The "Good Enough" Revolution
I appreciated this article from Wired, The Good Enough Revolution: When Cheap and Simple Is Just Fine.
FTA: "It's just the latest triumph of what might be called Good Enough tech. Cheap, fast, simple tools are suddenly everywhere. We get our breaking news from blogs, we make spotty long-distance calls on Skype, we watch video on small computer screens rather than TVs, and more and more of us are carrying around dinky, low-power netbook computers that are just good enough to meet our surfing and emailing needs. The low end has never been riding higher."
It's well worth the read. I agree with the latter discussion of quality: it's not what the business thinks is high quality, but what the customer sees as high quality.
As an example: Many of us are still waiting for digital cameras that are high quality in terms of allowing computer-illiterate folks to take pictures and send them to our friends. A wireless-enabled digital camera that can email or upload photos directly from the camera without a computer would be considered very high quality by many consumers....and yet, where are they? Most cameras are not wireless, and the ones that are only are designed for access to the computer. The companies are making incremental improvements, but not addressing the lacking user experience -- consumer-oriented quality. Design a digital camera as easy to use as an iPod, and I'll buy it for my parents.
- matt's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Comments
The prices of digital SLRs
The prices of digital SLRs is coming close to my purchase price (body plus lenses going from 28mm to at least 200mm).
The people who buy digital
The people who buy digital SLR's are already hobbyists or people with a certain understanding of photography. Many other people just want to buy a camera to take photos at outings and post them on Facebook or Flickr. The iPhone and Blackberry are filling in this void.
There once was a time when I
There once was a time when I didn't "need" some of the things that are on my "must have" list today. But I can't conceive of needing a wireless digital camera when it is simple enough to upload pictures from a camera to the computer.
As for SLRs, I used to own 3 camera bodies and 7 or 8 lenses until I sold them all to transition to digital. Prices still haven't come down, but should, maybe this Christmas, to where I want to spend the money.
NY2TX <==== more than a hobbyist (who used to awaken before sunrise to go a shoot as the sun broke the horizon over the Atlantic).
Excellent article! In one
Excellent article!
In one sense, people ("consumers" but I hate the word) now have a much better sense of their needs. The tech revolution, as the industrial revolution, produced a lot of multi-tasking, one app (or machine) does it all, buy this and you don't need anything else products. Most people now -- and I don't believe this has anything to do with recession related issues -- are aware that paying for features used only rarely, if at all, or for "quality" that is meaningless in terms of actual usage is a waste of time and money.
"Good enough" in this context really means "perfect for what I want to do." When "on demand," simple, and universal access are added, the thing becomes top of the market. Internet access and WiFi drive these possibilities and the iStore is close to the perfect example.
William W. (Woody) Williams
Project Management Consultant
| Blog | Twitter |
w3src Consulting
I agree: the phenomena is
I agree: the phenomena is not recession related. This was occurring long before. For example, consumers started realizing years ago that buying the top-of-the-line PC was overkill for the common trifecta of e-mail, web browsing, and MS Office. When I helped friends order computers, at some point the primary question morphed from "how much can you afford to spend?" to "what do you want to do with it?"
I think much of this new idea of quality has more to do with user experience and less with performance. At some point, computers became fast enough that incremental improvements in performance weren't perceptible to the average person. At some point, speaking to someone over a Skype voice connection was considered adequate. Nobody was looking to hear a pin drop, but we didn't need that level of sound quality; we wanted the "convenience quality" of sitting at a computer and making phone calls for [almost] free. When the generally understood definition of performance is allowed to not peak, that trade-off allows other aspects of quality to emerge. The netbook is the perfect example; many of them don't have a single moving part (even a fan).
A wireless-enabled digital
A wireless-enabled digital camera that can email or upload photos directly from the camera without a computer would be considered very high quality by many consumers
What do you mean by "wireless enabled"? Bluetooth? 3G cellular? 802.11? Can this be configured easily given the controls on most cameras? What about next year, when all of the acronyms change?
I think there's a reason why cell phone cameras (integrated as you describe *now*) are awful, and digital cameras with any capability do indeed have a USB or Firewire connection to a PC/laptop/netbook. Convergence devices are weak.
OK, perhaps I shouldn't have
OK, perhaps I shouldn't have elaborated on an example for wirelessness of digital cameras. The point is that I refuse to purchase a digital camera for my parents because the photos are too difficult to get off for them, much less shrink + send to me over email. It's just way too complicated for novice computer users.
In other words, the ability to take full advantage of the key benefits of digital cameras (including, but not limited to sending photos to friends/family) relies upon possessing non-trivial computer skills. Am I the only one that sees a problem with that?
The cell phone cameras are closer to the "quality" I'm talking about. Sure, the photos are not the best picture quality, but it's pretty easy to share them instantaneously with family/friends over cellular. Just look at the proliferation of mobile photos uploaded to Facebook each day. I'd be curious about statistics re: photos taken by a given person each day: % on digital camera vs. % on a camera phone. I'm willing to bet the latter % is increasing rather quickly. Either way, the results would be a preferential statement of photo quality versus "good enough" quality.
perhaps I shouldn't have
perhaps I shouldn't have elaborated on an example for wirelessness of digital cameras [...] The cell phone cameras are closer to the "quality" I'm talking about. [...] Sure, the photos are not the best picture quality, but it's pretty easy to share them instantaneously with family/friends over cellular.
I think we agree here, but there's a good reason why "cell phone camera" is an insult and a joke. They are awful in every sense of performance, and *ONLY* useful for cheap social crowing. No fine detail, no cell phone service in Yellowstone, etc. You can't frame one, and you'd definitely never scrapbook them. People are using them for what they are fit for.
In other words, the ability to take full advantage of the key benefits of digital cameras [...] relies upon possessing non-trivial computer skills. Am I the only one that sees a problem with that?
Most certainly not.
Yes, the output quality of
Yes, the output quality of cell phone cameras is not archival, at or even near the level of professional SLRs -- digital or not, and not likely to wind up in a museum showcase. However, none of the "popular" cameras prior to cell phones were either.
I think the point is being missed in comparing cell phone cameras to those standards. The "quality" discussed previously is the quality of usage. It is like comparing ease of use in a large or medium format camera of several decades ago with the ease of use in a Brownie, Instamatic, or Polaroid.
All three of the later outsold and were used by millions more people than SLRs or the larger format cameras of the time. Use is the key and an Instamatic was "good enough" at the time.
Digital cameras in general produce a better quality "print" than cell phone cameras in general although that divide is narrowing rapidly. Yet usage tells the story and millions more people are using their cell phone cameras on a daily basis than a digital SLR or digital point-and-shoot. Why is that?
It's not because people want high quality prints. It's because people want to quickly, immediately, and efficiently share photos with friends and family through email or internet. For this purpose, the typical cell phone camera is "good enough" and actually better than any other device on the market.
As an example of the "good enough revolution," the cell phone camera is excellent. However, that revolution doesn't stop there... that's just one example among many. The larger picture, so to speak, is one we -- those of us who help design and produce things that people use -- should understand, believe in, and take very seriously.
William W. (Woody) Williams
Project Management Consultant
| Blog | Twitter |
w3src Consulting