Would it be if they charged for it? Android has massive issues across development, the market, the user experience and poor vendor practices that are routinely ignored by the same people that jump on every mistake Apple makes.
Don't get me wrong, Android has a lot of promise but it's popular because it's on so many phones. That's not exactly a "winner" if it takes dozens of phone to compete against one phone. The same goes for tablets.
The more Android devices you make, the more iOS devices stand out among them.
The market will decide for itself what it needs or wants.
I'm glad they have the courage to try this. Outside of Apple, most computer companies stopped innovating a long time ago. They're happy to fight over scraps in a commodity market. HP finally got sick of it and are betting their business on a major shift in strategy.
When it comes down to it, you get what you pay for. With computer taking over more-and-more tasks in our lives, it's worth it to spend a little more on a system that better suits your needs.
But who am I to argue with someone that thinks any advancement in HCI over the ancient keyboard-and-mouse is a "gimmick"?
I agree. But can you really blame people for believing what we're told our entire lives? Most of our childhood we're told to stop socializing and work hard so you can go to a good college and get a good job. When you become an adult you find out that those social contacts are more important than the degree you worked for.
It's not really a question of blame. It's terrible for all of these people to be trapped in a lie, but the fact remains that the only way out of it is to realize the truth of the matter and change course. Life never feels sorry for you, no matter how much you've been wronged.
I don't know about you, but my career is based entirely on my university degree(s). And not because of the piece of paper, either, because of the crapload of stuff I learned at university which I never would have learned any other way.
Many of the people who proclaim that university is useless are programmers. No surprises there -- programming is one of the few marketable skills which you can actually teach yourself from a book. Aeronautical engineering? Not so much.
I don't think anyone would deny that a degree can sometimes help you attain a specific job.
The "lie" is the notion that without a degree, your job choices will be limited to burger flipper at McDonalds. With a degree, any degree at all, your dream job will fall into your lap and you'll be paid handsomely to do it. Obviously neither are true, but that is what pre-college aged students are regularly told.
If you have a love of aeronautical engineering, university is a fantastic place to study what you love. If you land a great job upon completion, even better. However, if you only have a love of money, studying aeronautical engineering is a waste of time. There are better and easier ways to make your fortune.
You misunderstand me. I'm not saying that a degree is unimportant; It is VERY important to getting a good job. Avoid a degree and you hobble yourself severely.
The lie is the belief that a degree pretty much guarantees you a job, which it doesn't. The degree is but one step along the way, but most people come out of school believing that it is the only step (followed by that magical "experience" that comes up with the rations), and so have a false sense of entitlement.
This is a lie that, though not always told directly, is nonetheless communicated to all students as they pass through the hallowed halls, as they complete difficult courses, as they don the robes and cap, as they "climb the corporate ladder". It's a false sense of security because they've only done part of what they need to do in order to be successful in life, and they don't even realize it!
So is it any wonder that uninformed and dispirited job seekers come at the world with plaintive cries of "I have a PHD in X and here I am flipping burgers!"?
In short, your CONTACTS get you the interview and a sympathetic ear, and your education, experience, references and personality do the rest. Without the contacts, you probably won't even get in the door to show off the rest.
Great points. I thought that if I stayed in the library and studied as much as humanly possible that I would be very successful. Then I saw all the C students that went to lots of parties have way more job opportunities than me. And they make much more money than me. It took me a couple years to get over the bitterness and sense of being stabbed in the back.
As a designer, this kind of attitude is one of the many reasons I don't contribute to open-source projects. You can't touch anything without people complaining about change. Computers are very different than they were 20 years ago yet we're tied down to outdated interface principles. In Linux-land, we're expected to design for the way things have always been not the way they should be. It seems geeks are just as stubborn about change as everyone else.
Actually, I would be really interested on research done in this area.
What are some modern UI concepts (apart from those oh so usable interfaces offered by this big fruit company)?
Are there any fresh concepts out there at all? I would really like to see what might be possible if somebody really starts developing something radically different and well suited for the novice computer user and the ubergeek at the same time.
Hiding complexity from the user might be one option, but there should be more ways to make use of the gui concept than just oversimplyfing things.
Khoi Vinh is being a poor sport here. Criticism is an important part of the design world. In school we're taught to use criticism as another resource and learn from it. The design team at the New York Times could have learned a lot from this 'unsolicited' exercise. Instead, they chose to be offended.
Did we read the same article? Vinh was very respectful to the alternative design.
That article you linked to contains a lot of unneeded and useless criticism of the Times that was only peripherally related to any actual design aspects of the site.
When he goes off about ads, he's no longer talking about site redesign and is instead advocating that they change their business model.
He's certainly free to throw his $0.02 in along with the rest of the peanut gallery about how he thinks the newspaper industry should run their business - but it tarnishes what was supposed to be an interesting look at a web site redesign.
If you read the first four paragraphs of Andy's article you'll realise the piece looks at digital news as a product, so it must address the business model as well as the design.
Well, that was kind of my point. It's completely valid for Andy to propose a new site design, whatever others may think of it. It's difficult to take him seriously when opining on the paper's business model, especially when he's being so harsh about it and hasn't really worked in the industry.
I don't really think it would be sporting to feign appreciation for a critique that starts by declaring your your product "terribly-designed" and concludes with an even less effective design.
Perhaps more importantly, if I were current or former staff of NYT, I would have a hard time taking even the valid criticism found in Rutledge's post to heart, given that he implies exceptionally bad faith on the part of the Times staff. We all can cite a truly terrible online news design that would benefit from some of Rutledge's suggestions, but the focus on NYT seems like a oblique strategy to accuse the Times of something almost like yellow journalism, what with of the suggestion that opinion is shamefully placed in context with reportage, that popular news is pandering, etc.
I can assume by your response you didn't finish the article. The last paragraph is the opposite of what you are saying:
"I will say this, though: unsolicited redesigns are terrific and fun and useful, and I hope designers never stop doing them. But as they do so, I also hope they remember it helps no one — least of all the author of the redesign — to assume the worst about the original source and the people who work hard to maintain and improve it, even though those efforts may seem imperfect from the outside. If you have good ideas and the talent to execute them and argue for them, the world will still sit up and pay attention even if you take care in your language and show respect to those who don’t see things quite the way you do."
Pretty sure Vinh doesnt work there anymore. Also, "learned a lot" is probably an exaggeration. The redesigner admitted himself that it was quickly-conceived and hastily-constructed.
Would it be if they charged for it? Android has massive issues across development, the market, the user experience and poor vendor practices that are routinely ignored by the same people that jump on every mistake Apple makes.
Don't get me wrong, Android has a lot of promise but it's popular because it's on so many phones. That's not exactly a "winner" if it takes dozens of phone to compete against one phone. The same goes for tablets.
The more Android devices you make, the more iOS devices stand out among them.