Another excellent article backed by solid evidence and clear and concise logic rather than emotion. All too often people fall into their own emotional traps and gravitate to hero worship and adoration of personality over substance, or as you've so clearly articulated as substance, operational excellence across both strategic and tactical layers. Apple's success as a company is not determined by personality, it's determined by the same critical factors that determine and sustain individual and personal success: being smart, being adaptable, and getting things done.
Oh, and getting things done for a product designer means shipping. Any smart designer can put together a single museum piece. Smart designers who are also adaptable and get things done, like Jony Ive and Apple as a company, can ship in vast quantities, or in Apple's case with iPhone, billions of units. Nothing too thin about those kind of numbers and the associated revenue.
Steve Jobs said that design isn’t about how it looks, but about how it works. Ive didn’t always seem to take that to heart. The article has good examples.
The new Mac Pro is a great example of designing to make it work better.
Not that looks don’t matter.... I’ll always prefer the better looking among equally functional devices. But sometimes Ive seemed to sacrifice functionality in order to achieve an aesthetic and I hope that happens less now.
Do you think Ive alone was able to make these decisions? And if he was then isn’t that a failure of Cook, Williams or other execs to push back and say no? See I think the design team designed to where the company as a whole was deciding to go. So the one port MacBook and iPhone without headphone jack wasn’t the design team imposing anything it was the company saying wireless is the future. I also don’t think the design team alone would decide whether the battery would be user replaceable or whether devices would have user replaceable RAM, SSD etc. Those decisions are about a lot more than how thin a device is. I think people are too obsessed with this notion that every hardware decision was/is a result of how thick the device is.
Apple peaked some time ago. It's been a steady slide with Tim Apple at the helm even though profits have soared. In the midst of that, nearly all goodwill cultivated over decades has been squandered through planned obsolescence, stagnant development, and excessive pricing. In short, Apple has become a commodity, a champion of mediocrity, yet prices itself as if it still shined with days of glory gone. Who led this turn in Apple since Jobs' death. Perhaps we will find out who. Or who is was not.
By crafting multiple brands targeting specific demographics, Apple could expand downmarket and in emerging markets, as well as targeting demographic niches.
This is not garment or footwear industry. Such an approach has already been tried by Microsoft (Zune, Kin and alike) and by Apple (eMate) all failed. Apple tried this necessarily with the Watch, because as a wearable it is very personal. Only the two sizes hold, but the Edition has been withdrawn a.s.a.p. The industry cannot tolerate such extremes like Edition or "different niches" (just remember Vertu).
Also I don't understand how the departure of Ive relates to Apple's targeting or not targeting "demographic niches".
Apple currently has one electronics brand and one design language. However it does sell differently designed headphones and ear buds under both Apple and Beats brands. Beats is a youth trending brand.
And you’re right about the watch it’s very customizable for different preferences. Same concept.
But pretty clearly Apple can use its technology to drive different brands because It already is.
And just because competitors have failed at everything doesn’t mean Apple can’t succeed.
If Apple wants to go "down market", start with the Mac Pro.
Demand for the Mac Pro is pretty small at the top where there’s money. Where is any demonstratable demand for sustainably profitable PC hardware that is not already addressed by iMac Pro or a high-end back Mac mini?
... By crafting multiple brands targeting specific demographics, Apple could expand downmarket and in emerging markets, as well as targeting demographic niches. ...
After a long piece discussing how Apple’s product design efforts happened within a larger context of thoughtful product development, this sentence seems incredibly daft. If there’s something even more critical than aesthetic design to Apple’s ethos, it’s the fact that they have never sought to “expand downmarket.” Expanding downmarket is about chasing market share by compromising quality, shaving off features, and cranking out massive quantities of cheap “product” with a ready acceptance of lowered consumer expectation in trade for volume sales at low profit margins.
No, Apple has always happily ceded the “downmarket” to its competitors. By doing so, Apple sidesteps claims of monopolistic business behavior while remaining highly profitable and maintaining its reputation for quality, consumer satisfaction, and yes, careful attention to detail and design.
Expanding down market doesn’t necessarily mean building a $300 phone. Apple took iPod downmarket with the mini and then nano and dramatically increased its sales at lower price points with a high-quality product.
Daniel always a well thought out article from you however I think you are underestimating how important design was (and still is) to Apple's comeback and growth.
