When Stephen Fry Met Jony Ive(telegraph.co.uk)
telegraph.co.uk
When Stephen Fry Met Jony Ive
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/apple/11628710/When-Stephen-Fry-met-Jony-Ive-the-self-confessed-fanboi-meets-Apples-newly-promoted-chief-design-officer.html
4 comments
> design for the sake of design, with little regard for functional implications
This is a fundamental misunderstanding. The minimalist aesthetic is underpinned by the principle that form follows function, and is absolutely opposed to ornament or visual additions. Aesthetic === functional in this worldview; it's not a separate thing which gets added in. (This is precisely why Ives and others eschewed skeumorphism.)
This is a fundamental misunderstanding. The minimalist aesthetic is underpinned by the principle that form follows function, and is absolutely opposed to ornament or visual additions. Aesthetic === functional in this worldview; it's not a separate thing which gets added in. (This is precisely why Ives and others eschewed skeumorphism.)
Yea, except, Apple most definitely favors aesthetics over functionality.
Take the iPod shuffle:
- Gen 1 was minimal, usable, and a portable USB drive,
- Gen 2 was minimal and usable, but lost its portable USB drive functionality (required a cable to also be carried around), but
- Gen 3 was smaller for no reason, moved the controls to an earbud cable which was impossible to use while running, and cost extra to buy an adapter if you didn't want to use their shitty earbuds, and then
- Gen 4 returned to the 2nd Gen design, because Gen 3 was very clearly flawed.
Seriously, explain the 3rd Gen iPod Shuffle.
I can cite many examples where they've dumped functionality for aesthetics, like non-removable batteries, fully-sealed computers (latest Mac mini), etc, but this is the clearest mistake they've made where they had to actually reverse course because of their favoritism for aesthetics over functionality.
Take the iPod shuffle:
- Gen 1 was minimal, usable, and a portable USB drive,
- Gen 2 was minimal and usable, but lost its portable USB drive functionality (required a cable to also be carried around), but
- Gen 3 was smaller for no reason, moved the controls to an earbud cable which was impossible to use while running, and cost extra to buy an adapter if you didn't want to use their shitty earbuds, and then
- Gen 4 returned to the 2nd Gen design, because Gen 3 was very clearly flawed.
Seriously, explain the 3rd Gen iPod Shuffle.
I can cite many examples where they've dumped functionality for aesthetics, like non-removable batteries, fully-sealed computers (latest Mac mini), etc, but this is the clearest mistake they've made where they had to actually reverse course because of their favoritism for aesthetics over functionality.
I'm not going to defend individual design choices as I wasn't party to the tradeoffs being considered - and I disagree with some of them myself. But if you are involved in any kind of design (and I would definitely include programming here), you will be well aware of how much goes into boiling down a set of compromises into something elegant and usable - and how hard it can be to communicate why some part of that was really the best choice and took a lot of deep thought and iteration to get there. And you'll also be aware that design is never finished.
More generally, Apple have taken what many might think of as an industrial design approach and applied it to consumer design in a more rigorous way than others. So a lot of thought about coatings and materials used for screens and bodies, packaging (part of the consumer experience), and so on.
To construct a plausible scenario around your point off the top of my head, reduced size is clearly a key functional feature of a portable device, and while I'm not defending 3rd gen shuffle, it would make sense that a device you might go running with would be better if absolutely tiny. And if you are on the run, there would be an argument for having controls on the cable rather than the device. I think these kinds of things are clearly getting a lot of attention as we see the designs are being iterated and previous mistakes corrected.
Likewise, things like sealed devices are absolutely functional design decisions from the point of view of creating a mass-produced device. The success of the ipad bears this out. It may appal me that apple will only completely swap an ipad with cracked screen, or that I can't upgrade RAM in my macbook - but I can understand that standardisation and non-customisation is key to things like a predictable user experience, manufacturing and supply chain, worldwide warranties. Apple have always been about this and it's why they manufacture both hardware and software. I won't buy the 12" macbook computing device myself, but for family members it might be the ideal laptop. Anything else and I know I'm going to get several more messages a week asking me why facebook and twitter aren't working.
More generally, Apple have taken what many might think of as an industrial design approach and applied it to consumer design in a more rigorous way than others. So a lot of thought about coatings and materials used for screens and bodies, packaging (part of the consumer experience), and so on.
