Jony Ive's departure reveals new details of Apple's car and TV plans

2»

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 38
    22july201322july2013 Posts: 3,555member
    Interesting. I know what a self-driving car is. And I know what a human-driven car is. But what if a car was capable of self driving but required (and verified that there was) a driver to watch and give voice commands for all major decisions? For example, "move left one lane" would be pretty much the only time the car would change lanes. Other commands might be "pass this car," "slow down," or "take this exit". Would this be a self-driven car or a human-driven car? I really don't know. It's a tough call. And that's the impression I get from the phrase "predominantly voice controlled." 

    It's also possible that a car which lacks a steering wheel might have a joystick on the center console that would be used to give "inertial guidance" to the car's computer. A gentle tap forward could speed up the car (so you wouldn't need gas or brake pedals, as the joystick could apply pressure to brakes or acceleration based on your pressure on the joystick.) The joystick would essentially be the "optional steering wheel and brake", operating on a differential basis rather than an absolute basis. The center console, if properly designed, could easily be controlled by a driver on the right or left side. When switching to the other driver the human passenger would have to say "I'm driving now." That way the computer would know whom to watch.

    I don't really think this would be called an autonomous car. For example, this car would pull over and stop for a minimum of ten minutes if you closed your eyes (or otherwise weren't paying attention, such as using your phone) for more than two seconds. That means it requires a driver. I like this idea. What I don't know is whether consumers would like this idea. Do they prefer being able to fall asleep in a self-driving car, or are they willing to take full responsibility for its actions by their own actions and voice commands in the car?
  • Reply 22 of 38
    LoveFrom. Fnuction, not so much.
    caladanian
  • Reply 23 of 38
    chasmchasm Posts: 3,227member
    Thank heavens they didn’t pursue the full-car idea. As described it would have been stupid and dangerous and would never have passed regulatory muster anyway.

    That said, I’d buy the hell out of an Apple Television. It would have everything other TVs offer (except the spyware and hackability), plus the option of TV+, Apple Music, Apple Arcade, and of course all the other usual assortment of services under one roof — like the TV app fused with Apple TV fused with a beautiful screen.

    Somewhere Gene Munster is punching the air and screaming “VINDICATION!!” to the clouds.
    macguicaladaniancgWerks
  • Reply 24 of 38
    netlingnetling Posts: 74member
    I’m kind of happy he is no longer with Apple because the UI has been inconsistent and I really don’t think Ive cared!  I remember the days of Jobs firing people over inconsistent UI items or just plain stupid software layouts.  Maybe, I use that loosely because Cook isn’t a Steve Job level leader, Apple UI will get a MAJOR overhaul to allow for consistent and smart UI that doesn’t out think its users.
    cgWerks
  • Reply 25 of 38
    macguimacgui Posts: 2,344member
    I foresee bigger inconsistencies in UI, many unintentional compared to design choices.
  • Reply 26 of 38
    macplusplusmacplusplus Posts: 2,112member
    Interesting. I know what a self-driving car is. And I know what a human-driven car is. But what if a car was capable of self driving but required (and verified that there was) a driver to watch and give voice commands for all major decisions? For example, "move left one lane" would be pretty much the only time the car would change lanes. Other commands might be "pass this car," "slow down," or "take this exit". Would this be a self-driven car or a human-driven car? I really don't know. It's a tough call. And that's the impression I get from the phrase "predominantly voice controlled." 

    It's also possible that a car which lacks a steering wheel might have a joystick on the center console that would be used to give "inertial guidance" to the car's computer. A gentle tap forward could speed up the car (so you wouldn't need gas or brake pedals, as the joystick could apply pressure to brakes or acceleration based on your pressure on the joystick.) The joystick would essentially be the "optional steering wheel and brake", operating on a differential basis rather than an absolute basis. The center console, if properly designed, could easily be controlled by a driver on the right or left side. When switching to the other driver the human passenger would have to say "I'm driving now." That way the computer would know whom to watch.

