Beautiful technology
We just need to care about both form and function.
I think some people mistake my love for the natural world as at odds with technological pursuits.
The fact is most "tech" gadgets provide the illusion of "technology". Technology (like the wheel that predated the computer) is really just about doing more with less. There isn't one single "axis" by which technology is measured or valued. If I had to reduce my assessment for technology into 2 dimensions it would be: form and function, beauty and utility.
Ugly, loud, annoying, new, digital "technology" is in fact not really all that it promises - it's often just fashionable products made with little care/regard/thought except for maximizing profits at the expense of everything else.
For me, a Chemex Coffee maker is more technologically advanced than a Keurig. I want my mornings to be slow and taking the time to carefully pour hot water over freshly ground coffee in a glass/wood vessel is superior in basically all ways to pressing a button to have boiling water forcefully squirted through plastic.
Technology is amazing. It lets us appreciate the natural world more and has turned historical drudgery into things we do for fun (growing my own food).
But as consumers, we need to demand more of technology. We need to be more selective and critical in our use and evaluation. If we don't, there's no feedback loop for it to get better. I think Steve Jobs understood this probably the best - he knew that you couldn't just focus on function - you have to care about form.
As developers/engineers/builders, we should ensure form and function coexist harmoniously. We should get excited over a "beautiful" piece of code rather than one that "just functions". If that level of care were applied to all levels of a product, then you would have the most valuable technology in the world.
“For Jobs, Microsoft's success represented an aesthetic flaw in the way the universe worked. "The only problem with Microsoft is they just have no taste, they have absolutely no taste," he later said. "I don't mean that in a small way. I mean that in a big way, in the sense that they don't think of original ideas and they don't bring much culture into their product." 116
“The primary reason for Microsoft's success was that it was willing and eager to license its operating system to any hardware maker.
Apple, by contrast, opted for an integrated approach. Its hardware came only with its software and vice versa. Jobs was an artist, a per-fectionist, and thus a control freak who wanted to be in charge of the user experience from beginning to end. Apple's approach led to more beautiful products, a higher profit margin, and a more sublime user experience. Microsoft's approach led to a wider choice of hardware. It also turned out to be a better path for gaining market share.” - page 369 in Innovators by Walter Isaacson