or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple's Ive describes struggle for perfection in interview, calls copycat designs 'theft'
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple's Ive describes struggle for perfection in interview, calls copycat designs 'theft'

post #1 of 141
Thread Starter 
In an interview published on Sunday, Apple SVP of Design Jony Ive lifted a corner to Apple's veil of secrecy, offering a peek into his process of "making" and how an Apple product stands apart from other designs.

Jony Ive
Apple design chief Jony Ive discusses a special curated (RED) auction in 2013. | Source: Sotheby's


Sitting down for a rare in-depth interview (subscription required) as part of UK publication The Sunday Times' "Makers" series, Ive speaks candidly about working at Apple, the state of design and his thoughts on rival products.

While the article touches on a multitude of subjects, from Ive's early days as a fledgling designer to his relationship to late cofounder Steve Jobs, the through line is Apple. After entering the company in 1992, Ive now leads a team of "about 15" designers from Britain, America, Japan, Australia and New Zealand. Most members of the small cadre have worked together for 15 to 20 years, Ive says.

As for workflow, Ive starts each project by working out a product's function before applying form. He takes this theory of industrial design to the next level, sometimes poring over details for months. Ive says this quest for perfection is "an affliction designers are cursed with."

Ive does not consider any single device design to be his best work, but instead points to an idea that customers still value high-quality craftsmanship. That Apple has seen such huge success with its devices, which are by no means cheap, proves that many consumers still put value in quality over savings.

"We're surrounded by anonymous, poorly made objects," Ive said. "It's tempting to think it's because the people who use them don't care -- just like the people who make them. But what we've shown is that people do care."

He goes on to explain that consumers who buy Apple products don't simply like an iPhone or Mac because it looks pretty, but because "they care about things that are thoughtfully conceived and well made.""We make and sell a very, very large number of (hopefully) beautiful, well-made things. Our success is a victory for purity, integrity -- for giving a damn." - Apple SVP of Design Jony Ive

"We make and sell a very, very large number of (hopefully) beautiful, well-made things," Ive said. "Our success is a victory for purity, integrity -- for giving a damn."

The designer also talks about the difficulties of making a tech product "intimate," a subject Ive has touched on before in product launches like the iPhone 5s.

"The product you have in your hand, or put into your ear, or have in your pocket, is more personal than the product you have on your desk," Ive explains. "The struggle to make something as difficult and demanding as technology so intimately personal is what first attracted me to Apple. People have an incredibly personal relationship with what we make."

On that note, reporter John Arlidge asks Ive about the much-rumored "iWatch," a product that would by most definitions be intimate in design. The designer expectedly avoids answering, likening the usual cat-and-mouse questioning on future products to a game of chess.

When asked about his thoughts on rival companies that reference designs like that of the iPhone, Ive says, "It's theft." Without pointing fingers, he notes that copycat products are not just copying design, but "thousands and thousands of hours of struggle."

Ive and his design group have churned out a number of now-iconic Apple designs, including the iMac G3, the original iPod and iPhone.

The best years may be ahead, however, as Ive says, "We are at the beginning of a remarkable time, when a remarkable number of products will be developed. When you think about technology and what it has enabled us to do so far, and what it will enable us to do in [the] future, we're not even close to any kind of limit. It's still so, so new."
post #2 of 141
Ask yourself, what Samsung product will ever be in a museum as an example of innovation or art?

If anything, there might be Samsung LCDs displaying the history of Apple products 1wink.gif

I jest 1wink.gif
post #3 of 141
Well said
post #4 of 141
Bravo, Sir Jony!

To maintain integrity in the face of resounding popular and financial success must be the hardest thing of all to achieve; especially in a public company!

- iP5 and MB Air owner and Mac user since 1987
post #5 of 141
I love the genuine thought process of Sir Johny Ive. Amazing how a little over a dozen designers design products the world values.
post #6 of 141

The world would be such a better place if everyone valued quality as much.

post #7 of 141
People do value design...do value other giving a damn about what they get for their hard earned money. At least a number of people do.

