Log in

View Full Version : Capturing Caressability


Kris Kumar
01-26-2006, 02:30 PM
<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://weblogs.jupiterresearch.com/analysts/gartenberg/archives/013275.html' target='_blank'>http://weblogs.jupiterresearch.com/analysts/gartenberg/archives/013275.html</a><br /><br /></div><i>"One of the things we've been working on here is how to properly quantify a term we've been using to describe a certain attribute of some devices. We call it "caressability" and it's a term where it's easier to show examples than to explain. For example, iPod Nanos have caressability, Creative Zens don't. RAZR phones have it, LG phones don't. It's not something that's limited to portable electronics either. As was pointed out to me by a friend, Ferrari's have this attribute as well, Oldsmobiles do not. Breitling watches have it, Seiko watches do not. It's an important attribute to understand as it clearly resonates with consumers and can help elevate a product out of ordinary status (even if it only has ordinary features)."</i><br /><br /> <img src="http://www.smartphonethoughts.com/images/Kris-Jan06-Caresability.jpg" alt="User submitted image" title="User submitted image"/> <br /><br />Michael Gartenberg wants to know what gives a product <i>"caressability,"</i> we would like to know that too. Why doesn't the 2125 have caressability? Does the Moto Q have caressability? When will Windows Mobile device manufacturers start focusing on this important attribute? We have talked about this topic in the past over <a href="http://www.smartphonethoughts.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=9815">here,</a> but back then we didn't know the name for this attribute. ;-)

hotdram
01-26-2006, 02:36 PM
From the examples given (Breitling, Ferrari, Nanos et.al versus the competitors) it appears as if there is a direct correlation between cost (or perceived value) and "caressability". :)


~Rob

Mike Temporale
01-26-2006, 03:04 PM
From the examples given (Breitling, Ferrari, Nanos et.al versus the competitors) it appears as if there is a direct correlation between cost (or perceived value) and "caressability". :)


~Rob

I don't know about cost. It might have something to do with it, but there is no real price difference between the Nano and the Zen.

I think it's connected more with the style than the price. Caressable things are stuff that are shiny and sleek. They have an uncluttered look to them. I would say the SP5 is more caressable than the SP5m. Why? the SP5m has a cleaner less busy look to it. The phones are the same internally, it's just the body that gives us that feeling.

Jerry Raia
01-26-2006, 04:38 PM
I had never heard this term until right this moment. I think the idea is right on though. Most people buy things that look good. There are so many RAZRs out there I've stopped noticing them. Imagine them all with WM5 inside?

Sven Johannsen
01-26-2006, 04:43 PM
I think I would like 'charm' better. Not sure I want to carress my phone.

Jerry Raia
01-26-2006, 04:53 PM
Not sure I want to carress my phone.

I'm not even gonna go there. :lol:

Mike Temporale
01-26-2006, 05:14 PM
I think I would like 'charm' better. Not sure I want to carress my phone.

Charm... Interesting. I don't know that a RAZR or a Ferrari gives off charm. Do you have any examples of a product that gives off charm? Besides Lucky Charms. ;) :lol:

mpaquette
01-26-2006, 08:45 PM
I was just thinking about this very thing last night as I was comparing the size of my wife's Razor to my SMT5600. When the Razor is closed it's basically as thick as the 5600. The Razor is wider than the 5600, but it's also shorter. When you look at the 2 devices independently of each other the Razor looks much smaller than the 5600, but side by side they are pretty much the same size. I guess what I'm trying to say is that I really don't know what gives a device "caressability."

Sven Johannsen
01-26-2006, 09:02 PM
I think I would like 'charm' better. Not sure I want to carress my phone.

Charm... Interesting. I don't know that a RAZR or a Ferrari gives off charm. Do you have any examples of a product that gives off charm? Besides Lucky Charms. ;) :lol:

I think charm is the inate quality that makes someone pleasant and desireable to be around. Kind of draws others in, and makes them feel good. If you extend that to objects, I think folks have been charmed by the iPod, Razr, Mazda Miata, things like that. I have problems with carressable. I mean, if the Razr was fuzzy would it then be cuddly?

ctmagnus
01-26-2006, 10:12 PM
iPod Nanos, RAZR phones, Ferrari's, Breitling watches

My response? Vaja.

dstrauss
01-27-2006, 07:27 PM
Just look at your pictures - it's a highly sophisticated device wrapped in a sleek, simple, and shiny exterior, that's SMALLER than the competitors. Apple has been doing this for years, and their nano is the pinnacle of this development.

