As we all know, in the vast majority of cases, product design is either driven by the needs of consumers or by the interests of manufacturers, so designs that bring additional costs and do not make consumers feel good often do not "survive" for long.
But sometimes for some erroneous reasons, these troublesome designs or functions may have survived, and even become a subtle "stereotype" in the industry.
First and foremost is the "security keyboard" that seems to be in the interest of consumers, but in fact may actually cause trouble.
The so-called "security keyboard", in essence, is actually a secure input method based on sandbox technology. When the mobile phone detects that the user is in a password input scenario, it will activate this special input method to replace the default input method for password input.
Secondly, let's talk about the "labyrinth microphones" that are now used on some models.
What is a labyrinth microphone?To put it simply, a small "cavity" with a turning structure is set inside the microphone opening on the bezel. It's like a maze to put the microphone in the innermost part instead of directly behind the cutout.
Why is it designed this way?To be honest, from an acoustic point of view, putting a "cavity" structure in front of the microphone with a twist will almost certainly cause the reflection of the sound, which will degrade the sound and make it unwanted echo.
But some people will tell you that this particular microphone design is a reflection of the manufacturer's "heart". Because with this small turning chamber, it is possible to avoid the situation where the user mistakenly pokes the pin into the microphone and scraps the microphone directly.
The last thing we want to criticize, the annoying design on mobile phones, is the so-called app "install check" feature that some brands offer.
On the surface, this is a nice feature, as it checks the APK every time a user tries to install the software manually (rather than through the app store). In this way, some "malware" or tampered software can be blocked and prevented from installing. But the problem is that in today's environment, where the app store system of each mobile phone comes with is very mature, but the third-party APP** station is declining, this kind of "strict screening" behavior for users manually**apk files, how much positive significance can it be?
Therefore, what seems to be a function that is "for the sake of user safety" naturally turns out to be a function that almost only adds to the user's blockage.