyway? -- or, conversely of an iPod with no screen. My skepticism about the latter came from having worked with the ludicrously expensive and underpoweredBang & Olafsen BeoSound 2, which is beautiful to look at but nearly impossible to use because it has no screen, but about seven buttons, all with similar labels.
To paraphrase de Bono: Simplicity isn't easy. It looks easy, but it's very hard. The BeoSound tried to let you have multiple playlists and give you the controls that you needed to access them. De Bono says to make things simpler by throwing things out. The iPod shuffle is a study in how to make things simpler. Throw out the screen, throw out the playlists. Reduce the number of controls to the barest minimum to be useful. I love the big switch on the back to control power and mode. Trying to get some MP3 players (even the iPod, IMHO) in and out of shuffle mode is a pain in the butt.
When I heard that the president of another company that makes audio players was criticizing the iPod shuffle because it was years-old technology, I thought: you know, he's right. The shuffle is actually less capable than many of the first generation MP3 players. No screen even. And that's the beauty of it, because it's simple, and it doesn't suck. Less is more. I want one.
posted by Brent at 10:55 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home