I vote with my wallet... always will. I stopped buying Samdung and other companies stuff because of that exact reason.. they don't give a damn.. and if they do, it is not reflected in the quality of their products. Just recently, i purchased a new router... I wanted to get something that would "just work" and take care of my backups for me.

I could have gone the Netgear or Cisco or whatever else way and add an external HDD connected to it.
I decided to fork out 300$ for a Time Capsule because............i just works. I don't have to have 2-3 boxes on my desk, it is stylish and it's one less hassle for me. That's why I pay a premium... because i don't need to fiddle and fumble on what i purchased.... Why do you (all of you) pay that premium?
post #8 of 141
the iPhone... I use it, and I use it well. But it's just a phone. There's nothing intimate with it.
And sometimes, it's even complicated to do easy stuff with it!
post #9 of 141
Honest questions: are there any phones being sold since 2012 that look even remotely similar with the iPhone or iPad? Does someone even think that the 100 million people that bought a galaxy S or note last year, did it because they thought that they were buying iPhones? Do we really see Android as a stolen product instead of an Amazing viable alternative?

Please, let's be rational here. If Apple wants those costumers, cut the crap and give them a product that they want to buy instead of a dressing only the needs of half the premium market. The argument of copying died with Steve, we have different distinct products and a huge number of people pay the same amount of money for other products for a reason.
post #10 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by iRikal View Post

Why do you (all of you) pay that premium?

I pay because badly made things make me sad. I can't help thinking about the poor soul that made it, and feel sorry for them.

post #11 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by pedromartins View Post

Honest questions: are there any phones being sold since 2012 that look even remotely similar with the iPhone or iPad? Does someone even think that the 100 million people that bought a galaxy S or note last year, did it because they thought that they were buying iPhones? Do we really see Android as a stolen product instead of an Amazing viable alternative?

Please, let's be rational here. If Apple wants those costumers, cut the crap and give them a product that they want to buy instead of a dressing only the needs of half the premium market. The argument of copying died with Steve, we have different distinct products and a huge number of people pay the same amount of money for other products for a reason.

 

Well the argument can be made that the copying and massive amounts of advertising is what pushed Samsung to its market position. No other manufacturer is doing the volume or revenue that Samsung is. Also, Samsung isn't accused of only copying hardware, but software as well. Only after the lawsuits did they take steps to stop copying. Regardless, Apple is still defending its patents in active court cases, which is why these questions still come up.

 

Regarding your statements about competing products; a large amount of people buy Samsung and other competing phones purely due to the size of the screen or to a much smaller degree, their desire to use Android. Additionally, carriers push Android devices because of kickbacks from manufacturers. That isn't even taking into consideration a lot of the bundling that happens with Android devices. Anecdotally, I know quite a few people that prefer iOS to Android but they like larger screens. Truth be told, I would like a 4.7" screen. Apple has made to not release a larger screen device yet and they have stated it is due to not wanting to compromise certain things, including color reproduction and battery life. I think with the new display tech on the market, things are aligning and Apple will release a larger screen device this year.

post #12 of 141
The full article is behind a pay wall but 9to5mac took screenshots:

http://9tomac.com/2014/03/16/sunday-times-interviews-jonathan-ive-on-everything-design-apple-and-much-more/

(put the 5 in the link).
post #13 of 141

"We're surrounded by anonymous, poorly made objects," Ive said. "It's tempting to think it's because the people who use them don't care — just like the people who make them. But what we've shown is that people do care."

 

This is great quote. And it encapsulates the main reason why I was (finally) drawn to Apple products in the first place. Most people "don't care". But I'm thinking that more and more people *will* care in the future and that will pay off for Apple even more than it is now...

 

Sony seems to be the only one of the direct competitors that have the capacity to understand this *and* execute on it. It took it's sweet time but I think they are currently the closest to competing with Apple on similar terms.