    I don't really think this would be called an autonomous car. For example, this car would pull over and stop for a minimum of ten minutes if you closed your eyes (or otherwise weren't paying attention, such as using your phone) for more than two seconds. That means it requires a driver. I like this idea. What I don't know is whether consumers would like this idea. Do they prefer being able to fall asleep in a self-driving car, or are they willing to take full responsibility for its actions by their own actions and voice commands in the car?
    Putting voice commands as an alternative to steering wheel is obviously a misunderstanding and erroneous reporting of the original author. Human speech can never be as fast as human reflexes that command the wheel. A joystick can never be an alternative to steering wheel because incremental, granular movements would be impossible, or the joystick has to be as big as the steering wheel and in a circular shape. That Siri artist (and joystick, if any) were most probably added for fun to the demo.
    edited June 2019 fastasleep
  • Reply 27 of 38
    mr. hmr. h Posts: 4,870member
    netling said:
    I’m kind of happy he is no longer with Apple because the UI has been inconsistent and I really don’t think Ive cared!
    This is nonsense. Since Ive took over, UI consistency of iOS and (especially) OS X/macOS increased (i.e. got better) massively.

    Did you ever use OS X Lion? I deliberately didn't because the UI was so awful (iCal and Contacts especially). 
  • Reply 28 of 38
    fastasleepfastasleep Posts: 6,394member
    netling said:
    I’m kind of happy he is no longer with Apple because the UI has been inconsistent and I really don’t think Ive cared!  I remember the days of Jobs firing people over inconsistent UI items or just plain stupid software layouts.  Maybe, I use that loosely because Cook isn’t a Steve Job level leader, Apple UI will get a MAJOR overhaul to allow for consistent and smart UI that doesn’t out think its users.
    Give me a break. Prior to Ive, we had Forestall acting on Jobs' worst instincts with shit like faux Corinthian leather and torn paper edges in Calendar, a fucking reel-to-reel tape player in Podcasts, a shredder in Passbook, etc. I cried tears of relief when I saw all those things had gone away under Ive.
    Hyperealityroundaboutnow
  • Reply 29 of 38
    StrangeDaysStrangeDays Posts: 12,786member
    ireland said:
    seneca72 said:
    Is Ive's new studio LoveFrom or shoudl it be "LoveFORM"  Surely the latter sounds more appropriate.

    LoveForm - function can take a hike....
    It's LoveFrom.  From FastCompany article: 

    LoveFrom? Sort of an odd name on first hearing, right? Well, there’s a story there. The name comes from this Steve Jobs quote, paraphrased by Ives in a Financial Times piece today.

    “There was an employee meeting a number of years ago and Steve [Jobs] was talking . . . He [said] that one of the fundamental motivations was that when you make something with love and with care, even though you probably will never meet . . . the people that you’re making it for, and you’ll never shake their hand, by making something with care, you are expressing your gratitude to humanity, to the species.”

    “I so identified with that motivation and was moved by his description. So my new company is called ‘LoveFrom’. It succinctly speaks to why I do what I do.”

    It’s called a typo.
    No, it's called LoveFrom.  A cursory googling would disavow you of the notion of LoveForm.
    That whooshing sound you hear is the joke in the original post passing miles and miles above your head...
    Except it’s not a funny joke. It’s just some grown men whining. 
  • Reply 30 of 38
    k2kwk2kw Posts: 2,074member
    williamh said:
    I have had a voice controlled car for almost 25 years. My wife controls the car from the passenger seat. “slowdown! Get in the other lane! Why are you going this way?”

    Seriously though, Ive should have gone a long time ago.  He really needed Jobs to keep him grounded and that didn’t always work either.  He should be forced to work the rest of his days with a hockey puck mouse. 
    Keep your wife over SIRI.   I would never get into a Siri controlled car.   And Wow Apple maps is finally going to have their street view some this year ... in just they U.S. color me underwhelmed.
  • Reply 31 of 38
    k2kwk2kw Posts: 2,074member
    zoetmb said:
    ireland said:
    I’ve recently suspected Apple never revealed TV because they had no real video content play. Seems like that will change in the future. Besides being full integrated, I wonder how Apple differentiates this TV product, when announced. Obviously gonna be OLED. And what does Apple charge for their video service, and how do they justify its expense? For magazines, Apple says you get access to over 300 magazines for 10 bucks a month. For songs, 60 million. For video? 24+ TV shows and possibly seven movies a year, for perhaps 10 bucks a month? Really? Surely must be more to this story. Disney+ comes out for 7 bucks a month. It will go up in price in the coming years, but to launch at 7, Apple must have an offering that makes sense. Eventually I’ll get off Netflix. I’m liking their service less and less. So Apple need to show us something worthwhile to give those who want an opportunity to go all in, an opportunity to do so. Won’t Apple have to acquire a small studio? Will they licence content from others? And when a TV service worthwhile is in place, for them—if ever—then maybe within a year we see this TV?
    Apple never revealed the TV because the margins on TV's are quite small, most TV's today are nothing but minimalist glass so Apple's design probably wouldn't be much different and I bet Apple could not differentiate the set enough from the competition to have commanded the (probably absurd) price that Apple would have wanted.   One other factor is that TV prices start dropping very rapidly after release.   Apple usually only starts discounting when models are replaced.

