The difference between (the new, post 1997) Apple and the rest has been that design has taken precedence to function. It seems to me that the ideas started with "a device that is about this big, weighs this much, looks like this, and is able to do..." and didn't get out the door until Steve was happy that it was close enough, with the emphasis in that order. The rest of the industry tries to fit (cram!) as much engineering into a given form factor with the form factor losing if push comes to shove...
...and hence it only makes sense to leave Jony Ive in a position of autonomy and authority.
Not all of the Apple's design choices have been home runs...but I can think of very few times has design suffered to accommodate function...
I agree with the comments above about the keyboards and rodents...but then I suspect that Steve saw them as necessary evils...hence the magic trackpad and iPhones and iPads without them...and now Siri...as much as I am glad I learned to touch-type so many years ago, it is clear that (Steve's vision of) the future is keyboard-less!
The difference between (the new, post 1997 and pre 1985) Apple and the rest has been that design has taken precedence to function.
There I fixed it for you. SJ was always a freak when it came to details. The first Macs had every engineer's signature engraved on the inside, everything about it was just insane.
One of the main reasons I'm not concerned about Apple without jobs is Ive's
One of the main reasons I do worry is Ive without jobs. Remember McCartney without Lennon, Bacharach without David, Simon without Garfunkel, Sonny without Cher, Rodgers without Hammerstein?
It isn't easy to criticize Apple's designs when they are as commercially successful as they are.
But commercial success does not equate to objective superiority. Particularly when commercial success is dictated more by form than by function.
The debate will rage over whether Apple's products have lost sight of functionality, and whether functionality has been pushed so far to the back, in deference to form, that Apple's products are significantly flawed as a consequence.
The most definitive example of this, from my perspective at least, is the present batch of keyboards that Apple makes. When the aluminum slab keyboards first arrived I was attracted by the clean design and bought one to use with my MacBook Pro. I kept it for a couple of weeks, at which point it was obvious to me that I would never adapt to it. From a functional standpoint, it is just a lousy keyboard. The stroke is much too short, the tactile sensation is lousy, and the upper surface of the keys is practically a smooth plane. There isn't even any scallop on the tops of the keys. By any objective standards, they are decidedly lousy keyboards. The idea that when you buy a new computer from the world's premiere personal computer company that you have to go searching for a keyboard that you can stand to use is just not right. But this is how it is, and it has been this way for several years now, and there is no indication that Apple is going to return to making functional keyboards. There is no option, i.e., no personal choice. The only keyboards that Apple makes are the ones that Jobs and Ive liked and decided that people who use Apple computers should use. Why couldn't they do that and still make functional keyboards as an option for people who don't care about slick and sexy but who care about the functional quality of the keyboard? What is so wrong with letting individuals have it their way, as opposed to everyone having it the Jobs way?
A few years ago when a new generation of MacBook Pro was introduced, people who preferred non-reflective screens for functional reasons were at first denied the ability to buy them that way. Of course that eventually was corrected, but why was it that way in the first place?
Many people like the Apple mice, but there are lots of people who can't don't like them at all. Why can't Apple make and offer a more conventional mouse for people who prefer that sort of mouse, thereby sparing people from having to pay for an expensive mouse that they don't like and then having to go immediately to another store to buy an inexpensive mouse that they like?
The question remains: Will Apple ever resume production of fully functional keyboards where every consideration of functionality has not been tossed aside in favor of form?
Keyboard designs often seem to produce to very disparate opinions. Personally, I really like the latest Apple version - fastest and most accurate I have ever used, which I think is partly due to the very short stroke.
I guess one could say that the "i" in iPhone, iPad, iPod, iMac, etc. stands for "Ive." His signature, perhaps?
You could say that. But you would be wrong. It stands for Internet. Lots of folks were already using "e" in front of words (such as "eCommerce"), so there was precedent for Apple to copy the naming fad, but they added their own twist and used an i instead of an e.
In 1998, the internet was the next big thing, and Apple wanted to jump on the meme.
That is what the i stands for. But if you would like to say it stands for Ive, then go for it.
Keyboard designs often seem to produce to very disparate opinions. Personally, I really like the latest Apple version - fastest and most accurate I have ever used, which I think is partly due to the very short stroke.
Sorry for being off topic- I really like my old thinkpad keyboard. When I see these square things now... I think 'what?' why did they go backwards? It appears and feels, IMO, cheap in comparision to the Thinkpad. Just my impression, your mileage may vary.
PS - while Im ranting... hate these new HD screen shapes vs the old 4:3. It is 'functionally' less area to work with (although better on an aircraft economy seat I suppose). Again, on my old Thinkpad, the screen, was edge to edge, everything in nice tight packaged.
Bring back the 4:3 screens! Bring back 'real' keyboards'! End of rant, carry on.
So what is the basis for this story, which implies that Ives is somehow different from the other SVPs?
i don't think the point is that Ive is different from the other SVPs at Apple, i think the point is that it's unusual for a industrial designer to have a SVP role tied directly to the CEO. Ive could have reported to Mansfield who reported to Cook who reported to Jobs, but because of his talent/importance, he was given a SVP title and reports directly to the CEO. i think that's probably unique to Apple.
