>Get annoyed with seeing seeing articles and news railing phones into the ground cause of "lack of premium looks" (No metal sides, too simple looking, or not shiny enough)
>Strike up a conversation with my brother about it, who happens to be skyping at the time with a friend.
>Pose the question of which would/should prioritize when purchasing a phone and I begin building a argument for performance specifications.
>Shortly after his friend cuts in and says: "The looks count more"
>What? Why is that?
>"Because if your phone looks bad you'll never pick it up and use it"
>Walk away in disappointment
Granted I seeking a cricle jerk and I still am, but holy fuck. This is the consumer market? It's like all sense of practicality died with the drastic improvement of technology.
>>53427679
TL:DR
Form follows function for any rational person, but these things are fashion accessories as much as tools now so you gotta just deal with it.
>>53427716
I agree. But fuck you drake. Take a dick are your fucking ass you fucking gay cunt.
>>53427827
They're just going to throw on an ugly, bulky 3rd party case with some pattern or pop culture reference on it anyway.
There is nothing rational about purchasing a particular tool because it looks better than the rest.
I get the idea that you're paying a lot for a phone, and that it should look aesthetic.
But practicality should still come first.
I mean, with a plastic back, the G4 could use wireless charging.
But with the "sleek" metal back, no more wireless charging.
Likewise in most other phones, a unified body looked better, but removed the ability to replace the battery.
Thank Apple for pushing the iPhone as a fashion accessory.
They did the same with Beats, and tried the same with their watches.
>>53427827
It's their money and their problem but once companies get traction over blinded individuals for shilling out to them by buying mediocre products then it ripples out in the tech ecosystem. Apple is a fine example.
>>53427840
Leave no thanks man alone
>>53427679
why does it have to be either of them? just buy a nice looking phone that works for you and use it
Depends on the target audience, most modern hardware (phones, laptops, whatever) has way more performance than most people will utilize, not that unreasonable to go for looks at that point.
>>53428575
You probably wouldn't don't buy a car without learning that it's reliable unless you don't have the luxury/money. A phone shouldn't be any different and that's not the problem.
The most beneficial way would be to consider both, but basic consumers don't know jack shit about what's inside their phone, let alone how to completely take advantage of the device.
I can respect your minimalism but that's not everyone's logic, and usually comes to bite them in the ass searching compelling an upgrade.
well aesthetic does matter in some sense, the products physical feel is part of its function. and its aesthetic is a byproduct of that.
>>53427679
post this ugly mulatto culture demon again and im going to put a real-live curse called a binding on you. this piece of shit needs his throat slit wide open spritzing lifeblood into the porous pavement
>>53429127
fukken tri me m9
I still fail to understand how can people use Unity and KDE over Xfce :DD:DD:DD::DD:D:D:::::::D
>>53427679
Good design take both into accounts, both are important and having one taking completely over is a guaranteed failure.
So your question is endless and depends on every user scenario.
>>53429127
Whoooaaa you went 0 to 100 nigga real quick
>>53429118
>the products physical feel is part of its function
No, I buy a phone because I need a device that functions as a phone.
I don't buy a phone because I want an item that feels good in my hand. If I wanted to spend money on something that feels good in my hand I'd hire a hooker with great tits.
>>53429387
It doesn't have to be either-or. You can get a device that functions well and is pleasing to the senses and people do. If you don't care that's you.