Thanks. I tried not to overstate that too much, but I think it’s important to recognize that nice design is essential but not the principle reason why Apple is currently so successful. It’s business competence, and a focus on building products that aim to be great all around, not just well designed.
I also linked to my “Golden Age / Plastic / Glass” articles to balance out the idea that, as you describe, thoughtful design and even fashion are ideas Apple brought mainstream and have very successful used to enhance its technology business.
After writing this, I read several hot-takes that were all “how will Apple survive the lost of somebody I’ve heard of!?” and “why is Design now reporting to operations rather than Apple hiring a grande Visionäre to dictate design like a god in the mythical lineage of Jobs, Ive, etc.”
Apple peaked some time ago. It's been a steady slide with Tim Apple at the helm even though profits have soared. In the midst of that, nearly all goodwill cultivated over decades has been squandered through planned obsolescence, stagnant development, and excessive pricing. In short, Apple has become a commodity, a champion of mediocrity, yet prices itself as if it still shined with days of glory gone. Who led this turn in Apple since Jobs' death. Perhaps we will find out who. Or who is was not.
Peaked at what exactly?
I've just upgraded my iPhone. That whole process is brilliant. It did the whole thing perfectly. No fuss.
That fits right into what Steve Jobs said about 'Ease of Use'. That is one thing that many designers have seemingly erased from their knowlege base these days. It is something I strived to do when designing software systems in my working life.
Many design decisions are hard and often results in a lot of compromisation. The Notch is one of those.
IMHO, Apple is miles ahead of the opposition with this but then I'm an old curmudgeon who started in IT when it was punched cards and George III was the Operating System so what do I know eh?
I read John Grubers blog post this morning. It had a tinge of angst and it appeared to me that he needed to vent. I’m not in the Apple analyst camp although I have a fair understanding of how things work, i.e. I get things especially when they seem right, and Grubers article seemed wrong.
Then I started reading this article and things became crystal clear, well less muddy anyway, about the nature of design and function at Apple. Thanks for this moment of clarity.
This might, hopefully, enable Apple to escape from the minimalist prison it locked itself into over the past decade or so expand out include more functional considerations.
If Apple wants to go "down market", start with the Mac Pro.
Demand for the Mac Pro is pretty small at the top where there’s money. Where is any demonstratable demand for sustainably profitable PC hardware that is not already addressed by iMac Pro or a high-end back Mac mini?
I still believe there is a market for a machine that falls between the forthcoming Super Computer Mac Pro and the Mac Mini and it is not the iMac or the iMac Pro. Something for "enthusiasts". Those who subscribed to xlr8yourmac.com kinda folks. I don't know, maybe I am out of touch...
This might, hopefully, enable Apple to escape from the minimalist prison it locked itself into over the past decade or so expand out include more functional considerations.
Minimalist = functional.
You discard all the decoration and you expose pure functions. So what is “function” and what is not can be easily discerned.
You're on to something there... but in an effort to not be reflexively dickish, because internet, I'll add that I'd consider myself an enthusiast as well and my strategy is to just wait a couple years until used Mac Pro's aren't so crazy expensive and then do all the fun upgrades. I got my 2012 cheese grater in 2016, and I imagine I'll keep it going for what I need (lots of photo editing, some video) until I can afford the new (to me) cheese grater.
If Apple wants to go "down market", start with the Mac Pro.
Demand for the Mac Pro is pretty small at the top where there’s money. Where is any demonstratable demand for sustainably profitable PC hardware that is not already addressed by iMac Pro or a high-end back Mac mini?
I still believe there is a market for a machine that falls between the forthcoming Super Computer Mac Pro and the Mac Mini and it is not the iMac or the iMac Pro. Something for "enthusiasts". Those who subscribed to xlr8yourmac.com kinda folks. I don't know, maybe I am out of touch...
Yes a half height MacProMini would be great starting at 3K.
You discard all the decoration and you expose pure functions. So what is “function” and what is not can be easily discerned.
You can go too far.
Take the interior of the Tesla Model 3. No traditional instruments at all. Just a screen that looks like it was added as an afterthought. i.e. not integrated like the Model S.
Almost everything is done through the screen. The U/I is good but many things require you to take your eyes off the road. That is not good even with Autopilot (sic).
The thing is bland to the point of being totally dull and uninspiring.
Ease of use is poor if you have to take your eyes off the screen to adjust the fan speed or A/C temp. In my car, I can do that with one control and without watching the road ahead.
