Jonathan Ive and the Future of Apple(newyorker.com)
newyorker.com
Jonathan Ive and the Future of Apple
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/02/23/shape-things-come
21 comments
It always strikes me how things that other companies obsess over and create entire vocabularies for (we don't sell products, we sell experiences!) and experiment with obsessively come so naturaly to Apple. Other companies produce hundreds of tweaked and targetted models of things in dozens of colours and patterns that are produced by different market oriented product groups and focus-tested to death.
Apple makes two products in the same category and they're both white, and they're white not because marketing, esperiences, focus groups or demographics but becuase Johny thinks it feels right for new things to be that way. Every 3-5 years or so they produce them in 5 different vivid primary colours, just for fun.
Conversely Apple absolutely obsesses at the executive level over and exhaustively iterates on seemingly trivial details like optimising the exact minimum necessary number of buttons in a UI screen, the precision and fluidity of a scrolling action and bounce animation, even just exactly the correct shade of yellow in an icon (real example). Things most companies would assign to a random intern and then forget about.
Apple makes two products in the same category and they're both white, and they're white not because marketing, esperiences, focus groups or demographics but becuase Johny thinks it feels right for new things to be that way. Every 3-5 years or so they produce them in 5 different vivid primary colours, just for fun.
Conversely Apple absolutely obsesses at the executive level over and exhaustively iterates on seemingly trivial details like optimising the exact minimum necessary number of buttons in a UI screen, the precision and fluidity of a scrolling action and bounce animation, even just exactly the correct shade of yellow in an icon (real example). Things most companies would assign to a random intern and then forget about.
> exhaustively iterates on seemingly trivial details like optimising the exact minimum necessary number of buttons in a UI screen, the precision and fluidity...
This is a myth. The iOS maps debacle is just one example.
This is a myth. The iOS maps debacle is just one example.
got Forstall fired. pretty significant. other companies move those people to some X labs futuristic research dead ends.
If I'm not mistaken the "debacle" had to do much more with the underlying data rather than the actual UI or design of the application.
And it might be just one example, but for some reason when speaking of "Apple f..k ups" it's often the only one that comes up in discussions (at least in recent times)... I would say that it's a pretty impressive record.
And it might be just one example, but for some reason when speaking of "Apple f..k ups" it's often the only one that comes up in discussions (at least in recent times)... I would say that it's a pretty impressive record.
Anecdotes aside, from a design standpoint, they tend to be significantly more successful than their competitors. There is a maximum to the level of quality that can be achieved in a given amount of time.
For your particular example, look at the outcome: Apple Maps is now arguably on par with the Google data set and has several unique refinements. It's a much more successful product than when it was released.
For your particular example, look at the outcome: Apple Maps is now arguably on par with the Google data set and has several unique refinements. It's a much more successful product than when it was released.
No it is not. Even Steve Jobs obsessed over such details while he was Apple CEO like the shade of yellow in an icon mentioned by parent[1].
[1] Icon Ambulance: https://plus.google.com/+VicGundotra/posts/gcSStkKxXTw
[1] Icon Ambulance: https://plus.google.com/+VicGundotra/posts/gcSStkKxXTw
In a naïve sense, there is a bit of Zen philosophy in it. As you say, other companies obsess and work extremely hard to design products that are ultimately worse; what of the paradox that extreme effort results in a poor result? Why, that's one of the tenets of Zen.
At the same time, while reducing certain parts to a paradoxical simplicity, Apple knows where the effort should be directed: at building systems. Getting to the root of problems and optimizing them away. Asking the question, what is the core from which all of this grows? What is its form? And working diligently on that, trusting that the output will be pure because of it. That's how quality is done; it's why the Japanese so readily accepted the teachings of W. Edwards Deming, and it's fundamentally how Jobs turned Apple around.
Lots of lessons here, the most important of which are not technological in the slightest.
Recommended reading:
Zen in the Art of Archery: http://rum1.aarch.dk/uploads/media/Eugen_Herrigel-Zen_in_the...
The Zen of Steve Jobs: http://www.forbes.com/special-report/2012/the-zen-of-steve-j...
A Short intro to the teachings of W. Edwards Deming: https://shrikale.wordpress.com/2012/04/28/a-short-introducti...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._Edwards_Deming
At the same time, while reducing certain parts to a paradoxical simplicity, Apple knows where the effort should be directed: at building systems. Getting to the root of problems and optimizing them away. Asking the question, what is the core from which all of this grows? What is its form? And working diligently on that, trusting that the output will be pure because of it. That's how quality is done; it's why the Japanese so readily accepted the teachings of W. Edwards Deming, and it's fundamentally how Jobs turned Apple around.
Lots of lessons here, the most important of which are not technological in the slightest.
Recommended reading:
Zen in the Art of Archery: http://rum1.aarch.dk/uploads/media/Eugen_Herrigel-Zen_in_the...
The Zen of Steve Jobs: http://www.forbes.com/special-report/2012/the-zen-of-steve-j...
A Short intro to the teachings of W. Edwards Deming: https://shrikale.wordpress.com/2012/04/28/a-short-introducti...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._Edwards_Deming
Most modern "business practices" are little more than hedges. Things like focus groups, market fit, etc. are not recipes to build amazing products, but rather ways to avoid making really bad products. It's not that being authentic is hard, but being authentic and profitable is. So we end up with a plethora of artificial-feeling mediocre-yet-profitable product companies, with the rare, exceptional, truly authentic company.
'Things like focus groups, market fit, etc. are not recipes to build amazing products, but rather ways to avoid making really bad product'
Never thought of it that way. I like this
Never thought of it that way. I like this
But the question is, why does he see new things in white?
I'd submit that in the West, and in particular Britain, white has a long history of being a color of privilege. It's hard to make things white, and even harder to keep them white. Even a little bit of soiling, grease, or hard use is noticeable on white fabric, white paint, or white paper. This is why white tie is more formal than black tie, for instance.
Even today, when it seems we should be able to paint, bleach, or mold consumer items as white as we want, it can be more difficult than we think to get a true bright white. Look at how late the white iPhone 4 was, for instance, because of difficulties with the white faceplate.
I'd submit that in the West, and in particular Britain, white has a long history of being a color of privilege. It's hard to make things white, and even harder to keep them white. Even a little bit of soiling, grease, or hard use is noticeable on white fabric, white paint, or white paper. This is why white tie is more formal than black tie, for instance.
Even today, when it seems we should be able to paint, bleach, or mold consumer items as white as we want, it can be more difficult than we think to get a true bright white. Look at how late the white iPhone 4 was, for instance, because of difficulties with the white faceplate.
There's really one clear goal behind this: building Ive's image as a design genius, responsible for the major decisions behind Apple's products, in the same way Jobs's image was created. Why ? because it creates a unique image for Apple's products - the products of genius, which really helps positioning them as luxury brands.This is a common technique with many luxury brands.
But it's most likely a false image.Most likely Apple 's products design is due to the talent of many designers within it's halls,the unique culture within, and their intense attention to detail.
But it's most likely a false image.Most likely Apple 's products design is due to the talent of many designers within it's halls,the unique culture within, and their intense attention to detail.
"their intense attention to detail".
Someone has to lead otherwise you'll get design by committee no matter how talented.
Someone has to lead otherwise you'll get design by committee no matter how talented.
[deleted]
That seems unfair in this case: if anything this article seems to be intended to raise the profile of the other studio members and acknowledge them by name.
Yes, you nailed it. They know Tim Cook can't carry the brand as a detail obsessed designer so they need Ive to do so instead.
The problem is, does it work? I got a few impressions from the article, beyond "Jony Ive is a really nice guy" which everyone seems to agree on.
One: all his experience is in hardware. All of it. He wasn't given any responsibility over software design when Jobs was in charge at all. This leads to the question of why, given their closeness .... I suspect it's because Jobs knew that Ive is really an industrial hardware designer and the skills needed to do great software design are different.
Two: he comes across as kind of burned out. He's spent years designing a relatively small number of products, most of which are (as the article points out) basically just variants on the same "slab of glass with a button" idea. Can he really feel like he's fully exercising his design muscles in such an environment? The article says several times he's sort of wanted to leave and go off and do other things like luxury products several times, but feels he can't go now because so many Apple employees depend on him.
