In this article, I’ll be sharing:
iPhone’s Continuum Designs and Where They’re Heading
How Apple Masterfully Balances User and Competitor Backlash with a Strategic Blend of Marketing and Sales Tactics
Apple has introduced the ‘Camera Control Button’ in the iPhone 16 models, which is actually a Multimodal Interaction Button (MMIb) designed to support various interactions such as press, scroll, and tap/s — Another step in Redefining Human-Device Interaction. Yet, in a smart move, Apple is downplaying MMIb significance by simply calling it the ‘Camera Control Button’ without highlighting its full potential. But why?
MMIb Button will Replace Action, Power and Volume Buttons
The MMIb Button will be integrated for seamless scrolling, offering an alternative for one-handed screen navigation
Why Apple is Unlikely to Pursue Foldable Screens or Foldable iPhones
What I Won’t Be Focusing On:
Specific digital features, iOS, iPhone applications, or Apple Intelligence.
Categorizing the Interaction Design Layers
To better communicate my points in this article, I am classifying iPhone design into the following interconnected design layers,
Physical Interaction Design — Action, volume, and power buttons, speakers and microphone, charging port, screen and body materials, camera lens sensors, and one-time packaging (unboxing) interaction.
Digital-Physical Interaction Design — Translucent camera button, Touch ID, and motion gestures.
Digital Interaction Design — Touch, voice commands (Siri), Face ID, and face gestures.
Machine Responses —Haptic, auditory, visual, and multi-sensory feedback.
Tech Innovation and integration — Chipset, AI-ML capabilities, battery, AR, wireless technology, security and privacy, and environmental impact.
iPhone’s Continuum Designs and Where It’s Heading?
As it’s evident, Apple has consistently minimized the components of the iPhone to their smallest possible sizes with each new release — whether it’s the speaker, camera, Touch ID button, screen bezel, phone thickness, or charging port alternatives — pushing all physical elements from the screen to the side frame. But why?
All of this continuous effort in ‘component miniaturization’ is aimed at making the iPhone as seamless as possible, eventually leading to a translucent lamina with no physical elements on the screen and well-flush multimodal interaction buttons on the side frame, along with invisible micro camera sets on the front and back bezels/surfaces. Physically, the phone would appear as a transparent or translucent glass plate, while consistently evolving to become even more powerful in its digital features. In essence, Apple is gradually reducing ‘physical interaction design’ to its bare essentials, while leveraging ‘digital-physical interaction designs’ to control the phone’s digital functions — shifting from purely ‘digital interaction design’ to a more human-centric, ergonomically sound approach.
Refer to Image-1: Predictive Tracking, Analysis and Visionary Mapping.
Predictive Tracking and Visionary Mapping: 5-year Transition Phases and iPhone Continuum Designs— Abhishek Chitranshi
While this ‘component miniaturization, tech innovation, and technological integration’ is a remarkable feat, the high percentage of the audience may not fully recognize such advancements because they are less immediately visible. Most users focus on more tangible aspects like design innovation or UX improvements. Apple’s approach, though futuristic, has led to backlash from reviewers and consumers who perceive it as ‘no innovation anymore,’ simply because the big picture — where this tech evolution is leading — is less visible. The true value lies in the long-term impact on user experience and future product capabilities, which may not be immediately evident.
And yes, such backlash intensifies:A. When the world has already experienced the major leap in phone innovation (from Nokia/Blackberry to iPhone) and lived almost two decades through the high benchmark of digital experiences set by the iPhone.B. When such a mindset, norm, and expectation are already established, and Apple continues to push toward its extreme minimalist design goals, progress becomes increasingly tougher and slower. This is due to the challenge of managing competitive pressure, user’s expectation and the need to advance all aspects of development — hardware engineering, software optimization, material innovation, system architecture, and manufacturing logistics — while maintaining uncompromising high quality. However, the shift eventually happens, likely with an extended ‘transition phase for significantly visible design changes.’
How does Apple navigate the criticism of ‘no more innovation’ while maintaining its leadership in the tech industry despite less visible advancements?
