We're building a neuromodulation sleep headband, and we've always had the aim of getting to the point where the user puts it on, it does it's thing (slow-wave enhancement) the person takes it off in the morning and goes about their day.
I don't even want to put IO into the device at all. Not only because it increases cost and size, but because I don't what the user having to interact. We have to find better ways to fit the device in your life, so you don't even think about it.
I'm a little worried, in your example, that there might be some configuration required that could be frustrating without a way to do it on the device.
For example, I helped someone transfer their stuff from their old iPhone to their new one a few years ago. The way you're supposed to do it is touch your old iPhone to the new one and it'll just work. Needless to say, it didn't. I think it was about an hour of rebooting the old and new ones before it finally caught. Since there weren't any logs or settings to change or any way at all to influence the process it was more frustrating than magic.
Now, it's possible your product really is as simple as turning it on and it'll just work, in the same way a lamp is "turn on and it works", but if there's any configuration at all that the device does, please expose it to the users. Human brains are incredible at finding patterns, generally better than computers, and if there's a mismatch between the human's model of how something works and the device's model, it's best to allow the human to change the device's model
Maybe this depends on the person, but I find a device with some buttons to configure it infinitely easier and less frustrating than an app.
An app to my brain screams "depends on your phone and will be outdated at some point; requires picking and unlocking your phone to use it; will have updates that change/ruin it at some point".
I just want to feel a button and press it, especially for things supposed to be used in the dark while sleeping.
I think there is the difference of calm in everyday use and initial set-up, maintenance, etc is...less calm.
There are functions managed in the app but we aim for those to be rarely interacted with. All the interactions that you have with the device should be as simple as your wireless earbuds, maybe even easier.
There is a ton of snake oil in the industry, and I see so many people building similar products, that take the language of the research papers, and apply it to absolute nonsense.
There is over a decade of research in slow-wave enhancement, Philips funds a lot of research in this space, and even had a slow-wave enhancement device out in 2018/2019.
I'm not sure if what you are asking is "are we snake oil", or "do I get people asking". But in general, I hear so many people talk about grounding mats (no scientific evidence), EMF, neuromodulation to put you to sleep instantly, and so much other garbage, that I wish people would question things more.
I wish people knew how to read a basic research paper and decide if it even says what the company is claiming. I'm amazed that a company can put up a page that says "science", with a picture of a person in a lab coat, and people go "ok, must be true".
We're on a long view of this, and while VCs are dumping tens of millions into snake oil "neuromodulation" companies, we're taking a slower approach and playing the long-term game.
I was working on a similar IO problem with wearables a while ago (though by the sounds of things, far less seriously than you are), and I had the idea that maybe that band/strap could function as an on-off switch, so when you undo the band (which you do when taking it off), it turns the device off, and vice versa. Could be something you could try too
This is a fun material you could use to detect if a band was stretched or not, silver coated elastic [0], near 0 ohm resistance when loose, resistance increases when stretched. I built a voltage divider with a patch of it when I was experimenting with fabric input devices, mostly just noise makers, but you can see how responsive it is [1]
I'm putting capactive sensors in my wearables to turn them on when in contact with a human.
I strongly believe that the class of widget I'm building should stay firmly out of the user's way. The point is to forget it's there. So, as simple IO as possible.
Polar H10 basically works like that. It's great until you are suddenly unable to connect to it via bluetooth, and have to blindly debug the reason. Is the device even on? Battery low? Broken? App issues? Who the fuck knows.
We've taken a similar approach, I won't divulge exactly what we've done yet, but our goal was to not have a button that would have to be placed somewhere that it wasn't going to get pressed in the middle of the night, would have to be large enough to be usable, adding thickness to the headband at some point.
How does your headband work? I did some searching and it looks like there are 2 main technologies:
1. tES, transcranial electric stimulation, used by the Somnee sleep band.
2. acoustic stimulation (sound waves), used by the Elemind sleep band, which uses EEG sensors to determine the exact sound waves to apply.
I admit I was quite skeptical, but a brief look showed that both bands have a decent amount of clinical data backing them up, although funded by the companies (unsurprising at this point, but would be good to get some independent studies on their efficacy).
Curious if anyone has tried any of these bands and what they thought.
Our headband uses auditory (acoustic) simulation. But we are VERY different from elemind.
If you look at the research behind elemind, it is clear they designed a study to show a positive result. Somnee, less so, but it is only a single paper.
