TALKING TECH

Economic realities may mean less innovative and beautiful products. And that’s fine!

After the release of cheaper iPhones and Pixels, Duncan Bell ponders whether premium pricing’s had its day

his month something quite significant happened in the world of tech. It wasn’t a big leap forward. In fact, it was a step backwards, as both Google and, to a lesser extent, Apple released brand new, flagship phones that were less expensive and less desirable than their predecessors.

Admittedly, Apple persisted with the Pro line of iPhones at eyewatering prices, but there was also the iPhone 12 mini. This is a literally scaled down version of the iPhone 12 that costs as little as £699.

Google, meanwhile, focused even more explicitly on keeping the price down and doing the basics well with its latest Pixel phone. This phone does not have whizz-bang specs or jaw-dropping features, but it seems highly competent.

Now, I don’t want to overstate this as some kind of return to techno-primitivism. For a start, the iPhone 12 Pro features LiDAR, as used on self-driving cars, and costs a small fortune. However I would welcome a move towards more affordable gadgets, on the whole. And not just because of the rather harsh economic realities we are all likely to face in the next few years/ decades/eternity.

The recent boom years for tech have seen a move towards innovation for the sake of innovation that I think is starting to wear a bit thin. As you’ve probably guessed, this feeling has been driven by something going wrong for me this month. There’s nothing like a bit of equipment failure to make me reach for my keyboard and start typing in anger.

So, a few years ago, Apple introduced fingerprint unlocking for its phones and other products.

TAfter some teething problems I found this worked very well. But then

Apple decided that a machine that could recognise your fingerprints was not secure enough or clever enough. So it brought in facial unlocking.

Now clearly, a phone that can be unlocked with your face is much cleverer than one that uses boring old fingerprints. However, it also works less consistently and is certainly not well suited to a world where we’re all supposed to cover our faces in shops,

In my particular case, facial unlocking has stopped working entirely. That’s due to my phone getting very wet during a bracing walk through horizontal rain, in the Welsh hills – we were supposed to be going to Gran Canaria but shit happens. The front camera still works but, like an elderly relative, my phone no longer recognises me.

I suppose it’s possible that a fingerprint reader would also have failed due to the Welsh weather, but I still find myself cursing Apple for using such a complicated security measure; one that relies on a high-precision array of cameras and sensors, all waiting to go wrong just because they get a bit moist.

Similarly this month, I used a toothbrush that cost £600. How do you make a toothbrush cost that much? By packing it with superfluous features, of course. This one attempts to scan your teeth as you brush, so it can be sure you have brushed everywhere.

The only issue with this is that the technology doesn’t really work – you get real-time feedback on your progress via an app, and half the time it will show that you are brushing your right molars, when in fact you are on your left incisors, or scratching your ear with the tip of the brush. Oh and there’s also a touchscreen on the brush itself. That, of course, you cannot see when the brush is in your gob.

Now don’t get me wrong; there’s absolutely nothing wrong with the actual cleaning-your-teeth element of this brush. My problem with it is that they seem to have started with the question, ‘How can we justify charging £600 for a brush?’ and worked backwards from there.

That’s an approach that’s become commonplace in tech, and it would be good to see a move away from it. More brands should consider a back to basics approach that puts value for money and functionality over pure ‘innovation’ for the sake of it.

“I used a toothbrush that cost £600. How do you make a toothbrush cost that much?”