Are We Too Forgiving Of Technology?

August 20th, 2009

Weekend conversation with my parents in town (who are dealing with the logic board failure of an iMac that was only about four years old), then reading this article about the Xbox 360 failure rate (nearly 50%!) spurned this thought: the more tech-saavy one is, the more forgiving of technology’s failings.

For example, a hard drive failure. I’ve come to expect that this will inevitably happen at about three or four years. To compensate we come up back up strategies and have flipped it around to blame users (the onus is on you to back up your stuff).

But why is the blame not turned back onto the hard drive manufacturers? Why can’t they just make a product that lasts longer?

It’s not just hardware. Aged relatives ask why viruses exist, and I find myself oddly making excuses about the conflicted mix of software, hardware, the Internet, and malicious people, eventually boiling down to “that’s just the way it is.”

There’s a humorous comparison of an automobile to a computer. Noone would put up with a car that took a minute to start up, hardware and software made by different companies often in conflict with each other, a car that got infected by malicious people so it wouldn’t work properly, or an engine that just fell apart after a few years.

I can hear the tech saavy, early adopters out there saying, “Well, computers are just more complicated than cars.”

That sort of thinking is exactly what I’m talking about.

The tech-saavy, early adopter crowd tends to make excuses for technology, as if it can do no wrong, or that its failings should be tolerated just because it’s new and cutting edge. Startups in particular are cut a serious amount of slack. But we then get into situations like the “perpetual beta” where new features are continually piled on while basic functionality still remains less than ideal.

I notice that when software is non-intuitive, the tech saavy will say things like “RTFM” or “you have to think like a computer.” As if this is an easy task for the average person who can’t program a VCR.

I’ve had to explain software to my father in law repeatedly, and at the end of each session, I say some variation on: “In order to really understand how this program works, you should spend a few hours exploring the different options, playing with it, and really get familiar with what it can do.”

To which the answer is always, some variation of: “I didn’t retire so I could spend hours staring at a screen.”

Frankly, I don’t blame him. For the tech-saavy, checking out a new program, learning how it works, and even troubleshooting bugs can be fun. But this isn’t fun for the vast majority — it’s a huge pain in the ass.

Instead of getting computers to behave more like humans, we’re increasingly asked to become more like computers to make up the difference. Why do people have to do the adapting? Who’s in charge, here?

I’m not entirely sure of the psychology behind this, but surely it hurts both the businesses (who would surely benefit from a better product) and users (who put up with less than ideal products).

Ultimately I think we consumers aren’t hard enough on technology in general. Maybe if we start expecting more, we’ll get more in return.