I don't understand this "the software and hardware have to work in harmony". This argument makes no sense with any other OS/hardware in existence. The OS should look good. The hardware should look good. Does the wallpaper match the casing? The user is going to change it anyway. I simply don't understand this logic.
This concept encourages further vendor UI overlays, custom icons, and the 4x4 app icon grid. It's clear that it was inspired by the iPhone and it simply removes the innovation of the Android homescreen paradigm in order to look more like the iphone.
That having been said, why a manufacturer hasn't stepped forward and created a piece of hardware to rival the iPhone is beyond me. Until the hardware is compelling, all Android phones will be interchangable. For example, how many Android users would jump at iPhone-like hardware running Froyo/Gingerbread?
You don't understand how it's a good idea to match the aesthetic of the software to the hardware framing it? Do you believe that any good looking shirt looks good with any good looking pair of pants?
No, I think that the "software matches the hardware" means literally nothing. What does it mean in this context? Almost all phones are virtually the same shape. Gray or dark gray, what part of the OS do you change to tailor it to the hardware.
No one ever explains what it means, they just reference it as if the iPhone possesses it as another of its magical abilities. Your analogy does not translate to hardware and software. How does Windows 7 match up with your monitor, or unibody desktop computer? What, specifically, makes OS X beautifully tailored for the unibody MBP. Nothing. It's just a way of saying "I think the iPhone has a prettier interface than Android" which is a tired argument so it's dressed up under a new guise.
The iPhone homescreen has (or at least had until the introduction of wallpapers in iOS 4, ironically) been very much intertwined with the hardware design. The combination of vivid icons on a black background meshed beautifully with the dark glass of the unit's face, and was a large part of what made the original device so iconic.
Addressing this line: No, I think that the "software matches the hardware" means literally nothing.
It means aesthetically the texture, color, or lines fit together. In this case the lines are the most important part. Maybe it's not important to you, but it's not a hollow statement.
"The lines fit together"? I'm sorry but I still don't hear anything concrete about what is unique to a 4x4 grid of icons and the same rectangular profile of a phone.
Throughout this thread, I keep hearing "its magical beautiful design" and nothing concrete. Please give me some examples.
Please don't take this HTC 1 as a good example of the interface fitting with the hardware. Look to some of the other examples cited elsewhere in this thread.
Like it was mentioned above, it seems that Kim's desire was to match the simple lines of the phone with a flat, simple interface. I think his proposed interface is poor at best. If you gave a really great UI designer this hardware to design against, you'd quickly understand the cohesion.
Let me put this a different way. How would iOS need to be changed if it were on the Droid? How would the optimal "software matching the hardware" differ in appearance between the iPhone 4, Droid and Nexus One? Which "lines" have to change?
This concept encourages further vendor UI overlays, custom icons, and the 4x4 app icon grid. It's clear that it was inspired by the iPhone and it simply removes the innovation of the Android homescreen paradigm in order to look more like the iphone.
That having been said, why a manufacturer hasn't stepped forward and created a piece of hardware to rival the iPhone is beyond me. Until the hardware is compelling, all Android phones will be interchangable. For example, how many Android users would jump at iPhone-like hardware running Froyo/Gingerbread?