I've often said that the hallmark of good engineering is designing your error cases: of the cases where something goes wrong being pleasant and non-disastrous. The issue is that optimizing some known quality, even one as subjective as aesthetics, is a lot easier than optimizing unknowns, which is what designing failure cases requires. That's why it's hard, why it requires deep and broad domain knowledge, and why it requires knowing your users. It's hard, really, to point to software or hardware that does this well, but it's easy to point to bad examples, such as the OP. But consider things like undo, version control and versioned file systems; think about TCP's recovery abilities, about the fact that Google 2-factor auth gives you lock-out codes and application-specific passwords, the X~ and #X# files Emacs dumps all over your harddrive (they've saved me more than once), and the recovery page you get when Firefox crashes. Or consider the HTML5 parsing algorithm, character set detection, and Google's spelling suggestions. Each of these required identifying a class of problems and specifically designing in features that protected against them.
Please, when designing a project, think not just about your features, usability, and similar features. They're important, crucial even. But also spend time thinking about what problems users will have. What bugs are you likely to have, what misbehavior of your program will be most damaging? Implement a common format because that'll make debugging and workarounds easier, add a little diagnostic console or log in case your users have a problem you didn't expect, make backups of data you destructively modify, and so on. We all idolize Mac Airs now, for beautifully-designed and slick software. But there's something to be said for hardware and software that works through thick and thin, where there's some workaround or safety measure for every failure.
The criticism of Apple's USB drive was insightful, and showed a definite flaw in the design of the unit. However, these two examples are just petty. First, any time you need your serial number you will be told how to get it, and clicking Apple -> About This Mac -> More Info is not an exceptional amount of work. Compare this with what you have to do on Windows:
Also, though this is not obvious when the unit is purchased, the serial number is etched into the bottom of the casing, not painted as the rest of the text is. I only discovered this when the rest of the text rubbed off of my MacBook Pro. This means that it can't be printed in a different color, but I'd rather have the permanence of etching over paint that can be scratched off.
Finally, the USB extension cable cannot be bought alone - it only ships with an Apple keyboard. It's been designed for the electrical requirements of the keyboard and not all USB devices, so it's understandable that Apple limits its use to the device it's manufactured for.
The problem with the non-standard connector is this isn't an Apple defined standard. This is USB. And the problem with this design is I can use a non-Apple cable to extend the keyboard (because the keyboard has a USB plug on it), but I can't use the extender for something else (e.g. even an Apple mouse!).
The point with the cable is that extension cables aren't allowed by the USB standard, so Apple created a cable that would only work with their specific device for which they guarantee that it works. I've tried the extension cable with other devices (it works just fine if you insert the plug at an angle), and have had mixed results.
I think Apple did exactly the right thing here and did it to avoid other problems ("I plugged in my iPad through the extension cable to my macbook and now it won't charge").
Good points. And the connector chaos is a thick thorn in the eye of Apple simplicity.
The thing is, design is always a question of compromise. In order to make something truly simple and minimal, you have to sacrifice some affordances. And in order to make something truly easy to use, you have to sacrifice minimalism (think of children's toys). It's a balancing act. If you get it right, people will love your products. If you tip just a little too much to the wrong side you fall, and you end up with Vista security prompts or Apple Keyboard USB extension nonsense.
JGC uses the example of the DVD-drive and the serial number as problem cases. But I'd argue that only the DVD-drive suffers. The serial number will not be relevant in 99,9% of daily computing for normal people. Non-hackers don't care about serial numbers. If something goes wrong they call Apple support (or do the Google routine). Of course it's a matter of focus. Do you want people to easily find the serial number, then by all means, make it easier to spot. Clearly Apple don't. The drawback is not just aesthetics but continuos reminding people that a serial number is important (which it isn't in normal use).
The DVD-drive, however, could be better. But think of your hard drives or SD-cards. None of my 5 USB hard drives have physical buttons to eject them. I still need to 'eject' it, which means I'll have to drag it to the bin! How's that for an affordance. It's a legacy UI behavior which is hopelessly misconstrued. Putting things in the bin DELETES them - that's the behavior we've taught generations of users. It's even worse than clicking "Start" to turn off your computer on Windows. If you have a HD full of pictures of your loved ones would you risk putting them in the bin if you didn't know any better...? Probably not.
