Apple: The organizational Rorschach(37signals.com)
37signals.com
Apple: The organizational Rorschach
http://37signals.com/svn/posts/3536-apple-the-organizational-rorschach
7 comments
> How is the iOS7 redesign different to that of Android
> and Windows Phone redesigns?
Well the Windows Phone redesign (Windows Phone 7 & 8) was equally significant, if not more so, as a design direction change for Microsoft. And there are certainly similarities between WP7/8 and iOS7.
Android perhaps less significant as that has been a set of gradual changes, but the actual design language in the latest version of Android is starkly different to the first release.
Android perhaps less significant as that has been a set of gradual changes, but the actual design language in the latest version of Android is starkly different to the first release.
I think the article is referring more to the fact that all the changes shown were done in ~7 months. He's marvelling less at the result, and more at the fact that a huge organization like Apple can seem to pivot so hard and quickly. Thinking about that makes him wonder how, or if, his own team could pull of such a feat... hence it being Rorschach test since it makes you introspective.
Out of curiosity, why wouldn't you consider their redesign "flat"?
How apple did it: They copied what Microsoft had done, exactly like Samsung copied them, and Apple previously copied (poorly) what Google had done with Maps.
I say this not in spite but in awe of what Apple is really good at. They are good at copying things but then doing such an amazing job of presenting their copy that you, the elite of the industry, think that they invented it.
They've been doing this since they copied the Xerox interface and I've always been in awe of it.
I say this not in spite but in awe of what Apple is really good at. They are good at copying things but then doing such an amazing job of presenting their copy that you, the elite of the industry, think that they invented it.
They've been doing this since they copied the Xerox interface and I've always been in awe of it.
Who are all of these people that you are referring to who think that Apple creates everything out of a vacuum? I hear people whine about this on Internet forums all the time, but I've never actually met or even seen postings by any of these poor confused souls that you are so concerned about. If you can find a single person in SV who is not aware of the Xerox connection, you get a cookie. For that matter, every single other thing you mentioned.
Everyone is influenced by everyone. This is not news to anyone. Now, being influenced by something is not the same as "copying", but acknowledging that would require some semblance of nuance or analysis. By the same logic, Linux is a "copy" of Unix, and Windows is a "copy" of Mac OS which is a "copy" of the Xerox GUI. Doesn't that piss you off? Doesn't that make want to go threadcrap in the Ubuntu forums about how they're all sheep for not understanding that this stuff is just a "copy" of SVR4? I have a feeling that you do not. The web browser you're using to post this is a "copy" of Mosaic, but something tells me that that doesn't bother you either, because you can't use it to justify a preexisting hatred.
Everyone is influenced by everyone. This is not news to anyone. Now, being influenced by something is not the same as "copying", but acknowledging that would require some semblance of nuance or analysis. By the same logic, Linux is a "copy" of Unix, and Windows is a "copy" of Mac OS which is a "copy" of the Xerox GUI. Doesn't that piss you off? Doesn't that make want to go threadcrap in the Ubuntu forums about how they're all sheep for not understanding that this stuff is just a "copy" of SVR4? I have a feeling that you do not. The web browser you're using to post this is a "copy" of Mosaic, but something tells me that that doesn't bother you either, because you can't use it to justify a preexisting hatred.
> since they copied the Xerox interface
No, not licensed. Not according to most non-Mac sites, nor Malcolm Gladwell: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/05/16/110516fa_fact_...
Not one mention of any license. Another remark:
"They did not license the technology. Xerox had invested in Apple and owned 20%. As one condition of the investment, Steve Jobs got a tour of Xerox Parc.
As another part of the investment, Xerox asked Apple to buy business and liability insurance from Xerox's insurance subsidiary. Apple did.
Xerox management later learned that they could sue Apple for huge amounts of money - most of which would then be paid by Xerox's own insurance company."
Not one mention of any license. Another remark:
"They did not license the technology. Xerox had invested in Apple and owned 20%. As one condition of the investment, Steve Jobs got a tour of Xerox Parc.
As another part of the investment, Xerox asked Apple to buy business and liability insurance from Xerox's insurance subsidiary. Apple did.
Xerox management later learned that they could sue Apple for huge amounts of money - most of which would then be paid by Xerox's own insurance company."
And EVERYBODY copied the original iPhone, otherwise we'd still all be walking around with Blackberries, Symbian Nokia phones, and stylus driven Windows Mobile phones. Why even bother pointing any of this out?
