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.
I know that was just your opinion an all, but the one thing I couldn't say about it (the current Apple keyboard) is that it is cheap in any way. I have both the wired extended version as well as the wireless version and they are solid pieces of hardware. I will admit, however, that I'm not intimately familiar with the Thinkpad you are referring to as it was a name assigned to an entire series of laptops. Were they all the same? I've only ever used Dell laptops before my switch to Apple.
Quote:
Originally Posted by boeyc15
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.
Really? How is a 16:10 or 16:9 screen shape functionally less to work with? I can have two windows open side by side on my 23" work PC display and still see both perfectly well. Can't say I can do that on a 4:3 display (and have each window look relatively complete). Also, have your tried editing video on a 4:3 display (even if you are editing 4:3 content)? It just blows. Lastly, the screen goes edge to edge on every wide-aspect laptop I've ever worked with.
Let hope Apple doesn't become ego driven and other don't try and consolidate "power".
You can hope all you want. But my guess is that you are looking at the first shots over the bow, fired by Ives.
He's in the same position as a bunch of other SVPs. Unusual for a designer, but nevertheless.
For his situation to become a news story, my guess is that his private publicist worked with flacks (either Ives' own, or maybe Apple PR firms') who worked with newspaper reporters to give them a nice story.
At least, that is my general understanding of how these things become media fodder.
If I were to guess, it would be that Ives' publicist is working at Ives' direction to get Ives more power in the company, or maybe just to preserve his current power. It is a play to establish the general opinion that Steve didn't want anybody to interfere with Ives' sphere of influence.
Given how many other SVPs were in Ives' position while Steve was around, I'd wager that Ives, being a designer and not a business guy, felt a need to strike first.
I'm certainly not saying that Ives is doing anything wrong. I'm impressed with his brilliance, in fact.
But I wouldn't hold out any hope that the post-Steve transition will be free from politics, struggle and even back stabbing. It would be extremely unusual for anything like that to happen in corporate America.
...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.....
...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?....
I have no issues with the current keyboards. But more interestingly, my mother who has been typing for over 50 years on many different types of keyboards. Starting with good ol' fashion typewriters to the virtual keyboard on the iPad, says that the current physical keyboard from Apple is the best she's used and easiest to type on.
Also, she really loves the current mouse from Apple as well. She says it's really easy to use and she can use it all day, with no fatigue. The true testament to this was when she had to use my dad's computer with the "typical" mouse for about 30-45 minutes..... and her hand cramped up in that short period of time.
That being said... maybe it's not ideal for you, but I wouldn't go as far as saying it's a "lousy keyboard".
I'm not going to quote ConradsloppyJoe here, and I hope no one else does, because he's up to his usual FUDmongering this morning. Total slime and sleaze--not him, what he says. Him, I have no words for.
Edit: So little regard for his subject, and so ignorant of detail, he can't even get Ive's name right. It's Ive, not Ives, Joe.
The good news in this story, that design is primary, the designer is worthy of independence, is what Joe is attempting to subvert. Ordinary rules of incompetence in corporate America don't apply. For comparisons, look at a company like Porsche, Joe. And please go away.
Completely unrelated and in no way meant as an ad-hom insult like yours, but I always think of Stalin when I see his name because my first quick read-through of it when he joined was "ComradeJoe".
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?
Probably not. I see your point. My family room has a Mac Mini running the TV, with one of the new bluetooth keyboards and trackpad. Looks nice there and works pretty well.
My bedroom has another Mac Mini running the TV and has another of those bluetooth keyboards and trackpad. Looks nice there too, and very compact, essential for the bedroom.
My main computing room has a Mac Pro, 37 inch monitor and all sorts of goodies. This is where I do most of my work. I use an old bluetooth keyboard with numerical pad section, a wireless mouse and a new bluetooth keypad. When the old bluetooth keyboard dies, there will a problem, although there are a few more lying around the house. Much better to type on than the new ones.
Completely unrelated and in no way meant as an ad-hom insult like yours, but I always think of Stalin when I see his name because my first quick read-through of it when he joined was "ComradeJoe".
And now it's stuck in my head. Life's weird.
I? Ad-hom?
Maybe I shouldn't have. I like your reading better.
I'm not going to quote ConradsloppyJoe here, and I hope no one else does, because he's up to his usual FUDmongering this morning. Total slime and sleaze--not him, what he says. Him, I have no words for.
