Comments on: A Taxonomy of Device Forms

By: Daniel

Daniel — Thu, 02 Sep 2010 20:05:14 +0000

Dan, This is a very interesting framework, especially if we see it as a continuum, not a discrete scale. Apple’s announcements this week really show that: The apple TV was a “box” but it’s getting closer to a Tab. The iPod line got as “dotty” as it could with the shuffle. But the nano fits more closely into their continuum now.
Choosing the right form factor for a device has to do with the whole product ecosystem: Some products are disappearing, some are being swallowed by others…but some are stubbornly persistent. The iPod touch still has a reason to exist, it would seem.
The same holds true (for now) for dedicated e-readers, even though the Kindle functionality has been subsumed by any number of other mobile devices.

By: Table Dreams « Josh On Design

Table Dreams « Josh On Design — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 02:39:42 +0000

[...] A Taxonomy of Device Forms [...]

By: Arvind Ashok

Arvind Ashok — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 00:00:12 +0000

Interesting post. When I first read Mark Weiser’s essay, I was astounded because it was like reading a sci-fi book. You raise a very good question about how we will feel if there was no box. Personally, I have more attachment to stuff that I carry around with me (phone, camera etc.) than my TV, for example. I like the physical presence of it in my pocket and the physical activity that I perform with them. But I think a paradigm-shift is happening, where the device is disappearing (not just the dots). For example, Mistry’s sixth sense – where he takes a photo, dials a number etc. And we will adapt our use patterns. “Missing” something is merely because of muscle memory and familiarity, more than anything else, and we will easily make the shift, IMO.