Another thing is that the Apple (hardware) design team seems to be a lot smaller than I expected. They have three recruiters and hire one designer per year? Seriously? I've seen picky hiring before at Google but one hire per year given three full time recruiters is crazy. This is meant to impress upon us how incredibly elite and discerning Ive is. I read something else in it: they are all friends who trust each other, and quite simply don't like hiring. They are expected to do it by the company but would much prefer not to.
It also leads me to think they are having problems. The iPod and iPhone were huge successes, partly because none of the competitors in those spaces cared much about industrial design. In some areas (in-car systems?) that's still the case. But increasingly Apple has been competing with Google and the big Asian firms for consumer electronics, and there they have been losing their edge.
They started talking about the Apple watch in 2011. In 2015 it's still not on the market. Meanwhile the Android team and their hardware partners have launched several watches, of which the round Moto 360 has been attracting the most attention (disclosure: I got one for Christmas, it's neat). But despite a 50+ page article, the journalist lets Jony Ive dismiss round watches in the span of a single sentence. Apparently they just "don't make sense" because smart watches are using "for lists". Except that they do make sense and the one I have works pretty well.
I got the strong impression from reading this that the design team at Apple is small, insular, ignores their competition completely, doesn't want to scale up and doesn't feel any real sense of urgency. For example, they work long hours but many of those hours were spent making dozens of slightly different sized models so they could rediscover the insight that people wanted larger smartphone screens. Something that all the other smartphone makers had already realised ages ago, designed and shipped. Surely they could have reduced their time to market by simply spending some time with their competitors products instead?
The problem is, does it work? I got a few impressions from the article, beyond "Jony Ive is a really nice guy" which everyone seems to agree on.
One: all his experience is in hardware. All of it. He wasn't given any responsibility over software design when Jobs was in charge at all. This leads to the question of why, given their closeness .... I suspect it's because Jobs knew that Ive is really an industrial hardware designer and the skills needed to do great software design are different.
Two: he comes across as kind of burned out. He's spent years designing a relatively small number of products, most of which are (as the article points out) basically just variants on the same "slab of glass with a button" idea. Can he really feel like he's fully exercising his design muscles in such an environment? The article says several times he's sort of wanted to leave and go off and do other things like luxury products several times, but feels he can't go now because so many Apple employees depend on him.
Another thing is that the Apple (hardware) design team seems to be a lot smaller than I expected. They have three recruiters and hire one designer per year? Seriously? I've seen picky hiring before at Google but one hire per year given three full time recruiters is crazy. This is meant to impress upon us how incredibly elite and discerning Ive is. I read something else in it: they are all friends who trust each other, and quite simply don't like hiring. They are expected to do it by the company but would much prefer not to.
It also leads me to think they are having problems. The iPod and iPhone were huge successes, partly because none of the competitors in those spaces cared much about industrial design. In some areas (in-car systems?) that's still the case. But increasingly Apple has been competing with Google and the big Asian firms for consumer electronics, and there they have been losing their edge.
They started talking about the Apple watch in 2011. In 2015 it's still not on the market. Meanwhile the Android team and their hardware partners have launched several watches, of which the round Moto 360 has been attracting the most attention (disclosure: I got one for Christmas, it's neat). But despite a 50+ page article, the journalist lets Jony Ive dismiss round watches in the span of a single sentence. Apparently they just "don't make sense" because smart watches are using "for lists". Except that they do make sense and the one I have works pretty well.
I got the strong impression from reading this that the design team at Apple is small, insular, ignores their competition completely, doesn't want to scale up and doesn't feel any real sense of urgency. For example, they work long hours but many of those hours were spent making dozens of slightly different sized models so they could rediscover the insight that people wanted larger smartphone screens. Something that all the other smartphone makers had already realised ages ago, designed and shipped. Surely they could have reduced their time to market by simply spending some time with their competitors products instead?
"I got the strong impression from reading this that the design team at Apple is small, insular, ignores their competition completely, doesn't want to scale up and doesn't feel any real sense of urgency."
The documents that came out during their trial with Samsung showed that they had analyzed their competitors in excruciating detail.
The documents that came out during their trial with Samsung showed that they had analyzed their competitors in excruciating detail.
With minor changes, much of this post could have been written before iPod about mp3 players, or before iPhone about smartphones: the competitors have launched things in this space for years, the products are (from a technically savvy reviewer's perspective) neat and work fine, but Apple is ignoring the competition with no sense of urgency, etc.
Based on those historical examples, here's a likely outcome: Apple takes its time getting all the branding ducks in a row, so that a bunch of people with disposable income do buy the product; after which, the fandom of that product will rewrite history to say that nothing comparable existed before because none of the competitors cared enough about design and user experience.
Or some other euphemism for the fact that like everyone else, they bought it because of the feelings it gave them to entertain buying it. Apple is the master of the unboxing video, the implication of what buying their products means about you. Jony Ive doesn't have to do anything except be Jony Ive (why do I know his name again? Not because of design)
Based on those historical examples, here's a likely outcome: Apple takes its time getting all the branding ducks in a row, so that a bunch of people with disposable income do buy the product; after which, the fandom of that product will rewrite history to say that nothing comparable existed before because none of the competitors cared enough about design and user experience.
Or some other euphemism for the fact that like everyone else, they bought it because of the feelings it gave them to entertain buying it. Apple is the master of the unboxing video, the implication of what buying their products means about you. Jony Ive doesn't have to do anything except be Jony Ive (why do I know his name again? Not because of design)
It's an interesting point about Ive having spent his time designing a relatively small number of products. However, those are only the products that have been released.
Ive may have had the opportunity to work on a far greater range of products within Apple, and I'm left with the impression that he'd relish the opportunity to work on a car, for example, should that particular rumour bear truth.
Ive may have had the opportunity to work on a far greater range of products within Apple, and I'm left with the impression that he'd relish the opportunity to work on a car, for example, should that particular rumour bear truth.
All your arguments would carry more weight if Apple had released more failures and its competitors more successes in the recent past. Which seems (at least to me) not the case.
Apple has released a tiny number of products that sell extremely well and are very profitable, in Japan and English-speaking markets (USA, UK, Australia, etc).
Their competitors have released more products that cater to a wider range of people, and dominate the market elsewhere. In most European markets for example iPhone sits at around 10% market share. It spikes when they release a new version of the iPhone once a year then quickly settles back down again.
So it depends how you define success. Apple could be successful for a long time in the same way Microsoft were successful for the last 15 years - by being highly profitable and cranking out new versions of their flagship products, whilst releasing very few new notable hits.
Their competitors have released more products that cater to a wider range of people, and dominate the market elsewhere. In most European markets for example iPhone sits at around 10% market share. It spikes when they release a new version of the iPhone once a year then quickly settles back down again.
So it depends how you define success. Apple could be successful for a long time in the same way Microsoft were successful for the last 15 years - by being highly profitable and cranking out new versions of their flagship products, whilst releasing very few new notable hits.
so you're the one that bought a Moto 360. look at the sales numbers for Android Smartwatches and realize your anecdote is utterly meaningless.
those burned out designers have been able to sell more smartphones than ever before, at a HIGHER APR.
reality will not bend just because of your feelings.
those burned out designers have been able to sell more smartphones than ever before, at a HIGHER APR.
reality will not bend just because of your feelings.
It was a Christmas gift. I didn't ask for it. So, I don't have any particularly strong feelings about my watch other than "it's neat". I didn't spend any money on it.
Yes, Apple sells tons of smartphones to people who could get one just as good for much less money. Neat trick, if you can pull it off. Ecosystem lockin helps, I suspect.
Yes, Apple sells tons of smartphones to people who could get one just as good for much less money. Neat trick, if you can pull it off. Ecosystem lockin helps, I suspect.