It's interesting to me you used "sound waves" to describe acoustic stimulation, which is exactly NOT what we are doing, or how auditory stimulation work (in our case).
A "slow wave" aka delta waves is the measure of the synchronous firing of neurons which is the hallmark of deep sleep and the foundation of health. It is the activity of the brain pumping the glymphatic system, which is clearing metabolic waste, and is linked to immune function, hormone response, parasympathetic response, and more.
Our EEG headband is detecting these slow-waves (the firing of neurons), and when we detect this brain activity, at a precise point in this synchronous firing, we interrupt the brain, with a brief pulse of sound. In response to this interruption, the brain goes "hey, this is vital to my health, don't mess with me right now", and increases the synchronous firing of neurons, both in that slow wave, as well as following up with another slow-wave after, sometimes 2, even 3, rarely 4 (but it is person dependent).
A slow-wave only lasts for 0.8-1.2 seconds, so this timing is very precise, and we can see the change in brain activity immediately. We stimulate in a 5 on/ 5 off protocol, so we can see the change in brain activity within seconds. We are not comparing different nights, as we know sleep is different across nights. The response is very consistent.
If you read the research from elemind and somnee, they sound very similar, with a huge red flag. They both say "we stimulate near the peak of an alpha wave, and then you fall asleep". There is no measure of a change in the brain activity. Just alpha wave, stimulation, sleep.
I found the Somnee headband unbearably uncomfortable, and it didn't do anything for me.
You mention acoustic stimulation as "sound waves" and that's where I wanted to clarify the whole "listen to a 120hz sound and it will improve XYZ".
As far as I am aware, all of this sound waves stuff and interacting with brain waves at certain frequencies is nonsense. A brain wave is a human construct for how we visualize the electrical activity of the brain, just like an EKG is a visualization of electrical activity of the heart.
You'd never say "we're interacting with your heart wave at this frequency", right?
I have many bug-bears with the industry as a whole, and it is a bit terrifying to me that I'm working in this space surrounded by so much nonsense.
We don't fund studies. The scientific principles of what we are doing has been known for about 10 years now. But it is difficult to do, and Philips have a TON of patents around this space - they fund a lot of the research.
However, we support researchers who are already looking into this space because we have the best technology (well, waiting to be proven but we have advanced beyond the protocols of Philips and Dreem).
I hope that helps understand where we're at, and maybe how we differ. I'm happy to answer any more questions.
I've answered a bunch of questions in this thread about the tech. I'll be doing a bunch of blog posts about our unique take on the sleep space, and where our tech fits in as we lead up to pre-sales.
There are a bunch of research papers on our website, as well as some very basic descriptions of how it works. https://affectablesleep.com
I love tech like this. You put it on and it just does its thing. My HR monitor is like that, although if the receiving device doesn't immediately pair, it can be frustrating figuring out what's gone wrong.
This was one of my biggest concerns as all over the wearable space you see comments about "I couldn't get my device to connect".
We haven't had too many issues with BLE, but I think the UI of the mobile app needs to clearly communicate the connection state, and not just "connected/disconnected" but more of "last connection, the device will ping in x seconds" so the person knows the device will be looking for the phone.
We have a few tricks up our sleeve, as we're like Santa (we know when you are sleeping, we know when you're awake), and seeing as the headband is only used for sleeping, we can have an open connection when you are awake, and then go into low power mode when we detect you've closed your eyes, and then we can ping on a more reasonable schedule.
> Access Thousands of Articles — Completely Free
> Create an account and get exclusive content and features: Save articles, download collections, and talk to tech insiders — all free! For full access and benefits, join IEEE as a paying member.
Out of the four categories they show only one needs consent: targeted ads, the others can be fully anonymous. The "essential cookies" can't be disabled, the "analytics" can be fully anonymous, the "personalisation" can be fully anonymous.
People say that but it's not really true. If they just have 1P cookies for basic functionality (login), then I believe there can be a discreet notice at the bottom informing the user of that fact. Groups like IEEE should be the ones pioneering those patterns.
If they didn't have ads that track me, then they would have no need to ask my permission to use cookies that track me.
There is no requirement so seek permission for other cookies needed to run the website. Quite why some readers of a technical news site (!) are still confused about this is bizzare.
In short, blame the scummy adtech industry. Not the legislation that gives us our privacy.