The way Tesla is going... as in minimalist means less build cost is not for me.
Nothing like one of the world’s most talented and successful designers retiring to bring out all the do-nothings from the internet, to rant and rave on forums about how they know best despite never having, you know, done anything. Armchair executives at their finest.
I’ll be glad when the dust settles and everyone slithers away.
It's interesting how you all too often bash your fellow Mac enthusiasts in this forum (no doubt along side the 3 people who clicked Like on your post), and yet you carefully avoided direct criticism of the article itself, despite the fact that the article was harder on Ive than anything anyone in this thread has said. What part of "His worst work is in building mice that are refined down their most basic design elements until they are just reallyshittyto use" in the article did you miss or ignore? ANSWER: all of it.
Of course, I am not trying to encourage you to criticize the article because you criticize others too much as it is. Instead I am trying to get Apple-worshipping folks such as yourself to back off casting stones at fellow Apple enthusiasts. You slam my fellow Mac fans by calling their writing "gibberish." You know we are Apple fans (how many Apple haters really read AppleInsider religiously?), but you willingly insult by telling some people to "buy a Dell." You want all who do not promote your preferred narrative to "slither away." How awful. And yet, this is how you write your posts in nearly every thread. You seem to enter the forums not to write comments about an article but to hunt down others you disagree with and tear them to shreds. And sadly, here in the AppleInsider forums, you are not alone. Many follow your lead in making certain claims about Apple that defend Apple as if it was sheer perfection send down from Heaven, and then comes an article that doesn't fit your narrative but yet you still bash your fellow Mac users and seem to overlook what the article says, most likely because you prefer to give the same preferential treatment to AppleInsider as you do Apple. Why not give your fellow Mac lovers a break for once?
I myself don't think exactly like you or anyone else. I am my own person. And there's nothing wrong with that, so long as I am not casting stones at others in a vain attempt to build myself up selfishly. Diversity is good when we Think Different yet stay positive and try to build up others.
I think the lack of MagSafe is a loss indeed, regardless of reason.
I think a single port on the MacBook is inadequate, and had it two of those ports it might have been an otherwise perfect machine for it's class.
I think the lack of an SD card slot in "Pro" MacBooks that can easily accommodate it is an unnecessary minimization that tarnishes the word "pro."
I think the butterfly keyboard stinks when it comes to tactile feedback and durability, and so do many pro-Mac, pro-Apple tech writers. And 1000 people coming to me telling me how much they love that keyboard will in no way magically make my fingers love it. And yet, if Apple could create a keyboard with the same key "stability" yet with more tactical feedback, pretty much everybody would love it, and almost no one would have a negative thing to say. Imagine that.
I loved the design of the round Apple mouse that Ive designed but hated using it such that I ended up purchasing a rather ugly translucent plastic attachment that assisted my brain in properly orienting the thing. In other words, I ended up having to hide Ive's beauty because the base design wasn't practical for me. That remains true even if others come along and say it was practical for them.
I think Jony Ive contributed to about as many Apple successes as failures but the intense design-focus of Jobs caused him to love Ive because Jobs knew design is very important at Apple and you can't always get design perfected in a way the public will always buy it. I love my G4 Cube even to this day, along with many other Ive/Jobs creations, and I couldn't care less if those items didn't sell well back in the day -- I loved and still love them anyway. I even own Ive's $299 "Designed by Apple in California" book and love it. So I have likes and dislikes when it comes to Jony Ive, but I am not quite so negative about Ive as the article article appears to be, and I disagree a bit with the article when it comes to the design importance aspect. Operations and Tim Cook are key to Apple's success in the 2000's, no question! The article is right about that. But the great differentiator about Apple is uniqueness in design tightly fitted with amazing ease of use. So long as Apple can continue to understand the Jobsian vision of Technology and Liberal Arts, giving important functionality and usability along side great design and at a realistic price, Apple will continue to thrill and delight the rest of us.
