iPhone抱怀疑态度的人

有iPhone怀疑者,还有大卫普拉特。

普拉特的言论在昨天的“炒作高,iPhone可能不得不战斗失败”故事路透记者富兰克林保罗真的只是冰山的一角。1上周在他的博客“Suckbusters”,普拉特发表的一个craziest-ass我读过的东西,”苹果iPhone上市失败,产品在火焰崩溃":

Putting everything in the same package so you only have to carry one box sounds like a good idea, until you want to listen to music while surfing the web or reading your email or playing a game. Then users will find it essentially impossible to use one function of the tiny box without disrupting the operation of anotherA few dedicated technophiles might, just MIGHT, figure out how to do so, but it will require far more dedication than an ordinary user is willing to invest in learning and then rememberingThis combination condemns the iPhone to a tiny niche at best.

一首歌开始后,点击主页按钮,然后单击Safari或邮件令人费解!

很好的观点关于奥运会。

我在我的书中详细阐述为什么软件很烂your user is not youThe iPhone’s designers have forgotten this fundamental law of the universeThe market will severely punish them for doing so.

我可以取笑几乎每一句话在普拉特的文章,但是这一次值得认真的反驳普拉特是正确的许多工程师不能为大众市场设计的产品。大多数实际上,——但这只是另一个变体鲟鱼定律但是一些工程师可以,那些是苹果员工类型iPod并非专为“那些愚蠢的用户”iPod是由一个小团队设计,问道:“什么我们像音乐播放器吗?”

普拉特的观点似乎是,大多数人都太愚蠢使用任何多功能手持设备这不是iPhone的特定的UI设计,他声称注定,但基本概念本身我不确定可以极大地误解了苹果的成功这十年。

Because its designers forgot Platt’s First, Last, and Only Law of User Experience Design (“Know Thy User, for He Is Not Thee”), that product is going to crash in flames.

某种程度上我怀疑iPhone设计师不得不忘记任何建议大卫普拉特。

现在卖掉苹果股票,而炒作仍然是热的You heard it here first.

指出。


  1. 普拉特,保罗描述为“哈佛大学计算机科学教授”,实际上是一个哈佛大学讲师扩展吗,这显然是不一样的即it is in fact still safe to send your children to Harvard.  ↩︎