Why Every Product Can’t Be an iPod
11:04 pm April 18th, 2007 by Sal Cangeloso
One of the more interesting blogs I read just posted a link to an essay (by the same author) on why so many tech products fall short. The essay is entitled “Separating ‘How’ from ‘What:’ An open letter to the tech industry” and it covers the thinking that goes into, or at least should go into, the development of technology products.
From the article:
As technophiles, we’re all very good at figuring out how to make use of a “how” feature. For example, we’ll say, “Gee, with a browser and WiFi in that product, I can install Skype and use it as a free mobile phone.” Then we’ll go out and find the Skype client, install it, maybe tune the configuration a bit, and sit back in amazement at how cool our industry is.
The problem with the “how” approach is that normal people don’t think this way. They are much more focused on “what,” as in “What does the product do for me?” Because they don’t understand technology at a deep level, they can’t see the possibilities created by a great enabling technology.
The essay mainly differentiates between this “how” and “what” approach to product design, something which I have not really ever sat down and considered, but that I have found myself agreeing with. After all, the “how” is where all the fun is… as in how to I get the most out of this new techology? Or how can this new technology complement what I already use?
While “how” thinking may seem natural to the people that are doing the designing, most people are asking “what”, which is the first question technophiles ask (if it’s not already obvious), but they then go on to the “how” mindset. The problem is that many people stop themselves at the question of what and never understand the implications of a new technology or how to get the most out of it.
The article seems a bit self-serving, as it is essentially saying that products are failing because they are not designed properly (thus they could use help from a consultant) but the dichotomy it draws is really interesting. As examples of “what” products the essays points out the iPod, Gameboy, and Blackberry, because- to paraphrase- they all do one thing extremely well. I would have appreciated some more examples, but I understand what is meant by these (though the Blackberry does not really fit in as it does multiple things). The fact is that the iPod and Gameboy both have one purpose and they do those things better than anything else on the market, hence they are successful. By extension we can understand why clones have failed- they try to do the same thing but throw in some extras. For example the PSP (which is great, but is definitely no Gameboy) starts to get complicated and runs movies (etc.) and has not been as much of a success. This theory would have trouble accounting for something like the DS Lite which has been a huge success and can do all sorts of things, but I guess it still focused on gaming.
I immediately began thinking about the Nokia N800, something that I really lik, but is definitely a “how” product. Most people have enough trouble understanding what is does and why it’s different than a PDA or notebook and never get to the realization that it is highly adaptable and runs on an open platform that allows it to perform all sort of functions.
All in all, very thought provoking essay, at least for people that spend a lot of time thinking about products and their design. The issue of a product or technology’s failure is obviously a lot more complex than “how” or “what” and factors like price and competition are crucial, but early on in the design process is people really examined this issue it would certainly be helpful.