No, they really didn't. Can't we all stop pretenting that the iPhone wasn't expected? The idea was ripe, Apple just did it first. The second person to make a wheel wasn't copying off the person who did it first.
At the risk of putting too fine a point on it, all they did--which is still impressive, just not un-expected--is add a phone to the actually groundbreaking iPod Touch. The first time I saw an iPod Touch was when I was working at RadioShack selling mostly un-customizable flip phones, and my first thought was 'if they just added a cell antena to this, it would be the phone everyone is waiting for.'
We all wanted a phone with a big screen, lots of customization, and simple interaction (touch). The second person to make that phone didn't copy off of the person who did it first.
At the risk of putting too fine a point on it, all they did--which is still impressive, just not un-expected--is add a phone to the actually groundbreaking iPod Touch. The first time I saw an iPod Touch was when I was working at RadioShack selling mostly un-customizable flip phones, and my first thought was 'if they just added a cell antena to this, it would be the phone everyone is waiting for.'
We all wanted a phone with a big screen, lots of customization, and simple interaction (touch). The second person to make that phone didn't copy off of the person who did it first.
You have your facts wrong. The iPod touch came out after the iPhone, and previous to the iPhone there were no devices out there that had the same design. Everyone was making stylus or physical keyboard based smart phones before the iPhone came out. Virtually all the major players in the smart phone market universally panned the iPhone for taking the major risk of having one large screen be the main means of input. Boy were they wrong.
You're completely right, I have it backwards [red face]. It was an iPhone which I saw and thought that it would make a sweet iPod if they just removed the phone.
Nevertheless, though I agree that there were no devices out there with the same design, the idea was ripe. Surely the concept of manipulating the screen directly rather than through a stylus or buttons is abstract enough to stop calling it 'copying'.
In other words, it's such an obviously natural interface that someone was eventually going to do it first, so we can stop saying that anyone after the winner of that race is copying.
Nevertheless, though I agree that there were no devices out there with the same design, the idea was ripe. Surely the concept of manipulating the screen directly rather than through a stylus or buttons is abstract enough to stop calling it 'copying'.
In other words, it's such an obviously natural interface that someone was eventually going to do it first, so we can stop saying that anyone after the winner of that race is copying.
Well, if you re-read my original post you'd find I'm essentially agreeing with you. You can always point to someone who's "copying" someone else because nobody innovates in a vacuum. So why bother pointing it out?
(The iPod touch came out after the iPhone.)
Please show me an example of something which is entirely, undebatably original and has no relation to any previous design or technology. I'm very curious.
A whoopie cushion.
The Roman Emperor Elagabalus was known to employ a prototype of whoopee
cushions at dinner parties, although the modern version was re-invented in
the 1920s by the JEM Rubber Co. of Toronto, Canada, by employees who were
experimenting with scrap sheets of rubber.[1]
[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whoopee_cushionI don't see the great similarities between iOS 7 and any microsoft interfaces. Can you say more about which product they "copied" and what design features specifically make you think that?
You must be joking - http://chris.millr.org/ios-7-looks-familiar-cant-quite-put-m...
Ok, I'll bite. Lets go through these one by one
1) Weather - The similarities are that they both use white text over an image that somewhat represents current conditions. The alignment is different, and its not even presenting the same information.
2) Answer Call - They look the same because instead of a picture of a tree you have a picture of a person, that is not an IOS7 design change. The other similarity is that they squared off the buttons.
3) Multitasking cards - Pretty much the same, but they both took that from WebOS, mostly because its been recognized as the best way of presenting that information.
4) Lock screen - Almost identical to the IOS6 lock screen, but with the black backgrounds removed from the top and bottom. Completely different from the Windows Phone one except that the background images are similar, which again is a user selected thing, not the OS.
So these screenshots "prove" that Apple has copied the concept of designing a weather app with text over a picture (also known as how 90% of the weather apps currently in the app store work) and that they took the idea of multitasking cards from WebOS. Oh, and they made some buttons square instead of round.
The horror
1) Weather - The similarities are that they both use white text over an image that somewhat represents current conditions. The alignment is different, and its not even presenting the same information.
2) Answer Call - They look the same because instead of a picture of a tree you have a picture of a person, that is not an IOS7 design change. The other similarity is that they squared off the buttons.
3) Multitasking cards - Pretty much the same, but they both took that from WebOS, mostly because its been recognized as the best way of presenting that information.
