The new iPhone looks pretty much like the old iPhone. Sure, it's a bit
taller, allowing for a display that has one extra row of icons on the
Home screen. And instead of the glass that you find on the back of
today's iPhone, the new model's posterior is composed mainly of some
kind of metal — either stainless steel or aluminum that has been
polished and, in the case of the black version, treated by a chemical
process to turn it a dark, matte gray. (On the white model, the metal on
the back looks untreated.)
The other difference is the dock connector — instead of the inch-wide
plug that Apple has placed on almost every iPod, iPhone and iPad since
2003, the new iPhone will inaugurate a new, tiny plug that we'll
presumably find on all of Apple's other devices, too. Finally, and
strangely, the headphone jack is now on the bottom of the phone, rather
than the top.
But that's it.
When CEO Tim Cook announces the next iPhone sometime next month, industrial designers and Apple obsessives are going to scrutinize all of the changes, but I bet ordinary users won't look twice. The iPhone's design touchstones — the Home button, the wide top and bottom bezel surrounding the screen, the just-perfect width — are all there on the new model. The volume buttons and the mute switch are also unchanged. If you were to give the new phone to folks who don't follow the tech industry closely, your respondents would recognize the thing as an iPhone — not the "new iPhone," not the "iPhone 5," not the best iPhone yet, but just the iPhone.
When CEO Tim Cook announces the next iPhone sometime next month, industrial designers and Apple obsessives are going to scrutinize all of the changes, but I bet ordinary users won't look twice. The iPhone's design touchstones — the Home button, the wide top and bottom bezel surrounding the screen, the just-perfect width — are all there on the new model. The volume buttons and the mute switch are also unchanged. If you were to give the new phone to folks who don't follow the tech industry closely, your respondents would recognize the thing as an iPhone — not the "new iPhone," not the "iPhone 5," not the best iPhone yet, but just the iPhone.
And that, I think, explains why we know all this stuff about the new
iPhone in the first place. Over the last few months, 9To5Mac.com,
iLabFactory and other blogs that follow Apple obsessively have posted a
string of images of parts from the new phone. Not only have we seen top,
bottom and side views of the iPhone, but we've also seen several
pictures of its components — the motherboard, the battery, the dock
connector — and even some videos, too.
Such leaks are highly unusual. The tech press usually gets one or two
pictures of unannounced Apple products, but it's rare — other than when a
prototype goes missing in a bar — to see so many photos that give up so
many details of a new gadget. In an appearance at the D10 conference in
May, Cook told the crowd that Apple would "double down on secrecy on
products."
On Twitter, I've seen some speculation that the leaked pictures are
part of an elaborate conspiracy to trick the tech press — that Apple may
have created and planted decoy iPhone parts in the media to throw us
off the real, not-at-all-boring new iPhone. All of the images have come
from anonymous sources who are said to be close to Apple's production
facilities, so that's not out of the realm of possibility.
But I find the decoy argument pretty far-fetched. That's because the
leaked pictures add up to a device that's in keeping with Apple's
overall philosophy of constant refinement — the new iPhone will be a
slight improvement on the old iPhone, just like every new iPod of the
early-and-mid 2000s was a thinner, lighter, slightly better version of
the last one. I don't think Apple is leaking photos of the new iPhone,
but there are enough pictures out there to make me wonder if Apple has
decided not to aggressively police leaks of the new iPhone. Why would it
do that? Not because it wants to throw us off — instead, I think wants
us to get us used to the not-all-that-new iPhone.
Apple's next iPhone has to be huge. It's the company's biggest product,
and to keep Apple's revenues growing steadily, the firm will need to
sell 50 million over the holidays. The leaks, then, might be a way to
tamp down the superhigh expectations that bloggers would generate in the
absence of any pictures. They're a way of getting us to understand that
Apple isn't going to kill off a great design just because we all want
something novel for novelty's sake.
And this is as it should be. In a must-read post examining the new
iPhone, industrial designer Don Lehman points out that if Apple were to
radically change the iPhone's design now, it would only be doing so for
aesthetic reasons, "and Apple does not design for aesthetics." This
might sound surprising to Apple haters — folks who think that Apple and
its acolytes only make decisions on the basis of looks — but Lehman is
right: I can't think of a single product line where Apple made a big
design change just for the sake of making a change.
Instead, its most notable design leaps — when it launched the iPod Mini
and then switched it with the Nano; when it created the MacBook Air;
and when it launched the first iPhone and iPod Touch — were the result
of Apple's trying to build new technologies into its designs. But after
those initial leaps, Apple didn't keep making radical changes in those
products, and instead switched to a more evolutionary style of design,
what John Gruber calls its "slow and steady process of continuous
iterative improvement."
Other than changing the size, what else could Apple have improved about
the iPhone's design? Not much. Way back in 2010, I predicted that the
iPhone — and smartphones generally — had reached the limits of
industrial design. As long as we're going to interact with our phones
via touchscreens, the iPhone will continue to look like a slab of glass
bordered by some metal.
Apple simply doesn't make big design changes just for the sake of
making something look different — it's always looking for something
better, and if it has already created something great, changing it for
the sake of change won't do anyone any good.
---
Manjoo is Slate's technology reporter.
VIA: The Tribune-Democrat
SOURCE: Slate

No comments:
Post a Comment