 

And it seems to be paying off for them too...

post #14 of 141
iTV, pls
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of the rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of the rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
post #15 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ireland View Post

iTV, pls

 

If you mean an actual television set, that's unlikely. The profit margins are slim and most people don't upgrade their TVs every few years. 

post #16 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by pedromartins View Post

Honest questions: are there any phones being sold since 2012 that look even remotely similar with the iPhone or iPad? Does someone even think that the 100 million people that bought a galaxy S or note last year, did it because they thought that they were buying iPhones? Do we really see Android as a stolen product instead of an Amazing viable alternative?

 

Virtually every smartphone design on the market today is heavily influenced by the iPhone. Some of us need the occasional reminder of what "smartphones" all looked like (hardware and software) before Apple's entry into the market. It's not that Android phone buyers think they're buying an iPhone but rather that they wouldn't be buying the device at all if it hadn't "borrowed" so much of its hardware and software design form the iPhone.

 

post #17 of 141
The thing that most people forget is that at the time of the iPhone's launch the other mobile phone makers were so far ahead of Apple in all aspects of the market. It's not like these latter day copycats were struggling backwater startups trying to bring inexpensive communication devices to the masses or the sake of benefitting humanity. They were the big megacorps with a stranglehold over the entire market and the media and used to throwing their weight around. The bold upstart new kid on the block with the crazy new idea about what a mobile device could be was Apple. Prior to its launch many pundits thought it was going to be a folly for Apple. If you want to talk about abuse of power - take a look at who held all the cards and who went on to screw their biggest customer with blatant copycat designs. Think about how you would feel if someone you'd been supporting with your business suddenly turned around and tried to take you down because they coveted what you have and had the means and technology to do so. That's sleazy on a massive scale and it's only because of the immense value in the brains of Jony Ive and his crew that the bullies were not able to prevail. Sometimes brains does beat brawn.

I don't know what it was that turned so many good people against what is one of the best examples of American Ingenuity and icons of industry to ever come along. Was it the snarky Mac vs. PC ads? Was it Apple's refusal to get into a race to the bottom on price and commoditization? Do people really hate winners even when they rose from being the underdog? Impossible to say. But what is not impossible to say is that Samsung and others were clearly caught copying Apple designs. Even a caveman can see that fact. Unfortunately Apple did not provide a way for these copycats to "save face" and move on so the battles will continue unabated. It's really too bad because Samsung is a great company from a component and product engineering standpoint. They just can't get past the fact that they were caught with their hands in Apple's cookie jar and until they settle this ego driven conflict in their own mind, make good on their crimes, and decide to move forward on their own they will always be operating under a dark cloud and their best attempts to "one up" Apple with things like the Galaxy Gear will make them look like posers. They have the wherewithal and talent to make it work on their own but for some reason they choose not to move on.
post #18 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by freediverx View Post
 

 

The profit margins are slim and most people don't upgrade their TVs every few years. 

That's the real reasoning behind everything apple does, if you think that it's anything to do with having products that look cool then you've been suckered by the sales hype

post #19 of 141
Most Americans are Chevy buyers on price. The rest of the world makes the price decision and gets a VW or Toyota. The reasons haven't changed in a half-century.

Parochial and familiar is good enough for Americans. The rest of the world is willing to make a bit more of a quality decision for their earned income. So, McMansions are big - and energy inefficient; supermarket chains rely on sugar; fashion is defined by Kohls and Walmart; and the Super Bowl provides 12 minutes of actual competitive sport in a 4-hour telecast.

Our nation's conformity wouldn't feel so oppressive if it weren't so boring.
post #20 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by ascii View Post
 

The world would be such a better place if everyone valued quality as much.

 

But the world doesn’t. “Good enough” is the standard. It’s why Windows dominates the desktop OS universe. It’s why Android is on all of the cheap phones. It’s why textiles, electronics, steel, moved to China. 

post #21 of 141
The pu
Quote:
Originally Posted by helicoil View Post

That's the real reasoning behind everything apple does, if you think that it's anything to do with having products that look cool then you've been suckered by the sales hype
The purpose of a corporation is to increase shareholder wealth. These companies are not charities, they need to turn a profit. The difference is that every other manufacturer is trying to gain market share so they can then increase margins later, or drop the manufacturing quality to maintain high profit margins at a lower retail price.
post #22 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by DewMe View Post

It's really too bad because Samsung is a great company from a component and product engineering standpoint. 

