I just read this article from the New York Times about cell phone companies and their attempts to change their approach to phone design in order to "make customers happy, as Apple seems to do." Reading this article really shows how clueless and far off they are.

For example, listen to a typical LG approach:

LG Electronics, the maker of the Chocolate and Voyager phones, begins by asking focus groups to keep a journal, jotting down feelings about features they like most. Participants can call a toll-free number to share their emotions about the phone they are testing. And sometimes they are asked to draw pictures that represent their mood when they hold the phone.

Uhh, first of all LG, do you think Apple uses focus groups? And second of all, this could very well be the most convoluted and least practical way to determine what a customer needs. Why not just have them film themselves doing an interpretive dance based on the frustrations of trying to navigate the contacts list.

Next up, discussions from the world's largest cell phone manufacturer trade show in Barcelona:

One panelist suggested that cellphone makers tap into consumers' "neural networks", while another said they should understand their subliminal needs.

Neural networks? Subliminal needs? If these guys are worried about addressing these kinds of problems, then they have really missed the boat. I can think of about 25 non-subliminal needs that have been ignored. How about the ability to store/transfer my contacts on my computer without needing Bluetooth, or an sold-separately cable, or special software. How about a more efficient battery that doesn't take 4 hours to charge and 3 to deplete. How about an interface where confirmation messages don't take 3 seconds to pop-up and disappear. You know how annoying it is to change a setting when you have to sit through a "Changing Setting" message, and then another "Setting Saved" confirmation?

Mr. Dale says companies like his are forced to give consumers what they want even before they know they want it. Motorola was a market leader in late 2004 when it introduced the ultraslim Razr. But when the company failed to create a worthy successor, its stock plummeted and investors revolted.

Boo hoo. So a company is not rewarded for sitting on its ass and trying to milk a product? When it should instead be looking to innovate further, and give customers more of what they want? What a concept.

"We have the ability to clarify the needs of real people," said Rhys Newman, who heads the team.

Yeah, those imaginary people just aren't buying phones like they used to.

And the hits keep coming:

"Design used to be inconsequential: just make it pretty, make it sell," said Mr. Newman, who, along with three members of his team, was interviewed at Nokia's design center near a strip mall in downtown Calabasas, north of Los Angeles. Now, he said, "we have to think about human fundamentals."

When one of your designers has to evolve from a mindset of "just make it pretty, make it sell", to one of "we have to think about human fundamentals," you have bigger problems. An intrinsic understanding of the importance, and utility of design should really be a key qualifier for someone in the DESIGN department.

(Also, why is the design team at a strip mall? The Sharper Image really shouldn't be a place you go for design inspiration.)

"The strongest marketing tool is the first 20,000 people who buy the device," Mr. Dale of Motorola said. "If they like it, they will tell their friends."

Ok, that's actually a good insight, but here's a tip: STOP CALLING THEM DEVICES. Could you possibly use a less inspiring word to describe the technology you've dedicated your career to designing? Toasters are devices, mouse traps are devices, calculators are devices. Maybe try assigning a little more culture to the product. Get people to look not just at the "device" and it's features, but the broader meaning it provides. That's the difference between someone holding an iPhone and a Nokia 1100xyz3QPA1.

All in all, this article doesn't exactly show a heightened level of awareness within the cell phone manufacturing industry. This of course doesn't mean everyone in every company is totally clueless, just most. And mobile carriers share 50% of the blame as well. Their ridiculous requirements and there incessant need to cripple phone features and ruin interfaces is a big part of the problem (I'm talking to you Verizon).

When Apple comes out with the iPhone, and it is miles and miles beyond anything ever produced in the cell phone industry, you may want to reconsider changing not just the strategy, but the players, the game... everything.