Apple’s Counterbalance to User and Competitor Backlash: A Masterful Blend of Marketing and Sales Tactics
Being fully aware of this transition phase of ‘unseen innovation’ — a phase that can span at least five years between significant design changes in iPhone models — Apple counterbalances the accompanying backlash with a masterful blend of marketing and sales tactics. By creating a sense of exclusivity through techniques like limited availability, pricing, discontinuing previous Pro models, or waitlists for upcoming features (such as ‘Apple Intelligence’), Apple successfully maintains its grip on user anticipation and market excitement. Additionally, Apple strategically shuffles design elements and features across its product lineup — such as the camera notch, Dynamic Island, and button placements — to create a cohesive look and feel across all devices. Their strategy of leading with hardware innovation, followed by iterative software enhancements, keeps them ahead in the competitive race, particularly against AI-driven competitors.
It’s almost as if Apple, being 10 steps ahead, is taking a well-calculated time risk by allowing themselves to appear only 2–3 steps ahead in the visible race, while actually maintaining a hidden advantage on a non-visible level. When they are ready with a significant visible design — often seen spanning over 5 years — they leap forward, reclaiming the visible 10-step lead. This strategy not only sustains consumer demand but ensures that Apple remains at the forefront of innovation, balancing short-term perceptions with long-term breakthroughs.
A Subtle Start of the Multimodal Interaction Button (MMIb) — Redefining Human-Device Interaction
Apple has introduced an innovative ‘Camera Control Button’ in the iPhone 16 models (2024) — another step in redefining human-device interaction. This button’s development likely took at least 3 years, as Apple hinted at it in their iPhone 14 Pro models (2022) by leaving an empty slot of it on the side frame. Yet, in a smart move, Apple is downplaying its significance and the time invested in developing the MMIb by simply referring to it as the ‘Camera Control Button,’ without highlighting its full potential. But why?
My Predictive Design Analysis to Explore This ‘WHY’
Apple has introduced the ‘Camera Control Button,’ an innovation that goes far beyond a traditional button — it’s a true multimodal interaction component, simply called a ‘button’ for simplicity at a visible semantic level. This breakthrough is a powerful leap toward redefining human-device interaction. Yet, Apple has subtly introduced it and simply named it the ‘Camera Control Button.’ Why?
Because any new, never-before-used innovation requires user acceptance and a zero learning curve — especially when it involves multiple interactions like press, scroll, single tap/press, and double tap/press at the button-size level unlike trackpad usage context — no matter how well it’s been tested in development. That’s why Apple chose to debut this button for camera control, easing users into the experience. And that’s why positioning it first for camera control has a brilliant design strategy that sets the stage for future applications of this multimodal button.
Again, why to introduce a 4th way (MMIb) to access the camera when we already have 3 options to access the camera?
Yes, it is! and Apple probably knows this very well. The reason for introducing this button for camera control is to gauge user acceptance of the multimodal button and to give users time to learn and adapt to using this new, never-before-experienced interaction. It’s a brilliant design strategy to familiarize users with the button by associating it with one of the most common actions that already has multiple alternatives — camera access. And when it is eventually launched for other functions, it will have already reached to a zero learning curve for users.
This design strategy carries minimal risk, as users have spent nearly two decades immersed in digital interactions, which have become ingrained in our mental models and muscle memory. This makes it less challenging for them to adapt to a new type of interaction. By introducing the button with a frequently used action — camera access — that already has multiple alternatives, Apple allows users to get accustomed to this new feature without cognitive overload, which might have occurred if the MMIb button were the only option for camera access.
MMIb button will Replace Action, Power and Volume Buttons
Once Apple gathers enough feedback on the usage of this button, they are likely to replace all other buttons (Action, Power, Volume) with the MMIb, as it aligns with their minimalist design goal by:
Being flush with the side frame surface design
Having an almost invisible translucent design
Offering multimodal interaction capability, which allows flexible interactions within the MMIb
Predictive Tracking and Visionary Mapping: iPhone #, in or before year 2027 — Abhishek Chitranshi
All these MMIb buttons, like the Camera Control button, start working with just a light tap. But they don’t react if your hand is on them all the time, because that would make the scroll function go off nonstop and make them pretty much useless.