 

Samsung is good at cloning other companies' products and very efficiently mass producing and distributing them globally. If you look at every other market segment they're in, you will find the same pattern of blatantly copying designs from true innovators and then stealing the market from them.

 

As an example, here is Dyson's revolutionary, patented vacuum cleaner next to Samsung's me-too offering:

 

 

The reason most people are unaware of this is that few companies have the capital necessary to enter a drawn out legal battle with a company the size of Samsung. 

 


Edited by freediverx - 3/17/14 at 5:47am
post #23 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by jkichline View Post

The purpose of a corporation is to increase shareholder wealth. These companies are not charities, they need to turn a profit. The difference is that every other manufacturer is trying to gain market share so they can then increase margins later, or drop the manufacturing quality to maintain high profit margins at a lower retail price.

 

"At [Apple's] annual shareholder meeting in Cupertino, the NCPPR urged Cook and the board to pledge that Apple wouldn't pursue any more environmental initiatives that didn't improve its bottom line." 

 

Tim Cook's response: 

 

"We do things because they are right and just and that is who we are. That’s who we are as a company. When I think about human rights, I don’t think about an ROI. When I think about making our products accessible for the people that can’t see or to help a kid with autism, I don’t think about a bloody ROI, and by the same token, I don’t think about helping our environment from an ROI point of view.... If you only want me to make things, make decisions that have a clear ROI, then you should get out of the stock."

post #24 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by pedromartins View Post

Honest questions: are there any phones being sold since 2012 that look even remotely similar with the iPhone or iPad? Does someone even think that the 100 million people that bought a galaxy S or note last year, did it because they thought that they were buying iPhones? Do we really see Android as a stolen product instead of an Amazing viable alternative?

Please, let's be rational here. If Apple wants those costumers, cut the crap and give them a product that they want to buy instead of a dressing only the needs of half the premium market. The argument of copying died with Steve, we have different distinct products and a huge number of people pay the same amount of money for other products for a reason.

Your inquiry is to simple. For the first couple of years after the iPhone release, several companies, especially Samsung, copied every aspect of the iPhone. I personally witnessed people refer to Samsung phones as iPhones. Samsung's lawyers couldn't tell an iPad or Samsung tablet apart. I had trouble telling them apart. Android was completely rewritten to mimic ios and improperly used java without permission to do it.

This initial stealing cost Apple sales, finished Apple's first party to the market advantage, and the people buying those competing devices became invested in Androids ecosystem. The stealing gave Samsung the market power it has today. The damage is still felt today. Many of the lawsuits in the news today involving Apple are about phones not on the market anymore because the wheels of justice are slow.

It is true that I see less obvious copies of Apple's devices today with the exception of Samsung's tablets (which still look a lot like white iPads) and perhaps the HTC One (which doesn't count because HTC has a license with Apple).

However, almost every phone made now mimics Apple's touch screen model. Many of the competitors phones copy Apple's usability patents. For example, how your phone knows how certain information like phone numbers or addresses are those things and associates actions with that. That function is covered under Apple patents first utilized on its computers.

Apple and Microsoft have made computer operating systems a long time. It is silly to think that new comers can ship smart phones without violating some Apple or Microsoft patent pertaining to computer operating systems. Apple has been making unique computer hardware a long time, and holds similar advantages in that regard.
post #25 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by jkichline View Post

The pu
The purpose of a corporation is to increase shareholder wealth. These companies are not charities, they need to turn a profit. The difference is that every other manufacturer is trying to gain market share so they can then increase margins later, or drop the manufacturing quality to maintain high profit margins at a lower retail price.

