Comment by jrockway | Hacker News Reader

Comment by jrockway | Hacker News Reader

I'm surprised that not everyone notices that. The first time I saw a Mac in sleep mode I immediately realized that it was breathing in a relaxed manner. (It seemed so obvious I never even mentioned it to anyone, so I don't know if anyone else noticed.)

The other day, I noticed that my friend’s Dell laptop had a similar feature but with a shorter fade-in-fade-out period. Its rate was around 40 blinks per second, or the average respiratory rate for adults during strenuous exercise—not very indicative of something in sleep-mode.

As to why Dell didn't copy it exactly... perhaps they reviewed the patent and decided they would get in trouble?

Personally, I think we should not personify our computing hardware. It's a tool, not your friend. When my machine goes to sleep, its lights turn off. If I want to wake it from sleep, I press the power button. If it was off instead of asleep, I would press the same power button. No need for an LED to tell me what's going on.

> Personally, I think we should not personify our computing hardware. It's a tool, not your friend.

I think the breathing LED is great precisely because it's a subtle form of personification that manages to be "friendly" without actually going far enough to be "your friend". (Remember: technophobes.)

Also, it's relaxing. Sometimes this is exactly the cue you want after a stressful session at the computer.

I like the shaking head 'no' you get from the password login box on Mac OS X because mistyping your password is a minor annoyance and that unexpected humanity takes the edge of it.

But why did try to copy it at all? Why not go in another direction completely?

Just how many different ways can you make a light blink?

There are infinite many ways of doing so. :)

For example, somewhat like the Fibonacci sequence like it is incorporated in the Lateralus song by Tool. That would be awesome.

See, you're already limiting yourself. The object isn't to indicate sleep with a blinking light, it's to indicate sleep.

A sleeping computer could softly snore. Or the logo text on the lid could blur like tired vision. Neither of those is a blinking light.

It's not hard to imagine a PC laptop manufacturer designing a light that moves side to side like a Cylon. In fact, this might even be a good fit for an Alienware laptop.

That's not an indicator that your computer is sleeping. That's an indicator that your computer is going to try and annihilate the human race.

(I think Mozilla has an oscillating status bar they use, which is called a "Cylon".)

Could've used two lights to recreate the effect of eyes sleepily almost-opening, blinking and closing.

they didn't invet the blink sir... sigh

No, they didn't, but they tied it to something unique: human breathing at a resting pace. They anthropomorphised it.

Ok, that's done, Apple took it. What's next? What's even more intuitive or revolutionary?

We'll never know if major companies with insanely great designers constantly regurgitate what Apple did years before.

I don't think its unreasonable to hold companies other than Apple to the same design standards. Certainly most large consumer electronics companies have similar resources (human, industrial, capital, etc.) to use.

Other companies prioritize features over usability. Apple does not create as feature rich programs, focusing instead on making them simple, easy to use, and aesthetically pleasing. Google, Microsoft, Linux devs, etc. build more feature-packed, customizable products. It is difficult to make software both feature rich and yet uncomplicated and easy to approach. I like the Firefox way of doing things: put commonly needed preferences in menubar->preferences and hide everything else away in a strange place like about:config that the user can find if they need.

Personally, I am satisfied with Android 2.2's, Ubuntu's, and even Windows 7's UIs and prefer the richer sets of features (not that I dislike iOS or Apple products; I actually use them at work on a daily basis). I think there are benefits to doing software both ways and I think the range of program complexity and power in the consumer software market reflects that.

Easy and simple to use IS a feature, though. All the customizability goes unused by 99% of the population. Apple knows this.

I made the distinction between features and usability deliberately. In the context of my comment, a feature could be defined as "something the program can do," rather than "something the marketers will list as a feature," so in that context, easy and simple to use is certainly _not_ a feature. Like I said, there is a market for all levels of complexity and flexibility in software stemming from varying preferences and needs.

It's not a "this computer is a person or your friend issue at all".

It's a device for a human, so you use natural cues to tell the user something. Your computer is on, but it's in sleep mode, so here's signals that naturally signify sleep.

You should notice that it's MS that came up with that retarded paperclip and Microsoft BOB. There are cartoony characters all over its history. That's real cheap personality.

What does Mac OS or iPhone have?

A logo in the shape of an Apple with a bite taken out of it formerly in a full, colorful, playful rainbow.

A sad mac.

A bouncing beach ball.

Cute naming using words like "mighty", "magic", "Newton", "Lisa", "Macintosh" and the prefix "i-" and "Power-" or the postfix "-book"

Software named after cats.

Codenames after scientists, swords and other stuff.

Funny shapes for hardware: cubes, circles, etc. etc.

> Personally, I think we should not personify our computing hardware. It's a tool, not your friend.

Humans personify everything they interact with -- including simple hand tools. We like one better than the other; it feels like it has a personality. Of course, we know, intellectually, that it doesn't, but that doesn't matter.

We're hardwired for judging and feeling personalities. And faces. That's why car look like they have "faces" on the front and why people have historically referred to vehicles like ships, boats, and cars as if they are (at least) simple beasts rather than just things.

Computers are by far the most complex tool the typical person uses, and we treat interaction with a computer much like we treat interaction with a person from a psychological perspective. That's why it's so infuriating when a computer fails to respond to input -- it's the same mechanism that gets triggered when you're talking to a person who looks at you but doesn't acknowledge you in any way.

Apple isn't trying to make the computer your friend, it's honoring the implicit personification you're doing anyway.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com