Nokia's new boringphones are "beautiful to use"
What does it say when something is advertised as "beautiful to use?" Spooling out the standard cynical thread would be to assume that Nokia's new 6600 and 3600 are simply hideous, its makers so dry-mouthed with panic that reverse psychology must be deployed to sell them.
But they are not ugly, even if they do offer specifications that could be produced by a Select Committee on Determining the Specifications for the World's Most Banal Cellphone. (Lord McSnorry's report: 3G, 2mp camera, 2.1" display, slider keypads with a clamshell options, made of plastic, swooping curved proportions, offered in an odd color but available in black.)
In what possible manner could something like a phone be beautiful other than in its design or use-functionality? Is it beautiful to animals? Beautiful to skip on scenic lakes? Beautiful to devour with Worcestershire sauce?
Press Release [Nokia]
the latest
latest episodes
I was skipping stones on the scenic Devonshire sea this weekend, so I can tell you with authority that both the the 6600 and 3600 would be "Beautiful to skip on scenic lakes".
But Charlie, was it better with Worcestershire or Soy?
I think "Beautiful to use" is the "but she has a nice personality" of Cell Phone descriptors.
If I was in an optimistic mood I might suggest that 'beautiful to use' means a phone with a user interface that actually works...
...however, I long ago lost faith that any mobile phone company can produce such an interface.
I had a Panasonic Pocket Loox windows mobile 5 smart phone, which was great on paper, but hell to use, now I am using an old Motorola v180, and it just works, just like my base model Nokia's always have. Why is it these simple cheap phones get it right, but that 800 euro smart phone made me want to see how far I could throw it? In fact, the more bells and whistles a phone has, the worse it is for basic phone stuff? Well, the Sidekicks are an exception, and the iPhone.