For me the question is, when they've produced a dud (and they will at some point) who will have the power like Jobs did to put the breaks on and stop release, regardless of cost impact.
I hope Ive has that power.
design is a combination of form and function.
when the dud is released, it's going to be because of function, not form.
IMO, good design disappears (to the user). you can appreciate the aesthetics of something when it's sitting on the table, but once you pick it up, aesthetics give way to mechanics.
an ipod classic could look just as nice whether ou use the click wheel or d-pad, but USABILITY goes to the toilet if you have to tap to navigate the interface vs. scrolling with your thumb.
Once again ... we see Apple being Apple and thinking different. Of course people matter, and Steve giving Ive this freedom shows just how close they must have been in their thinking.
Good for them ... perhaps we'll see Ive up on stage with the iPhone 5.
Sorry, have to say this is pretty much bullshit on Job's part. He's dead, he has no legal standing anymore regarding how Apple, a publicly traded company, operates. If the Apple Board wants Jony Ive gone, or instructs the CEO to produce a cheaper, plastic MacBook, that's the way it goes. I'm not saying that would be a good thing, or predicting it will happen, but the idea that Steve could make legally binding decisions that hold forth after his death, that's just silly.
The most definitive example of this, from my perspective at least, is the present batch of keyboards that Apple makes.
I love the current keyboard, but I'm with you on the reflective screens. I'd like to downsize my MacBook Pro 15" to a 13" model, but I won't until it comes in a matte version.
Anyway, you're right about some of these design excesses, and I'm slightly scared by what a "visionary" designer with no checks in place will come up with. But as others have pointed out I would guess Ive is working under similar restraints that he had with Jobs.
What I like about Ive is he is not afraid to tackle the fundamental problems of his field, such as with the Unibody design. Same with the software guys and ARC. It's real progress, not just some superficial add on.
When the aluminum slab keyboards first arrived... I kept it for a couple of weeks, at which point it was obvious to me that I would never adapt to it. From a functional standpoint, it is just a lousy keyboard. The stroke is much too short, the tactile sensation is lousy, and the upper surface of the keys is practically a smooth plane. There isn't even any scallop on the tops of the keys. By any objective standards, they are decidedly lousy keyboards.
All of your stated supporting reasons are entirely subjective. I'd be interested to hear your objective reasoning regarding this matter as referenced in bold.
Comments
Remember that effeminate toilet seat iBook and the hockey puck mouse.
I know it's been said before, but...
The difference between (the new, post 1997) Apple and the rest has been that design has taken precedence to function. It seems to me that the ideas started with "a device that is about this big, weighs this much, looks like this, and is able to do..." and didn't get out the door until Steve was happy that it was close enough, with the emphasis in that order. The rest of the industry tries to fit (cram!) as much engineering into a given form factor with the form factor losing if push comes to shove...
...and hence it only makes sense to leave Jony Ive in a position of autonomy and authority.
Not all of the Apple's design choices have been home runs...but I can think of very few times has design suffered to accommodate function...
I agree with the comments above about the keyboards and rodents...but then I suspect that Steve saw them as necessary evils...hence the magic trackpad and iPhones and iPads without them...and now Siri...as much as I am glad I learned to touch-type so many years ago, it is clear that (Steve's vision of) the future is keyboard-less!
The difference between (the new, post 1997 and pre 1985) Apple and the rest has been that design has taken precedence to function.
There I fixed it for you. SJ was always a freak when it came to details. The first Macs had every engineer's signature engraved on the inside, everything about it was just insane.
One of the main reasons I'm not concerned about Apple without jobs is Ive's
One of the main reasons I do worry is Ive without jobs. Remember McCartney without Lennon, Bacharach without David, Simon without Garfunkel, Sonny without Cher, Rodgers without Hammerstein?
And the last time the Apple Board told the Innovator what to do, it killed the company.
You seriously believe they haven't learned from that?
And the last time the Apple Board told the Innovator what to do, it killed the company.
You seriously believe they haven't learned from that?
History repeats itself my friend. Always.
Don't you know how companies work?
Do I have to draw you a picture?
That is exactly my point. According to the org chart, there are many people at Apple in the same position as Ives - they report only to the CEO.
So what is the basis for this story, which implies that Ives is somehow different from the other SVPs?
It isn't easy to criticize Apple's designs when they are as commercially successful as they are.
But commercial success does not equate to objective superiority. Particularly when commercial success is dictated more by form than by function.
The debate will rage over whether Apple's products have lost sight of functionality, and whether functionality has been pushed so far to the back, in deference to form, that Apple's products are significantly flawed as a consequence.
