All the latest UK technology news, reviews and analysis
|
|
|
06 Dec 2008
The point of technological advancement is to make life easier, faster and more efficient. New features are supposed to streamline old tasks, and automate tedious routines. But this is not always the case.
Sometimes a new technology makes things more complex, more frustratingly difficult to use and more time consuming. Be it poor design, an unnecessary extra step, or simply a well-intentioned but poorly-placed bell and whistle, new technologies sometimes do nothing more than irritate the hell out of everyone.
This week, we look at a few of those pet peeves of the technology world. Not surprisingly, this list was difficult to whittle down to 10, so there are a couple of honourable mentions at the end.
As always, we invite users to share their thoughts with us, and add some of their own electronic annoyances.
Latest stories from Software
Related articles
Related jobs
Poll
What is the most important IT priority for your company this year?
Connect with V3.co.uk
This paper focuses on a series of best practices and techniques for development teams looking to improve their software development processes
Why good data management at all levels is essential in the modern business (video, 6mins)
Field/Site Engineering Manager/Leader Brief: Polar...
Product Manager, Open Repository (ref:BMC/PMR) End...
Java/J2EE Software Developer/Programmer - Dotcom/ eCommerce...
Field/Site Engineering Manager/Leader Brief: Polar...
Keep up to date with the latest products, services and technologies from the world's leading IT companies. IThound.com brings you over 2,000 white papers, case studies and analyst reports.
Do you agree?
For an annoyance, how about companies that try to over "vendor-lock" their software offerings and monopolize the industry?
In this day and age people are becoming aware that any technology is not a good and viable technology unless it allows for a wide range of vendors to take part in it. Humans are meant to be enabled by technology, not restricted or limited by it. Here are some examples of how putting restrictions on technology(for business or proprietairy purposes) will bite those who practice this type of evil in the end: 1.) RAMBUS RAM vs. SDRAM, RAMBUS was a very costly and "closed" technology that tried to corner the market of RAM chips by not opening up to widespread manufacturing. On the other hand, SDRAM opened up to anyone that could manufacture it, which made it cheaper to purchase. SDRAM has beat out RAMBUS RAM(thank goodness) largely because of the openness of it. 2.) Google vs. ANY OTHER search engine on the planet. While other search engines were trying to bog us down with a cluttered GUI interface, system-resource-eating application-add-ons, irrelevant search results, and slow response times, Google took the industry by storm with its GNU/Linux servers that leverage the KISS rule to the nth degree. Google's primary directives include the most important of any type of computerized technology: lightning fast response time, little or no restrictions on platform or OS used to access, cutting edge relevant results, and all for ZERO cost to the user of the product. Google has embraced the GNU/Linux idea like no other company has, and is highly profitable for it. 3.) MSFT's "closed for profit" Operating System and "vendor-locking" software and server products practices vs. the freedom and versatility of the Internet and the GNU/Linux operating system. MSFT is iconic for getting the consumer computing world up and running and personal computers. Mr. Gates and the like have done a phenomenal job as businessmen and have truly maximized their return on the niche of profiting from end-user computerized technology. With that being said, unfortunately MSFT has since vehemently set out on a path of using an "iron fist" in trying to retain its monopoly over the Operating System by using its software/server product branches to "force" users to have the windows operating system in order to use MSFT technologies. This is killling the giant upon which we ride the shoulders of. Like the Rockefeller that was building gas stations across the street from Mom&Pop, only to put them out of business and expand the monopoly, MSFT slashes and burns any competitors in its path to ultimate profit, all the while creating its own "tweaked-to-make-proprietairy" versions of widely used standards that don't work with other vendor's softwares. While this may have been an effective business model for recent history, the days of this type of "restriction"(and utter destruction really) to the innovativeness, of technology are numbered. As the old saying goes, "You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time." On the other hand, the Internet and GNU/Linux have the simple, yet paramount prime directives of adherence to widely accepted, and open standards. Because of their openness and direct ties to open and freely available standards, GNU/Linux and the Internet continue to advance computerized technology for humans everywhere. People everywhere are for surely realizing the value of technology that works together with other technology, regardless of vendor. Shannon VanWagner http://healthysystem.blogspot.com
Posted by: Shannon VanWagner 12 Dec 2008
Top 10 annoying technologies
Things that make me go aaaargh....internet "writers" that whine about easy to remedy issues. Like, the iphone auto correction feature. Don't like it? TURN IT OFF. Honestly, get real.
Posted by: rdavis 10 Dec 2008
DRM
What about DRM. It does nothing (more likely bad) good for customers, while pirates gladly bypass it, and get a better product.
Posted by: Henrik 10 Dec 2008
No anti-Apple bias here
Thanks for your comment Matt but there's no anti-Apple bias over here. Shaun is something of an Apple enthusiast, as you can see from his blog - http://www.macinspector.com/ We like to think we're even handed, indeed Microsoft also came in for a hammering in comparison to Apple. Cralton Rur: The top ten lists generally run to about 2-3,000 words so we spread them out into easily digestible chunks. Tom: It would be difficult just to put Microsoft as an annoyance - much as it pains me to say it their programmers have done some good stuff.
Posted by: Iain Thomson 10 Dec 2008
Ironic
That Apple, which is used by nobody except the magazine publishers who sponsor these blogs and beardies are so high. The other choices are ancient history. Got something to say have we chaps
Posted by: cjw 10 Dec 2008
Ironic
That Apple, which is used by nobody except the magazine publishers who sponsor these blogs and beardies are so high. The other choices are ancient history. Got something to say have we chaps
Posted by: cjw 10 Dec 2008
...and one you forgot
When internet writers spread a thin article over 3, 4, 5 or even 6 pages, just to enhance the website hits.
Posted by: Cralton Rur 09 Dec 2008
top 10 annoying technologies
For a topic with such great potential, this article was truly dull, unimaginative, and well....ANNOYING.
Posted by: j gregory 09 Dec 2008
Biased against Apple?
Is it me or are these writers heavily biased against apple? Surely there are many more annoying technologies then want they have mentioned here? In fact many of these technologies are extremely useful. It sounds as if they simply have a gripe and not really being fair in their assessments.
Posted by: Matt 09 Dec 2008
YOu forgot to add...
Speed cameras to this list - no 1 irritating technology
Posted by: Mike 09 Dec 2008
Top 10 annoying technologies
This writer's are a joke, they obviously never lived in the real world. Biggest annoying technology is relying on someone else to use the technology. I would place Microsoft as the No 1 annoyance!
Posted by: Tom 07 Dec 2008