Buy an Apple product, couple years later it quits working. No worries mate, just toss it in the bin and buy a new one. Who cares about the design if it fails so quickly?
Macs last longer than competing products. I’m still using a mid 2009 Macbook Pro for my a/v system as a server. That’s after three years of hard use by my daughter in college, where she banged the corners so hard, they’re slightly bent down. I got my wife and daughter new iMacs after they had them for 8 years, and rarely bothered to turn them off.
so no, Apple products work quite well for a long time. Sure, there is the re]are occupancy of early failure, but that what warrantees are for isn’t it?
Does this mean Apple can get rid of that “flat” interface Jonny forced on the iPhone?
Sigh. Everyone in the computer industry went with a flat UI. It was time for the old ones to go. You think Ivy changed the UI to the Zune HD? That was the very first flat UI. It turned into Windows 8. You think Ivy did that as well? Android went flat before Apple did. You think Google hired home too?
If this means that new design leads at Apple give a little more emphasis to function over form, I'm all for it. If Apple doesn't return to a machine in which the end-users can replace/upgrade memory, storage and battery, my current late-2016 MacBook Pro will be my last Mac. It needs a new battery and Apple has quoted $450 for that service. Although my keyboards have been okay, my daughter recently bought two Macs that have to go back to Apple for keyboard replacement. And in addition, I think their OS QA has really gotten far worse in recent years. Every update seems to bring more issues, especially to older applications that had always worked fine. Sometimes I have to wonder what all these hires at Apple are actually doing. My personal feeling, observing from a distance, is that Apple has perhaps gotten too large to effectively manage. I can remember when Apple used to test every single phrase that would be displayed to a user to make sure it conveyed the correct meaning. Today their language is as bad as Microsoft's and sounds like it was written by programmers.
I always thought it was a bit insane that the phones got thinner and thinner and Ive would make videos showing how great the back looked and yet, you really had to keep it in a case, because if you dropped it without a case, chances are the phone was destroyed. So if you had to keep it in a case anyway, what was the point of making it so thin and having reduced battery life because of the limitations on battery size?
I always thought Ive seemed like he cared how a machine looked, but didn't seem to care too much how it operated.
That’s untrue. If you ever read an interview with him, you would know that he considered design to be everything. That is, function as well as looks. The two can’t be separated. That doesn’t mean that everything worked as intended, not everything did.
app,es I tend with notebooks, and remember they created the category with the original MacBook Air, was to make notebooks easier to carry. After all, the purpose of a portable is to be able to easily take it everywhere, ideally. The more weight you shave off, the more portable it becomes. Apple possibly went a bit too far, and now they’re pulling back a bit. We have no idea how much he was involved in the design of the 16”Macbook Pro, or the new iPhones, which are also a bit thicker. Since these have been in development for at least a year, and possibly more, it’s likely they have a large Ivy stamp on them.
Yeh, well sort of: Ive made design co-equal with engineering. And that worked. But, it seems that over the past several years, increasingly, slick design triumphed over functional engineering in too many Apple products. My feeling is that Ive needed Jobs' mitigating influence to balance things and, without it, he began to take design too far to the detriment of function. And further, without Jobs, nobody could say "No!" to him.
That's not to denigrate him. He is likely a genius. But genius needs to stay grounded and, I believe, Ive lost his tether.
Perhaps that is illustrated by your own illustration: The MacBook Air was revolutionary and, yes, its portability ushered in a new paradigm. But, then Apple made that design their only design and neglected the more functional business class machines that are expandable, repairable, upgradeable, with sufficient ports and great keyboards.... Basically it became too much of a good thing.