But consumers are not stupid. They can see when the Mac is being blatantly milked when the price is high and functionality is lacking due to excess minimalism. Whether the departure of Ive will remedy the functional and design deficiencies present in the current Mac lineup is something only time will tell. We who love the Mac can only hope so. But it could end up being the new Mac Pro mentality applied across the entire Mac line -- proper cooling, great functionality, speed and even expandability, but at a cost the rest of us can no longer afford. Whether the current upward pricing trends are influenced by Trump Tariffs or not is something I do not know. But prices that are too high are too high regardless of reason. That would be a break with the "starting at just $499!" iPad sales pitch Steve Jobs gave us back in 2010. Jobs knew how to milk tech but he also knew tech needed to be priced in a way the masses could afford. Apple has always been comparatively more expensive than the competition, and most of us have lived with that for decades and still loved Apple anyway. We've loved Apple through those decades because there have always been high value products that were reasonably priced and offered great features too. Apple clearly feels the future of notebooks is the MacBook with just 1 port (or maybe no ports at all); but that future, even now in 2019 with wireless gizmos galore, is still far, far away. Indeed, USB-A is still all the rage, despite USB-C having been released YEARS ago.
Excessive minimalism does no one any good. It's time to design for people in today's world, at prices everyday people can afford. With great features, a great design and reasonable pricing, coupled with Apple's reputation for great support, comes good will, and with good will, loyal fans and perpetual praise.
There once was a time that I was on Guy Kawasaki's EvangeList that I loved everything about Apple and had not a single ill word to say. I took issue with the Windoze crowd who always spoke negatively about my beloved Macs, and I sought persuade everyone within my influence to buy Macs, not an inferior Bill Gates rip-off OS. Macs at the time were more expensive than PCs but the Macs gave you more hardware features than the stock PCs, giving much more bang for the buck, in addition to a superior OS experience. Quite simply, I was "that Mac guy" everyone knew about. But these days, I have both good and bad to say about Apple products and that saddens me. I long for an Apple where can once again scratch my head in vain to find any negatives. Maybe that's too much to ask, but the fact here is that there's still room for improvement in Cupertino. Apple is not perfect. There's always room for positive change. Perhaps the departure of Ive will be a part of that.
Nothing like one of the world’s most talented and successful designers retiring to bring out all the do-nothings from the internet, to rant and rave on forums about how they know best despite never having, you know, done anything. Armchair executives at their finest.
I’ll be glad when the dust settles and everyone slithers away.
It's interesting how you all too often bash your fellow Mac enthusiasts in this forum (no doubt along side the 3 people who clicked Like on your post), and yet you carefully avoided direct criticism of the article itself, despite the fact that the article was harder on Ive than anything anyone in this thread has said. What part of "His worst work is in building mice that are refined down their most basic design elements until they are just reallyshittyto use" in the article did you miss or ignore? ANSWER: all of it.
Of course, I am not trying to encourage you to criticize the article because you criticize others too much as it is. Instead I am trying to get Apple-worshipping folks such as yourself to back off casting stones at fellow Apple enthusiasts. You slam my fellow Mac fans by calling their writing "gibberish." You know we are Apple fans (how many Apple haters really read AppleInsider religiously?), but you willingly insult by telling some people to "buy a Dell." You want all who do not promote your preferred narrative to "slither away." How awful. And yet, this is how you write your posts in nearly every thread. You seem to enter the forums not to write comments about an article but to hunt down others you disagree with and tear them to shreds. And sadly, here in the AppleInsider forums, you are not alone. Many follow your lead in making certain claims about Apple that defend Apple as if it was sheer perfection send down from Heaven, and then comes an article that doesn't fit your narrative but yet you still bash your fellow Mac users and seem to overlook what the article says, most likely because you prefer to give the same preferential treatment to AppleInsider as you do Apple. Why not give your fellow Mac lovers a break for once?
I myself don't think exactly like you or anyone else. I am my own person. And there's nothing wrong with that, so long as I am not casting stones at others in a vain attempt to build myself up selfishly. Diversity is good when we Think Different yet stay positive and try to build up others.
I think the lack of MagSafe is a loss indeed, regardless of reason.
I think a single port on the MacBook is inadequate, and had it two of those ports it might have been an otherwise perfect machine for it's class.
I think the lack of an SD card slot in "Pro" MacBooks that can easily accommodate it is an unnecessary minimization that tarnishes the word "pro."
I think the butterfly keyboard stinks when it comes to tactile feedback and durability, and so do many pro-Mac, pro-Apple tech writers. And 1000 people coming to me telling me how much they love that keyboard will in no way magically make my fingers love it. And yet, if Apple could create a keyboard with the same key "stability" yet with more tactical feedback, pretty much everybody would love it, and almost no one would have a negative thing to say. Imagine that.