Apparently, Ive helps design lightsabres now too:
> And Ive once sat next to J. J. Abrams at a boozy dinner party in New York, and made what Abrams recalled as “very specific” suggestions about the design of lightsabres. Abrams told me that “Star Wars: The Force Awakens” would reflect those thoughts, but he wouldn’t say how. After the release of the film’s first trailer—which featured a fiery new lightsabre, with a cross guard, and a resemblance to a burning crucifix—I asked Ive about his contribution. “It was just a conversation,” he said, then explained that, although he’d said nothing about cross guards, he had made a case for unevenness: “I thought it would be interesting if it were less precise, and just a little bit more spitty.” A redesigned weapon could be “more analog and more primitive, and I think, in that way, somehow more ominous.”
Kinda cool, though no doubt this will be result in some more pointless controversy. I thought this was also revealing:
> He [Abrams] later told me that Ive had shared some of the company’s news in advance, and that they had discussed “the fact that we were both working on things that had a level of expectation and anticipation that was preposterous.”
> And Ive once sat next to J. J. Abrams at a boozy dinner party in New York, and made what Abrams recalled as “very specific” suggestions about the design of lightsabres. Abrams told me that “Star Wars: The Force Awakens” would reflect those thoughts, but he wouldn’t say how. After the release of the film’s first trailer—which featured a fiery new lightsabre, with a cross guard, and a resemblance to a burning crucifix—I asked Ive about his contribution. “It was just a conversation,” he said, then explained that, although he’d said nothing about cross guards, he had made a case for unevenness: “I thought it would be interesting if it were less precise, and just a little bit more spitty.” A redesigned weapon could be “more analog and more primitive, and I think, in that way, somehow more ominous.”
Kinda cool, though no doubt this will be result in some more pointless controversy. I thought this was also revealing:
> He [Abrams] later told me that Ive had shared some of the company’s news in advance, and that they had discussed “the fact that we were both working on things that had a level of expectation and anticipation that was preposterous.”
Ive probably doesn't know that there was already precedent for a lightsaber with an uneven blade.
https://www.google.com/search?q=unstable+lightsaber+crystal
https://www.google.com/search?q=unstable+lightsaber+crystal
“less precise, and just a little bit more spitty” I initially took that to be in reference to the handle, but the trailer clearly shows blades that appear to be almost made of flame.
TL;DR via Article Summariser (Chrome extension):
Ive is uncomfortable knowing that a hundred thousand Apple employees rely on his decision-making-his taste-and that a sudden announcement of his retirement would ambush Apple shareholders.
The Apple Watch-the first Apple device with a design history older than its founder, or its designer-was conceived "Close to Steve's death," Ive said.
John Gruber, an influential Apple blogger, has written that the prices may be "Shockingly high ... from the perspective of the tech industry," but perhaps "Disruptively low from the perspective of the traditional watch and jewelry world." Sebastian Vivas, the director of a watch museum maintained by Audemars Piguet, the Swiss manufacturer, recently described his industry as unperturbed by Apple's plans: "We're not afraid; we're just a little bit smiling." It would be a greater threat, he told me, if men widely accepted that they could wear gemstones without a time-keeping pretext.
Ive has begun to work with Ahrendts, Apple's senior vice-president of retail, on a redesign-as yet unannounced-of the Apple Stores.
Ive is uncomfortable knowing that a hundred thousand Apple employees rely on his decision-making-his taste-and that a sudden announcement of his retirement would ambush Apple shareholders.
The Apple Watch-the first Apple device with a design history older than its founder, or its designer-was conceived "Close to Steve's death," Ive said.
John Gruber, an influential Apple blogger, has written that the prices may be "Shockingly high ... from the perspective of the tech industry," but perhaps "Disruptively low from the perspective of the traditional watch and jewelry world." Sebastian Vivas, the director of a watch museum maintained by Audemars Piguet, the Swiss manufacturer, recently described his industry as unperturbed by Apple's plans: "We're not afraid; we're just a little bit smiling." It would be a greater threat, he told me, if men widely accepted that they could wear gemstones without a time-keeping pretext.
Ive has begun to work with Ahrendts, Apple's senior vice-president of retail, on a redesign-as yet unannounced-of the Apple Stores.
That's a criminal disservice to some incredibly insightful writing.
Care to write a better summary ? I'm sure many would be interested and upvote.
Read it. It's an awesome piece.
Personally, I find the brand of his sunglasses and the cut of his pants to be irrelevant. They may help paint a picture of the man (if you're familiar with the brand names or the latest styles), but for the most part they are a part of the narrative I could do without. I'm not reading a novel where I must paint my own picture of the characters, I'm reading a news article related to tech. A picture would have sufficed.
Long form narrative requires long form attention and a decent chunk of time. This piece is competing against 29 others on the front page of HN (and another 10-15 which hit the front page and subsequently fell off since I last logged on), and I prefer a concise summary to see if there's information I want or need from this article.
Long form narrative requires long form attention and a decent chunk of time. This piece is competing against 29 others on the front page of HN (and another 10-15 which hit the front page and subsequently fell off since I last logged on), and I prefer a concise summary to see if there's information I want or need from this article.
References to the sunglasses brands and the style of objects with which Ive surrounds himself are part of the message the reporter is trying to get across about the relationship between Apple and luxury brands - a story which, as Apple positions themselves to try to replace Cartier and Rolex on celebrity wrists (because those endorsements are critical to Apple avoiding creating a 'geek watch'), places Ive's role in intriguing light. The question, for me, is how much of that is the reporter emphasizing that because they themselves find the relationship interesting - and how much is that Apple's spin to try to reassure the bling-centric part of the watch market that Ive really does understand luxury brands.
As someone who finds all the airport-mall-style silk, perfume and diamond brands completely baffling, Apple's move in that direction - from design to designer - is a little concerning.
As someone who finds all the airport-mall-style silk, perfume and diamond brands completely baffling, Apple's move in that direction - from design to designer - is a little concerning.
I started reading it ,but didn't find it very interesting. A summary would be surely far more interesting.
It provides the gist of a puff piece, if it was done automagically then all the better!
Not bad, any pointers what technology is involved to build such a summariser?
The Wikipedia article[1] is actually a pretty decent overview. In short, the simpler versions are extractive -- selecting full sentences from the source, based on supervised or unsupervised machine learning over features such as sentence position, length, similarity to the overall document, etc.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_summarization
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_summarization
I'm glad you gave a summary in the comment, the article is pretty extensive.
It is but well worth the read.
Highly enjoyable.
The Apple Watch-the first Apple device with a design history older than its founder, or its designer-was conceived "Close to Steve's death," Ive said.
That presumably means the Watch is going to be the last Apple product Steve had any significant influence on. Where they go from here will be interesting to watch (no pun intended).
That presumably means the Watch is going to be the last Apple product Steve had any significant influence on. Where they go from here will be interesting to watch (no pun intended).
My reading of that sentence is an assertion that the Apple Watch is the company's first device that has a design legacy older than the 20th century. In other words, computers and cellphones and tablets are one kind of design challenge, something like a watch (or, say, a sword or a desk or a bicycle) represents a different type of thing for Apple to have to design and sell.
I find it hard to believe that anything Steve said four years ago, at the inital moments of beginning to conceive of the product, could be considered to have had any material influence on the final design and functionality of a new product brought to market this year. It's well known how heavily Apple iterate on and radically re-imagine their product designs throughout the development process.
I thought the bit on cars was timely:
> Ive acknowledged that he and Marc Newson, who recently joined Apple as a London-based employee, could “incite ourselves to a sort of fever pitch” of design distress; they’ll complain about things “developed to a schedule, to a cost,” or “developed to be different, not better.” He and Newson are car guys, and they feel disappointed with most modern cars; each summer, they attend the Goodwood Festival of Speed, where vintage sports cars are exhibited and raced in the South of England. “There are some shocking cars on the road,” Ive said. “One person’s car is another person’s scenery.” To his right was a silver sedan with a jutting lower lip. Ive said, quietly, “For example.” As the disgraced car fell behind, I asked Ive to critique its design: “It is baffling, isn’t it? It’s just nothing, isn’t it? It’s just insipid.” He declined to name the model, muttering, “I don’t know, I don’t want to offend.” (Toyota Echo.)
