JKR

As a Luddite whose sausage fingers struggle to text, I’m ill qualified to comment on cutting edge technology, but from a design perspective I think the Nexus One fails to exploit the Google brand’s design potential. In product terms (from what I read) the screen graphics are a leap forward in resolution and animation, and there is, as one would expect, lots of clever utilisation of Google’s content. Combined, these should make it a worthy rival of the iPhone. But, even allowing that Apple is simply a cooler brand, the Nexus looks (to me) unlikely to generate enough desire to give Steve Jobs a sleepless night. Because while it might have arguable product superiority in some areas, the product styling looks generic  – same size, shape and colour as the iPhone, with branding on the back looking like an afterthought. The New York Times described the design as bland.

What does Google look like in your mind’s eye? To me it’s bright, white and primary coloured – kind of like the Benetton of the online world. Google Chrome’s identity (notwithstanding snipes that it looks like an old Simon computer game) shows that Google’s equities can look suitably glossy and aspirational (in screen terms the Nexus seems to be delivering on this). In a world of techy monochrome uniformity they could have owned the territory of bright, glossy colours and established an iconic Google artefact as opposed to copying category norms. They have chosen not to.

Perhaps, as some have speculated, Google are less interested in generating profit from the phone than they are in using it to preserve advertising revenue for the search engine. Perhaps they aimed to make design as a moot point, choosing to focus debate on product comparisons they could win rather than style comparisons they might well lose? But if so there are many precedents where product superiority has failed against less able but more desirable rivals. Whatever, it’s going to be interesting to see if they beat the iPhone’s 1% share of the market, or indeed wield the same cultural influence.