Multitaskers vs. Unitaskers
A collection of back-handed compliments to jacks of all trades and one-trick ponies.
“There is absolutely no reason for a garlic press to exist. It is utterly completely magnificently useless.”1
—ALTON BROWN
There has been an unimaginable advancement in technology, especially in miniaturisation. We now have compact devices that offer countless features packed into them. This is particularly noticeable in the digital world.
I have come across some thought-provoking images that show a stark comparison: on one side, there are all these bulky devices like camcorders, vinyl record players, cameras, phones, gaming consoles, alarm clocks, and books, while on the other side, there is a solitary smartphone standing tall. Often, a symbol of equality is nestled between them.
Some of you might remember Apple’s controversial ad featuring a hydraulic press crushing musical instruments, buckets of paint, typewriters, and other classic creative tools into an ultra-thin tablet.
After a storm of complaints from the more conservative wing of the creative community, the company had no choice but to roll out an “updated” version of the ad. Spoiler alert: it was merely the original ad played backwards. Who knew that reversing one’s marketing strategy could create more buzz? If Apple had kept it politically correct, it might have escaped with a quiet nod instead of this reverse-magic spectacle. Some people are brilliant marketing wizards.
There’s arguably no better time to be a minimalist. Everything is wirelessly connected to everything else in a thin, lightweight rectangle. Your data is safely stored in the cloud, and the world’s knowledge is just a swipe away. Yet, notebooks, pens, cameras, and e-readers remain popular. Why is there still a place for the so-called unitasker when a multitasking device could theoretically do it all? Is it truly accurate to equate them?
Jacks of All Trades
If you chase two rabbits, you will not catch either one.
—RUSSIAN PROVERB
Among the most popular arguments in defence of unitaskers are their distraction-free nature, use-case-specific interface, creativity-inducing qualities, and often an undeniable hipster vibe.
In most circumstances, a dedicated tool should perform better at a given task than a jack of all trades. However, that doesn’t mean a classic toolbox is what you’d always choose over a Swiss Army knife. Ultimately, this boils down to answering a profoundly personal question: does this tool work for me now and in this particular context?
Multitaskers often win this battle. One reason is pure statistics. Far fewer audiophiles, professional photographers, and elite chefs are trying to optimise every step of the process than casual users choosing an all-in-one for £99.99.
But, more often than not, those don’t cut the mustard. As an adage goes, if you try to please everybody, you will likely please nobody. Cramming more functionality—then some—into a tiny, all-encompassing device inevitably requires engineers to cut corners.
Yet, looking at it this way also overlooks a crucial difference: multitaskers and unitaskers optimise different aspects.
The former provides portability, a reduced size, a lower overall cost than all the unitaskers it emulates, and limitless extensibility to new, not-yet-encountered requirements. It is primarily about future-proof, malleable software that maximises the potential of capable, general-purpose hardware. Most of the time, we want this.
The latter optimises the user experience for a single task, which is more than sufficient to make it the preferred method of achieving a goal, especially if you need to accomplish this goal frequently and rapidly. Often, we want that instead.
In Knowledge Management
Something as bizarre-sounding as a “modern typewriter” addresses a particular need: satisfying, focused, “get it done” writing. Size matters, and such a typewriter, however portable, must allow you to type on it comfortably and without interruption for long periods, thereby sacrificing portability, noise, weight, and form factor. Generally, there is minimal compromise on the tactile aspects of the keyboard, such as its size, sound, action, and comfort. An interface like that will always surpass a touchscreen.
Note: In all fairness, though, those are geared towards writers who use typing as their primary input medium. Those who can’t touch-type will probably appreciate the fast keyboard-swiping interface or dictation. Once again, unitaskers are very context-specific. They’re niche, and that is their main forté.
While it may sound like a romantic idea, a device like that probably wouldn’t suit someone like me. I could never write in a straight, uninterrupted line, even if my life depended on it.