To construct a plausible scenario around your point off the top of my head, reduced size is clearly a key functional feature of a portable device, and while I'm not defending 3rd gen shuffle, it would make sense that a device you might go running with would be better if absolutely tiny. And if you are on the run, there would be an argument for having controls on the cable rather than the device. I think these kinds of things are clearly getting a lot of attention as we see the designs are being iterated and previous mistakes corrected.
Likewise, things like sealed devices are absolutely functional design decisions from the point of view of creating a mass-produced device. The success of the ipad bears this out. It may appal me that apple will only completely swap an ipad with cracked screen, or that I can't upgrade RAM in my macbook - but I can understand that standardisation and non-customisation is key to things like a predictable user experience, manufacturing and supply chain, worldwide warranties. Apple have always been about this and it's why they manufacture both hardware and software. I won't buy the 12" macbook computing device myself, but for family members it might be the ideal laptop. Anything else and I know I'm going to get several more messages a week asking me why facebook and twitter aren't working.
Right-- but Ive also seeks to reduce form so much to the point where it begins to impede upon functionality. Take the thickness of the iPhone 6, for instance. The drive to reduce the noticeability of the hardware is at the direct expense of battery life and camera quality; I'd certainly consider this a failing of his design philosophy.
But yet its one of the best phone cameras available today. It pains me to see the horrible pictures many of my Android friends post to Facebook. And after the iPhone 5 battery the 6+ battery is serving me more than well. I can go a day and a half without a charge. Would a thicker version that could go a week serve customers better? I don't think so, I rather like its slenderness.
Regarding the non-replaceable battery, while I am sure that they had some profit-motivated reasons to go that way, you also have to take in account that high-density batteries are a bit dangerous to handle, so replaceable batteries need a protective shell (adding to their volume).
In other words a non-replaceable battery can provide a bit more power for the same volume. So even if the primary motivation might have been aesthetics (no need for large openings in the body) I am sure that it wasn't the only reason for that decision.
Of course, I've no reason to doubt that. Apple's design philosophy is great for many people, but the trend of its design becoming the only design for interfaces (see also: Galaxy S6) is disappointing. It homogenises the market and ultimately makes it less interesting.
How Is that Apple's fault, if somebody decides to rip off their design decisions instead of making different ones that could prove them as better option on the market?
Samsung Galaxy s5 had a removable battery, and the company even touted the functionality pretty heavily in its marketing materials. Did that saved the S5 from failing on the market?
Another example is the philosophy of trying to jam all possible functionality into one [phone|mouse] button.
>This sort of design has been present in countless cheap, $3 international power adapters.
"This sort" is not "the same". And that's for the design part -- we haven't even discussed implementation at all.
"This sort" is not "the same". And that's for the design part -- we haven't even discussed implementation at all.
> This sort of design has been present in countless cheap, $3 international power adapters. Ive's ego and insistence on exalting his own genius at the expense of others' is maddening, and to call something so simple an "innovation" illustrates how little is necessary for something to be deemed a work of ingenuity.
Except the only quote we have from Ive was "It took ages to solve". He didn't talk about his genius, about how it was an innovation. It's all just a mix of what the reporter said and your personal biases.
I also don't think that ThinkPads on the ISS is a particularly good indicator of anything, besides perhaps the difference in the vendor's willingness to work with third parties on radiation hardening?
Except the only quote we have from Ive was "It took ages to solve". He didn't talk about his genius, about how it was an innovation. It's all just a mix of what the reporter said and your personal biases.
I also don't think that ThinkPads on the ISS is a particularly good indicator of anything, besides perhaps the difference in the vendor's willingness to work with third parties on radiation hardening?
The Thinkpads on the ISS isn't really a criteria to measure innovation or design. Those T60s are there because that's a standardized piece of equipment with a proven process for radiation hardening and for installing active cooling on them (traditional cooling doesn't work because it relies on convection which doesn't work in microgravity.) However, the people on the ISS are free to use personal devices (phones, tablets, etc.) and guess which are the most popular?
[deleted]
"Ive’s inventiveness can perhaps most starkly be expressed by revealing that he has nearly 5,000 patents to his name."
Because patenting "rounded corners"[1] is really an impressive achievement. Not to mention other trivial/stupid patents (see lawsuit against Samsung).
1. http://www.businessinsider.com/apple-ipad-design-patent-2012...
Because patenting "rounded corners"[1] is really an impressive achievement. Not to mention other trivial/stupid patents (see lawsuit against Samsung).
1. http://www.businessinsider.com/apple-ipad-design-patent-2012...
"The development costs and development times of everything from those first iPods to the new line of Apple watches were far higher and far longer than any other company in the sector might tolerate.