    The 2019 Sony XBR A9G OLED, which just won the Value Electronics shootout held during TV Week in NYC (although by a very narrow margin) has already dropped from $4500 to $3800 in the 65".  The XBR A8G has already dropped from $3500 to $3000.   The previous year's A8F has dropped from $3800 to $2900.  The 2017 A1E has dropped  from $6500 to $3200.   And Sony is relatively pricey compared to Samsung and others.    Big box stores sell 65" UHD TV's for well under $2000, including currently a Samsung for $1080 including delivery.   That's a rough market for Apple to be competing in, especially considering that it's unlikely that the picture quality would be any better in an Apple TV, since they'd be buying someone else's panels anyway.

    I think Apple is going to have a tough time creating a compelling streaming service because the studios who are developing their own streaming services are going to hold back content from everyone else.   So Disney is going to hold back Fox/Disney/Lucasfilm/Pixar content, Comcast is going to hold back Universal content and AT&T is going to hold back Warner Bros. content.    That's why Netflix and Apple, among others, are spending so much on new original content, but I don't think that's going to be enough.  Now in the long run, the studio-based services might fail because of that limitation and they'll have to let others distribute their content again.   But that's years away.  Although I think Disney overpaid for Fox, Apple probably should have bought it and sold off the pieces they didn't want.   Or they should have outbid AT&T for Warner.  



    Yes I think that without a big backlog of content Apple TV+ is a serverely limited service.    If I sign up for anything it will definitely be Disney where I figure on any given night there will be something to watch and enjoy.   Apple's offerings look more like they will need 5 years to build up new content to be of enough interest to me to subscribe monthly.   Unfortunately I think Cook is just too cheap when it comes to the content.    He should have bought some of these libraries at  least 5 years ago.   I think that Disney will do fine with the Fox acquisition because the Marvel films they get out of it will probably pay for the purchase right there.
  • Reply 32 of 38
    k2kwk2kw Posts: 2,074member
    qwwera said:
    So the abomination that was ios7 was indeed Ives.
    Totally.   Took iOS years to get back to being decent.  Seems to be that they like F-up apps just for the sake of it.    So happy to see him leaving.   Apple has survived on their software and engineering expertise despite Ive's designs.   Hopefully we can go back to laptops with keyboards that work.
  • Reply 33 of 38
    cgWerkscgWerks Posts: 2,952member
    One of the designers present asked where Forstall was, and it was Ive who answered.
    "Scott isn't with us anymore," he reportedly said from the back of the room.
    ...
    The most visibly notable feature of the model was that Ive insisted it should not have a steering wheel.
    Instead, the car was to be predominantly voice-controlled.
    This explains so much!

    fastasleep said:
    Give me a break. Prior to Ive, we had Forestall acting on Jobs' worst instincts with shit like faux Corinthian leather and torn paper edges in Calendar, a fucking reel-to-reel tape player in Podcasts, a shredder in Passbook, etc. I cried tears of relief when I saw all those things had gone away under Ive.
    People always keep coming back to that kind of irrelevant stuff. Yes, one can go 'over the top' with skeuomorphism, but that isn't what actually defines it. And, flat design (along those lines) falls in the opposite ditch.

    As I mentioned in another post, iOS 7 was a UI disaster that much of the web/computing industry is still recovering from. Ive didn't start it, but he certainly popularized it everywhere around the Mac eco-system, and then it really took off on the Web too. There are some nice aspects of it, which counter your complaints about some of skeuomorphic design, but on the whole, it isn't a very good UI paradigm.
  • Reply 34 of 38
    fastasleepfastasleep Posts: 6,394member
    cgWerks said:
    Give me a break. Prior to Ive, we had Forestall acting on Jobs' worst instincts with shit like faux Corinthian leather and torn paper edges in Calendar, a fucking reel-to-reel tape player in Podcasts, a shredder in Passbook, etc. I cried tears of relief when I saw all those things had gone away under Ive.
    People always keep coming back to that kind of irrelevant stuff. Yes, one can go 'over the top' with skeuomorphism, but that isn't what actually defines it. And, flat design (along those lines) falls in the opposite ditch.