That is a philosophy not original to you that was brought about by some snobbish economist about 30 years ago. It was not written into law, and corporations are free to do any number of things not related to making a profit. Courts have held that shareholders of publicly traded companies have the remedy of selling their stock if they don't like management.
post #26 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell View Post


Apple and Microsoft have made computer operating systems a long time. It is silly to think that new comers can ship smart phones without violating some Apple or Microsoft patent pertaining to computer operating systems. Apple has been making unique computer hardware a long time, and holds similar advantages in that regard.

Motorola, Ericsson and Nokia have been making mobile phones for a long time, so by the same token it would be silly to think a newcomer like Apple can ship smartphones without violating some Motorola or Nokia or Ericsson patent pertaining to mobile phones. Wouldn't that be right? IMO all the manufacturers benefit from innovations and inventions that might have originated with a competitor.

If you believe an infringed patent should be sufficient for a product to be banned from the market if the holder doesn't want to licence it then no current smartphone could probably be sold IMHO.
Edited by Gatorguy - 3/17/14 at 6:33am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #27 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by helicoil View Post

That's the real reasoning behind everything apple does, if you think that it's anything to do with having products that look cool then you've been suckered by the sales hype


Money although necessary is not every bodies primary driving goal. It certainly wasn't with Jobs. He was good at making it, but that was a byproduct of his passion for creating.
post #28 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by freediverx View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by DewMe View Post

It's really too bad because Samsung is a great company from a component and product engineering standpoint. 

 

Samsung is good at cloning other companies' products and very efficiently mass producing and distributing them globally. If you look at every other market segment they're in, you will find the same pattern of blatantly copying designs from true innovators and then stealing the market from them.

 

As an example, here is Dyson's revolutionary, patented vacuum cleaner next to Samsung's me-too offering:

 

 

The reason most people are unaware of this is that few companies have the capital necessary to enter a drawn out legal battle with a company the size of Samsung. 

 

Shame samsung didnt violate any of dysons patents but they do look sorta similar
post #29 of 141
I agree, Samsung's ability to innovate and create is laughable. But they are able to bring the designs that they acquire through whatever means to market with impressive speed and at impressive quantities, which is why Apple keeps going back to them for parts and components even though Samsung returns the favor by stabbing them in the back. And the front. Anyone who feels "sorry" for Samsung in their battles with Apple has an extremely distorted perception of right and wrong. I give Samsung credit where it's due, but they'll always be a second rate company as long as they continue to steal other people's creativity and intellectual property. I believe they CAN do right because they have the right pieces in other areas. Why they choose not to do right is what baffles me.
post #30 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by singularity View Post

Shame samsung didnt violate any of dysons patents but they do look sorta similar

Samsung to pay Dyson Technology over patent dispute
http://uk.mobile.reuters.com/article/idUKLD64172920090213?irpc=932
post #31 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by freediverx View Post
 

 

Samsung is good at cloning other companies' products and very efficiently mass producing and distributing them globally. If you look at every other market segment they're in, you will find the same pattern of blatantly copying designs from true innovators and then stealing the market from them.

 

As an example, here is Dyson's revolutionary, patented vacuum cleaner next to Samsung's me-too offering:

 

 

The reason most people are unaware of this is that few companies have the capital necessary to enter a drawn out legal battle with a company the size of Samsung. 

 

 

 

god I hate Samsung...

post #32 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by pedromartins View Post

Honest questions: are there any phones being sold since 2012 that look even remotely similar with the iPhone or iPad? Does someone even think that the 100 million people that bought a galaxy S or note last year, did it because they thought that they were buying iPhones?

 

Honest question: do you think the Galaxy S would look and function the same as it does now (i.e. no physical keyboard, full touchscreen, multitouch gestures, overall shape/style, etc) if the iPhone had never come out?

 

I remember the first couple of years after the iPhone came out -- everyone insisting that people preferred physical keyboards, that it was too big, too fragile, the touchscreen got too dirty, etc, etc.  I remember walking into cell phone stores at the time and seeing a wide variety of phones: flip phones, candy bar phones, etc.

 

Nowadays, the vast majority of phones are patterned after the iPhone look.  Not necessarily identical in look, but the overall style and way you interact with the phone is modelled after the iPhone.  It's amazing how many people just don't even notice this and/or refuse to give Apple credit where credit is due.