Edit: So little regard for his subject, and so ignorant of detail, he can't even get Ive's name right. It's Ive, not Ives, Joe.
The good news in this story, that design is primary, the designer is worthy of independence, is what Joe is attempting to subvert. Ordinary rules of incompetence in corporate America don't apply. For comparisons, look at a company like Porsche, Joe. And please go away.
That dude obviously didn't read the article and then just made up some dumb story. He's a tool. That's a fact not an attack. His posts show it.
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.
This is not accurate. The board of directors does not tell individual people within Apple what they can or can't do. The CEO holds that power. The board of directors provides guidance to the CEO and can decide the CEO's fate, they can't tell Ive what to build or what not to build. If they don't like Tim Cook's leadership, they can have him fired.
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.
you're either extremely unintelligent; extremely young (naive), or just a simple troll.
This is such a great chart. Thanks for posting it again. But it is now out of date in one obvious way, which makes me wonder if there have been any other changes. Also, a communications professor of mine always said of graphs and charts: "The map is not the territory." By nature, such graphic representations are simplifications. I wonder what devils (or gods) are in the details.
you're either extremely unintelligent; extremely young (naive), or just a simple troll.
These nastygrams which do nothing but attack people are not appropriate.
That being said, what caused you to disagree with what he said? My take on it is that he was essentially correct - the law seldom honors the dead hand reaching out of the grave to control people (and companies) in the here and now. Wills and trusts are used for that purpose, even foundations. But it is inconceivable to me that Apple has anything like that set up, as he points out.
But what he misses is Steve's legacy. What he wanted made a LOT of sense during the final years. He directed Apple in a brilliant manner - perhaps more successfully than any other CEO in history (I don't know if that's true - Ford, Westinghouse or Carnagie may have been even better?)People at Apple know that, and they will likely continue to implement his strategies.
The point is not whether Steve has any legal power (other than his former stock ownership, which may be in a trust with specific instructions for the Trustee) but instead, to what extent that folks remaining at Apple will honor the strategies he has put in place. My guess is that they will do so very closely for the next few years.
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?
You mention three issues to support your contention that Apple has become a company that puts design before functionality: Apple branded keyboards, Apple branded mice, and glossy screens.
As you acknowledge, Apple changed policy on the MacBook Pros and added a matte option, so that doesn't really seem like a good example of an ongoing trend. And to the extent that they do make devices that are only offered with glossy screens, that's pretty much an industry standard practice at this point, so it also doesn't suggest that Apple is being unusually design centric in this case.
As for keyboards and mice, plenty of those available from other vendors that work really well. So it's not like Apple has imprisoned you in their design dudgeon with no escape. In fact, it's sort of interesting to note that Apple's most unabashed application of their design philosophies are applied to peripherals such as these, where they are well aware that there users have many options.
At any rate, the old caveat about Apple putting form over function doesn't have much merit in my opinion, or rather that the typical examples of same don't fully take into account what Apple intends by "form."
As Jobs remarked:
Quote:
In most people?s vocabularies, design means veneer. It?s interior decorating. It?s the fabric of the curtains of the sofa. But to me, nothing could be further from the meaning of design. Design is the fundamental soul of a human-made creation that ends up expressing itself in successive outer layers of the product or service.
I don't think Apple ever makes a product function a certain way just as a byproduct of how it looks. There's always an underlying philosophy centered on the user experience. That philosophy may sometimes feel constricting to someone who wants a different user experience, but it's never as simpleminded as just wanting something to look minimal and sleek.
And, Jonathan please, when you have a bit of spare time at hand, have a look at the FCPX situation. You could make many people, actually a whole artistic community very happy. Thanks in advance! g
The glass back on the iphone 4 is a poor design and an example of form over function. It is slippery on any surface ( other than the hand). And simply put, it breaks.
I agree that there is a lot form over function at Apple. The first AIR is a perfect example. However the current iPhone design is pretty excellent. Further it is pretty break resistant.
Quote:
Kind of ironic that all the people that talk ill of plastic phones end up putting plastic bumpers and cases on their ip4's.
That doesn't explain one thing, my 3G cracked its back yet my iPhone 4 has yet to do so. 😳. Just saying.
Comments
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.
I know that was just your opinion an all, but the one thing I couldn't say about it (the current Apple keyboard) is that it is cheap in any way. I have both the wired extended version as well as the wireless version and they are solid pieces of hardware. I will admit, however, that I'm not intimately familiar with the Thinkpad you are referring to as it was a name assigned to an entire series of laptops. Were they all the same? I've only ever used Dell laptops before my switch to Apple.
