From the pocket calculator to the Prius, I have always been what they call an “early adopter.” I was a technology enthusiast, a lover of progress, eager to move into the future. No more. With the wisdom of age, I now concede the maxim of the occasional software engineer: Motion is not progress.
Any engineering process involves a series of compromises between opposing, even warring, forces: performance versus efficiency, quality versus convenience, functionality versus simplicity, cost versus everything. What decides the outcome? The marketing department.
An interesting, if pointless, diversion is to imagine how our world would be different if creators had not surrendered to advertisers.
Marketers tell us that endless iterations of word processing software or smartphone applications are taking us forward by “adding new features” and “improving the user experience.”
More often than not, each new update and upgrade represents little improvement over the last.
Instead, new versions merely devour more memory — a tendency that has spawned the term “bloatware” — as they attempt to fix problems introduced by their predecessors, all while creating new problems, to be addressed the next time around. The axiom “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” has been abandoned in favor of “Release today, debug forever.”
The auto-upgrade mentality has also subverted what is certainly the foundational principle of engineering: “Form follows function,” tested over millennia, is now all but irrelevant.
Consider the modern public washroom, outfitted with automatic hand dryers, soap dispensers, toilets and faucets. The marketers claim that these apparatuses are more environmentally friendly than their predecessors.
While preserving the environment is a fine goal, squirming on a self-flushing toilet as it is triggered once, twice or three times in a row fuels doubts about those efficiency claims.
Likewise, sensor-operated faucets make it impossible to fill a water bottle — a more eco-friendly alternative to purchasing a new one. And the exclusive reliance on hand dryers complicates efforts to wash anything else, in particular, faces.
And it is not just washrooms. It has been about two decades since whiteboards became de rigueur at universities. They were, we were told, supposed to address the danger that chalk dust posed to computers.
That threat was hardly grave, and whiteboard markers are inferior to chalk in myriad ways. They are 10 times more expensive, run dry quickly and cannot be refilled.
When the room temperature drops below about 12°C — not as rare an occurrence as one might think — whiteboards can be erased only with a special board-cleaning agent. Replacing lecture time with erasure time, whiteboards cannot even claim a victory in convenience, the traditional bottom-line criterion of US design.
Convenience should be a choice, not a commandment. Ballpoint pens are more convenient than fountain pens, and infinitely cheaper, but they do not write as well; word processors are faster than both, but leave little space for precious contemplation.
A Gillette razorblade cartridge might seem like the most convenient shaving option, but its double-edged predecessor shaves closer, lasts longer and ultimately costs less, given the huge mark-up on cartridges that last but a week.
No wiser than sacrificing all to convenience — real or marketed — is equating convenience with functionality. Devices designed for a single job virtually always do that job better than a multipurpose contraption, but the once-exalted principle of simplicity has been superseded by a new credo: the package deal.
Word processors are no longer just word processors; they are one-stop shops for creating all manner of content, from graphs to Web pages. They are not the best at anything, except perhaps dysfunction.
The process of setting up a home-theater system is enough to drive a person to madness. Receivers come with hundreds of pages of documentation, multiple remote controls and too many options. There are a dozen functions for each knob — functions that most users will never need.
A nine-year-old might master the labyrinthine process; a physicist might not.
The counterargument is that the cost to the manufacturer is the same for a complicated device as for a simple one — the chip does not change — which only goes to show that customer care has ended.
The triumph of functionality over simplicity is most apparent in the mobile phone, a product that has transformed how we do just about everything — except talk on the phone.
My mother’s century-old house contains several generations of telephones; the best audio quality is found in a 1960-vintage wall phone with a dial. By comparison, modern mobile phones offer abysmal audio quality. Add to that a tendency to heat up over the course of conversation, and it seems that the mobile phone’s main impact on voice communication has been to discourage it.
Turning, finally, to death, the AK-47 has been the world’s most popular weapon for about 50 years. New generations of rifles simply cannot beat its reliability, resilience and, yes, simplicity. This is not to say that it would be impossible to improve upon the weapon’s design, just as it is not to say that a wall phone built in 1960 is the best phone that could be built, but we will never do so if we allow ourselves to believe that newer, shinier and more complex necessarily means better.
The truth is that it often means just the opposite.
Tony Rothman teaches physics at New York University.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
President William Lai (賴清德) recently attended an event in Taipei marking the end of World War II in Europe, emphasizing in his speech: “Using force to invade another country is an unjust act and will ultimately fail.” In just a few words, he captured the core values of the postwar international order and reminded us again: History is not just for reflection, but serves as a warning for the present. From a broad historical perspective, his statement carries weight. For centuries, international relations operated under the law of the jungle — where the strong dominated and the weak were constrained. That
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
RSS