 
Reply
 
Reply
post #33 of 141
undefined
post #34 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by auxio View Post

Honest question: do you think the Galaxy S would look and function the same as it does now (i.e. no physical keyboard, full touchscreen, multitouch gestures, overall shape/style, etc) if the iPhone had never come out?

By now there would probably be many multi-touch capacitance touchscreen phones on the market but they may not be popular, especially if the first attempts were anything like we see from many vendors with poorly considered features and a lack of refinement that would have led to a empirical data that physical keyboards are indeed superior.

The anti-Apple crowd likes to use the LG Prada as being the device Apple "copied" and yet it was only a single touch device that had no option to pinch and zoom. Then you have BB devices that used resistive touchscreens. Would Samsung have launched such a device or Google had written Android to support that input? I think so, because they do seem to throw a lot of stuff at the wall as it is, but with no focus so without having the iPhone and iOS as objects to go after, I think it's unlikely it would have been very good.
Edited by SolipsismX - 3/17/14 at 7:25am

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #35 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by ruel24 View Post

Even Jobs comment that the best ideas are stolen. 

That was a Picasso quote "Good artists copy, great artists steal." Stealing here means "making something your own," which means taking something and reinterpreting it in a personal, original way such as Picasso taking an ordinary building and drawing it Cubist style. 

 

 

It doesn't mean making a knock-off of the market leader and selling millions of them.

post #36 of 141
Originally Posted by auxio View Post

There really needs to be a variant of Godwin's law applied whenever PARC comes up in a discussion.

 

Xerox’ Law: Any invocation of the history of PARC has only two outcomes–complete agreement with or total dismissal of your argument. There are no nuances.

 

Originally Posted by ascii View Post
That was a Picasso quote

 

I’m to understand someone else actually said it, though. :p 

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already fucked.

 

Reply

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already fucked.

 

Reply
post #37 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

By now there would probably be many multi-touch capacitance touchscreen phones on the market but they may not be popular, especially if the first attempts were anything like we see from many vendors with poorly considered features and a lot of refinement that would have led to a empirical data that physical keyboards are indeed superior.

 

Exactly.  I don't doubt that others would have created similar style phones in time, but whether that style of phone would have become as dominant as it has without having the blueprint of the iPhone (and iOS) is the point.

 

As many have pointed out, the LG Prada may have looked like an iPhone, but it certainly didn't function like one.  Only those who don't pay attention to the details would see otherwise.

 
Reply
 
Reply
post #38 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by freediverx View Post

Samsung to pay Dyson Technology over patent dispute
http://uk.mobile.reuters.com/article/idUKLD64172920090213?irpc=932
http://www.engadget.com/2014/02/17/samsung-countersues-dyson-over-vacuum-copycat-claims/

If the article is correct Dyson subsequently dropped the infringement claims. Samsung didn't let it go tho and filed their own suit alleging false "copycat" claims from Dyson. Strange, strange. . .
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #39 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by freediverx View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by singularity View Post

Shame samsung didnt violate any of dysons patents but they do look sorta similar

Samsung to pay Dyson Technology over patent dispute
http://uk.mobile.reuters.com/article/idUKLD64172920090213?irpc=932
I'll see your link and raise 1tongue.gif

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/feb/17/samsung-dyson-vacuum-cleaner-patent-copyright
post #40 of 141
"When asked about his thoughts on rival companies that reference designs like that of the iPhone, Ive says, "It's theft." Without pointing fingers, he notes that copycat products are not just copying design, but "thousands and thousands of hours of struggle."

Well I don't see a real problem with millions of knock off iPhones in the world. I know they exist but who ever sees one. As far as competitors copying the iPhone, it still is not an iPhone so where is the loss. Maybe if the copying never happened, Apple would have 200 billion in the bank and Ive would have so much money that even his great grandchildren would never run out. Never enough for some. Poor Jony and his terrible life struggle.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple's Ive describes struggle for perfection in interview, calls copycat designs 'theft'