|I can't see any major aesthetic difference between the major phone makers phones. I have no idea what the mindset is that cares about such trivial differences. They are all rectangular, with rounded corners, tiny buttons, a glass screen.|
I want a phone that makes phone calls where the person I call can hear me and I can hear them. I want internet access and I want the interface to be usable. Security is also important.
The non-flat interface that was on older versions of OSX is statistically provable to be easier to use. Its a known fact supported by data that semi-3D interfaces like buttons etc make an interface more easily understood and easier in every day use. This is an example of aesthetic appeal (which is purely subjective) making an interface LESS functional (data) in its form. There have been many such mistakes (IMO) since Ive, a hardware guy, took over software interface design. Big mistake. "form and function" have nothing to do with a phone being appealing in fact appealing can get in the way of form and function.
For example, Jobs always hated seeing buttons on iMacs. This creates a problem on mine. I frequently cannot tell if I pressed the button hard enough for it to boot since I have an SSD drive. The only way I know is if my plugged in iPod wakes. Jobs' Mac was sitting on his desk in a big giant office. Plugging stuff into the back was no problem. Many of us have our Macs against the wall. I have a mirror behind mine and a clip light so I can see the USB plugs.
Jobs of, one would presume, never dallied with the lower classes who have their Macs up against a wall, despite his quotes.