[ChuckMcM]

That is the nature of the uncanny valley, it is where the result is 'real enough' that one part of your brain classifies it as 'real' but it still has enough flaws that another part of your brain yells 'wrong'. That dissonance is uncomfortable.

Per my point about a tri-corder (a clearly fictional device) had he made his project "more clearly fictional" it would have avoided that uncanny valley. Basing it on the iPhone was not a good choice for me. A friend of mine was doing the computer graphics thing and initially all of his "models" were real actresses (he used stills from films to figure out the models) and it was hurting his portfolio because the 'goodness' of his modelling skills was being subverted by the 'wrongness' of the model (people recognized the actress and then saw things "wrong" in the models of them). I suspect that is the case here is well.

[1123581321]

We should be thankful for people who venture into uncanny valleys or any gap between safe-and-works the next generation technology. The work that finally crosses over the valley and is widely accepted is built on the work that didn't. We need those attempts and should encourage them.

[ChuckMcM]

I think you missed the point (but correct me if I'm wrong) the 'uncanny valley' is an artifact. It can be a positive (Escher's case) or a negative (any number of nearly perfect CGI scenes in films). In this designer's case it distracted me from his goal of presenting his skills as a designer. Had he done the same thing with a clearly non-actual product, my response would have focused on his skill at rendering a good looking device and compelling narrative, rather than thinking "wait, that isn't even possible, this is crazy" which I don't think was his intent given that this was a portfolio project. But I cannot speak for him, only to my reaction to it.