Kris Kumar
01-28-2006, 12:45 AM
I don't think caressability = cost is true. It might be expensive to produce a device with caressability, because of the quality and technology that goes into it. I don't think it is always true.

Kris Kumar
01-28-2006, 12:51 AM
...it's a highly sophisticated device wrapped in a sleek, simple, and shiny exterior, that's SMALLER than the competitors.

I think you are pretty close. Simple is probably the key word. The device has to be technologically innovative, sophisticated, look elegant, yet be simple. Simple so that masses can use it.

Sven Johannsen
01-28-2006, 06:32 AM
I think you are pretty close. Simple is probably the key word. The device has to be technologically innovative, sophisticated, look elegant, yet be simple. Simple so that masses can use it.

Interesting observation. Do you think MS, or any Smartphone manufacturer, is targeting "the masses"? Maybe they are targetting a more narrow segment. While Nokia, Motorola and others have lines of phones, spread across simple to full featured, when you build one with WM on it, it is pretty much a high end device by default.

Kris Kumar
01-28-2006, 01:14 PM
I take that back, by masses I mean wider audience; more people can easily use it because of its simple approach. What I wanted to say was that by merely making the product exepnsive or technolgically advanced or good looking, the job was not done. The manufacturers have to make it simple, so that the "market" they are targeting can use the device.

Smartphones like the SP5 are good looking, technologically advanced and small, but it is not simple.

Microsoft may not be targeting the masses, but the market segment it is targeting is getting split because of the ease of use.

Sven Johannsen
01-29-2006, 06:43 AM
Do you really mean simple...or foolproof? I'm not sure you can make a device that does a lot, as simple to use as one that does only one thing. There has been this concept of intuitive floating around since PCs got graphical interfaces, but it most certainly is hampered by the user. What is intuitive to me, may not be to you. What is intuitive to a programmer would very likely not be so to an average user ;)

By foolproof, I mean that it does what it is supposed to do without requireing specialized knowledge. A user shouldn't have to know that he needs to set up special ports to make AS or GPS BT connections, for example. The user shouldn't be saddled with an Internet/Work decision on WiFi. One step in the right direction for this sort of thing is I-Mate's carrier specific setup files. I recall digging around for a good while to get the Cingular and T-Mobile settings for my unbranded MPX220. With the I-Mates I just run the approriate .cab and it's set up. One step farther would be for the network to recognize the phone and push the right values. That would be a step toward foolproof, and enhance the experience for the 'masses'.

Kris Kumar
01-29-2006, 01:01 PM
Based on what you are saying, the device should be fool-proof.

The scenario that you described is good. The other side to the fool-proof or simple aspect is the 'it just works'. Recently I noticed that thanks to my heavy surfing, I was filling up the browser cache, which in turn filled up my storage memory, which somehow managed to kill the Bluetooth, which meant that when I was trying to use the headset, it wouldn't work. It took a while to figure out, but I don't think an average person would be able to deal with that scenario.

Even though I want to agree with your statement about - a device that does a lot of things cannot be simple. I feel that reliability/stability can improve the simplicity.

Mike Temporale
01-29-2006, 01:17 PM
You guys are getting into the inner workings of a device. I think carressability is more of a outer shell or body feature. Simple design, simple look - that's captures peoples eye. IMHO

Sven Johannsen
01-31-2006, 07:39 AM
You guys are getting into the inner workings of a device. I think carressability is more of a outer shell or body feature. Simple design, simple look - that's captures peoples eye. IMHO
So you are saying we are getting off the off-topic ;)

Kris Kumar
01-31-2006, 12:49 PM
You guys are getting into the inner workings of a device. I think carressability is more of a outer shell or body feature. Simple design, simple look - that's captures peoples eye. IMHO

Beauty shouldn't be skin deep. :lol: I agree I think I have derailed the thread by a bit.

Sven Johannsen
01-31-2006, 11:44 PM
You guys are getting into the inner workings of a device. I think carressability is more of a outer shell or body feature. Simple design, simple look - that's captures peoples eye. IMHO

Beauty shouldn't be skin deep. :lol:.

People that shallow, wouldn't buy a phone smarter than they were :wink:

Mike Temporale
02-01-2006, 02:11 PM
No, I'm not saying we're off topic. I just think carressability is a physical thing and not related to the internal software workings of a device. ;)