About Me

I’m a product strategist and writer. In my day job, I’m a Creative Director at frog design. I also write for Cnet on the Matter/Anti-Matter blog. This is my personal blog and does not represent the views of frog or Cnet.

Where I am: At home (Oakland, California)

More about me >

Subscribe
This area does not yet contain any content.
Powered by Squarespace
« Learning from the Ancient Greeks about Scenario Planning | Main | The Patient Wears Prada »
Thursday
15Jun

Motorola Q: Snatching Defeat from the Jaws of Victory

motorola_q_2.jpgThe Motorola Q is the most anticipated phone since the Razr, and while the hardware has lived up to the hype, it appears the total package is somewhat of a let-down. I’m personally a bit bummed by this as I was rather lusting over the Q when I saw it in pictures and then very recently in person. It’s a beautiful product, but one that is saddled with a clunky interface. I haven’t thought this well enough through yet to know if it’s a universal law, but it seems like experience design is like a chain, it’s only as good as its weakest link. The weaknesses only highlight how close the strengths have come to achieving greatness. Unfortunately it appears the Q has missed nirvana.

Sun Microsystems slogan for years has been “The Network is the Computer”, and in that vein my new mantra is “The System is the Product”. For a product to feel harmonious the user, the system that surrounds it must be harmonious. No product is outside of a system, though not all products are systems. A table is not a system, but it lives within a system of retail, advertising, brand, web, and customer service that must harmoniously come together for the customer in order for that table to be successfully sold.

Making systems harmonious is difficult, which gets manifested most obviously in difficult-to-use products that are schizophrenic in their behaviors. (And as evidenced by the jabs being aimed at Motorola, it’s the company that makes the physical product that seems to take the heat even for problems that are obviously not in its domain, in Q’s case for OS-based issues.)

As Steve Portigal observes:

 

Award-winning, or attractive industrial design is achievable. Usable, joyous, lovely software is achievable. Why is the combination so damn hard? When will companies figure out how to do better? As advanced as we think we are in these fields, it seems big companies are still launching stuff that wrecks your life while making you look hip. We can blame it on organizational silos, or increasingly complex design problems as screen sizes gets smaller and usage gets more advanced, but I think there’s a cultural problem (of course) in organizations, as they still don’t get it. They aren’t figuring out how to work together and they aren’t setting high enough standards for what’s good enough to launch.Sure, this is Motorola in this article, but the story seems so familiar, this could be anyone. I don’t propose simple solutions here, but I do feel so very tired of the problem.

 

And in this day and age it seems strange the sophisticated products could still be created by people who seem to never actually use them. At least, what other conclusion is one expected to reach after reading David Pogue’s comments comparing frequent tasks on the Q to the Treo? To whit:

Example 1: After you take a picture with the camera, what options would you want to be immediately available? Maybe Save, Send and Delete? Not on this phone. These options are all hiding in menus; activating Send, for example, requires four more button presses. (On the Treo: one.)

Example 2: What if you want to edit an entry in your address book? Hey — it could happen. You can’t just highlight a name, open the menu, and choose Edit; there’s no Edit command. Instead, Microsoft wants you to open that address book “card” first and then open the menu. Total steps: four. (Treo: two.)

Example 3 (this one is really annoying): Q comes with about 25 preinstalled programs: Tasks, Voice Notes, Internet Explorer, Solitaire and so on. You get to them by pressing a button labeled Start, a riff on the familiar Windows Start menu. If only it really were a menu! Instead, you see jumbo icons. Only six of them fit on the screen at once (three across, two rows). If you want a program on the last row, you have to scroll seven times, pausing each time to make sure you haven’t overshot, by pressing the down-arrow key (or turning the notched thumbwheel). Why no list-view option? Better yet, why can’t you type the first letter of the program you want, as on the Treo? On the Q, that whole alphabet keyboard just sits there, wasted.

Example 4: To reschedule an appointment, you exit Week or Month view (where only gray blocks appear); scroll to the appointment’s name in a list; press Enter; press Edit; scroll to the Starting Time box; switch the keyboard into number-typing mode; type a new number; click Done. (On the Treo, you just drag the appointment to a new time slot.)

Examples 5, 6, 7: The Q phone doesn’t auto-capitalize names you enter in the address book, auto-format phone numbers with parentheses and dashes, or put apostrophes into words like “cant,” “dont” and “Im.” Why has Moto/Microsoft deliberately ignored the accumulated wisdom of rivals?

He goes on to list other misses, like no copy/paste (!) and no ability to edit Office documents, you can only view them. And while the Q is priced for the masses (sort of) at $199, it’ll typically cost you $110/month for the broadband wireless network to run it on, which is pretty much the only reason to buy it in the first place.

It just goes to show that even when someone’s provided a good recipe (as Palm and Blackberry have), baking a good cake is still elusive, especially when one company is making the sponge and another is making the frosting (though the Treos pull this off much more harmoniously). I’ll ask again, once more with feeling, if Palm got it right ten years ago, why are we still suffering?

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

References (2)

References allow you to track sources for this article, as well as articles that were written in response to this article.

