> What was amazing was just how rare it was to even see a keyboard and certainly gone are rows of rectangular buttons. Yay!
This actually makes me sad. I liked the old days where I could operate my device without having to look at it, just by feeling the buttons. This is especially true for car radios, but it would be nice to be able to work blind.
With a kid in one arm it's a lot easier to have buttons than a touchscreen.
(And yes I'm aware that a touchscreen offers a much deeper UX experience, but still, buttons can be nice too)
I'll chime in and add that they can pry my 5th gen clickwheel iPod out of my cold dead fingers. I LOVE being able to track through a song in an easily controllable manner, pause, play, etc. all without taking the device out of my pocket.
Oh, and in its spare time, it serves as a portable 80GB HDD.
I'm disappointed by all four bullet points in the first section, and even more disappointed that the author sees them as positive.
* No local storage: Great, I didn't want control over my data anyway. Yay!
* No wires: Now I have to spend 5-15 minutes configuring every new device, even if it's sitting right next to or on top of the device it communicates with. Yay!
* No buttons: Because tactile feedback is so overrated, and who doesn't want yet another poorly written and barely supported app on their phone to ensure it barely makes it through the day on a single charge? Yay!
* Almost, no mains: Who doesn't want to replace every single device in their life every couple of years? Your permanently installed security camera that never moves has a dead battery? Psh, no we don't sell replacement batteries, just buy a whole new camera! The latest version has 10 new features you don't want and will never use. Yay!
Edit: Another gem later in the article:
>In addition, there are more specialized (and harder to make) controllers for legacy home systems like garage door remotes, water heater, sprinkler, and so on.
My water heater is a "legacy system" now? Why, because it doesn't have built in WiFi allowing me to control its temperature in half degree increments from work? If the world was really like the image portrayed by the article's over-eager author, we never would have survived the horrible dark ages of the 1990's.
It's not surprising, the autor, Stefen Sinofsky was in charge of the IMO unusable Windows 8 start screen, including the lack of the "Start" button, so you could say he hates buttons :) .
Oh wow... That's what I get for not actually checking the by-line. Somehow I didn't expect someone so notable to be writing for Medium. Now that you point it out, I'm not at all surprised by the attitude in the article.
I'm still disappointed, but Windows 8 taught me to expect nothing less from Sinofsky.
Your water heater is a legacy device because it is horribly inefficient and lacks any connection to how you actually use water (when you need it, how much, etc.) It just constantly consumes energy keeping massive amounts of water ready for you even if you are away for two weeks (as one example). Same with sprinklers that have no knowledge of soil water. Or an ice maker. Or... that's what makes them "legacy".
If you've followed CES over the years (maybe you have) then you know the incredible pains consumers have gone through with physical button remotes--trying to make IR work, trying to figure out what grids of tiny buttons do (with shift keys no less), trying to customize physical button remotes to control multiple devices and more.
If you've tried to put in a security camera or other monitor you might have noticed how unsightly the wires can be when you put them where you want to see. Or how impossible it is to put one at an outside door where there are no outlets. Of course having mains is compelling but this is another trend that we experience in mobile that turns out to be pretty convenient for many uses.
You might think an ethernet cable is one cable to rule them all, but the jack is very large and almost no homes have those jacks on more than one wall of any room (if that). And many systems (in particular lighting) were controlled using ethernet cable from each outlet. But those were all based on proprietary home runs and routed to the electrical panel not data location and so you ended up with a "one cable to rule them all" legacy wiring that was quite costly.
Does anyone else here think that using WiFi for controlling lights (and other such applications) is a terrible idea? Every WiFi router I've ever owned had a range of about 20 feet when there are walls involved, and a typical WiFi device like a laptop or set-top box will lose its signal and require a manual reconnection about once a week.
Bluetooth, on the other hand, easily requires two or three pairing attempts lasting 30-60 seconds each every second or third time you try to use two devices together.
I fear we are doomed unless we throw out the protocols we have and come up with new ones.
I agree, but the solution isn't to throw out the protocols we have. The solution is to use wired interfaces where appropriate. A light socket doesn't move. It's harder to replace the socket than the bulb, but the best long term solution is to replace the socket with a socket with an Ethernet port as well as a power connection.
I recently started a job at a company that produced Bluetooth chips. I'm currently about a quarter of the way through reading the entire Bluetooth spec. It's 3000 pages long, incredibly complex, and most of the complexity goes to ensuring reliable secure communication. It's not easy to just come up with a new wireless protocol that "just works".
11 comments
[ 153 ms ] story [ 470 ms ] threadThis actually makes me sad. I liked the old days where I could operate my device without having to look at it, just by feeling the buttons. This is especially true for car radios, but it would be nice to be able to work blind.
With a kid in one arm it's a lot easier to have buttons than a touchscreen.
(And yes I'm aware that a touchscreen offers a much deeper UX experience, but still, buttons can be nice too)
Oh, and in its spare time, it serves as a portable 80GB HDD.
* No local storage: Great, I didn't want control over my data anyway. Yay!
* No wires: Now I have to spend 5-15 minutes configuring every new device, even if it's sitting right next to or on top of the device it communicates with. Yay!
* No buttons: Because tactile feedback is so overrated, and who doesn't want yet another poorly written and barely supported app on their phone to ensure it barely makes it through the day on a single charge? Yay!
* Almost, no mains: Who doesn't want to replace every single device in their life every couple of years? Your permanently installed security camera that never moves has a dead battery? Psh, no we don't sell replacement batteries, just buy a whole new camera! The latest version has 10 new features you don't want and will never use. Yay!
Edit: Another gem later in the article:
>In addition, there are more specialized (and harder to make) controllers for legacy home systems like garage door remotes, water heater, sprinkler, and so on.
My water heater is a "legacy system" now? Why, because it doesn't have built in WiFi allowing me to control its temperature in half degree increments from work? If the world was really like the image portrayed by the article's over-eager author, we never would have survived the horrible dark ages of the 1990's.
http://www.neowin.net/news/windows-8-failed-at-nearly-everyt...
I'm still disappointed, but Windows 8 taught me to expect nothing less from Sinofsky.
If you've followed CES over the years (maybe you have) then you know the incredible pains consumers have gone through with physical button remotes--trying to make IR work, trying to figure out what grids of tiny buttons do (with shift keys no less), trying to customize physical button remotes to control multiple devices and more.
If you've tried to put in a security camera or other monitor you might have noticed how unsightly the wires can be when you put them where you want to see. Or how impossible it is to put one at an outside door where there are no outlets. Of course having mains is compelling but this is another trend that we experience in mobile that turns out to be pretty convenient for many uses.
You might think an ethernet cable is one cable to rule them all, but the jack is very large and almost no homes have those jacks on more than one wall of any room (if that). And many systems (in particular lighting) were controlled using ethernet cable from each outlet. But those were all based on proprietary home runs and routed to the electrical panel not data location and so you ended up with a "one cable to rule them all" legacy wiring that was quite costly.
Just a few thoughts.
Bluetooth, on the other hand, easily requires two or three pairing attempts lasting 30-60 seconds each every second or third time you try to use two devices together.
I fear we are doomed unless we throw out the protocols we have and come up with new ones.
I recently started a job at a company that produced Bluetooth chips. I'm currently about a quarter of the way through reading the entire Bluetooth spec. It's 3000 pages long, incredibly complex, and most of the complexity goes to ensuring reliable secure communication. It's not easy to just come up with a new wireless protocol that "just works".