I was looking for a word to describe how the design of mobile phones have gone beyond, or in most cases decided to ignore, basic usability considerations in favor of shelf-appeal or other narrow metrics. Thought maybe ‘vernacular’ was the right word, or a set of rules, or prevailing thoughts… anyway.
I have a iPhone 15 Pro with an Otterbox case. The case makes the phone lay almost flat on a table. When looking at the newest Pro models the camera bump or plateau or whatever is even more pronounced so it rocks if set on a table. On my Otterbox case, the rubber around the camera bump degrades faster than the rest of the case, due to having to encircle the bump. The case adds a few mm in every dimension so the phone is less convenient to stick into a pocket or backpack. The screen size even for a regular ‘Pro’ model is not easy for a single hand to use.
Got me thinking, who is this designed for? What are the driving considerations here? The only reasonable (quick) rationale I could come up with this morning was to support two-handed use by people who take photos or videos, edit them, and upload to some social media platform. That’s the driving design requirement - a great camera with a screen. Its probably why the iPhone Air failed to gain traction - the camera was sub-par. Maybe there’s also a value in a flat back to support add-on gadgets like pop sockets.
I have a functional iPhone 1 in the original packaging on my desk at work. Its a conversation piece; I let people relive the magic of sliding open that black box, removing the device from the clear plastic tray, and marveling at the form factor. Nearly everyone says “I would totally love a phone this size”. The Apple devices from 1-4 or maybe even 5 sure seem like portability was a driving factor, and that the ability to hold and use the device was important. I’m sure there were mechanical or other product requirements at work but the embiggening likely coincided with the importance of the social media platforms as destinations for phone-created content.
I feel the same way about most automotive design styling. It has zero use for the primary user other than that of “personal brand” projection. But perhaps like mobile phone design, auto styling has its own sets of rules, in how to stand apart from its competitors, signature elements that represent some important sellable trait despite being a net negative for their owners.
I hear you… a few I keep around. Look how nice the 1 - 4 is (though I would have knurled some edges on the 4 so you could hold it more securely.
I will say I absolutely love having a more powerful camera, but I miss the days of the small screen and how that forced UX to be much simpler.
Think of how simple the UX was on Instagram when it started compared to now. Of course some of that was limitations of the platform, but I think the small screen also forces designers and product managers to really prioritize. Now I’ve got people accidentally video calling me on IG. Nobody needs that.
I’m sure most of the Z-depth is a necessity, but the plateau, escutcheon, added embellishment is trying to communicate at retail, definitely not making a better user experience or ownership experience. I like the Pixel devices just for the symmetry in the camera bump, at least it seems vaguely easel-like.
I think it’s a chicken-or-egg type of situation. Phone manufacturers wouldn’t be able to deliver today’s specs if their suppliers didn’t offer the components. Most high-end phones use screens from Samsung, BOE, or LG. Sony has a stranglehold on camera modules. They drive most of the R&D that create the innovations in the latest smart phones.
So then: are the form factors of modern mobiles the result of accommodating the specs from camera manufacturers, or have the designers of the mobile devices decided that other usability/livability considerations are secondary to accentuating the camera bump arms race?
IDK… the word I’m looking for is like, the opposite of ‘vestigial’. ‘Transitional’ is an interesting term to characterize the phones’ prioritization of the camera bump and viewing area above all other human factors.
My assumption is if vendors had developed an affordable 6.7-inch screen in 2007 Apple would’ve made an iPhone with a bigger screen. But that’s also assuming all the other supporting components were available; GPU, battery, fast charging …
I like a bigger phone, as long as it fits in my pocket. A friend of mine and I were just talking about this and he wishes we had a new term for them other than, “smart phone”, because it’s not really a phone. Mini tablets? Micro PC? I don’t know. All those other uses are much better on a larger screen.
I think the larger than pocket phones are for people that have a bag (women, business people). I remember seeing a lot of the first generation big phones carried by women in China. Not so much in Canada.
However, I would add that ID is unimportant in current devices. I think the last time that I saw a phone without a case was when I bought my new phone and opened the box. Even the cases are all blah.
I would love to see someone try to build a really durable, easy to hold and desirable phone, but I’m not holding my breath.
I did this little exploration a little over a year ago just to explore a little bit of tactility around the edges… maybe it could not be a $1,000+ slippery piece of polished metal and glass?
This is what I’m angling at. Of COURSE designerz do designz for new phonez. The goals, rules, guidelines, and aesthetic/usability targets however are not evident without a very broad market/ economic understanding of the use of mobile devices in a people’s lives, e.g. making and consuming media esp for the socials. It goes beyond “how does this feel in the hand or slip into a pocket or can I reach this button on the side or on the screen”.
Is this POV too iPhone/US centric though? Because in China there are smartphones with some interesting ID, at least when you get to the details and CMF.
“Folding” could potentially be a big change in the paradigm as could actual fabrics comprising a body. Not taking anything away from the CMF or baroque camera bezels, but none of those stylistic aspects really deliver improved usability or live-with-it-ness. Symbolic expressions of technological modernity, inherently purposeless.
(disclaimer I work in commercial products, certainly not CE)