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.
Really? How is a 16:10 or 16:9 screen shape functionally less to work with? I can have two windows open side by side on my 23" work PC display and still see both perfectly well. Can't say I can do that on a 4:3 display (and have each window look relatively complete). Also, have your tried editing video on a 4:3 display (even if you are editing 4:3 content)? It just blows. Lastly, the screen goes edge to edge on every wide-aspect laptop I've ever worked with.
I look forward to reading the book. I ordered my digital copy on iBooks today.
Me too. It's also my first iBook purchase, which I think is a fitting tribute to Jobs.
Let hope Apple doesn't become ego driven and other don't try and consolidate "power".
You can hope all you want. But my guess is that you are looking at the first shots over the bow, fired by Ives.
He's in the same position as a bunch of other SVPs. Unusual for a designer, but nevertheless.
For his situation to become a news story, my guess is that his private publicist worked with flacks (either Ives' own, or maybe Apple PR firms') who worked with newspaper reporters to give them a nice story.
At least, that is my general understanding of how these things become media fodder.
If I were to guess, it would be that Ives' publicist is working at Ives' direction to get Ives more power in the company, or maybe just to preserve his current power. It is a play to establish the general opinion that Steve didn't want anybody to interfere with Ives' sphere of influence.
Given how many other SVPs were in Ives' position while Steve was around, I'd wager that Ives, being a designer and not a business guy, felt a need to strike first.
I'm certainly not saying that Ives is doing anything wrong. I'm impressed with his brilliance, in fact.
But I wouldn't hold out any hope that the post-Steve transition will be free from politics, struggle and even back stabbing. It would be extremely unusual for anything like that to happen in corporate America.
...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.....
...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?....
I have no issues with the current keyboards. But more interestingly, my mother who has been typing for over 50 years on many different types of keyboards. Starting with good ol' fashion typewriters to the virtual keyboard on the iPad, says that the current physical keyboard from Apple is the best she's used and easiest to type on.
Also, she really loves the current mouse from Apple as well. She says it's really easy to use and she can use it all day, with no fatigue. The true testament to this was when she had to use my dad's computer with the "typical" mouse for about 30-45 minutes..... and her hand cramped up in that short period of time.
That being said... maybe it's not ideal for you, but I wouldn't go as far as saying it's a "lousy keyboard".
Edit: So little regard for his subject, and so ignorant of detail, he can't even get Ive's name right. It's Ive, not Ives, Joe.
The good news in this story, that design is primary, the designer is worthy of independence, is what Joe is attempting to subvert. Ordinary rules of incompetence in corporate America don't apply. For comparisons, look at a company like Porsche, Joe. And please go away.
I guess one could say that the "i" in iPhone, iPad, iPod, iMac, etc. stands for "Ive." His signature, perhaps?
Perhaps that what he was thinking, but I believe it officially referred first to the iMac and it's internet capabilities.
I'm not going to quote ConradsloppyJoehere
Completely unrelated and in no way meant as an ad-hom insult like yours, but I always think of Stalin when I see his name because my first quick read-through of it when he joined was "ComradeJoe".
And now it's stuck in my head. Life's weird.
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?
Probably not. I see your point. My family room has a Mac Mini running the TV, with one of the new bluetooth keyboards and trackpad. Looks nice there and works pretty well.
My bedroom has another Mac Mini running the TV and has another of those bluetooth keyboards and trackpad. Looks nice there too, and very compact, essential for the bedroom.
My main computing room has a Mac Pro, 37 inch monitor and all sorts of goodies. This is where I do most of my work. I use an old bluetooth keyboard with numerical pad section, a wireless mouse and a new bluetooth keypad. When the old bluetooth keyboard dies, there will a problem, although there are a few more lying around the house. Much better to type on than the new ones.
Completely unrelated and in no way meant as an ad-hom insult like yours, but I always think of Stalin when I see his name because my first quick read-through of it when he joined was "ComradeJoe".
And now it's stuck in my head. Life's weird.
I? Ad-hom?
Maybe I shouldn't have. I like your reading better.
I'm not going to quote ConradsloppyJoe here, and I hope no one else does, because he's up to his usual FUDmongering this morning. Total slime and sleaze--not him, what he says. Him, I have no words for.