Physical affordances have their place. Especially in a world of touch interfaces a button becomes a powerful switch (think the silent ringer on the iPhone). But they are like Tabasco sauces - add a little and it can make the dish, add a lot and it ruins it. It's a never-ending struggle.
As for the USB extension cable, I use it just fine with my ubuntu mouse. I just forced it right on in there. the indentation clip bent slightly, but other than that it's fine. Still works with the keyboard too.
Surprised you didn't mention that the Macbook Air superdrive is hardware locked to only Airs, Mac Minis without optical drives, etc. You can't use them with PCs or even Macs that came with internal drives. It's ridiculous.
This makes me think of how Facebook removed the "Sumbit/Post Comment" button from comment forms. I'd argue it's not obvious that hitting enter will do the trick because enter is for starting a new thought on a new line. They've replaced the natural enter-for-newline with the shift-enter (even more un-intuitive). This has caused me no end of frustration as I accidentally submit unfinished comments and can't submit them at all on the numerous occasions when I repeatedly hit enter with no effect whatsoever. What was wrong with having a button there? Please can we have it back?
One thing I've noticed on my Windows-based laptops is that I accidentally eject the DVD tray more frequently than intentionally ejecting it. In this case I prefer the lack of a discrete eject button.
It's just you. ;) I'm pretty sure some of these complaints are older than the Mac itself. The disk-eject semantics of the Mac are almost as classic a topic as the one-button mouse.
Disk ejects were designed under very different constraints in the old days, though. I just had a fun trip down memory lane to the days when the Mac had 128k of RAM, 400k floppies, and one floppy drive. Copying a floppy involved at least 5 or 6 disk swaps. Moreover, and relevant to this conversation, you could eject a Mac disk without unmounting it. That was because the system software lived on the boot disk, which you had to remove to load up your documents from your personal disk, but if the Mac needed to refer to a file on a currently-not-present disk it would prompt you for the disk by name, and so it was important to leave a ghostly icon of the ejected-but-not-unmounted disk on the desktop to remind users that the Mac hadn't forgotten about that disk and was liable to request it at any time, so for god's sake don't let someone take it out of the building...
The complaints that I hear all seem to be the same.
I can't get into my iMac to change the hardrive or ram.
I can't get into my iPod to change the battery
I can't get into my iPhone to change the battery.
I can't get into my Macbook Pro to change the harddrive,etc..
All complaints I've heard often, well before Steve passed on.
You're wrong. I'm way out here in the apple camp myself (see me wave among my iMacs and Airs? Hi.), but he's most definitely correct with his general comment that the lack of affordances is something Apple doesn't solve. They do this out of love for simplicity, and while they often find the right balance between that simplicity and raw hidden power, sometimes (as is the case with the external Superdrive) you do need control.
It is possible to have both control and looks (most Apple products are good in this regard), but in the case of the superdrive, they went just a notch too far and assumed that the 1% of cases when you need to force a disc out, doesn't exist.
A touch interface, like iPad's, which he also criticizes, is like one giant bloody affordance.
99% of the touch targets are obvious.
There have been videos of babies, 5 year olds and autistic kids using an iPad just fine.
As for the 1% of the rest you can just discover them in time. Not everything needs to be in your face, especially if it's a secondary function. And iPad has tons of discoverability, especially how you can't really mess it up whatever you do, just delete an app and reinstall it in the worst case and you're where you left.
Please, when designing a project, think not just about your features, usability, and similar features. They're important, crucial even. But also spend time thinking about what problems users will have. What bugs are you likely to have, what misbehavior of your program will be most damaging? Implement a common format because that'll make debugging and workarounds easier, add a little diagnostic console or log in case your users have a problem you didn't expect, make backups of data you destructively modify, and so on. We all idolize Mac Airs now, for beautifully-designed and slick software. But there's something to be said for hardware and software that works through thick and thin, where there's some workaround or safety measure for every failure.