I loved the design of the round Apple mouse that Ive designed but hated using it such that I ended up purchasing a rather ugly translucent plastic attachment that assisted my brain in properly orienting the thing. In other words, I ended up having to hide Ive's beauty because the base design wasn't practical for me. That remains true even if others come along and say it was practical for them.
I think Jony Ive contributed to about as many Apple successes as failures but the intense design-focus of Jobs caused him to love Ive because Jobs knew design is very important at Apple and you can't always get design perfected in a way the public will always buy it. I love my G4 Cube even to this day, along with many other Ive/Jobs creations, and I couldn't care less if those items didn't sell well back in the day -- I loved and still love them anyway. I even own Ive's $299 "Designed by Apple in California" book and love it. So I have likes and dislikes when it comes to Jony Ive, but I am not quite so negative about Ive as the article article appears to be, and I disagree a bit with the article when it comes to the design importance aspect. Operations and Tim Cook are key to Apple's success in the 2000's, no question! The article is right about that. But the great differentiator about Apple is uniqueness in design tightly fitted with amazing ease of use. So long as Apple can continue to understand the Jobsian vision of Technology and Liberal Arts, giving important functionality and usability along side great design and at a realistic price, Apple will continue to thrill and delight the rest of us.
But consumers are not stupid. They can see when the Mac is being blatantly milked when the price is high and functionality is lacking due to excess minimalism. Whether the departure of Ive will remedy the functional and design deficiencies present in the current Mac lineup is something only time will tell. We who love the Mac can only hope so. But it could end up being the new Mac Pro mentality applied across the entire Mac line -- proper cooling, great functionality, speed and even expandability, but at a cost the rest of us can no longer afford. Whether the current upward pricing trends are influenced by Trump Tariffs or not is something I do not know. But prices that are too high are too high regardless of reason. That would be a break with the "starting at just $499!" iPad sales pitch Steve Jobs gave us back in 2010. Jobs knew how to milk tech but he also knew tech needed to be priced in a way the masses could afford. Apple has always been comparatively more expensive than the competition, and most of us have lived with that for decades and still loved Apple anyway. We've loved Apple through those decades because there have always been high value products that were reasonably priced and offered great features too. Apple clearly feels the future of notebooks is the MacBook with just 1 port (or maybe no ports at all); but that future, even now in 2019 with wireless gizmos galore, is still far, far away. Indeed, USB-A is still all the rage, despite USB-C having been released YEARS ago.
Excessive minimalism does no one any good. It's time to design for people in today's world, at prices everyday people can afford. With great features, a great design and reasonable pricing, coupled with Apple's reputation for great support, comes good will, and with good will, loyal fans and perpetual praise.
There once was a time that I was on Guy Kawasaki's EvangeList that I loved everything about Apple and had not a single ill word to say. I took issue with the Windoze crowd who always spoke negatively about my beloved Macs, and I sought persuade everyone within my influence to buy Macs, not an inferior Bill Gates rip-off OS. Macs at the time were more expensive than PCs but the Macs gave you more hardware features than the stock PCs, giving much more bang for the buck, in addition to a superior OS experience. Quite simply, I was "that Mac guy" everyone knew about. But these days, I have both good and bad to say about Apple products and that saddens me. I long for an Apple where can once again scratch my head in vain to find any negatives. Maybe that's too much to ask, but the fact here is that there's still room for improvement in Cupertino. Apple is not perfect. There's always room for positive change. Perhaps the departure of Ive will be a part of that.
Nothing like one of the world’s most talented and successful designers retiring to bring out all the do-nothings from the internet, to rant and rave on forums about how they know best despite never having, you know, done anything. Armchair executives at their finest.
I’ll be glad when the dust settles and everyone slithers away.
... Apple clearly feels the future of notebooks is the MacBook with just 1 port (or maybe no ports at all); but that future, even now in 2019 with wireless gizmos galore, is still far, far away. Indeed, USB-A is still all the rage, despite USB-C having been released YEARS ago.
Excessive minimalism does no one any good. It's time to design for people in today's world, at prices everyday people can afford. With great features, a great design and reasonable pricing, coupled with Apple's reputation for great support, comes good will, and with good will, loyal fans and perpetual praise. ...
With all due respect for your Mac enthusiasm, may I refer to this Wikipedia article that reveals which way mobile computing is going?
Several brands actually comply more or less with Intel’s ultrabook specification but only Apple’s MacBooks are criticized the ugliest way ! Maybe you should rely more on your Mac enthusiasm to see the big picture.