Edit: So little regard for his subject, and so ignorant of detail, he can't even get Ive's name right. It's Ive, not Ives, Joe.
The good news in this story, that design is primary, the designer is worthy of independence, is what Joe is attempting to subvert. Ordinary rules of incompetence in corporate America don't apply. For comparisons, look at a company like Porsche, Joe. And please go away.
That dude obviously didn't read the article and then just made up some dumb story. He's a tool. That's a fact not an attack. His posts show it.
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.
This is not accurate. The board of directors does not tell individual people within Apple what they can or can't do. The CEO holds that power. The board of directors provides guidance to the CEO and can decide the CEO's fate, they can't tell Ive what to build or what not to build. If they don't like Tim Cook's leadership, they can have him fired.
Yes, prototypes are made there. All design and testing first before moving out for mass stamping.
I don't think Apple "stamps" anything anymore. (maybe iPod touch?)
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.
you're either extremely unintelligent; extremely young (naive), or just a simple troll.
It's Ive, not Ives, Joe.
Oops. Thanks.
my first quick read-through of it when he joined was "ComradeJoe".
And now it's stuck in my head. Life's weird.
Workers of the world, Unite! You have nothing to lose but your chains!
Don't you know how companies work?
Do I have to draw you a picture?
This is such a great chart. Thanks for posting it again. But it is now out of date in one obvious way, which makes me wonder if there have been any other changes. Also, a communications professor of mine always said of graphs and charts: "The map is not the territory." By nature, such graphic representations are simplifications. I wonder what devils (or gods) are in the details.
you're either extremely unintelligent; extremely young (naive), or just a simple troll.
These nastygrams which do nothing but attack people are not appropriate.
That being said, what caused you to disagree with what he said? My take on it is that he was essentially correct - the law seldom honors the dead hand reaching out of the grave to control people (and companies) in the here and now. Wills and trusts are used for that purpose, even foundations. But it is inconceivable to me that Apple has anything like that set up, as he points out.
But what he misses is Steve's legacy. What he wanted made a LOT of sense during the final years. He directed Apple in a brilliant manner - perhaps more successfully than any other CEO in history (I don't know if that's true - Ford, Westinghouse or Carnagie may have been even better?)People at Apple know that, and they will likely continue to implement his strategies.
The point is not whether Steve has any legal power (other than his former stock ownership, which may be in a trust with specific instructions for the Trustee) but instead, to what extent that folks remaining at Apple will honor the strategies he has put in place. My guess is that they will do so very closely for the next few years.
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?
You mention three issues to support your contention that Apple has become a company that puts design before functionality: Apple branded keyboards, Apple branded mice, and glossy screens.
As you acknowledge, Apple changed policy on the MacBook Pros and added a matte option, so that doesn't really seem like a good example of an ongoing trend. And to the extent that they do make devices that are only offered with glossy screens, that's pretty much an industry standard practice at this point, so it also doesn't suggest that Apple is being unusually design centric in this case.
As for keyboards and mice, plenty of those available from other vendors that work really well. So it's not like Apple has imprisoned you in their design dudgeon with no escape. In fact, it's sort of interesting to note that Apple's most unabashed application of their design philosophies are applied to peripherals such as these, where they are well aware that there users have many options.
At any rate, the old caveat about Apple putting form over function doesn't have much merit in my opinion, or rather that the typical examples of same don't fully take into account what Apple intends by "form."
As Jobs remarked:
In most people?s vocabularies, design means veneer. It?s interior decorating. It?s the fabric of the curtains of the sofa. But to me, nothing could be further from the meaning of design. Design is the fundamental soul of a human-made creation that ends up expressing itself in successive outer layers of the product or service.
I don't think Apple ever makes a product function a certain way just as a byproduct of how it looks. There's always an underlying philosophy centered on the user experience. That philosophy may sometimes feel constricting to someone who wants a different user experience, but it's never as simpleminded as just wanting something to look minimal and sleek.
The glass back on the iphone 4 is a poor design and an example of form over function. It is slippery on any surface ( other than the hand). And simply put, it breaks.
I agree that there is a lot form over function at Apple. The first AIR is a perfect example. However the current iPhone design is pretty excellent. Further it is pretty break resistant.
Kind of ironic that all the people that talk ill of plastic phones end up putting plastic bumpers and cases on their ip4's.
That doesn't explain one thing, my 3G cracked its back yet my iPhone 4 has yet to do so. 😳. Just saying.