Amber Case's book on Calm Technology and design was a great read. Perhaps as a consequence of having studied Cognitive Science, I find this one to be the best book I’ve read on feature design — and not just for software.
It's full of easily digestible insights on attention and context, with excellent examples and clear explanations. It’s almost philosophical in its apparent simplicity.
My list of calm (+), somewhat calm (o), and non-calm (-) pieces of technology that I have owned:
+ kindle from 2010
- laptop
- phone
- Ipad (but it's still much calmer than my computer or my phone)
+ Harmonica (musical instrument)
o Amplifier (I use it with my harmonica through a mic)
- Linnstrument (musical instrument that requires computer or ipad connection)
+ Pencil and paper
+ Paper books
o Handwritten notes on Ipad
- Notes in obsidian
o Nintendo Switch
+ Paper dictionary (for language learning)
- Dictionary + Claude AI on my phone
Very interesting initiative. I think examining products on that level is very important.
What I think is also important though are tools which can embrace this and work with existing technology. The modern smartphone is simultaneously a great tool and an enormous distraction. There exist no device which offers the tools I genuinely need without all of the distractions.
Agreed, had a bunch of talks about this issue with the wife.
On one hand, we're both distractible people, and it'd probably be better if we could leave our phones behind on certain family outings and trips.
But on the other hand, there's definitely times where you really need your phone on said outings: for directions, for business info, to call people, to book things, etc. It's just hard to get the necessities without bringing along everything else.
I wasn't able to find a full list of all Calm Tech certified devices, but it looks like the union of these two URLs lists most of what they have certified:
I own that timer, or an Aliexpress knockoff there-of. It is great and helps my kids with their homework.
The daylight computer looked interesting too; but its website undermines the message it seems to give. I wanted a price and to order and could do neither, but there were long paragraphs about how revolutionary it was, with left to right and up-to-down transitions.
- AirThing View Plus: "This is placeholder text. To change this content, double-click on the element and click Change Content." Supposedly this has seven sensors, but only displays two values. How does that work? The values are displayed as numbers, too. A bar chart with green, yellow, and red sections would "calmer"
- Daylight Computer - Placeholder text again. No specs. What does it actually do? Writing only? Web browsing? Dark grey on off-white text, which looks like low-end E-Ink.
- Time Timer - looks fine, although everybody else's timers count down counterclockwise. How much does it cost? If it's $10, great If it's $100, come on.
- Unplug - if you need that, you have other problems.
This is disappointing. It's like the junk that used to be advertised in the magazines that were provided in airline seat backs. These are all non-problems or easy hits. They need something more useful, such as a more usable TV remote or home control unit or car infotainment system. Those all run from bad to worse.
I've run into "simple interface" people a few times. One was a guy who was plugging his book about how clever their design for a seat-back entertainment system was. He had a model of four typical users and how they'd use it to pick from a rather short list of alternatives.
I'd already read the book. I said, why not just have a channel selector knob? Then it comes out that the thing had a payment interface for pay per view. That wasn't mentioned when they were explaining how simple it was.
A few years ago, there was someone who wanted to build a GUI for some common Linux tool to promote their design shop. I suggested tackling Git, which really needs a GUI. That was too hard.
This goes way back. In the 1930s, there was a thing for radios with One Knob. Here's a 1950s TV ad for that.[1] There was a long period during which radios and TVs had a large number of knobs to be adjusted to get decent results. That was finally overcome.
My favorite simple interface is General Railway Signal's NX system.[1] This is the first "intelligent user interface", from 1936. What makes it "intelligent" is that, when a train is entering the interlocking, the dispatcher selects the incoming track, and then all the possible exit points light up. They pick the desired exit and push its button. The system then sets up the route, setting the signals and switches. Conflicts with other routes are detected, so this is safe. If there are alternate routes, NX can route around other trains. The previous technology was that the dispatcher had to figure out which switches and signals to set themselves. There was interlocking to prevent hazardous setups, but the lever machines couldn't plan a route.
This kind of UX design is really important and usually botched.
> This goes way back. In the 1930s, there was a thing for radios with One Knob. Here's a 1950s TV ad for that.[1] There was a long period during which radios and TVs had a large number of knobs to be adjusted to get decent results. That was finally overcome.