“Contrast that with the new Mac Pro that debuted at WWDC19, which looks like it was designed by Sun or perhaps Dell's Alienware, with a focus on performance and functionality that eclipses its intelligent but utilitarian design.“
Perfectly stated and characterized. I wish I could click the Like button next to individual paragraphs in an article. This article would have gotten nearly as many likes as it has paragraphs. Dead on point, all the way through!
“Contrast that with the new Mac Pro that debuted at WWDC19, which looks like it was designed by Sun or perhaps Dell's Alienware, with a focus on performance and functionality that eclipses its intelligent but utilitarian design.“
Perfectly stated and characterized. I wish I could click the Like button next to individual paragraphs in an article. This article would have gotten nearly as many likes as it has paragraphs. Dead on point, all the way through!
Contrast “design focused” what with the new Mac Pro? The 2013 Mac Pro was not Ive’s design-focused idiosyncratic creation, it was an engineering-focused solution. Simply the industry couldn’t keep-up with multiple GPU design and Thunderbolt expansion, so “thermal core” architecture they focused on has been proved as being not the only architecture available, “thermal core” became a “thermal corner” with Federighi’s saying. Proven right or wrong their initial concern was functionality, not design aesthetics. It is irrelevant to relate that engineering issue to Jony Ive.
Comments
Oh, and getting things done for a product designer means shipping. Any smart designer can put together a single museum piece. Smart designers who are also adaptable and get things done, like Jony Ive and Apple as a company, can ship in vast quantities, or in Apple's case with iPhone, billions of units. Nothing too thin about those kind of numbers and the associated revenue.
And you’re right about the watch it’s very customizable for different preferences. Same concept.
But pretty clearly Apple can use its technology to drive different brands because It already is.
And just because competitors have failed at everything doesn’t mean Apple can’t succeed.
Thanks. I tried not to overstate that too much, but I think it’s important to recognize that nice design is essential but not the principle reason why Apple is currently so successful. It’s business competence, and a focus on building products that aim to be great all around, not just well designed.
I also linked to my “Golden Age / Plastic / Glass” articles to balance out the idea that, as you describe, thoughtful design and even fashion are ideas Apple brought mainstream and have very successful used to enhance its technology business.
After writing this, I read several hot-takes that were all “how will Apple survive the lost of somebody I’ve heard of!?” and “why is Design now reporting to operations rather than Apple hiring a grande Visionäre to dictate design like a god in the mythical lineage of Jobs, Ive, etc.”
I read John Grubers blog post this morning. It had a tinge of angst and it appeared to me that he needed to vent. I’m not in the Apple analyst camp although I have a fair understanding of how things work, i.e. I get things especially when they seem right, and Grubers article seemed wrong.
Then I started reading this article and things became crystal clear, well less muddy anyway, about the nature of design and function at Apple. Thanks for this moment of clarity.
You discard all the decoration and you expose pure functions. So what is “function” and what is not can be easily discerned.
Of course, I am not trying to encourage you to criticize the article because you criticize others too much as it is. Instead I am trying to get Apple-worshipping folks such as yourself to back off casting stones at fellow Apple enthusiasts. You slam my fellow Mac fans by calling their writing "gibberish." You know we are Apple fans (how many Apple haters really read AppleInsider religiously?), but you willingly insult by telling some people to "buy a Dell." You want all who do not promote your preferred narrative to "slither away." How awful. And yet, this is how you write your posts in nearly every thread. You seem to enter the forums not to write comments about an article but to hunt down others you disagree with and tear them to shreds. And sadly, here in the AppleInsider forums, you are not alone. Many follow your lead in making certain claims about Apple that defend Apple as if it was sheer perfection send down from Heaven, and then comes an article that doesn't fit your narrative but yet you still bash your fellow Mac users and seem to overlook what the article says, most likely because you prefer to give the same preferential treatment to AppleInsider as you do Apple. Why not give your fellow Mac lovers a break for once?
I myself don't think exactly like you or anyone else. I am my own person. And there's nothing wrong with that, so long as I am not casting stones at others in a vain attempt to build myself up selfishly. Diversity is good when we Think Different yet stay positive and try to build up others.
I think the lack of MagSafe is a loss indeed, regardless of reason.
I think a single port on the MacBook is inadequate, and had it two of those ports it might have been an otherwise perfect machine for it's class.