    As I mentioned in another post, iOS 7 was a UI disaster that much of the web/computing industry is still recovering from. Ive didn't start it, but he certainly popularized it everywhere around the Mac eco-system, and then it really took off on the Web too. There are some nice aspects of it, which counter your complaints about some of skeuomorphic design, but on the whole, it isn't a very good UI paradigm.
    Irrelevant? Explain how any of those things that I described *helps* usability. It's useless, ridiculous clutter. Whether you think iOS 7 was a "UI disaster" is irrelevant to me. It was a major, major undertaking, and yes it had its share of misses as would come with any project of that scope in such a short time, but it also brought some much needed change. That was a long time ago, the pendulum has swung back in most ways, and we've moved on — or at least some of us have.
  • Reply 35 of 38
    cgWerkscgWerks Posts: 2,952member
    fastasleep said:
    Irrelevant? Explain how any of those things that I described *helps* usability. It's useless, ridiculous clutter. Whether you think iOS 7 was a "UI disaster" is irrelevant to me. It was a major, major undertaking, and yes it had its share of misses as would come with any project of that scope in such a short time, but it also brought some much needed change. That was a long time ago, the pendulum has swung back in most ways, and we've moved on — or at least some of us have.
    What I mean, is that when people bring up skeuomorphic design (in a negative sense), they often go to the stuff like leather and felt. Yes, one *can* incorporate stuff like that, but it is the more cheesy aspect of a UI-paradigm that makes more sense on the whole (IMO), than flat-design.

    Yes, things are swinging back slowly, but a lot of damage has been done and remains. It wasn't worth it to get rid of felt textures. Felt might take a bit more storage space/bandwidth, but at least I won't delete an email accidentally trying to figure out what some obscure icon means. Or, I can use a UI faster with colorful, memorable icons than a when the delete icon is the same color as the send icon. etc.
  • Reply 36 of 38
    mr. hmr. h Posts: 4,870member
    cgWerks said:
    fastasleep said:
    Irrelevant? Explain how any of those things that I described *helps* usability. It's useless, ridiculous clutter. Whether you think iOS 7 was a "UI disaster" is irrelevant to me. It was a major, major undertaking, and yes it had its share of misses as would come with any project of that scope in such a short time, but it also brought some much needed change. That was a long time ago, the pendulum has swung back in most ways, and we've moved on — or at least some of us have.
    What I mean, is that when people bring up skeuomorphic design (in a negative sense), they often go to the stuff like leather and felt. Yes, one *can* incorporate stuff like that, but it is the more cheesy aspect of a UI-paradigm that makes more sense on the whole (IMO), than flat-design.

    Yes, things are swinging back slowly, but a lot of damage has been done and remains. It wasn't worth it to get rid of felt textures. Felt might take a bit more storage space/bandwidth, but at least I won't delete an email accidentally trying to figure out what some obscure icon means. Or, I can use a UI faster with colorful, memorable icons than a when the delete icon is the same color as the send icon. etc.
    The thing is, the damage of which you speak (action of different buttons being difficult to quickly determine due to lack of colour/similarity of appearance) was a problem that started to creep in much earlier than iOS 7 and OS X Yosemite (in OS X at least - see for example Mail in OS X 10.1, then 10.4, then 10.7).

    I think the UIs (iOS and macOS) driven by Jony's "flat" design solved way more problems than they created. I share your desire though for more differentiation and colour in buttons.
    edited July 2019 cgWerks
  • Reply 37 of 38
    fastasleepfastasleep Posts: 6,394member
    cgWerks said:
    fastasleep said:
    Irrelevant? Explain how any of those things that I described *helps* usability. It's useless, ridiculous clutter. Whether you think iOS 7 was a "UI disaster" is irrelevant to me. It was a major, major undertaking, and yes it had its share of misses as would come with any project of that scope in such a short time, but it also brought some much needed change. That was a long time ago, the pendulum has swung back in most ways, and we've moved on — or at least some of us have.
    What I mean, is that when people bring up skeuomorphic design (in a negative sense), they often go to the stuff like leather and felt. Yes, one *can* incorporate stuff like that, but it is the more cheesy aspect of a UI-paradigm that makes more sense on the whole (IMO), than flat-design.