As I'm not sure if you're arguing for or against... I am generally pro digital for radios and TVs, and automatic seek is nice - but I've had it in (analog) car radios that the .05 or whatever resolution wasn't good enough, so a good old potentiometer knob helps.
But ever since I'm not sure if the best UX design exists. People have different problems to solve, and apparently "my favourite radio station has a weak signal" is one of them. Never had this problem with TVs auto-scanning for stations.
I can't stop thinking that we're circling back to how "tech" was before when it was limited because it fits our needs better. Slower, some complexity, less possibilities at every time.
Yes I think the smartphone is an instance of "Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should.", when tech had higher constraints there was more thought put into determining what was essential.
When I want to put on headphones to do chores around the house I pick up my 2006-era iPod. No wireless pairing to screw with, no distracting notifications, just a library of music I've already listened to a hundred times so I can just think, which of these albums am I in the mood for, and choose. The interface is simple to navigate because there's just not much to navigate, and IMO that goes a long way to have a predictable experience that never introduces frustration.
The irony is that, the iphone era was somehow everything I wanted to see. But indeed this unified (incredible) device, ends up being a sink in itself that sucks so much of your thoughts to provide very few on average (there's some fun stuff given by having a pocket computer to be fair).
Apple naysayers have been bitching at them for decades and decades about how simplistic their apps are and how they need to wake up and join the real world by adding features K-Z to their apps in ordered to be considered a real product.
Meanwhile Apple has had to wipe away their tears at such harsh treatment with their gigantic piles of cash.
To this day I don’t understand why we have half a dozen automakers creating sleek vehicles that take care of things automagically but in computers it’s just Apple. Where’s the Audi and Lexus of computers?
Readit News
Calm Technology - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29115653 - Nov 2021 (68 comments)
Calm Technology - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21799736 - Dec 2019 (155 comments)
Principles of Calm Technology - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12389344 - Aug 2016 (66 comments)
Calm Technology - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9107526 - Feb 2015 (1 comment)
Calm Tech, Then and Now - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8475764 - Oct 2014 (1 comment)
Designing Calm Technology (1995) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7976258 - July 2014 (2 comments)
I don't even want to put IO into the device at all. Not only because it increases cost and size, but because I don't what the user having to interact. We have to find better ways to fit the device in your life, so you don't even think about it.
For example, I helped someone transfer their stuff from their old iPhone to their new one a few years ago. The way you're supposed to do it is touch your old iPhone to the new one and it'll just work. Needless to say, it didn't. I think it was about an hour of rebooting the old and new ones before it finally caught. Since there weren't any logs or settings to change or any way at all to influence the process it was more frustrating than magic.
Now, it's possible your product really is as simple as turning it on and it'll just work, in the same way a lamp is "turn on and it works", but if there's any configuration at all that the device does, please expose it to the users. Human brains are incredible at finding patterns, generally better than computers, and if there's a mismatch between the human's model of how something works and the device's model, it's best to allow the human to change the device's model
An app to my brain screams "depends on your phone and will be outdated at some point; requires picking and unlocking your phone to use it; will have updates that change/ruin it at some point".
I just want to feel a button and press it, especially for things supposed to be used in the dark while sleeping.
Deleted Comment
There are functions managed in the app but we aim for those to be rarely interacted with. All the interactions that you have with the device should be as simple as your wireless earbuds, maybe even easier.
There is a ton of snake oil in the industry, and I see so many people building similar products, that take the language of the research papers, and apply it to absolute nonsense.
There is over a decade of research in slow-wave enhancement, Philips funds a lot of research in this space, and even had a slow-wave enhancement device out in 2018/2019.
I'm not sure if what you are asking is "are we snake oil", or "do I get people asking". But in general, I hear so many people talk about grounding mats (no scientific evidence), EMF, neuromodulation to put you to sleep instantly, and so much other garbage, that I wish people would question things more.
I wish people knew how to read a basic research paper and decide if it even says what the company is claiming. I'm amazed that a company can put up a page that says "science", with a picture of a person in a lab coat, and people go "ok, must be true".
We're on a long view of this, and while VCs are dumping tens of millions into snake oil "neuromodulation" companies, we're taking a slower approach and playing the long-term game.
I'm keen to hear your thoughts.
Dead Comment
[0] https://lessemf.com/product/stretch-conductive-fabric/
[1] https://youtu.be/Xjo4w4OiBS8
I strongly believe that the class of widget I'm building should stay firmly out of the user's way. The point is to forget it's there. So, as simple IO as possible.
