Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

1.  

   Cyclical Fashions

   

   dorpus, Jan 26th, 2004 @ 1:01am

   
   

   In the 1980s, there was also a fad of overly complex gadgets -- washing machines with a hundred buttons, sports cars with space shuttle-like consoles. The 90s had a backlash, and it seems now we're going 80s again.
   
   Will pac-man watches come into fashion again?
   
   
   

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

2.  

   maybe not for everyone

   

   Ed (not Yourdon), Jan 26th, 2004 @ 4:03am

   
   

   Maybe it's just that I'm a technophile, but as soon as I figure out what all of the buttons on a gadget are for, I begin to lose interest in it. This goes back at least to the TI-30 calculator I had in seventh grade. I had no idea what an inverse hyperbolic tangent was, but there was a button on that calculator in case I ever needed it. The same was true for my first 35mm SLR. I probably never actually used the depth-of-field-stop-down-preview button, but it was there. Digital cameras are marvelous in this respect, and PCs are the ultimate gadget, since each new application or new version of an existing application adds countless more "buttons" or their equivalent.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

3.  

   Real Life Example

   

   Beck, Jan 26th, 2004 @ 6:29am

   
   

   My elderly father-in-law was bedridden and depended on his television remote control. My mother-in-law would call me every couple of weeks because the remote had stopped working. It always turned out to be because he had pressed a button that he shouldn't have. Finally I bought him a new remote control, and then with a razor blade I removed all of the buttons that he should not use, leaving just the buttons that turned the TV on and off, selected the channel, and adjusted the volume. Problem solved.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

4.  

   shoppers' dilemma

   

   Ed Halley, Jan 26th, 2004 @ 6:48am

   
   

   
   It seems like feature count is sexy in the store, but not sexy when you get it home. Why is that?
   
   It's not like there aren't enough choices on the market. If you want a simple camera, buy a simple camera. They exist, they're easy to find, you'll have no trouble using them.
   
   The extra features can be left alone if you don't want to use them. But for every person who doesn't know what that DOF preview is, there's an experienced photographer who wouldn't buy a camera without it.
   
   Personally, I am not an early adopter. I say this, even though I've been using digital cameras for six years. I research my next model according to the features I *know* I'll want. I wait until it's down to the price I want. Then I buy it.
   
   I also give new photographers this advice: read the manual while the first battery is charging, and at the end of Day 1, Week 1, Month 1 and Year 1. Each time you read it, more of it will make sense. Also, for each feature you want to understand, take a few pictures with and without, and compare them closely.
   

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

5.  

   Re: shoppers' dilemma

   

   Beck, Jan 26th, 2004 @ 7:21am

   
   

   The problem (or maybe just my perception) is that the models without all of the features are lower-quality in other ways as well. For example, if you take a photo with the simple digital camera and the same photo with the complex digital camera with the full set of features that are all at the default setting, which one takes a better picture?
   
   In other words, if I buy a simple device I would want the exact same as the complicated device but with all of the options stripped off and set to default values. The manufacturer assumes that if I don't want features then I am a price shopper and therefore I will also accept lower quality.
   
   I guess the dilemma is that people who shop by price alone will give up features AND quality, but I wonder if there is a demand for fewer features without giving up quality, but still paying more than the bottom-of-the-line model. Maybe we all have the mindset that to pay more there must be more features.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

6.  

   Fuck losers

   

   Anonymous Coward, Jan 26th, 2004 @ 8:05am

   
   

   That some idiots are not capable of reading a manual is no reason for cutting on the features of gadgets.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

7.  

   Re: Cyclical Fashions

   

   alternatives, Jan 26th, 2004 @ 9:06am

   
   

   In the 1980s, there was also a fad of overly complex gadgets -- washing machines with a hundred buttons, sports cars with space shuttle-like consoles. The 90s had a backlash,
   
   Do you have any proof of this, like a marketing study or 2?
   
   Or is this an 'observation' of yours dorpus?

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

8.  

   Re: Cyclical Fashions

   

   dorpus, Jan 26th, 2004 @ 9:13am

   
   

   I do know of Newsweek issues that described the trends at the time, though I don't know if you could search them online.
   

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

9.  

   Re: Cyclical Fashions

   

   dorpus, Jan 26th, 2004 @ 12:53pm

   
   

   Also, there is a 1980s movie called "El Norte", about Guatemalan siblings who immigrate illegally into the US. In one scene, the maid is supposed to wash clothes, but looks at the washing machine with a hundred buttons on it, is completely unable to figure it out, so she ends up drying the clothes on the lawn. (She loses her job.)
   
   

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

Add Your Comment