micah t collins

What’s Apple’s problem with buttons?

Shuffle users have always been tolerant of minimalism - a less is more philosophy.  Shuffle users accepted that some products want to be used only where you can be without features that they’d come to expect - rather than need - in a device category. The brand iPod shuffle is a result of not including a display in the first place.  Apple turned a “lack” of something into a exclamation point for the introduction of something new… a experience based on minimalism.  Apple programmed their customers into accepting that they did not *need* a display — at least not for the places the shuffle was meant to be put to work.

In pulling that off, Apple created a great product, and expanded the market for iPods (and iTunes) and by making consumers want an iPod for every occasion.  For many, the shuffle is a user’s second iPod.

Now, as we witness the launch of the 3G shuffle, this success - in applying minimalism and a singular marketing message - has perhaps emboldened the ID guys at Apple to once again exercise their license to push UI boundaries and strip down an interaction experience to its bare essentials.

Screeeechhhh…..!

Personally, I think the minimalism theme on the newest shuffle has been miss-applied, and the product’s efficacy has been diminished.  Moving the buttons up onto the headphone wire is disingenuous.  OK, so the body of the device is sleek – and so is a Zippo’s – whoops!, this ain’t a lighter!!!  This new lack of buttons on the body, and their replacements on the wire, haven’t simplified or enriched the experience at all, rather they’ve made the device more complicated (by requiring multi-taps, and press and holds), and less robust (by being part of a more fragile accessory that costs north of 30 bucks to replace).  All moving the buttons off the body allowed Apple to do was reduce cost, and change the aspect ratio of the body… which I can only see as a way to create a new fashion demarkation and perhaps help having more mechanical leverage while actuating the clip.  As for size reduction, or weight reduction, I challenge anyone to show me how the 3G shuffle can be used in a place where the 2G shuffle cannot.

They’ve also increased the average real cost of the shuffle experience by requiring an adaptor (likely to be sold for north of $20) for the large majority who bypass the Apple branded earbuds.

Funny enough, I also hate that the voice over feature is introduced in the same breath as the 3G Shuffle because it actually diminishes the very “lack” of meta-data awareness that somewhat “defined” the Shuffle experience.  It’s to some degree a recognition of Apple’s own sneaky marketing strategy that brought the Shuffle to market.  A flip-flop if you will.

Voice over as a feature is cool in general… but why couple it with the Shuffle is all I am saying.  It’s a feature positioned as a salve to the lack of capability on one of their most successful products… rather than a good in its own right.  Make sense?

I like Marco’s points too, though I like the translucent menu bar ;-) …

marco:

With both the new buttonless trackpads and the new iPod Shuffle, it seems that Apple’s going on an all-out war to eliminate as many buttons as possible from their products.

There’s a lot of value in simplifying controls, to a point. But nobody was complaining that either the laptop trackpads or the Shuffles had too many buttons before. In both cases, the devices are now worse off than they were before, but they look a bit cooler.

It’s easy to see signs of a perpetual internal battle at Apple between usability and appearance. Usually, they find a good balance and achieve high quality on both fronts. But sometimes the appearance-driving forces choke usability enough to leak toxic usability flaws into a shipping product. And I think, like 10.5.0’s translucent menu bar and slanty Dock, and Safari 4 Beta’s tab bar, and heavy shiny glass screens on lightweight laptops, and the Mighty Mouse, that this new Shuffle was a victim of the Apple style police defeating any semblance of common-sense usability.