1. tES, transcranial electric stimulation, used by the Somnee sleep band.
2. acoustic stimulation (sound waves), used by the Elemind sleep band, which uses EEG sensors to determine the exact sound waves to apply.
I admit I was quite skeptical, but a brief look showed that both bands have a decent amount of clinical data backing them up, although funded by the companies (unsurprising at this point, but would be good to get some independent studies on their efficacy).
Curious if anyone has tried any of these bands and what they thought.
If you look at the research behind elemind, it is clear they designed a study to show a positive result. Somnee, less so, but it is only a single paper.
It's interesting to me you used "sound waves" to describe acoustic stimulation, which is exactly NOT what we are doing, or how auditory stimulation work (in our case).
A "slow wave" aka delta waves is the measure of the synchronous firing of neurons which is the hallmark of deep sleep and the foundation of health. It is the activity of the brain pumping the glymphatic system, which is clearing metabolic waste, and is linked to immune function, hormone response, parasympathetic response, and more.
Our EEG headband is detecting these slow-waves (the firing of neurons), and when we detect this brain activity, at a precise point in this synchronous firing, we interrupt the brain, with a brief pulse of sound. In response to this interruption, the brain goes "hey, this is vital to my health, don't mess with me right now", and increases the synchronous firing of neurons, both in that slow wave, as well as following up with another slow-wave after, sometimes 2, even 3, rarely 4 (but it is person dependent).
A slow-wave only lasts for 0.8-1.2 seconds, so this timing is very precise, and we can see the change in brain activity immediately. We stimulate in a 5 on/ 5 off protocol, so we can see the change in brain activity within seconds. We are not comparing different nights, as we know sleep is different across nights. The response is very consistent.
If you read the research from elemind and somnee, they sound very similar, with a huge red flag. They both say "we stimulate near the peak of an alpha wave, and then you fall asleep". There is no measure of a change in the brain activity. Just alpha wave, stimulation, sleep.
I can go on and on about all the red flags, but you can read about elemind here - https://neurotechnology.substack.com/p/avoiding-neurotechs-t...
I found the Somnee headband unbearably uncomfortable, and it didn't do anything for me.
You mention acoustic stimulation as "sound waves" and that's where I wanted to clarify the whole "listen to a 120hz sound and it will improve XYZ".
As far as I am aware, all of this sound waves stuff and interacting with brain waves at certain frequencies is nonsense. A brain wave is a human construct for how we visualize the electrical activity of the brain, just like an EKG is a visualization of electrical activity of the heart.
You'd never say "we're interacting with your heart wave at this frequency", right?
I have many bug-bears with the industry as a whole, and it is a bit terrifying to me that I'm working in this space surrounded by so much nonsense.
We don't fund studies. The scientific principles of what we are doing has been known for about 10 years now. But it is difficult to do, and Philips have a TON of patents around this space - they fund a lot of the research.
However, we support researchers who are already looking into this space because we have the best technology (well, waiting to be proven but we have advanced beyond the protocols of Philips and Dreem).
I hope that helps understand where we're at, and maybe how we differ. I'm happy to answer any more questions.
There are a bunch of research papers on our website, as well as some very basic descriptions of how it works. https://affectablesleep.com
We haven't had too many issues with BLE, but I think the UI of the mobile app needs to clearly communicate the connection state, and not just "connected/disconnected" but more of "last connection, the device will ping in x seconds" so the person knows the device will be looking for the phone.
We have a few tricks up our sleeve, as we're like Santa (we know when you are sleeping, we know when you're awake), and seeing as the headband is only used for sleeping, we can have an open connection when you are awake, and then go into low power mode when we detect you've closed your eyes, and then we can ping on a more reasonable schedule.
If they didn't have ads that track me, then they would have no need to ask my permission to use cookies that track me.
There is no requirement so seek permission for other cookies needed to run the website. Quite why some readers of a technical news site (!) are still confused about this is bizzare.
In short, blame the scummy adtech industry. Not the legislation that gives us our privacy.
It's full of easily digestible insights on attention and context, with excellent examples and clear explanations. It’s almost philosophical in its apparent simplicity.