I think the lack of an SD card slot in "Pro" MacBooks that can easily accommodate it is an unnecessary minimization that tarnishes the word "pro."
I think the butterfly keyboard stinks when it comes to tactile feedback and durability, and so do many pro-Mac, pro-Apple tech writers. And 1000 people coming to me telling me how much they love that keyboard will in no way magically make my fingers love it. And yet, if Apple could create a keyboard with the same key "stability" yet with more tactical feedback, pretty much everybody would love it, and almost no one would have a negative thing to say. Imagine that.
I loved the design of the round Apple mouse that Ive designed but hated using it such that I ended up purchasing a rather ugly translucent plastic attachment that assisted my brain in properly orienting the thing. In other words, I ended up having to hide Ive's beauty because the base design wasn't practical for me. That remains true even if others come along and say it was practical for them.
I think Jony Ive contributed to about as many Apple successes as failures but the intense design-focus of Jobs caused him to love Ive because Jobs knew design is very important at Apple and you can't always get design perfected in a way the public will always buy it. I love my G4 Cube even to this day, along with many other Ive/Jobs creations, and I couldn't care less if those items didn't sell well back in the day -- I loved and still love them anyway. I even own Ive's $299 "Designed by Apple in California" book and love it. So I have likes and dislikes when it comes to Jony Ive, but I am not quite so negative about Ive as the article article appears to be, and I disagree a bit with the article when it comes to the design importance aspect. Operations and Tim Cook are key to Apple's success in the 2000's, no question! The article is right about that. But the great differentiator about Apple is uniqueness in design tightly fitted with amazing ease of use. So long as Apple can continue to understand the Jobsian vision of Technology and Liberal Arts, giving important functionality and usability along side great design and at a realistic price, Apple will continue to thrill and delight the rest of us.
But consumers are not stupid. They can see when the Mac is being blatantly milked when the price is high and functionality is lacking due to excess minimalism. Whether the departure of Ive will remedy the functional and design deficiencies present in the current Mac lineup is something only time will tell. We who love the Mac can only hope so. But it could end up being the new Mac Pro mentality applied across the entire Mac line -- proper cooling, great functionality, speed and even expandability, but at a cost the rest of us can no longer afford. Whether the current upward pricing trends are influenced by Trump Tariffs or not is something I do not know. But prices that are too high are too high regardless of reason. That would be a break with the "starting at just $499!" iPad sales pitch Steve Jobs gave us back in 2010. Jobs knew how to milk tech but he also knew tech needed to be priced in a way the masses could afford. Apple has always been comparatively more expensive than the competition, and most of us have lived with that for decades and still loved Apple anyway. We've loved Apple through those decades because there have always been high value products that were reasonably priced and offered great features too. Apple clearly feels the future of notebooks is the MacBook with just 1 port (or maybe no ports at all); but that future, even now in 2019 with wireless gizmos galore, is still far, far away. Indeed, USB-A is still all the rage, despite USB-C having been released YEARS ago.
Excessive minimalism does no one any good. It's time to design for people in today's world, at prices everyday people can afford. With great features, a great design and reasonable pricing, coupled with Apple's reputation for great support, comes good will, and with good will, loyal fans and perpetual praise.
There once was a time that I was on Guy Kawasaki's EvangeList that I loved everything about Apple and had not a single ill word to say. I took issue with the Windoze crowd who always spoke negatively about my beloved Macs, and I sought persuade everyone within my influence to buy Macs, not an inferior Bill Gates rip-off OS. Macs at the time were more expensive than PCs but the Macs gave you more hardware features than the stock PCs, giving much more bang for the buck, in addition to a superior OS experience. Quite simply, I was "that Mac guy" everyone knew about. But these days, I have both good and bad to say about Apple products and that saddens me. I long for an Apple where can once again scratch my head in vain to find any negatives. Maybe that's too much to ask, but the fact here is that there's still room for improvement in Cupertino. Apple is not perfect. There's always room for positive change. Perhaps the departure of Ive will be a part of that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultrabook
Several brands actually comply more or less with Intel’s ultrabook specification but only Apple’s MacBooks are criticized the ugliest way ! Maybe you should rely more on your Mac enthusiasm to see the big picture.
Perfectly stated and characterized. I wish I could click the Like button next to individual paragraphs in an article. This article would have gotten nearly as many likes as it has paragraphs. Dead on point, all the way through!