4) Lock screen - Almost identical to the IOS6 lock screen, but with the black backgrounds removed from the top and bottom. Completely different from the Windows Phone one except that the background images are similar, which again is a user selected thing, not the OS.
So these screenshots "prove" that Apple has copied the concept of designing a weather app with text over a picture (also known as how 90% of the weather apps currently in the app store work) and that they took the idea of multitasking cards from WebOS. Oh, and they made some buttons square instead of round.
The horror
To build on gtcameron:
The call comparison is bad -- the first one is when the phone is "unlocked" and the "new" one is when the phone is in a locked state. Also, the previous version would show a picture if you had a picture associated to the contact.
And, if anything, with weather, and in general iOS was the first mobile OS which allowed you to horizontally scroll through screens -- I feel that that is the bigger "design" element stolen than a particular font/color choice.
Let's not forget about the pinch to zoom, etc.
Lesson here? Everyone borrows from each other. But I don't think the examples here are that damning. I think iOS borrowed much more from android than WP7/8. (Look at the modal dialogs -- other than rounded corners, they're nearly identical to Android's)
AND Chris Miller got his dates wrong -- the multitasking in windows phone and iOS was stolen from WebOS -- which came out in 2009. Not 2011.
The call comparison is bad -- the first one is when the phone is "unlocked" and the "new" one is when the phone is in a locked state. Also, the previous version would show a picture if you had a picture associated to the contact.
And, if anything, with weather, and in general iOS was the first mobile OS which allowed you to horizontally scroll through screens -- I feel that that is the bigger "design" element stolen than a particular font/color choice.
Let's not forget about the pinch to zoom, etc.
Lesson here? Everyone borrows from each other. But I don't think the examples here are that damning. I think iOS borrowed much more from android than WP7/8. (Look at the modal dialogs -- other than rounded corners, they're nearly identical to Android's)
AND Chris Miller got his dates wrong -- the multitasking in windows phone and iOS was stolen from WebOS -- which came out in 2009. Not 2011.
Prof Bob Sutton at Stanford made a similar point about Steve Jobs last year: http://bobsutton.typepad.com/my_weblog/2012/07/wired-story-w...
That's one of the most interesting idea i've read about apple and steve jobs in a long time.
I wonder if any management consultant start brainstorms with "why do you think Apple made it to the top ?".
Plus, with the strong duality between Apple public image (the cool, artistic oriented company) and steve jobs internal (supposed) behavior, that gives plenty of room for people to project their own frustrations :)))
Plus, with the strong duality between Apple public image (the cool, artistic oriented company) and steve jobs internal (supposed) behavior, that gives plenty of room for people to project their own frustrations :)))
[deleted]
> Whether you happened to like the final product
And then the rest of the post assumes you like the final product.
And then the rest of the post assumes you like the final product.
Instead of saying it again, I'll just link to my original comment https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5869340
If you want to see a really bold redesign, look at the transition from Windows Mobile to Windows Phone.
http://www.theverge.com/2013/6/8/4408756/microsoft-metro-des...
The Apple homescreen still looks like this from more than 20 years ago, but now with garish and fluorescent colored icons.
http://common.ziffdavisinternet.com/encyclopedia_images/_PRG...
>marveling at the vision, drive, and sheer determination to pull it off.
I think this statement and the whole article better applied to WP7 rather than iOS7.
I think there is some major RDF at play here.
http://disinfo.com/2011/06/apple-products-trigger-the-same-p...
http://news.cnet.com/8301-17852_3-20064577-71.html
http://www.theverge.com/2013/6/8/4408756/microsoft-metro-des...
The Apple homescreen still looks like this from more than 20 years ago, but now with garish and fluorescent colored icons.
http://common.ziffdavisinternet.com/encyclopedia_images/_PRG...
>marveling at the vision, drive, and sheer determination to pull it off.
I think this statement and the whole article better applied to WP7 rather than iOS7.
I think there is some major RDF at play here.
http://disinfo.com/2011/06/apple-products-trigger-the-same-p...
http://news.cnet.com/8301-17852_3-20064577-71.html
Agreed. Metro is not a step I had expected MS to take. The first few iterations in that video were more along the lines of what I had expected from MS. You could probably argue that they took "flat design" too far, but you can't accuse them of not taking any bold risks.
How is the iOS7 redesign different to that of Android and Windows Phone redesigns? Is it just so awe-inspiring and amazing because Apple did it?
I thought people were starting to get past having a verbal orgasm every time Apple did anything and were instead ready to treat them like any other company. I guess we're not quite there yet.