The
Daring Fireball article I mentioned in my last post brought out a couple questions I should have asked a long time ago about
Whipsaw and their design process. A good friend of mine, Gerson Goldberg works
at Whipsaw, so I posed these to him in an email.
Was there a conscious focus on quality and simplicity [with the Carbon]? And how much of it was driven by Rio, and how much was driven by Whipsaw. When I read the quote, I wondered how much design quality Whipsaw has to sneak in under product managers screaming about timelines and price because you have your design firm's reputation at stake.
The Carbon looks pretty similar to the iPod. I'm thinking of some of the nice design elements, the shiny metal back, the similar round layout to the controlls. But some of the design flaws, in my opinion, come across as well. In particular, I'm thinking of the lack of controls on the top of the player for use when its in a belt clip. How much is the space constrained by the features of the iPod do you think?Gerson Goldberg: As for how much we get to drive the design quality...with Rio, they have a very opinionated marketing and product management staff - all the way to the top. They are extremely involved in deciding upon the design details.
The best way to describe carbon is that it was Whipsaw's chance to take another look at the Rio Nitrus - the predecessor to Carbon. If you look at Nitrus, it was the first player to use the microdrive/cornice style 4 GB drive. While Whipsaw was a major driver in the suggestion to make a player in this class, in hindsight it was obvious that others would be developing a similar platform (Ipod mini came out soon thereafter). The goal for Nitrus was to be somewhat anti-ipod. The only element that it shares is the chrome back. However, the wedge shape, small form factor, and joystick style navigator were all elements that were an attempt to make something that was anything but ipod - I even remember some discussions regarding ditching the chrome back. The point being, Nitrus was not another ipod - it was smaller, sportier, and somewhat in a class by itself - for awhile anyway.
Carbon was an evolutionary step from Nitrus. The form for nitrus, while sleek, was somewhat unrefined. Carbon really put the icing on the cake. I would say the form analogy to a car is a good one. The ipod, much like a Rolls Royce, draws elegance from its form and judicious use of materials. The Carbon, much like an Aston Martin sports car - sporty, very fine details that make the form beautiful. Finally, the nitrus is more like an American sports car (say Corvette) - a cool general form to grab your attention, but not that much more interesting when you get up close. As for the change in control, feedback from users was the nipple-like joystick was not as intuitive as a D-Pad. The Dpad on nitrus, however, is developed around an ergonomic aesthetic, not so much a visual one. The result is a smaller, more organic device.
In the design community, there is very little interest in becoming a me-too player to apple. This field is mainly left to the non-inventive ODM firms that tend to pump out things that resemble the latest craze - remember all of the imac translucent stuff.
You hit the nail on the head that our firm's reputation is at stake. Designing a me-too device can be a killer.
Now for the lack of controls on top - we have tried and tried to get Rio to integrate belt clip features (be it in a holster, clip, what have you). Of course, those items cost more money - both development and production costs. The argument is to leave that functionality up to aftermarket hardware developers (ala Ipod). Well those don't exist at quite the same level for Rio products. Nonetheless, when it's not part of the upfront design objective, those types of features fall off the list in the development. This is where going beyond the PRD will actually hurt you - if we were to present the client with a design that works great with a belt clip that they won't pay for - that's a flawed design. A challenge would be to integrate those features without costing extra or compromising the primary interface.
Looking back, in many ways, we were able to work alongside Rio in helping to create a new product category (one that in hindsight would have developed anyway - but it hadn't at the time). In other ways, we also have to fill the product offering with the features defined by the client's marketing gurus.
One thing I know for sure - if Dan Harden feels that a company is making a bad call, he will aggressively encourage them to take a different course, many times diplomatically telling a CEO that he/she is making a bad call. This I feel is a differentiator for Whipsaw - you're not hiring a "yes man".
Important to me anyway ...