> Ive acknowledged that he and Marc Newson, who recently joined Apple as a London-based employee, could “incite ourselves to a sort of fever pitch” of design distress; they’ll complain about things “developed to a schedule, to a cost,” or “developed to be different, not better.” He and Newson are car guys, and they feel disappointed with most modern cars; each summer, they attend the Goodwood Festival of Speed, where vintage sports cars are exhibited and raced in the South of England. “There are some shocking cars on the road,” Ive said. “One person’s car is another person’s scenery.” To his right was a silver sedan with a jutting lower lip. Ive said, quietly, “For example.” As the disgraced car fell behind, I asked Ive to critique its design: “It is baffling, isn’t it? It’s just nothing, isn’t it? It’s just insipid.” He declined to name the model, muttering, “I don’t know, I don’t want to offend.” (Toyota Echo.)
> Behind Ive, at a distance that suggested self-exile, was Steve Wozniak, who, in 1976, co-founded Apple with Jobs, and who was wearing a black steam-punk watch the size of an ashtray. (“What is that?” Ive later asked, rhetorically, in mock affront at its design.)
Well https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2gy53vVRNs , the binary watch is a silvery-metal colour and not as big as the Nixie watch, so it's probably the Nixie watch http://www.cathodecorner.com/nixiewatch/ . (But of course you knew that. ;) )
Well https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2gy53vVRNs , the binary watch is a silvery-metal colour and not as big as the Nixie watch, so it's probably the Nixie watch http://www.cathodecorner.com/nixiewatch/ . (But of course you knew that. ;) )
The one he was showing to the BBC yesterday was the Nixie tube one: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-31463351
> Jobs’s taste for merciless criticism was notorious; Ive recalled that, years ago, after seeing colleagues crushed, he protested. Jobs replied, “Why would you be vague?,” arguing that ambiguity was a form of selfishness: “You don’t care about how they feel! You’re being vain, you want them to like you.”
Sociopathy in a nutshell.
I've seen this line of thought in a few places in popular culture. It's toxic. Caring about other people's feelings can be authentic.
Sociopathy in a nutshell.
I've seen this line of thought in a few places in popular culture. It's toxic. Caring about other people's feelings can be authentic.
'''He lamented that there were “so many anecdotes” about Jobs’s acerbity: “His intention, and motivation, wasn’t to be hurtful.'''
Keep in mind that the unspoken context in the preceding paragraph illustrates Ive's tact in passing criticism through a metaphor rather than the Jobsian, "this sucks."
"J. J. Abrams, the filmmaker and showrunner, is a friend of Ive’s, but he could not attend the September launch, because he was shooting “Star Wars: The Force Awakens,” in London. He later told me that Ive had shared some of the company’s news in advance, and that they had discussed “the fact that we were both working on things that had a level of expectation and anticipation that was preposterous."
Am I the only one that thought that sounds a lot like you just gave away material, non-public info to someone who could have easily acted on it? Probably nothing beyond what was in the rumor bin, but still.
Am I the only one that thought that sounds a lot like you just gave away material, non-public info to someone who could have easily acted on it? Probably nothing beyond what was in the rumor bin, but still.
Having non-public information is not criminal. Only trading on it is.
It's not even criminal to possess material, non-public information and trade on it. It's only illegal (at least in the United States) if the insider gives you the information in exchange for some tangible benefit, and then you trade on it.
Yes, that is true - however, it is generally frowned on by public companies to admit you shared such information outside the company.
As a software developer I am of course biased but I feel like Ive wielding so much control without a strong technical counterpart is a mistake. The first evidence of this in my mind was the iPhone 5C - a cute shell around 1 year old technology. It's too early to tell but I feel like the Apple Watch has similarities - cute designs and features without compelling utility or really any sort of technical innovation, which is surprising. You also see this in the lack of focus on stable software throughout Apple's ecosystem which I honestly think has gotten a lot worse in the past year. I can appreciate what Apple has done for industrial design, user interfaces, and heck even in packaging, but there is a tipping point.
The shell isn't all what Ive and his team does. They will work closely with the electronic engineering team. They also will have a decent level of technical knowledge themselves; that is what an industrial designer is. Industrial design degrees tend to be bachelor of science degrees...
I didn't say they only design the shell for everything - the shell was the only change for the iPhone 5C so for that particular product that is all they did. It's not even about how technical the design team is, it's that they are making the majority of the decisions and hold clout over other teams within the company.
Uh, that was the whole point. The 5C was not a new phone, but a way to gradually introduce a low-budget iPhone so that, one year after its introduction, Apple could offer an iPhone free with contract, expanding their market share and App Store consumption.
What exactly do you think is the mistake in the iPhone 5C? Does every new product have to be technologically more advanced than the one before? Market segmentation by introducing lower-cost models is nothing new.
Also no technical innovation: iMac, iPod, etc.
Also no technical innovation: iMac, iPod, etc.
"Market segmentation by introducing lower-cost models is nothing new."
That's not how Apple became the most profitable company in the world. The first thing Jobs did when he returned to Apple was cut out all of the excess product lines.
That's not how Apple became the most profitable company in the world. The first thing Jobs did when he returned to Apple was cut out all of the excess product lines.
I guess you're not being sarcastic. The iPhone was perhaps the only line without a entry-level component: the plethora of iMacs, iPods, and iBooks each had expensive/professional and entry/cheap lines, if not more than two.
And even then, Apple typically left the previous iPhone model around at a discount so price-sensitive consumers could buy a discounted 4S instead of a cutting-edge 5, for example.
And even then, Apple typically left the previous iPhone model around at a discount so price-sensitive consumers could buy a discounted 4S instead of a cutting-edge 5, for example.
Yeah, that was triage. He then immediately introduced a low-cost PowerMac called the iMac. Repeat with iPod Mini/Nano, MacBook Air (second take), iPad Mini, Macintosh LC, and so on. I did say "lower-cost", not "low-cost".
Interestingly, the iPhone 5c may not be designed to sell like hotcakes itself, but to frame the higher models as better deals. That's what I meant by market segmentation. I also suspect it was harder to keep their margins on the newer CNC'd metal iPhones as they dropped to the entry-level tier. The iPhone, even more so with the 6/6+, currently seems to be the only line that bucks the trend.
Interestingly, the iPhone 5c may not be designed to sell like hotcakes itself, but to frame the higher models as better deals. That's what I meant by market segmentation. I also suspect it was harder to keep their margins on the newer CNC'd metal iPhones as they dropped to the entry-level tier. The iPhone, even more so with the 6/6+, currently seems to be the only line that bucks the trend.
> Things are "developed to be different, not better."
This is certainly true for the Apple keyboard. It is totally an-organic. Give me a cheap standard Logitec keyboard over an Apple keyboard anytime.
This is certainly true for the Apple keyboard. It is totally an-organic. Give me a cheap standard Logitec keyboard over an Apple keyboard anytime.
> This is certainly true for the Apple keyboard. It is totally an-organic. Give me a cheap standard Logitec keyboard over an Apple keyboard anytime.
The problem is that there is no such thing as "better" when it comes to stuff like keyboards.
I used to prefer mechanical keyboards -- I grew up with electric typewriters and the Mac extended keyboard -- but I found that the aluminum Apple keyboard was actually fine for me. I recently switched to Windows, so the keyboard layout of the Apple keyboard didn't work for me.
I tried out a bunch of mechanical keyboards with Cherry switches, and just found that I now hated the mechanical feel (and yes, I tried all the Cherry colors), which totally surprised me, given what I thought my preferences were. I ended up getting a dome keyboard (a Steelseries Apex), because I preferred the feel.
Instead of taking advice from "keyboard experts", people should just try a bunch of keyboards and buy the one that feels "right" for them, whether it's an Apple keyboard, a cheap standard Logitech keyboard, or something else.
The problem is that there is no such thing as "better" when it comes to stuff like keyboards.
I used to prefer mechanical keyboards -- I grew up with electric typewriters and the Mac extended keyboard -- but I found that the aluminum Apple keyboard was actually fine for me. I recently switched to Windows, so the keyboard layout of the Apple keyboard didn't work for me.
I tried out a bunch of mechanical keyboards with Cherry switches, and just found that I now hated the mechanical feel (and yes, I tried all the Cherry colors), which totally surprised me, given what I thought my preferences were. I ended up getting a dome keyboard (a Steelseries Apex), because I preferred the feel.
