It's quiet in here today. I needed stimulation - read that as distractions - today, and you have failed me!

We're all patiently waiting for the results, and next topic, of the photo comp.

*casts a beady eye in Al's general direction*

I've been 'floorwalking' at work today so haven't been on the computer much at all.

I've been supposedly designing a new web site for my freelance designering, but after a couple of days of creativity, it dried up today.

Hence the need for distractions.

Yes, the photo competition results. Hmm. *hits refresh again*

Sorry I've been in an all day meeting.

You're excused.

I'm in a different time zone, also I'm not very entertaining.

I've been trying to deal with a stupid 2-day offsite meeting which is getting more ridiculous in it's demands with every passing hour, as well as trying to deal with BMW who are (frankly) being a load of useless [insert expletive here] and dealing with a tummy ache/icky/runny/bug thing, a fuzzy head, sleep deprivation and the most annoying woman in the world, who cunningly sits right next to me at work!

Now I'm home, have to get on with chores, ignore kittens who are too lazy to come in through the window and want me to open the door, figure out something for dinner (having forgotten to get chicken out AGAIN!) and then try for a nice hot shower and an early night, while resisting the urge to eat all 6 cupcakes I just bought on special offer.

Gosh, I have been grumpy today!!

I have been out and now I am back but I am going out again soon.

Well up until about two hours ago I was in Scotland with no broadband (hard to get a line fitted to a tent), so don't blame me..

My attempt to start a Mac v PC debate: The success of Apple's products over those of their competitors over the past 10 years can be neatly summed up: Apple's products adhere more closely to Darwinian Evolution.

To explain my thought: when other tech companies traditionally design something, they think of the best way to make it work, the best way to do its job - the cheapest way to incorporate a screen, the most efficient use of space etc. In short, they design something that does its task well, at a given price point.

They miss out a crucial element of design - "recognisability".

I put it to you that recognisiability in the idea world is the equivalent of virility in the biological world.

The easier people recognise a product, the faster that idea will spread. Evolution doesn't "really" care how well an eagle's wings work, that's just a by-product of the real driving forces; surviving, spreading and competing.

So while other designs just take in to account the mechanics of usefulness, Apple's products are the ones that are keyed to being recognisable: they all share the same design principles, shiny, no buttons, no stickers, white, silver, shiny, no buttons, white, silver, shiny, no buttons....

Everything is startign to look like an Apple, everything is trying to become as easily recognised, as simple as an Apple, because when an idea is reduced to its simplest form, it is then at its most virile state, it is then most likely to out-compete and spread in the idea world.

So Apple don't make products that "work better", they just have a better marketing strategy.

I agree in part. However, it must also be remembered Apple spends an awful lot of R&D on how people use things. If you like, they've designed tech to be simple, hiding the complexity, even making it fun to use. It's taken a while for other tech companies to cotton on to this.

A recent article I read proposed the view that Apple do internally what a lot of other companies do externally. To whit: smartphones. HTC put out a new smartphone about every 5 weeks, Apple put out one every year or so. However Apple apparently do massively more prototyping than any other company (which is partly why they seem to lose prototypes whereas hardly anyone else does : they have a lot more of them). Basically, the idea of evolution by iteration is being applied to about an equal degree by both companies, it's just HTC are doing it in public and Apple are keeping it inside the R&D labs.

This creates different problems for both companies. Apple's way leaves them open to the kind of snafus you only see after your product is out in the real world in lots of people's hands i.e. the antennaegate problem. Their testing of each iteration is limited so you may find what is actually an 'evolutionary dead end' actually makes it out into the shops. HTC meanwhile are effectively asking the public to part-fund their R&D directly by buying products with an essentially very limited 'shelf life' but it means evolutionarily preferable characteristics get emphasised very quickly. In the longer term that will depress their sales as the differences between generations reduce and people find less reason to buy a new phone to replace the perfectly good phone they bought 3 months ago unless HTC can keep coming up with new killer features. It's essentially an Apple long game against an HTC short game - slow evolution with large jumps vs fast evolution with small jumps.

I really have no opinion as to whether one is 'better' than the other - if you keep your phone for a reasonable length of time then the cycles are effectively identical - either way you'll get a much better phone than your two year old one. HTC's way is better if you absolutely must have a better phone than all your mates, because you can join their arms race. But, in my personal opinion only, that makes you an utter idiot who is best parted from their cash in as efficiently a way as possible because you're patently incapable of managing finances properly. And you have more than you know what to do with. Maybe you're a banker?

Jon

Darwinian evolution is based on random mutation and the success or not of that mutation. Surely you're thinking more of intelligent design or creationism.

Are the design whims of Steve Jobs not analogous with random mutation? the design whims that prove popular are replicated, the ones that people don't really respond to are quietly designed out. It's a sort of hybrid between pure evolution and a "guiding hand" from the creators. Depending on how nihilistic you want to be you could ask the question, just how much control do Apple have over their designs if they're just following basic principles (thinner, lighter, simpler) and market reaction? Isn't the market itself then the thing which is designing the products?

It's closer to say I'm applying evolution rather than creationism to the idea world, I think.

i really like the thing about HTC - if I stand by my position though, i would say that even if HTC do design "better" phones than Apple, that doesn't necessarily mean that they will design better, more virile ideas than Apple.