Maya Posch recently published a thought-provoking article on the state of consumer goods design, asserting that we are witnessing “The Death of Industrial Design and the Era of Dull Electronics.” Posch argues that the guiding principle of “form follows function” has led to a homogenization in product aesthetics, particularly evident in the design of smartphones. These devices, she suggests, have become indistinguishable from one another, resembling mere slabs of glass with minimal bezels.
The lack of unique design in smartphones raises questions about the intersection of aesthetics and functionality in consumer products. According to Posch, while the intention behind this design philosophy may have been to create functional devices that seamlessly integrate into daily life, the outcome has resulted in a frustrating sameness. This phenomenon has sparked lively discussions among readers, many of whom resonate with the desire for products that are both beautiful and practical.
Perhaps one of the most compelling aspects of her argument is the comparison between smartphones and other forms of architecture. While most homes vary widely in design, reflecting personal style and local culture, smartphones appear to lack this diversity. Posch highlights that architecture, ironically, is where the “form follows function” philosophy originated, yet it has succeeded in creating visually distinct structures.
The automotive industry occupies a middle ground in this debate. Cars are engineered to serve specific functions, yet they exhibit a wide array of designs, allowing consumers to express individuality. In contrast, smartphones have become so standardized that they often lack character.
Posch suggests that the desire for personalization in consumer electronics is manifesting through accessories, such as phone cases. As people carry nearly identical devices, many choose to enhance their smartphones with decorative cases, effectively adding thickness that contradicts the slim design trend. This trend illustrates a need for personal expression in an otherwise monotonous landscape of consumer electronics.
This quest for individuality echoes trends seen in the cyberdeck movement and the custom mechanical keyboard community. The urge to customize and personalize items reflects a universal desire for ownership and identity. While purchasing a phone case may not involve the same level of creativity as hacking a device, it still allows consumers to engage with the design process on a personal level.
Posch raises an intriguing question: has the prevalence of uniform smartphone design inadvertently resolved the conflict between form and function? By offering a blank slate, manufacturers allow consumers the freedom to embellish their devices, thereby fostering a sense of ownership and identity that traditional design may not provide.
Her article, featured in the Hackaday.com newsletter, has resonated with a wide audience, prompting reflections on the nature of design in consumer products. As the conversation continues, it is clear that the relationship between form, function, and personal expression remains a critical topic in the evolving landscape of industrial design.
For those interested in exploring this topic further, the Hackaday.com newsletter delivers insights and articles each week, inviting readers to engage with the latest developments in technology and design.