The most definitive example of this, from my perspective at least, is the present batch of keyboards that Apple makes. When the aluminum slab keyboards first arrived I was attracted by the clean design and bought one to use with my MacBook Pro. I kept it for a couple of weeks, at which point it was obvious to me that I would never adapt to it. From a functional standpoint, it is just a lousy keyboard. The stroke is much too short, the tactile sensation is lousy, and the upper surface of the keys is practically a smooth plane. There isn't even any scallop on the tops of the keys. By any objective standards, they are decidedly lousy keyboards. The idea that when you buy a new computer from the world's premiere personal computer company that you have to go searching for a keyboard that you can stand to use is just not right. But this is how it is, and it has been this way for several years now, and there is no indication that Apple is going to return to making functional keyboards. There is no option, i.e., no personal choice. The only keyboards that Apple makes are the ones that Jobs and Ive liked and decided that people who use Apple computers should use. Why couldn't they do that and still make functional keyboards as an option for people who don't care about slick and sexy but who care about the functional quality of the keyboard? What is so wrong with letting individuals have it their way, as opposed to everyone having it the Jobs way?
A few years ago when a new generation of MacBook Pro was introduced, people who preferred non-reflective screens for functional reasons were at first denied the ability to buy them that way. Of course that eventually was corrected, but why was it that way in the first place?
Many people like the Apple mice, but there are lots of people who can't don't like them at all. Why can't Apple make and offer a more conventional mouse for people who prefer that sort of mouse, thereby sparing people from having to pay for an expensive mouse that they don't like and then having to go immediately to another store to buy an inexpensive mouse that they like?
The question remains: Will Apple ever resume production of fully functional keyboards where every consideration of functionality has not been tossed aside in favor of form?
Keyboard designs often seem to produce to very disparate opinions. Personally, I really like the latest Apple version - fastest and most accurate I have ever used, which I think is partly due to the very short stroke.
I guess one could say that the "i" in iPhone, iPad, iPod, iMac, etc. stands for "Ive." His signature, perhaps?
You could say that. But you would be wrong. It stands for Internet. Lots of folks were already using "e" in front of words (such as "eCommerce"), so there was precedent for Apple to copy the naming fad, but they added their own twist and used an i instead of an e.
In 1998, the internet was the next big thing, and Apple wanted to jump on the meme.
That is what the i stands for. But if you would like to say it stands for Ive, then go for it.
Many times there are power grabs that go on after someone like Jobs in gone.
Sadly people forget that what is good for the company is good for them and they end up garbing "power" at the expense of the company.
Keyboard designs often seem to produce to very disparate opinions. Personally, I really like the latest Apple version - fastest and most accurate I have ever used, which I think is partly due to the very short stroke.
Sorry for being off topic- I really like my old thinkpad keyboard. When I see these square things now... I think 'what?' why did they go backwards? It appears and feels, IMO, cheap in comparision to the Thinkpad. Just my impression, your mileage may vary.
PS - while Im ranting... hate these new HD screen shapes vs the old 4:3. It is 'functionally' less area to work with (although better on an aircraft economy seat I suppose). Again, on my old Thinkpad, the screen, was edge to edge, everything in nice tight packaged.
Bring back the 4:3 screens! Bring back 'real' keyboards'! End of rant, carry on.
So what is the basis for this story, which implies that Ives is somehow different from the other SVPs?
i don't think the point is that Ive is different from the other SVPs at Apple, i think the point is that it's unusual for a industrial designer to have a SVP role tied directly to the CEO. Ive could have reported to Mansfield who reported to Cook who reported to Jobs, but because of his talent/importance, he was given a SVP title and reports directly to the CEO. i think that's probably unique to Apple.
For me the question is, when they've produced a dud (and they will at some point) who will have the power like Jobs did to put the breaks on and stop release, regardless of cost impact.
I hope Ive has that power.
design is a combination of form and function.
when the dud is released, it's going to be because of function, not form.
IMO, good design disappears (to the user). you can appreciate the aesthetics of something when it's sitting on the table, but once you pick it up, aesthetics give way to mechanics.
an ipod classic could look just as nice whether ou use the click wheel or d-pad, but USABILITY goes to the toilet if you have to tap to navigate the interface vs. scrolling with your thumb.
While I hope he continues to work his magic on us, unless he owns Apple he can be told what to do by the board of directors.
Maybe what to do, but not how to do it. Would be fascinating to see his contract--if it has a "no cut" clause.
One of the main reasons I'm not concerned about Apple without jobs is Ive's
the suspense is killing me.
Good for them ... perhaps we'll see Ive up on stage with the iPhone 5.
The most definitive example of this, from my perspective at least, is the present batch of keyboards that Apple makes.
I love the current keyboard, but I'm with you on the reflective screens. I'd like to downsize my MacBook Pro 15" to a 13" model, but I won't until it comes in a matte version.
Anyway, you're right about some of these design excesses, and I'm slightly scared by what a "visionary" designer with no checks in place will come up with. But as others have pointed out I would guess Ive is working under similar restraints that he had with Jobs.
When the aluminum slab keyboards first arrived... I kept it for a couple of weeks, at which point it was obvious to me that I would never adapt to it. From a functional standpoint, it is just a lousy keyboard. The stroke is much too short, the tactile sensation is lousy, and the upper surface of the keys is practically a smooth plane. There isn't even any scallop on the tops of the keys. By any objective standards, they are decidedly lousy keyboards.
All of your stated supporting reasons are entirely subjective. I'd be interested to hear your objective reasoning regarding this matter as referenced in bold.