Darwinian iPod

Tom Vanderbilt writes about the "Darwinian iPod" over at Design Observer. OK, it's basically a rant about "intelligent design" and probably not all that considerd but the article makes some flawed, in my opinion, assumptions about the process of products becoming successful.

The article tacitly assumes that the iPod is the pinnacle of mp3 player evolution and that all other MP3 players have fallen by the wayside as the iPod as become top of the food chain because of it's "ideal melding of what was then the most advanced hard drive and an elegant, almost “natural” interface — topped off by styling that was rather divine." It's a very technological determinist assumption to make, that the current "winner" won because it was the "best".

Perhaps Vanderbilt is considering the iPod as a system that includes iTunes, rather than as simply an MP3 player. I think the success of the iPod is partly because it makes getting music into the machine so easy for less-technical people. The design of the iPod itself is very important but the design of the system is more so because it solves the basic problem of MP3s: how do you get them and how do you transfer them to the player? The criteria of effectiveness of the iPod are (partially): how easily does it let me transfer music to the device? How sexy does it make me look? How easy is it to use? There's a lot of criticism of the iPod out there, some of which could just be backlash or reverse passion, and some of which is people with different needs from their MP3 players not understanding the iPod's measures of success.

There's no question from me that the iPod is a great piece of technology. That it's objectively the "best" is up for grabs.