The notch makes sense... from a certain point of view
Marco Arment has an excellent article up where he hits the nail on the head around Apple's reasons to #embracethenotch. I agree with his reasoning but disagree strongly with his conclusion that this was "courage". I think it's the exact opposite. There's only one point of view from which it makes sense, and it's a bad one for Apple.
From a purely aesthetic point of view, the notch shouldn't exist. It has a nice 1970's Star Trek vibe going on, making it timelessly futuristic, but that also makes it feel dated from the moment it's released. It doesn't make it beautiful per se. I don't think anyone will dispute that if Apple had had the technology to integrate these sensors into the display from day one, they would have done so. They didn't introduce a notch just because it looks good; otherwise, they would have added one to the bottom as well. So no, the notch is not beautiful in itself - it's a design compromise.
So people say this is a matter of "form follows function". Again I disagree. Seperate the hardware choices (which I won't criticize - no other place to put those sensors) from the software choices for a second. The function of the display "horns" is to show status bar information, and that function is executed equally well whether the notch is emphasized or hidden. Function does not dictate any form in this case. In fact, by forcing landscape photos and video to be obscured by the notch, or forcing landscape scroll bars to be interrupted by it, the notch is the opposite of form follows function.
A related argument is that it's a matter of "honest design" or being unapologetic about design compromises. I can follow that to some extent. But if Samsung had decided to show the notch while Apple would have chosen a more elegant, minimalistic design, Apple fans would have been mocking the rest of the industry (and rightfully so, in my opinion).
No, the only point of view from which the notch makes perfect sense, in my opinion, is marketing.
The unique selling proposition of the iPhone X is Face ID, animoji, and the lack of a home button, driven by fancy new 3D sensors. The notch is the only physical manifestation of that USP. Everything else is in software or silicon, making it a tougher marketing story to tell. The sensor array is the feature that not only sets the iPhone X apart from every other smartphone on the market, it's the one that should mark its place in history.
In the longer term, as Marco Arment points out, the notch is now Apple's unique differentiating form for the iPhone, probably for years to come. The notch is what will instantly allow people to see that a stranger 10 feet away is using an iPhone instead of an Android. It's like the click wheel on the iPod, the home button on the iPhone, the Magic Mouse, the glowing Apple logo on the MacBook: a unique and instantly recognizable shape.
But all of those previous shapes were the epitome of minimalist design. Apple took complex problems and reduced them to the simplest possible shapes, and that's what made them instantly recognizable. We scoffed at competitors' inability to reduce the design challenges to their bare essence, their inability to remove the cruft.
But we have now reached a point where competitors reached design zen before Apple did. Admittedly they did so by compromising on the functionality in ways that Apple refused to do. And we know that design is not just how it looks, design is how it works. But speaking strictly about the look of the product, Apple is now unable to differentiate itself by having the simplest possible shape, since everyone else is doing the same thing. What was that thing about imitation and flattery again?
So now Apple explicitly decided to NOT go for the simplest possible shape, to go for a more subjective kind of design, including functional compromises in landscape mode - all for the sole purpose of being more visually distinctive. It's as if they don't trust the brand and the functionality to be able to sell the product by themselves, if the shape is too similar to the competition. In my book, that's not courage at all.
Just my two cents.
From a purely aesthetic point of view, the notch shouldn't exist. It has a nice 1970's Star Trek vibe going on, making it timelessly futuristic, but that also makes it feel dated from the moment it's released. It doesn't make it beautiful per se. I don't think anyone will dispute that if Apple had had the technology to integrate these sensors into the display from day one, they would have done so. They didn't introduce a notch just because it looks good; otherwise, they would have added one to the bottom as well. So no, the notch is not beautiful in itself - it's a design compromise.
So people say this is a matter of "form follows function". Again I disagree. Seperate the hardware choices (which I won't criticize - no other place to put those sensors) from the software choices for a second. The function of the display "horns" is to show status bar information, and that function is executed equally well whether the notch is emphasized or hidden. Function does not dictate any form in this case. In fact, by forcing landscape photos and video to be obscured by the notch, or forcing landscape scroll bars to be interrupted by it, the notch is the opposite of form follows function.
A related argument is that it's a matter of "honest design" or being unapologetic about design compromises. I can follow that to some extent. But if Samsung had decided to show the notch while Apple would have chosen a more elegant, minimalistic design, Apple fans would have been mocking the rest of the industry (and rightfully so, in my opinion).
No, the only point of view from which the notch makes perfect sense, in my opinion, is marketing.
The unique selling proposition of the iPhone X is Face ID, animoji, and the lack of a home button, driven by fancy new 3D sensors. The notch is the only physical manifestation of that USP. Everything else is in software or silicon, making it a tougher marketing story to tell. The sensor array is the feature that not only sets the iPhone X apart from every other smartphone on the market, it's the one that should mark its place in history.
In the longer term, as Marco Arment points out, the notch is now Apple's unique differentiating form for the iPhone, probably for years to come. The notch is what will instantly allow people to see that a stranger 10 feet away is using an iPhone instead of an Android. It's like the click wheel on the iPod, the home button on the iPhone, the Magic Mouse, the glowing Apple logo on the MacBook: a unique and instantly recognizable shape.
But all of those previous shapes were the epitome of minimalist design. Apple took complex problems and reduced them to the simplest possible shapes, and that's what made them instantly recognizable. We scoffed at competitors' inability to reduce the design challenges to their bare essence, their inability to remove the cruft.
But we have now reached a point where competitors reached design zen before Apple did. Admittedly they did so by compromising on the functionality in ways that Apple refused to do. And we know that design is not just how it looks, design is how it works. But speaking strictly about the look of the product, Apple is now unable to differentiate itself by having the simplest possible shape, since everyone else is doing the same thing. What was that thing about imitation and flattery again?
So now Apple explicitly decided to NOT go for the simplest possible shape, to go for a more subjective kind of design, including functional compromises in landscape mode - all for the sole purpose of being more visually distinctive. It's as if they don't trust the brand and the functionality to be able to sell the product by themselves, if the shape is too similar to the competition. In my book, that's not courage at all.
Just my two cents.
Comments
Post a Comment