Instead of taking advice from "keyboard experts", people should just try a bunch of keyboards and buy the one that feels "right" for them, whether it's an Apple keyboard, a cheap standard Logitech keyboard, or something else.
> I ended up getting a dome keyboard (a Steelseries Apex), because I preferred the feel.
It's not just about subjective feel, though.
I typed on mechanical-switch keyboards for 15 years straight, and in July last year switched over to a laptop dome-membrane keyboard.
This week I had to plug a mechanical board back into the laptop because my fingers began to ache after just six months.
Mechanical keyboards cushion the impact on the fingers, other types transmit it into the joints.
It's not just about subjective feel, though.
I typed on mechanical-switch keyboards for 15 years straight, and in July last year switched over to a laptop dome-membrane keyboard.
This week I had to plug a mechanical board back into the laptop because my fingers began to ache after just six months.
Mechanical keyboards cushion the impact on the fingers, other types transmit it into the joints.
> This week I had to plug a mechanical board back into the laptop because my fingers began to ache after just six months.
> Mechanical keyboards cushion the impact on the fingers, other types transmit it into the joints.
That sounds to me like you're typing too hard. Short-travel keys definitely take a lighter touch than mechanical keyboards, and 15 years of finger-pounding on cushioned keys is probably a hard habit to break.
> Mechanical keyboards cushion the impact on the fingers, other types transmit it into the joints.
That sounds to me like you're typing too hard. Short-travel keys definitely take a lighter touch than mechanical keyboards, and 15 years of finger-pounding on cushioned keys is probably a hard habit to break.
For me, the "feel" thing that I experienced while auditioning mechanical keyboards a few months ago was that my finger tips were hurting as I typed for a few minutes. So clearly, YMMV.
I really like Apple keyboards because they allow for an economy of movement. With most keyboards, the keypress has a lot more travel in it and the keys are much thicker, and they're U-shaped on the top, which means I have to expend a lot more effort to move my fingertips horizontally from key to key. Typing on an Apple keyboard is like shooting a rifle with a hair-trigger; there's an economy of motion and effort. After using Apple keyboards for a long period of time it's extremely awkward for me to go back.
People sing the praises of mechanical keyboards, and I guess it's satisfying for them, but I don't want to have to punch the keys like I'm using an old typewriter. I just want my fingertips to dance across them. I think the preference for mechanical keyboards is half nostalgia and half machismo.
People sing the praises of mechanical keyboards, and I guess it's satisfying for them, but I don't want to have to punch the keys like I'm using an old typewriter. I just want my fingertips to dance across them. I think the preference for mechanical keyboards is half nostalgia and half machismo.
I respectfully disagree completely. The Apple keyboard is one of the best non-mechanical keyboards I've used. Typing on a cheap Logitech keyboard is the worst thing ever.
I find Apple's keyboards to be mostly inoffensive, but I can't say I really like using them. The one on my MBP is a bit shallow and the key shape doesn't feel right since they're just flat square pieces. I like the oft-vaunted Thinkpad keyboard - even since the advent of their pseudo-chiclets - a lot better.
When it comes to desktop keyboards, they're better than the typical cheapo rubber-domes but it's still not terribly ergonomic.
When it comes to desktop keyboards, they're better than the typical cheapo rubber-domes but it's still not terribly ergonomic.
Well its better than a CBM 2001 (PET) or a ZX80 or Spectrum keyboard i will give you that - compared to the rolls royce IBM Type M and F Keyboards its very poor
oh dear did the nasty man rain on your parade I thought this was Hacker news and not some Macbooks and MBA echo chamber.
Let's be clear here -- I'm the first to admit Apple haven't made a mouse worth using in the last ten years. All their mice in the post-ball era have been mediocre or miserable. (I currently use a DeathAdder 2013.)
But their full size corded keyboard is brilliant. Haven't used anything that feels half as good. Haven't seen anything that looks half as good.
Oh, and their trackpads are brilliant too.
But their full size corded keyboard is brilliant. Haven't used anything that feels half as good. Haven't seen anything that looks half as good.
Oh, and their trackpads are brilliant too.
Maybe I'm weird here, but I think the Magic Mouse is really great and comfortable to use.
A couple of weeks ago I was thinking about mice and it occurred to me that I hadn't given the Magic Mouse a fair go. So I went out and bought one full price. Switching from the DeathAdder 2013 I immediately noticed a few differences:
* Friction of movement was higher and "stickier" regardless of surface. * Grip was less comfortable because I had to push my fingers against the top edge. * Cursor motion was noticeably lagged and jerky. Admittedly this is going from a corded gaming mouse to a bluetooth mouse, but I don't care. I didn't want cordless anyway.
My only problem with the DeathAdder is that the Mac drivers are horrifically bad and the third party alternatives (SteerMouse etc) aren't much better. I've found that I can configure some settings on a Windows box which configure firmware in the mouse itself (mostly DPI modes and disabling the lights). Get these settings right and it works pretty well plugged into a Mac with no third party mouse software.
* Friction of movement was higher and "stickier" regardless of surface. * Grip was less comfortable because I had to push my fingers against the top edge. * Cursor motion was noticeably lagged and jerky. Admittedly this is going from a corded gaming mouse to a bluetooth mouse, but I don't care. I didn't want cordless anyway.
My only problem with the DeathAdder is that the Mac drivers are horrifically bad and the third party alternatives (SteerMouse etc) aren't much better. I've found that I can configure some settings on a Windows box which configure firmware in the mouse itself (mostly DPI modes and disabling the lights). Get these settings right and it works pretty well plugged into a Mac with no third party mouse software.
The Magic Mouse is indeed the best mouse they've built to-date. But I'll still take an original Microsoft Intellimouse Optical because it fits my hand better and has a good weight & glide to it. Apple should design their mice & keyboards around the human form first, with cool design secondary to that.
I love my magic mouse as well. I wish they made a corded one though, or made bluetooth stuff more reliable.
One silly thing in OS X is that if you have only a wireless keyboard and mouse, and accidentally turn off Bluetooth, it is really difficult to figure out what to do next. The usual advice is "attach a wired mouse and keyboard and turn it back on", but if you don't have one, lots of luck.
You can actually recover from this with a full power down and restart, OS X tries to detect this condition and turn Bluetooth back on. But sometimes it doesn't work and requires a PRAM reset.
You can actually recover from this with a full power down and restart, OS X tries to detect this condition and turn Bluetooth back on. But sometimes it doesn't work and requires a PRAM reset.
For the feels, look no further than any mechanical keyboard.
For the looks - it is a matter of personal taste, but I agree Apple keyboards are elegant.
For the looks - it is a matter of personal taste, but I agree Apple keyboards are elegant.
Mechanical keyboards are nice if that's all you're ever going to use. But I spend 1/3 my time on a MacBook Air, and my fingers really appreciate the consistency of feel between it and my desktop keyboard.
Has anyone made a mechanical keyboard with short travel distance?
Has anyone made a mechanical keyboard with short travel distance?
There are times where mechanical keyboard just doesn't fit. I own a few at home, but in my super quite office, it's a different story, and Apple Keyboard is the least painful alternative after trying many non-mech keyboards, including arguably-mechanical HHKB Pro 2 and MS Ergo 4000.
Yes, mechanical keyboards are superior. And the previous Apple ones were good.
But given the form factor limitation, the Apple ones are pretty good (better than the previous notebook keyboards, I don't know the name of the keyboard types)
But given the form factor limitation, the Apple ones are pretty good (better than the previous notebook keyboards, I don't know the name of the keyboard types)
Eh. I use the Logitech K250 keyboard because my hands literally start to ache after an hour of using their keyboards. Wired or wireless, built into the laptop or no. And the Magic Trackpad is, for my money, a mess--it forgets that the big plus of a laptop trackpad being a trackpad is that it's already right beneath the spacebar, you barely have to move for it. But for me, the Magic Mouse couples gestures and a reasonable pointing device in a really great way.
I thought they'd finally cracked it with the touch-surface magic mouse, I really did. Solidly built, nice to the touch, perfect click action, responsive touch sensitivity. Wow!
To celebrate, I fired up Borderlands to see how well it worked in a game. Started out great. Accurate and responsive, effortless to use.