Those who’ve watched me dance around in Scrivener, leaving little notes for my future self, know I’m far from a linear writer. My writing resembles how I approach programming—it’s all about that holistic, coding-like method of piecing together atomic notes.
This way of working has benefited many creative minds, some of whom I look up to, such as
, Ryan Holiday, Robert Greene, Niklas Luhmann, and Robert Caro, to name just a few. I still hope this approach might also be the right fit for me. When I’m writing and coding, I require a multitasker to assist me in focusing on one task at a time.
So, personal computers and handheld devices tend to be agnostic, often at the expense of significant sacrifices. Glossy screens and powerful graphics cards are essential for gaming, but they render your screen unusable for reading in bright environments. Furthermore, you cannot get away with charging your device once every few months as you would with an average e-ink reader.
As a happy owner of an Apple Watch, I often find myself in heated arguments with proponents of battery-life-efficient fitness trackers. Even though there’s no denying that my smartwatch could benefit from intermittent fasting, its note-taking, knowledge management, and productivity capabilities outweigh its apparent shortcomings in fitness tracking accuracy and reduced battery life. I don’t think you should blame me for squeezing everything I can from it in exchange for a quick daily charge. It doesn’t move the needle for me as much as for someone constantly on the go. Being glued to the laptop all day, with the charging port a centimetre away, what fitness is there for me to track? However, taking an almost instant fleeting note while walking or running makes a tremendous difference. And we all know our best ideas spark when we walk or run.2
Flattening Abstraction Levels
“Your mind is for having ideas, not for holding them.”
—DAVID ALLEN
Some of the concessions mentioned above can’t be circumvented. But there’s a class of differences between multitaskers and unitaskers that shouldn’t be as bad, yet they are—for example, dealing with additional layers of abstraction.3
Consider dedicated desktop control panels designed to trigger specific events or event sequences. They have become trendy lately for good reason. Even though you could create custom shortcuts on your keyboard, you probably still prefer dedicated control with specific buttons and knobs—or at the very least, a digital screen on which the dedicated buttons change labels, icons, and colours depending on the context (Apple’s now-retired Touch Bar, for example, or physical, application-specific control towers).
They perform the same function, yet there is a significant difference between the two approaches:
A dedicated control is an opinionated and context-specific mapping decision, mostly rigid and set in stone. The same button, in the same place, performs the same action. Always. It is clearly labelled and provides sufficient visual or tactile cues to relieve you of the need to remember what it does.
A keyboard shortcut introduces an additional level of abstraction between the desire to complete an action and its execution: the shortcut-to-result mapping that you must remember. If you only operate with a handful of quick actions, this is probably the way to go, as it doesn’t justify investing in a specialist external controller. However, as the number of these shortcuts grows and is multiplied by the number of software applications you use, your “memory palace” collapses as swiftly as the one at the etymological origin of this expression.4
Thus, the lack of a direct, one-to-one mapping between the action you wish to complete and a dedicated button adds a cognitive burden to your workflow. The infamous Zeigarnik Effect will kick in and eliminate the nagging open loops.5
We all read about famous CEOs who go as far as eliminating the cognitive strain of choosing what to wear, let alone remembering abstract mental constructs to instruct a device to perform tasks for them.
This is a typical Iron Triangle situation where you’re the only one who can decide whether the juice is worth the squeeze.6
As a minimalist, dedicated unitaskers are rarely an option for me. Although I’ve always loved them, I no longer carry an e-ink reader or a camera. However, suppose you’re not optimising for space as I do but instead for instantly capturing fleeting moments, audio editing, or swift meal-prepping. In that case, alleviating the additional abstraction layer or collapsing two actions into one can make all the difference.
In Knowledge Management
Additional levels of abstraction can also make or break it for your knowledge management setup.
Note-taking apps that prioritise hyperlink creation as a first-class citizen of the process are gaining traction. Arguably, this is due to the removal of an additional abstraction layer:
Select a text.
Open the menu.
Click on “Create a link”.
Specify the destination.
Confirm.