The MMIb Button will be integrated for seamless touch scrolling, offering an alternative for one-handed screen vertical swipe
Analyzing the pattern, Apple seems to be striving for a consistently unified design and interaction language across its devices. The iPhone may eventually integrate the MMIb button for screen swipes also, as it intuitively fits the role of a touch-scroll interaction (similar to its use in the recently launched camera control button — MMIb). This aligns with Apple’s goal of moving as many common actions as possible out of the screen — both physical and potentially digital ones as well. Overall, this approach would perfectly complement a future transparent or translucent lamina design for the iPhone.
The digital responses to volume control MMIb, such as the volume notch, could be designed similarly to the iPhone X’s camera notch shape and the recently launched camera control’s digital notch response. These responses may appear as subtle, waveform-like digital reactions on the screen, similar to the bulge (iOS-18) that appears on the screen’s edge in correspondence with the volume up and volume down buttons being pressed.
Predictive Tracking, Analysis and Visionary Mapping: iPhone a Transparent or Translucent Lamina — Abhishek Chitranshi
While I believe Apple should avoid prolonging visible design transition phase of 5 years — because, for users who have experienced nearly two decades of digital advancements, waiting 5 years to see significant visible change feels too long. I understand that shortening these phases may be challenging, given Apple’s ongoing pursuit of minimalist physical design paired with powerful digital features, which become increasingly complex as they approach their continuum design goals. However, with Apple’s development infrastructure having grown significantly over the years, it’s reasonable to argue that these transitions could be shorter than 5 years.
There’s a fine line between navigating market pressures, user expectations, and maintaining a 5-year design transition phase without visible innovation, relying on market strategy and sales tactics. This is especially true when users are already pushing back against what they perceive as redundancy because they want to see significant changes in physical experiences as well, not just digital advancements.
If Apple continues to take the risk of appearing only a few steps ahead and keeps launching so-called ‘new models’ every 1 or 2 years with minor changes during this 5-year transition phase of significant visible change — before making the leap that users now expect — this prolonged phase could feel excessively long in today’s context. Such a strategy or internal process, which potentially locks them into a restrictive 5-year cycle, could backfire, putting their lead in digital experiences at risk and reducing Apple to just another alternative in the accelerating and increasingly complex digital race (as competitors have ample reference to learn and evolve), unless Apple shortens this transition phase of 5 years, gradually but significantly.
Foldable Screens / Foldable iPhone? — Apple Won’t Go to that Design Path
I don’t think Apple would ever pursue Foldable Screens or a Foldable iPhone, as these designs are not intuitive from an ergonomic perspective, nor do they justify the additional action required to unfold the device. Although companies like Royole FlexPai, Samsung, and Huawei have managed to achieve foldable technology through extensive research and development, its application must be both meaningful and user-friendly, which isn’t the case for today’s big size mobile phones. At the inception of mobile phones, flip phones made sense due to their smaller size and ease of use in one’s hand. However, in the current smartphone era, foldable designs seem less practical and could compromise usability rather than enhance it.
Companies making foldable screen mobile phones are doing so either as a forced application of the technology for the sake of appearing innovative or to cater to the user’s temporary fascination with something different — almost like a gimmick. This approach reflects a lack of meaningful innovation specifically for the context of mobile phones. Folding screen technology should be applied in products where it truly enhances usability and adds value to human experience design. Applying it to mobile phones, however, introduces unnecessary complexity, adding an extra layer of action that compromises usability and increases the time required for basic operations.
Apple may not pursue foldable screens for mobile phones, as they don’t intuitively align with user-centric design and human interaction models for the current size of mobile phones. Two decades ago, phones were much smaller, and the demand for larger devices hadn’t yet evolved. However, Apple might explore meaningful applications of this technology in areas like material science, molecular bonding, flexible TFTs, graphene, and nano-wires — leveraging these innovations to bring FLEXIBILITY to devices in a way that enhances intuitive and ergonomic use.
This article represents my personal analysis and design opinions on Apple’s design strategies, based on my observations. It is not affiliated with or endorsed by Apple Inc.
Comments