I suppose I may have strengthened Samsung's case, but I point out that
frequently things are done for multiple reasons. Indeed, if the negative space
is ridiculous, than that argues that it's an aesthetic rather than functional
choice. Which motivation of Apple's — or Samsung's — overrides is the heart
of
this dispute. As to product constraints, I think Apple's point of view is that
their customers don't care about these things and for some constraints — let's
call these non-hackables — it would cost more to put in and secure the os
hooks than Apple would gain in
business. Apple might be wrong, but the proof
would be the competitor who
develops the successful hackable tablet and wrests
away the profitable
segment of the market. As to user choice regarding
the number of items at the bottom, I'm going to note that Apple has for years
been trying to get its users to not clutter up Desktops. In the PC space,
they
failed, and very much so with yours truly. For the mobile devices, clearly
users (and developers through rigid icon standards) are prohibited from
mucking up the
appearance. Draconian control or uncanny way to preserve as
much as
possible the first-day appearance of
the
iPad/iPhone? I see the
latter as adding an
intangible
value for users (six months later and still
pristine!) while also letting
passers-by see how much nicer the working space
looks, as compared to their
pc at home or work and, thus, help sell the
product. I will not argue that four icons, no more, no less, is the
perfect solution for all or even any users. But I think I'm arguing that the
choice was Apple
playing a lot of angles and so ridiculous would not be the
adjective I'd use,
even were we talking about user modifications and not design
aesthetic. I do
find industrial design interesting and would love to see the
story behind
the development. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