Then I tried zooming in with a telescopic sight (right-click and hold), then shooting with a left-click at the same time. You can't. Because the top surface is a roicker, you can either right-click or left-click but not both at the same time. Fail!
But they were sooo close this time....
To celebrate, I fired up Borderlands to see how well it worked in a game. Started out great. Accurate and responsive, effortless to use.
Then I tried zooming in with a telescopic sight (right-click and hold), then shooting with a left-click at the same time. You can't. Because the top surface is a roicker, you can either right-click or left-click but not both at the same time. Fail!
But they were sooo close this time....
Oh, don't get me wrong, I use a Logitech G2 for games. But for day-to-day work I use the Magic Mouse.
I know I am sure my collegues don't enjoy my "industrial" language at the typos caused by rubishy chicklet keyboard.
Though I am building an adaptor for my IBM Type F as my first Ardunio project and am activly looking at getting a proper mech keyboard at work - I havde just replaced the wirless moouse with an old ps2 Microsft one.
Though I am building an adaptor for my IBM Type F as my first Ardunio project and am activly looking at getting a proper mech keyboard at work - I havde just replaced the wirless moouse with an old ps2 Microsft one.
The most annoying thing in the latest iPods (mine is a v7 nano, about a year old) is the fact they made the headphone cables out of a grippy, matt surface instead of the glossy one they had before. This new surface has increased the number of tangles exponentially.
Oh please. I type on a MBP 10 hours a day at least, and it's no problem whatsoever. There's a lot of personal preference in keyboards, because it's all about how you use them. The position of your arms and wrists and hands makes or breaks the design of the keyboard.
Personally, I always found "ergonomic" keyboarsd to be unusable and uncomfortable, especially the Microsoft split style. But lots of people swear by those.
Personally, I always found "ergonomic" keyboarsd to be unusable and uncomfortable, especially the Microsoft split style. But lots of people swear by those.
several co-workers are huge Apple fans. One in particular is what I call a "heavy" typer - someone who really hammers the keys on his keyboard. After going through 3 Apple keyboards in a year, he finally gave up on them.
He was surprised and their seemingly lack of durability as most of Apple's products are fairly robust. After switching back to an an old Dell keyboard, he hasn't gone through any more keyboards, and that was 3 years ago.
He was surprised and their seemingly lack of durability as most of Apple's products are fairly robust. After switching back to an an old Dell keyboard, he hasn't gone through any more keyboards, and that was 3 years ago.
I'm just going to pull a Steve Jobs and say he was using it wrong. The whole point of the Apple keyboard is that you can use feather-light touches on the keys to trigger them. You don't have to pound on it like it's an IBM Model M or an old typewriter.
The Wired article which was referenced in the beginning of the article:
The cover: http://hypercritical.co/2013/09/02/images/wired-pray-cover.p...
The article - "101 Ways to Save Apple" : http://archive.wired.com/wired/archive/5.06/apple.html
The list is pretty interesting we can look back and see which ones were spot on and the others were way, way off.
The cover: http://hypercritical.co/2013/09/02/images/wired-pray-cover.p...
The article - "101 Ways to Save Apple" : http://archive.wired.com/wired/archive/5.06/apple.html
The list is pretty interesting we can look back and see which ones were spot on and the others were way, way off.
I love this piece. What a fantastic work.
I love that it's much longer than most articles shared on HN, and that reading the whole thing took me a long time, but was totally rewarding. A whole day of coffee breaks, in fact.
And now I'm too late to join in the discussion!
More high quality articles like this, please internets!
I love that it's much longer than most articles shared on HN, and that reading the whole thing took me a long time, but was totally rewarding. A whole day of coffee breaks, in fact.
And now I'm too late to join in the discussion!
More high quality articles like this, please internets!
"His manner suggests the burden of being fully appreciated." - I don't really know what that phrase means, but I love it.
I would imagine something along the lines of - After you have been right so many times (and profitably so), people stop challenging you and just take your word as gospel. At that point, there is no longer a burden to convince people, which is a very helpful mechanism to keep you on your toes.
This mechanism is what you then have to internalize and have out with yourself (and perhaps the very few people you have to work insanely hard on to keep out of acolyte mode) because it is now the only thing in the world that even can keep you on your toes.
This mechanism is what you then have to internalize and have out with yourself (and perhaps the very few people you have to work insanely hard on to keep out of acolyte mode) because it is now the only thing in the world that even can keep you on your toes.
The cloth covering the table nearest the door was curiously flat. “This is actually complicated,” Ive said, feeling through the material. “This will make sense later. I’m not messing with you at all, I promise.”
This sounds like something out of a sci-fi novel.
This sounds like something out of a sci-fi novel.
it was the watch display case the author talks about later.
I have no idea why they are giving this article away for free (loaded it into Instapaper and won't see ads).
Who wouldn't pay $3 for this via Stripe?
Who wouldn't pay $3 for this via Stripe?
> Who wouldn't pay $3 for this via Stripe?
A lot of people, I think. I'd guess less than 1% of those who would read it for free.
A lot of people, I think. I'd guess less than 1% of those who would read it for free.
I wouldn't pay $0.10 for it.
This really comes off as a puff piece, likely the deluge of Apple puff pieces we will have to suffer through leading up to the watch going on sale.
You spend 60 minutes on something that isn't worth $0.10 for you?
No, I didn't spend time on it at all. Apple does not interest me.
Which explains why you are here, commenting on an article about Apple's lead designer.
I structurally read most comment threads on HN, even on subjects that I don't care about to see what's going on in the world of software and hardware without having to go and work with each and every device and piece of software out there.
Part of my job is to stay informed about lots of things that I don't have direct experience with, there is simply too much out there for any individual to experience directly.
So I use HN as a time-saving device, the collective wisdom and time invested vastly exceeds my own and it's not rare at all to find that HN comment threads are more informative and correct than the articles themselves. FWIW if a subject does interest me I'll read the article too (obviously...), and plenty of times the HN comment threads make me change my mind about what I should be interested in.
The effect of this is that I can state with some certainty why apple does not interest me without investing a chunk of cash and a large amount of time first.
Of course that wasn't what you were after, you'd like me to admit that I'm secretly interested in apple after all. But there isn't a single apple product that I'd like to own or use (I have an ancient Imac here that's been off for more than a year now), I don't want to buy an 'experience', I only believe in being able to run whatever software I want on the hardware that I own. As soon as I need to jailbreak a device in order to be able to really use it you can safely count me out and OS/X is not such a large step up from Ubuntu that it makes me want to run a different OS on my desktop than on my servers.
So as far as I'm concerned Apple is not (currently) interesting to me.
Part of my job is to stay informed about lots of things that I don't have direct experience with, there is simply too much out there for any individual to experience directly.
So I use HN as a time-saving device, the collective wisdom and time invested vastly exceeds my own and it's not rare at all to find that HN comment threads are more informative and correct than the articles themselves. FWIW if a subject does interest me I'll read the article too (obviously...), and plenty of times the HN comment threads make me change my mind about what I should be interested in.
The effect of this is that I can state with some certainty why apple does not interest me without investing a chunk of cash and a large amount of time first.
Of course that wasn't what you were after, you'd like me to admit that I'm secretly interested in apple after all. But there isn't a single apple product that I'd like to own or use (I have an ancient Imac here that's been off for more than a year now), I don't want to buy an 'experience', I only believe in being able to run whatever software I want on the hardware that I own. As soon as I need to jailbreak a device in order to be able to really use it you can safely count me out and OS/X is not such a large step up from Ubuntu that it makes me want to run a different OS on my desktop than on my servers.
So as far as I'm concerned Apple is not (currently) interesting to me.
None of that screed explains why you felt compelled to threadshit with "not worth 10¢ to me". You are able to "structurally read" to see what's going on without such comments, surely.
Because the GGGP asked 'who wouldn't pay $3 for this'.
I think it's implicit in the premise that only people who are interested in the topic would be prepared to pay anything to read something on it.
The charitable interpretation of his question would be "who, of the people who find this topic interesting, would not be willing to pay $3 for it?".
The question you are presumably structurally answering is "why wouldn't absolutely everybody in the whole world pay $3 for this?". In answering that, you were either being insulting to GGGP, or looking for a pretext to wedge in an "I don't care about this" comment. I suspect the latter.