    Yes, things are swinging back slowly, but a lot of damage has been done and remains. It wasn't worth it to get rid of felt textures. Felt might take a bit more storage space/bandwidth, but at least I won't delete an email accidentally trying to figure out what some obscure icon means. Or, I can use a UI faster with colorful, memorable icons than a when the delete icon is the same color as the send icon. etc.
    Mystery meat navigation, or that which is not easily differentiated visually, is a problem regardless of design paradigm. We've seen that from Apple long before iOS 7 too. I agree with any criticism of hidden buttons that you have to hover over to reveal (like in macOS Mail) or the removal of colors in sidebars, etc. It looks to me like they're walking that back in many places, still.

    Anyway, I wasn't talking about that, if you re-read what I wrote. I'm talking about the removal of the things I mentioned specifically, and other things like heavy shadows and glossy icons and things which do more to obfuscate real usable information. All of that stuff is clutter, and they (Ive and Federighi) have talked about how they wanted to get all of that out of the way to give room for useful information to breathe. They did that, and while they made some missteps along the way, as a whole they moved rapidly in the right direction and have made consistent and thoughtful efforts to fix things along the way and improve on what was, at the iOS 7 point, a complete overhaul. Now we have thoughtful aspects to show depth and context and movement within the system in a way that we never had with iOS 6 and all of its cruft and clutter and fake light sources etc. 
    cgWerks
  • Reply 38 of 38
    cgWerkscgWerks Posts: 2,952member
    mr. h said:
    The thing is, the damage of which you speak (action of different buttons being difficult to quickly determine due to lack of colour/similarity of appearance) was a problem that started to creep in much earlier than iOS 7 and OS X Yosemite (in OS X at least - see for example Mail in OS X 10.1, then 10.4, then 10.7).

    I think the UIs (iOS and macOS) driven by Jony's "flat" design solved way more problems than they created. I share your desire though for more differentiation and colour in buttons.
    Oh yeah, there has absolutely been 'creep' away from Apple's hard-earned UI 'standards' over the years. Some changes, I suppose, needed to be made to keep up with computing advancement. But, a lot of it is just due to sloppy development. The difference between the Mac and PC in this regard, used to be wide. Unfortunately, I think the narrowing of that gap has had more to do with the Mac slipping, than Windows advancing.

    Yes, the mobile UI certainly complicates this, as it is a somewhat different paradigm. But, I think iOS 7 was where it became dramatic. It wasn't 100% bad, I agree. I don't think I'd agree that it solved more than it created, though. (re: UI/UX)

    fastasleep said:
    Mystery meat navigation, or that which is not easily differentiated visually, is a problem regardless of design paradigm. We've seen that from Apple long before iOS 7 too. I agree with any criticism of hidden buttons that you have to hover over to reveal (like in macOS Mail) or the removal of colors in sidebars, etc. It looks to me like they're walking that back in many places, still.

    Anyway, I wasn't talking about that, if you re-read what I wrote. I'm talking about the removal of the things I mentioned specifically, and other things like heavy shadows and glossy icons and things which do more to obfuscate real usable information. All of that stuff is clutter, and they (Ive and Federighi) have talked about how they wanted to get all of that out of the way to give room for useful information to breathe. They did that, and while they made some missteps along the way, as a whole they moved rapidly in the right direction and have made consistent and thoughtful efforts to fix things along the way and improve on what was, at the iOS 7 point, a complete overhaul. Now we have thoughtful aspects to show depth and context and movement within the system in a way that we never had with iOS 6 and all of its cruft and clutter and fake light sources etc. 
    I see. I think we're quite a bit in agreement, except maybe that I think iOS 7 had too much of a negative impact on those bad aspects, not just for Apple's software, but the whole software eco-system quickly trying to mirror Apple's moves (and doing so poorly in many cases). I agree there has been some correction back to a better spot. I'm not sure I agree how important some of that stuff is, though? Who cares if buttons are glossy? That seems more a visual taste thing than a true UX/UI issue.

    But, I think that is a bit my point. iOS 7 (and moves towards flat design) were praised industry wide as improvements to visual design. I suppose I somewhat agree. But, I think in too many cases, they harmed UX/UI, even if they looked better. And, at the extremes, I'm not sure they looked better either.
Sign In or Register to comment.