Tuesday 12 February 2008

What does "better" mean?

Ways things can be better than others:

Cheaper
Faster
More convenient
More reliable
More efficient
More secure
Tougher
Longer lasting
More attractive
More effective
Simpler
Easier to use
More fun
Cleaner
Safer
More interesting
More portable
More entertaining
Louder
Quieter
Softer
Harder
More crisp
Sharper
Fresher
Tastier
Brighter

And that's not all. Very rarely is something "better in every way" than its predecessor, despite our desires or the advertising. Even if it is better in many ways, it might be worse in some way that counts for more.

Mokalus of Borg

PS - Windows Vista is one case in point.
PPS - Much shinier, but more frustrating.

4 comments:

Erin Marie said...

Where did the idea for this post come from? What were you thinking about?

John said...

I think I was just wondering about how we're conditioned to believe that new things are better than old things, but so many old things (cars, appliances etc) were built to a higher quality (and thus were longer lasting) than our new things. So if the new things have more bells and whistles than the old things, but don't last as long, are they really better?

If all new things were better than old ones, there wouldn't be an antiques industry. There are even people who seek out and use older versions of software because they suit their needs better than the newest versions.

Someone is feeding us a lie about progress, and I think we've just about completely bought into it.

Erin Marie said...

Kind of like old blogger and new blogger?

What annoys me is the lack of choice that is presented with new technology. So often the old version is what we're used to and is all that we need, and the new version adds only things that are more annoying, but there's no choice but to accept the new, because using the old becomes obsolete quickly.

Don't know if that's exactly what I wanted to say, but my brain isn't awake yet. And I'm not wearing my glasses.

Yes, I'll blame the glasses.

John said...

The Blogger example isn't relevant for me personally, since I appreciate two of the new features - modular layouts and tagging - but that's a good point. Quite often our software or hardware is not broken, but people are hard at work fixing it anyway, and when it's done, the old stuff is discarded so you have no choice.

Blu-ray vs HD-DVD is a lot like this for many people, particularly those who don't have high definition plasma TVs. DVDs look good on old analogue sets, but in a few years you won't be able to buy new movies on DVD any more. You'll need a new player for new discs and so far new players are slower than DVD players, but prettier. That's not progress. It's compromise.