The charitable interpretation of his question would be "who, of the people who find this topic interesting, would not be willing to pay $3 for it?".
The question you are presumably structurally answering is "why wouldn't absolutely everybody in the whole world pay $3 for this?". In answering that, you were either being insulting to GGGP, or looking for a pretext to wedge in an "I don't care about this" comment. I suspect the latter.
Apple is a fascinating phenomenon. It rightly interests everyone; investors, economists, managers, consumers, and from the look of this thread, even those who it doesn't interest. :)
> The charitable interpretation of his question would be
and
> I suspect the latter.
Interesting to see how selective you are when using that charitable interpretation technique.
and
> I suspect the latter.
Interesting to see how selective you are when using that charitable interpretation technique.
I wouldn't just based on the title and a summary. Having read it I would have, but how could you know it was such high quality prior to reading it?
I wouldn't pay a single cent, and I cannot conceive of why you don't understand that.
I think his question makes more sense if you read it as "Of the people who are seriously willing to read an article of this length about Jonny Ive, who wouldn't pay $3 for this via Stripe?"
I had to stop reading because the article seemed to meander and fumble around too much before making a point.
I'm not sure I'd pay anything to read this type of content in this format. As a collection of stories in a PDF, maybe, but not on a screen.
I say this as a lukewarm Apple fan that believes Apple is losing its way in the post-Jobs era.
I'm not sure I'd pay anything to read this type of content in this format. As a collection of stories in a PDF, maybe, but not on a screen.
I say this as a lukewarm Apple fan that believes Apple is losing its way in the post-Jobs era.
Just curious, how do you believe that Apple is losing its way?
There were plenty of Apple weird/"failed" products during Jobs time: iPod HiFi, Newton, 20th Anniversary Mac, exceptionally buggy versions of OSX until Snow Leopard etc. etc.
EDIT: Apparently the Newton and the TAM weren't during Job's time! My mistake! Sorry! Time to go read Wikipedia.
There were plenty of Apple weird/"failed" products during Jobs time: iPod HiFi, Newton, 20th Anniversary Mac, exceptionally buggy versions of OSX until Snow Leopard etc. etc.
EDIT: Apparently the Newton and the TAM weren't during Job's time! My mistake! Sorry! Time to go read Wikipedia.
Largely due to the fact they they are a) playing it safe and b) mostly reactionary when it comes to new product designs/concepts.
I have no qualms with the current product lineup, but I think that Apple, under Cook, has traded vision for certainty. I think that having more of Ive outside of cheeky launch videos would serve them well.
I have no qualms with the current product lineup, but I think that Apple, under Cook, has traded vision for certainty. I think that having more of Ive outside of cheeky launch videos would serve them well.
Interesting, I had not thought of them playing it safe. But I suppose you are right about the "reactionary" part of it to some extent. But what about software? The new Yosemite look was widely hated on release, as was iOS7 changes. (I myself like Yosemite btw)
Would you not see the Apple Watch as a risk? Or a risk in the wrong sort of way?
Would you not see the Apple Watch as a risk? Or a risk in the wrong sort of way?
I think it's the wrong kind of risk - it's Apple explicitly trying to operate as an upmarket fashion brand, as opposed to Apple suggesting a fashion brand while appearing to operate as a technology company.
Watch is like to trying to sell a gold-plated Mac Pro. Suddenly the gold becomes more important than the computing.
All previous Jobs products majored in being useful. If you put an iPod inside a cardboard case with clunky switches instead of a click wheel, you'd still have a very practical music player. The clever design enhances usefulness that's already there.
Same with the iPhone. It was the first phone to pull together the phone, map, browser, email, calendar, and other features with maximum user benefit. You could make a case for competing products doing one or two items on the list better, but not for any competitor making everything work together so well as a package.
Usefulness again.
The point of Watch Edition seems to be conspicuous display of expense, with useful computing thrown in as a free extra.
That's a completely different product direction.
If Watch has limited basic usability - if the battery life is too short, if it doesn't do something insanely wonderful and useful out of the box - I think success is not guaranteed.
Watch is like to trying to sell a gold-plated Mac Pro. Suddenly the gold becomes more important than the computing.
All previous Jobs products majored in being useful. If you put an iPod inside a cardboard case with clunky switches instead of a click wheel, you'd still have a very practical music player. The clever design enhances usefulness that's already there.
Same with the iPhone. It was the first phone to pull together the phone, map, browser, email, calendar, and other features with maximum user benefit. You could make a case for competing products doing one or two items on the list better, but not for any competitor making everything work together so well as a package.
Usefulness again.
The point of Watch Edition seems to be conspicuous display of expense, with useful computing thrown in as a free extra.
That's a completely different product direction.
If Watch has limited basic usability - if the battery life is too short, if it doesn't do something insanely wonderful and useful out of the box - I think success is not guaranteed.
Very observant and interesting points, thanks. I had not thought of the prettiness/beautification as a secondary item to the purpose of the products. Thanks.
Yosemite is an upgrade on part with what they were already doing, so more of the same there.
The watch, in my eyes, is a huge disappointment. With as much time as they took to prep for the launch, I expected they would have done more thinking about how to innovate in a landscape that has failed to become anything more than mediocre.
I think it is the epitome of Apple's failure to innovate post-Jobs, and is the first of more 'meh' to come.
The watch, in my eyes, is a huge disappointment. With as much time as they took to prep for the launch, I expected they would have done more thinking about how to innovate in a landscape that has failed to become anything more than mediocre.
I think it is the epitome of Apple's failure to innovate post-Jobs, and is the first of more 'meh' to come.
But what about drawing hearts to each other on it??? :-)
Only kidding. I found the Watch video to be dull and Ives' voiceover to be disappointing and desperately attempting to find highlights in a featureless item. A bit like trying to describe how wonderful a piece of blank A4 piece of paper was. I will wait to see how it fares! No doubt we'll all be shocked if it sells by the billion.
Only kidding. I found the Watch video to be dull and Ives' voiceover to be disappointing and desperately attempting to find highlights in a featureless item. A bit like trying to describe how wonderful a piece of blank A4 piece of paper was. I will wait to see how it fares! No doubt we'll all be shocked if it sells by the billion.
Jobs hated the Newton and killed it first thing when he came back, and the TAM was also under Gil Amelio
The Newton and 20th Anniversary Mac weren't during Jobs' time.
[deleted]
It's literally too long to read. I clicked on it out of curiosity, read the first lines, started scrolling faster and faster, didn't reach the end. But somebody will find it too short and overly interesting. Luckily we are all different :-)
A fun bit is the defence of the hockey puck mouse (at the end).
I'll be honest I couldn't finish this article. I am so sick of writers fawning over Steve Jobs in every single article about Apple. Jobs has been gone for over 3 years now. It's time that he was only mentioned in passing in an article about Apple's future.
I would not say the author was fawning, but it is obvious, and such articles try to explain that exact detail, that Jobs was and still is an immense influence. Writers need to – at least – acknowledge that, even if some people are tired of it.
Of course he's a huge influence. But it's been 3 years of everyone who talks about Apple talking about what a huge influence he is. It really does not need to be mentioned other than in passing any more. This article spent way too much tiem on it right away, to the point where I only made it through the first section and had to stop.
Am I the only one who thinks Jony Ive is a fraud? Let's examine the evidence, shall we?
Let's consider Jony's performance on software design first. This is what some prominent people have said about iOS 7: The Verge wrote in their review: "iOS 7 isn't harder to use, just less obvious. That's a momentous change: iOS used to be so obvious." In iOS 7 basic usability features such as making buttons look like buttons are now stuffed under Accessibility options. About this, Tumblr co-founder Marco Arment wrote: "If iOS 8 can’t remove any of these options, it's a design failure." (And iOS 8 hasn't.) Michael Heilemann, Interface Director at Squarespace wrote, "when I look at [iOS 7 beta] I see anti-patterns and basic mistakes that should have been caught on the whiteboard before anyone even began thinking about coding it." And famed blogger John Gruber said this about iOS 7: "my guess is that [Steve Jobs] would not have supported this direction."