And AS A RESULT the revenues from those products are far, far higher than any other company can dream of." [My emphasis]
I call post hoc ergo propter hoc (after this therefore because of this). While possibly just some lazy copy editing, I think everyone who's backed a hardware Kickstarter is well aware that blown out costs and development times do not normally result in far greater revenues.
Apple, in so many ways, is the exception not the rule. And in general this "fanboi" piece does a good job of highlighting some of their exceptions.
And AS A RESULT the revenues from those products are far, far higher than any other company can dream of." [My emphasis]
I call post hoc ergo propter hoc (after this therefore because of this). While possibly just some lazy copy editing, I think everyone who's backed a hardware Kickstarter is well aware that blown out costs and development times do not normally result in far greater revenues.
Apple, in so many ways, is the exception not the rule. And in general this "fanboi" piece does a good job of highlighting some of their exceptions.
> Apple, in so many ways, is the exception not the rule.
I think Apple follows traditional device manufacturing rules pretty closely. It takes 3-7 years to get a new hardware product market ready. The exceptions are startups or crowdfunded doodads that are able to launch in 18 months.
Nobody's going to crowdfund on 3-7 year timescales though, so you end up with a lot of optimistic lies (even the creators lying to themselves about how quickly things can get made).
I think Apple follows traditional device manufacturing rules pretty closely. It takes 3-7 years to get a new hardware product market ready. The exceptions are startups or crowdfunded doodads that are able to launch in 18 months.
Nobody's going to crowdfund on 3-7 year timescales though, so you end up with a lot of optimistic lies (even the creators lying to themselves about how quickly things can get made).
More recent Kickstarter stuff is likely all done with R&D by the time they hit the site. This because after the initial year or so Kickstarter put into place a rule demanding a working prototype. Before that you had a mess of CAD renders and such being peddled. If you go over to Indiegogo you still find all those CAD renders and such, and i think that site has had a much lower success rate on delivery.
Obviously, taken in context (that other companies might not tolerate higher costs and longer development times), the "as a result" line does not imply that higher costs and longer development times are the cause of far higher revenues in general.
The "as a result" line implies that for Apple, higher costs and longer development times has yielded more revenue.
The subject of the line is Apple, not the other companies.
The "as a result" line implies that for Apple, higher costs and longer development times has yielded more revenue.
The subject of the line is Apple, not the other companies.
The reasons for blown out costs matter though: on kickstarter it's likely due to lack of experience with the manufacturing process. Kickstarter companies also likely do not have the marketing or global retail network to recoup sunk costs in many cases.
There's another piece of the puzzle, which, in Apples case, may be attributed to the long and costly development process--that after this process, great products (which are not too late for the market) are released. If the hardware Kickstarter managed this, they probably wouldn't do too badly.
> “Maybe it should be called the Steve Jobs Campus?” I suggest. “Oh, Steve made his views on that very clear,” says Cook.
Good!
Good!
> Apple has recently developed a standard British power plug whose prongs fold elegantly back flush into their body. Easily stowed, no agony if accidentally trod on. A separate and wholly different solution to that offered by the Mu Plug which solves the problem in another way.
> “It took ages to solve,” Ive says wistfully. And that is the point. No one else cares as much. Of course it took ages, because anything worth doing does. People who take pains to the extent he and his team do are very very rare.
This sort of design has been present in countless cheap, $3 international power adapters. Ive's ego and insistence on exalting his own genius at the expense of others' is maddening, and to call something so simple an "innovation" illustrates how little is necessary for something to be deemed a work of ingenuity.
Like Marc Newson, much of his work is design for the sake of design, with little regard for functional implications. To have a company's philosophy be singularly focussed on aesthetics and minimalism alone is not a bad thing. But as Larry Wall prophetically said several years ago, "Apple is the arbiter of good taste. But when good taste becomes mandatory, it's no longer good taste, just manners."
I feel similarly about Apple's design philosophy. Their level of influence doesn't inspire opposing philosophies from their competitors, it inspires imitation-- since imitation is a basic, natural, fundamental reaction to something successful. The problem is that it alienates those who have other requirements that differ vastly from those of Apple's, and who would be better served with a little less aesthetic sense, and more functionality or durability at the expense of (largely arbitrary) things such as thickness, gloss, polish, and shine.
There is a reason you only see ThinkPads on ISS rather than MacBooks. Similar design goals -- minimalism, starkness, and abstraction -- but with vastly different approaches.