Reader Comments (15)

Everything you say is just so, and what is especially frustrating about it to me is that the experience of developing the (universally-panned) RAZR UI presumably informed Motorola's choices on the Q.

Unless software development for the Q was very nearly concurrent with that for the RAZR/SLVR phones, Moto knew (or should have known) that their own userbase considered critical pieces of the UI clunky, outdated and annoyingly difficult to use. To see them repeat these selfsame mistakes in a device with an admittedly gorgeous form factor is nothing short of disheartening.

As you imply, Moto got everything right with the physical design of the Q. Everywhere the comparable Treo or Blackberry looks cheap or cheesy, the Q is executed with finesse. I had so looked forward to finally being able to have and use a smartphone/PDA that offered me the functionality of the Treo, without its tacky materials and occasionally perplexing design choices, and while I was sure it was going to be the Q, that became much less likely the moment I heard Microsoft was involved.

That probability now stands at zero. And the really sad thing is that Moto is going to sell these by the bucketload, and what they will almost certainly conclude is that they're doing the right thing by their users. It's a goddamn shame.
July 3, 2006 | Unregistered CommenterAG
Your example doesn't seem big enough to support your manifesto. Even the most basic/conventional of user testing based on tasks would have shown them that they were screwing up. Right?
October 2, 2006 | Unregistered CommenterBill Seitz
I agree that I was let down. It is a nice thin phone, but is still wide. Compared to the 8225 (8125) it still lacks in features, such as touch screen and others. I think Motorola made a big mistake and trying to catch up rather then push forward something new and exciting.
November 10, 2006 | Unregistered CommenterRicky
I wholeheartedly agree. For the past two years, I'd basked in the pleasure of the Sidekick II and Sidekick 3 UI, but eventually decided I needed something new. I bought a Moto Q and really, really wanted to like it, but after wrangling with the craptastic UI for a few days, I gave up and returned it. I ended up going with the T-Mobile Dash instead - which, although it has the same base UI, has some nice added tweaks that make it usable enough for now. Oh, and I highly recommend Papyrus by SBSH Mobile Software (sbsh.net) for WM5 users.
November 27, 2006 | Unregistered CommenterBill Westerman
Microsoft don't get mobile. At all. Never have. Never will. Not just technically - they also don't get that they're a tiny bit player (check their global market share if you don't believe me) and people will just ignore their old dictatorial ways. The next generation of personal computing is what we currently call mobile phones, and it is a blessed relief that Microsoft will have no significant part in it.
April 17, 2007 | Unregistered CommenterAlex Kerr
I agree, I wanted something sleeker then the palm and blackberry. What I got was a phone that doesnt hold a charge. When you input a contact it does not show up when the contact is calling in. I am returning this junk and settleing for a blackberry or trio!
April 26, 2007 | Unregistered Commenterlisa

I agree with all of this. Q messed up! Everything that was said previously bugs me so much too, and the unlock feature of this phone drives me nuts! On the blackberry you can easily use on hand to lock and unlock device, great for driving or cant use both hands. But with the Q it takes both hands. Its awkward to have different keys for lock and different for unlock, plus the key pad is so small that it quite often messes up and I have to repeat again and again. The interface and user friendly aspect sucks! Blackberry is much easier, quicker, and smarter!

June 21, 2007 | Unregistered CommenterUser2

I've heard a lot of what the Q can not do, but what can it do. I'm interested in getting people's thoughts on what third party software they would recommend, if its possible to use antoher internet browser and which one would you recommend, and of course how do you access youtube video files.

September 4, 2007 | Unregistered CommenterRobert

I downloaded a bunch of applications to my Q. Except for Didiom, they are all disappointing.

September 10, 2007 | Unregistered Commenterkurtdaniel

I hate this phone. I would never recommend it to anyone and I will get out of Verizon as soon as possible because they sold me this phone. I have to restart it constantly, the high tech features I pay extra for do not work and I spend more time calling tech people than I save getting my email from my phone. I HATE THIS PHONE!

September 18, 2007 | Unregistered CommenterPatty

I wonder why Motorola is always two years behind innovation than others.... Look at the design, QWERTY keyboard, the screen...., very oldiest.
i wonder what positioning this gadget to competition in market...

March 10, 2009 | Unregistered CommenterRial

Normally I would go for a Nokia. But when I saw this on the internet I wanted to try it out. One of my friends has this and it wasn't that special. So I changed my mind. and now I'm using a Nokia E series.

March 11, 2009 | Unregistered CommenterNokia E Series

Seems to be a nice phone. I saw it once. looks cool. But didn't use it so can't tell how good it is. But I liked the keyboard and the display. By the way your blog is very beautiful. Keep it up. Cheers !

March 26, 2009 | Unregistered CommenterLas Vegas

I used this phone. For me it was ok. I used it for one year and I think it was very useful. I wasn't looking for so many things out of it but it was useful. Anyway now I use a much advanced handset because I need to work on my health related blog and I have to give advice on dieting. Thanks for sharing the information.

April 8, 2009 | Unregistered CommenterPure Brazilian

I think the phone wasn't success. I was waiting for it to hit the market and when I first used it I didn't like it. The expectations were high but it wasn't able to fulfill the expectations. Thanks for sharing hte information.

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>