Go to the destination and repeat the process in reverse if you wish to traverse your knowledge bidirectionally.
The above is the de facto approach for most software applications that aren’t explicitly designed for interconnecting notes. All the extra clicks and scrolls compound at scale. The larger the volume of information to capture, retrieve, and update, the more such micro-optimisations make a difference. All reputable tools for thought allow you to use Wikilinks. Similar to a unitasker, it is worth opting for, even if you have a powerful multitasker that doesn’t support this convention.
Another essential perk you’ll rarely find in generalist TfTs is the ability to create so-called “white nodes” of nodes that haven’t materialised yet—placeholder nodes to work on in the future. This “simple” feature, which allows knowledge workers to leave a note for their future selves, is a welcome workflow optimisation that inadvertently acts as a powerful remedy for the infamous writer’s block. The cherry on top is that they are searchable regardless of their “non-existence.” With these features, you are equipped for quality knowledge management and powerhouse creative work.
Is It an All-or-Nothing Choice?
As is often the case, there is no right or wrong choice. That choice is also not binary. Instead, it is a spectrum between the extremities of which we oscillate. In other words, you can mix and match multitaskers and unitaskers, move workloads from one to the other, and, depending on the circumstances, switch between “mostly multi” and “mostly uni” over time.
For example, the “modern typewriters” mentioned above allow one to transfer text to a computer for purposes other than “pedal to the metal” straight-up typing. If I were to use one, this could be a file full of unrelated notes and ideas laid out in a stream-of-consciousness style that I would load onto a multitasker with a larger screen to chop, rearrange, and complete.
Ryder Carrol’s BuJo mobile application allows you to save pictures of your analogue LEUCHTTURM 1917 Bullet Journals in the cloud and virtually bind them into chained archives for future reference, even when the physical notebooks are long gone.
Writers often print out their manuscripts for review because the page form factor, font size, page breaks, and absence of distracting notifications provide a proofreading experience that computers cannot match.
We could go on.
The Fractal Nature of Multitaskers and Unitaskers
"Fractal geometry is not just a chapter of mathematics, but one that helps Everyman to see the same world differently."
—BENOIT MANDELBROT
Finally, like most of the world, the nature of multitaskers and unitaskers is also fractal. Multitaskers may be embedded within a unitasker, or unitaskers may comprise multitaskers. There are numerous examples of the former camouflaging as the latter and vice versa.
What makes a typical smartphone smart is not its hardware; it is the ecosystem of applications one can load onto it. These apps are generally single-purpose tools—that’s one fractal level. However, some applications, such as foundational Chinese super apps, are multitaskers, adding another layer to the fractal hierarchy of bundling and unbundling. This chase of two rabbits down diverging rabbit holes can theoretically continue indefinitely—an app within an app, within an app.
A knob dedicated to manipulating just one function is a unitasker. However, some devices allow you to reprogram the default behaviour of physical or virtual controls. Therefore, that same knob would become a multitasker if it were to change its value depending on the context. The same knob, with different levels of abstraction, turns it into a multitasker. It performs one task in a particular context, but many such contexts can exist.
Amazon Web Services, or AWS, is a cloud solutions provider equivalent to a box of Lego blocks you can cherry-pick to build your applications. Although most of these blocks are marketed as single-purpose microservices to stitch together into a latticework of modern software solutions, many of these constructs are multitaskers at their abstraction levels. They might look like one-trick ponies on a high-level architectural diagram but zoom in a little, and you’ll notice a sub-latticework of micro-microservices inside a black box.
And finally, nothing prevents you from putting a Swiss Army knife into your heavy, bulky toolbox. You never know when you might need a corkscrew at work.
https://gizmodo.com/alton-brown-kitchen-gadget-judgment-calls-yea-or-nay-5347140
Paul, A. M. (2021). The Extended Mind: The Power of Thinking Outside the Brain. Eamon Dolan Books.
Norman, D. A. (2013). The Design of Everyday Things.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Method_of_loci
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeigarnik_effect
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_management_triangle