And what about Jony's other responsibility, industrial design? The iPod, iPhone, iPad, MacBook Air and other Apple products are all amazingly well designed and breathtakingly beautiful. But these products weren't designed by Jony Ive all by himself. He designed them under Steve Jobs's guidance and direction. Steve was the tastemaker. Apple's post-Steve products are nowhere near as well-designed.
Consider iPhone 5c, for example. The colors are horrid, and when you add those Crocs-like cases it looks more like a Fisher-Price toy than like a device an executive would want to be seen holding. Then they released some ads for the 5c, and I kid you not, one of the ads had sounds of bleating farm animals. (It was titled "Every color has a story", published on tumblr. That the 5c hasn't done well in the market shouldn't surprise anyone.
Of late Apple has done phenomenally well, financially. But this isn't because of Jony Ive's design. It is because of the ecosystem created by Steve Jobs. The larger phone size met an important demand, and is not an innovation, and this is not repeatable innovation.
References: http://www.theverge.com/2013/9/18/4741724/ios-7-review http://www.marco.org/2013/12/15/button-shapes http://fireballed.org/linked/2013/06/18/heilemann-ios-7/ http://daringfireball.net/2013/10/this_weeks_ipad_event
Let's consider Jony's performance on software design first. This is what some prominent people have said about iOS 7: The Verge wrote in their review: "iOS 7 isn't harder to use, just less obvious. That's a momentous change: iOS used to be so obvious." In iOS 7 basic usability features such as making buttons look like buttons are now stuffed under Accessibility options. About this, Tumblr co-founder Marco Arment wrote: "If iOS 8 can’t remove any of these options, it's a design failure." (And iOS 8 hasn't.) Michael Heilemann, Interface Director at Squarespace wrote, "when I look at [iOS 7 beta] I see anti-patterns and basic mistakes that should have been caught on the whiteboard before anyone even began thinking about coding it." And famed blogger John Gruber said this about iOS 7: "my guess is that [Steve Jobs] would not have supported this direction."
And what about Jony's other responsibility, industrial design? The iPod, iPhone, iPad, MacBook Air and other Apple products are all amazingly well designed and breathtakingly beautiful. But these products weren't designed by Jony Ive all by himself. He designed them under Steve Jobs's guidance and direction. Steve was the tastemaker. Apple's post-Steve products are nowhere near as well-designed.
Consider iPhone 5c, for example. The colors are horrid, and when you add those Crocs-like cases it looks more like a Fisher-Price toy than like a device an executive would want to be seen holding. Then they released some ads for the 5c, and I kid you not, one of the ads had sounds of bleating farm animals. (It was titled "Every color has a story", published on tumblr. That the 5c hasn't done well in the market shouldn't surprise anyone.
Of late Apple has done phenomenally well, financially. But this isn't because of Jony Ive's design. It is because of the ecosystem created by Steve Jobs. The larger phone size met an important demand, and is not an innovation, and this is not repeatable innovation.
References: http://www.theverge.com/2013/9/18/4741724/ios-7-review http://www.marco.org/2013/12/15/button-shapes http://fireballed.org/linked/2013/06/18/heilemann-ios-7/ http://daringfireball.net/2013/10/this_weeks_ipad_event
The whole iOS 7 obviousness argument is ridiculous.
Of course iOS 6 was more obvious to Verge writers, they'd been using it for 3/4 years.
Of course iOS 6 was more obvious to Verge writers, they'd been using it for 3/4 years.
Likely an interesting article, but to warn you: it is difficult to read, due to, the, many, many, commas. And short sentences. And, short, pithy statements, with no, obvious direction, with added details thrown in, that are nothing, to do with the, main reason for this, paragraph. There is also consistent incessant name dropping.
Meant in good humour.
Meant in good humour.
Not to write an irrelevant comment, but printed out this article is 52 pages... c'mon, that's a bit excessive even if you really like Apple.
Agreed - I read the first paragraph before realizing how long the thing was.
It's a bit of a turnoff TBH. I'd read the distilled bullet points for takeaways if there were any. But in this long of form? I have trouble committing!
It's a bit of a turnoff TBH. I'd read the distilled bullet points for takeaways if there were any. But in this long of form? I have trouble committing!
It's an article for a print magazine, not a Buzzfeed post.
10 Jonny Ive quotes you'll have to read out of context. You'll never believe 7.
With a few ads and an op-ed that IS a magazine.
I imagine they wanted to make it a paywalled article but thought no one in their right mind would want to read the story outside of the magazine anyway and made it free. :)
Speaking of, does their iOS app still crash five minutes into reading an article? I had to give up on reading the magazine altogether, when their digital app couldn't even be bothered to remember my reading position in their longform articles after each crash.
Speaking of, does their iOS app still crash five minutes into reading an article? I had to give up on reading the magazine altogether, when their digital app couldn't even be bothered to remember my reading position in their longform articles after each crash.
23 pages in two-column Calibri 10pt ... I'm going to spare that one for lunch break.
There is a segment of the population who will read anything, as long as it is related in some way to Apple. Some of them are on HN, too.
There is a tiny segment of the population who will read the New Yorker, where pieces of this length are the norm. This segment represents the last of the literate.
What's liking Apple got to do with that? Even if you despise Apple you cannot just ignore its relevance and the role it plays. Do you really think it's wasted effort to write a couple thousand words about a designer as influential as their lead designer – even if you think his work sucks or is just average or whatever?
Not trying to bash the company, meant the comment as even Apple fans are going to have a hard time reading that much, especially with the writer's prose. I love in-depth material, but this feels a lot more like an author's book rather than journalist's article.
I have no problems reading long-form articles. I have an attention span, and for things that interest me I will use it. Do you not?
I mean, this is how journalism was fifty years ago. Go read an old issue of Harper's or The Atlantic from the fifties or sixties. They're better, because in addition to being informative they're a joy to read. They're written by people who understand and respect English and want you to enjoy the prose of their work as well as the content.
I mean, this is how journalism was fifty years ago. Go read an old issue of Harper's or The Atlantic from the fifties or sixties. They're better, because in addition to being informative they're a joy to read. They're written by people who understand and respect English and want you to enjoy the prose of their work as well as the content.
A TL;DR would be useful. Is there a focus or a direction or a point somewhere in the article? I've read the first few pages but it's just a meandering nothingness so far.
It's a profile of Jony Ive.
Was the author paid by the word?
By the compliment, and or celebrity name drop, I would think.
Flushed out of the UK after a toilet manufacturer turned down his designs, Jony Ive, who is friends with Stephen Fry, Bono and lots of other celebs, clicked with Steve Jobs and now wants to retire but is chained in by the watch and the billion objects he designed that were sold, so he is driven around in a Bentley but hey he can get rid of Job's awful taste in calendar apps designed to look like the interior of his (now Ive's) private jet. The Apple store will have carpets because no one will buy a watch on a non carpeted floor.
So he wants to be free. Well, there is already a petition:
https://www.change.org/p/apple-free-jony-ive-from-his-white-...
https://www.change.org/p/apple-free-jony-ive-from-his-white-...
Amusing summary. The "flushing" expression in relation to the toilet was witty. Perhaps it was "panned" by critics? Or he was told to "brush" up?
The new calendar app is like looking at a big white piece of paper that a spider has crawled across. I can't see anything on it.
The carpet thing will be interesting - impossible to keep clean.
The new calendar app is like looking at a big white piece of paper that a spider has crawled across. I can't see anything on it.
The carpet thing will be interesting - impossible to keep clean.
Thanks, it's a nice summary of a very ADHD-unfriendly article :)
About 20 minutes in to the conversation, one student asked him: "Why are so many of Apple's products white?" I think all of us expected some long explication of the clean and unassuming quality of white as a color.
Instead, Johnny closed his eyes, took a breath, and said (as best as I can recall), "Imagine something that doesn't exist. Imagine something completely new. A new shape. A new device..." After a beat he continued, "Can you imagine something like that?" At this point he was obviously doing the very thing he was suggesting we all try. Then he opened his eyes and plainly said, "Well...when I do they're always white!" Then he laughed like a little kid and said, "I guess that sounds pretty ridiculous, huh?" and moved on to the next question...