+ kindle from 2010 - laptop - phone - Ipad (but it's still much calmer than my computer or my phone) + Harmonica (musical instrument) o Amplifier (I use it with my harmonica through a mic) - Linnstrument (musical instrument that requires computer or ipad connection) + Pencil and paper + Paper books o Handwritten notes on Ipad - Notes in obsidian o Nintendo Switch + Paper dictionary (for language learning) - Dictionary + Claude AI on my phone
What I think is also important though are tools which can embrace this and work with existing technology. The modern smartphone is simultaneously a great tool and an enormous distraction. There exist no device which offers the tools I genuinely need without all of the distractions.
On one hand, we're both distractible people, and it'd probably be better if we could leave our phones behind on certain family outings and trips.
But on the other hand, there's definitely times where you really need your phone on said outings: for directions, for business info, to call people, to book things, etc. It's just hard to get the necessities without bringing along everything else.
https://www.calmtech.institute/calm-tech-certification
https://www.calmtech.institute/blog/tags/calm-tech-certified
The daylight computer looked interesting too; but its website undermines the message it seems to give. I wanted a price and to order and could do neither, but there were long paragraphs about how revolutionary it was, with left to right and up-to-down transitions.
- AirThing View Plus: "This is placeholder text. To change this content, double-click on the element and click Change Content." Supposedly this has seven sensors, but only displays two values. How does that work? The values are displayed as numbers, too. A bar chart with green, yellow, and red sections would "calmer"
- Daylight Computer - Placeholder text again. No specs. What does it actually do? Writing only? Web browsing? Dark grey on off-white text, which looks like low-end E-Ink.
- Time Timer - looks fine, although everybody else's timers count down counterclockwise. How much does it cost? If it's $10, great If it's $100, come on.
- Unplug - if you need that, you have other problems.
This is disappointing. It's like the junk that used to be advertised in the magazines that were provided in airline seat backs. These are all non-problems or easy hits. They need something more useful, such as a more usable TV remote or home control unit or car infotainment system. Those all run from bad to worse.
I've run into "simple interface" people a few times. One was a guy who was plugging his book about how clever their design for a seat-back entertainment system was. He had a model of four typical users and how they'd use it to pick from a rather short list of alternatives. I'd already read the book. I said, why not just have a channel selector knob? Then it comes out that the thing had a payment interface for pay per view. That wasn't mentioned when they were explaining how simple it was.
A few years ago, there was someone who wanted to build a GUI for some common Linux tool to promote their design shop. I suggested tackling Git, which really needs a GUI. That was too hard.
This goes way back. In the 1930s, there was a thing for radios with One Knob. Here's a 1950s TV ad for that.[1] There was a long period during which radios and TVs had a large number of knobs to be adjusted to get decent results. That was finally overcome.
My favorite simple interface is General Railway Signal's NX system.[1] This is the first "intelligent user interface", from 1936. What makes it "intelligent" is that, when a train is entering the interlocking, the dispatcher selects the incoming track, and then all the possible exit points light up. They pick the desired exit and push its button. The system then sets up the route, setting the signals and switches. Conflicts with other routes are detected, so this is safe. If there are alternate routes, NX can route around other trains. The previous technology was that the dispatcher had to figure out which switches and signals to set themselves. There was interlocking to prevent hazardous setups, but the lever machines couldn't plan a route.
This kind of UX design is really important and usually botched.
[1] https://anyflip.com/lbes/vczg
As I'm not sure if you're arguing for or against... I am generally pro digital for radios and TVs, and automatic seek is nice - but I've had it in (analog) car radios that the .05 or whatever resolution wasn't good enough, so a good old potentiometer knob helps.
But ever since I'm not sure if the best UX design exists. People have different problems to solve, and apparently "my favourite radio station has a weak signal" is one of them. Never had this problem with TVs auto-scanning for stations.
When I want to put on headphones to do chores around the house I pick up my 2006-era iPod. No wireless pairing to screw with, no distracting notifications, just a library of music I've already listened to a hundred times so I can just think, which of these albums am I in the mood for, and choose. The interface is simple to navigate because there's just not much to navigate, and IMO that goes a long way to have a predictable experience that never introduces frustration.
The problem comes when they are both a tool and an entertainment device, as they are inseparably linked together.
Meanwhile Apple has had to wipe away their tears at such harsh treatment with their gigantic piles of cash.
To this day I don’t understand why we have half a dozen automakers creating sleek vehicles that take care of things automagically but in computers it’s just Apple. Where’s the Audi and Lexus of computers?