Comments on: Multitasker, or Multiple Unitasker?

By: David

David — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 03:04:18 +0000

Brown’s waffle iron was a unitasker until he used it to cook bacon. His old spinning-blade coffee grinder was a multitasker because it was also used to grind whole spices. So, in theory, a good burr coffee grinder could also be used as a spice grinder, even though you wouldn’t do it in practice. Unless you like coriander coffee…

He created the divide to prevent people from buying single use items, usually stuff hawked by Billy Mays and his ilk on TV.

By: David

David — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 03:00:12 +0000

By Brown’s definition, yes. A pot performs one task – heating stuff up – but it’s not a unitasker.

By: Bryan

Bryan — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 00:16:58 +0000

I guess it depends on how strictly you define “task.” Most kitchen things have one primary function, like whisking, straining, and so on, but that function can be applied to a variety of things. Some apply their function to only one thing, like a coffee grinder. Is that such a bad thing? I could use some other thing to grind my coffee, but it wouldn’t be as efficient. I could get a “multi-function” combo grinder-coffeemaker thing, but those usually involve some compromise in functionality as well. Some things have limited usefulness and are a crutch for not having, say, reasonably good knife skills. Those things should be avoided if possible. But the “unitasker/multitasker” divide is somewhat illusory.

By: Terra

Terra — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 14:12:05 +0000

Is a gadget a multitasker if it performs a single task on more than one object (slicing both eggs and mushrooms?)

By: David

David — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 01:38:09 +0000

But the slicers are clearly multitaskers.

By: Elsepth

Elsepth — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 00:02:55 +0000

Multiple unitaskers put together in a clever way.