If this means that new design leads at Apple give a little more emphasis to function over form, I'm all for it. If Apple doesn't return to a machine in which the end-users can replace/upgrade memory, storage and battery, my current late-2016 MacBook Pro will be my last Mac. It needs a new battery and Apple has quoted $450 for that service. Although my keyboards have been okay, my daughter recently bought two Macs that have to go back to Apple for keyboard replacement. And in addition, I think their OS QA has really gotten far worse in recent years. Every update seems to bring more issues, especially to older applications that had always worked fine. Sometimes I have to wonder what all these hires at Apple are actually doing. My personal feeling, observing from a distance, is that Apple has perhaps gotten too large to effectively manage. I can remember when Apple used to test every single phrase that would be displayed to a user to make sure it conveyed the correct meaning. Today their language is as bad as Microsoft's and sounds like it was written by programmers.
I always thought it was a bit insane that the phones got thinner and thinner and Ive would make videos showing how great the back looked and yet, you really had to keep it in a case, because if you dropped it without a case, chances are the phone was destroyed. So if you had to keep it in a case anyway, what was the point of making it so thin and having reduced battery life because of the limitations on battery size?
I always thought Ive seemed like he cared how a machine looked, but didn't seem to care too much how it operated.
That’s untrue. If you ever read an interview with him, you would know that he considered design to be everything. That is, function as well as looks. The two can’t be separated. That doesn’t mean that everything worked as intended, not everything did.
app,es I tend with notebooks, and remember they created the category with the original MacBook Air, was to make notebooks easier to carry. After all, the purpose of a portable is to be able to easily take it everywhere, ideally. The more weight you shave off, the more portable it becomes. Apple possibly went a bit too far, and now they’re pulling back a bit. We have no idea how much he was involved in the design of the 16”Macbook Pro, or the new iPhones, which are also a bit thicker. Since these have been in development for at least a year, and possibly more, it’s likely they have a large Ivy stamp on them.
Yeh, well sort of: Ive made design co-equal with engineering. And that worked. But, it seems that over the past several years, increasingly, slick design triumphed over functional engineering in too many Apple products. My feeling is that Ive needed Jobs' mitigating influence to balance things and, without it, he began to take design too far to the detriment of function. And further, without Jobs, nobody could say "No!" to him.
That's not to denigrate him. He is likely a genius. But genius needs to stay grounded and, I believe, Ive lost his tether.
Perhaps that is illustrated by your own illustration: The MacBook Air was revolutionary and, yes, its portability ushered in a new paradigm. But, then Apple made that design their only design and neglected the more functional business class machines that are expandable, repairable, upgradeable, with sufficient ports and great keyboards.... Basically it became too much of a good thing.
In general, the laptop industry followed Apple into the thin and light area. If you look around, there are more that look like a Macbook of some kind than any other. Yes, there are big, heavy game machines with a whole 2.5 hour battery life. But that’s not the direction Apple has been interested in. You blame Ivy for that? I don’t. I know it’s popular to blame him for everything somebody doesn’t like. But nobody here knows how things are apportioned there. We can pretend we do, but we don’t. But we should understand how companies work.
its still the responsibility of engineering management to do what marketing needs. That’s the way it works everywhere. Ivy’s job is to try to have everything work well together. That’s what the design department does. Ivy has said many times that design isn’t just looks, it’s having everything function together. Sometimes Apple makes mistakes. But products don’t go out the door without having senior management approve of it. Ivy may have had a lot of influence at Apple, but he wasn’t Jobs.
a lot of what we’re seein come out now was designed to a large extent a year ago. When he was still in charge. He may have been letting go gradually, as word has had it, but he didn’t just go away a year ago, and tell people to do whatever they wanted. I can’t prove that, of course, but it’s just not the way it works.
most notebooks these days are not expandable, and if they are, it’s not by much. Just remember that the lack of expandability was really a Jobs thing. He was the one who said that computers should be an appliance. Turn it on and use it without fiddling around or needing to upgrade it.
so if anything, Apple has been returning to its original almost impossible to open Mac roots.
Does this mean Apple can get rid of that “flat” interface Jonny forced on the iPhone?
Sigh. Everyone in the computer industry went with a flat UI. It was time for the old ones to go. You think Ivy changed the UI to the Zune HD? That was the very first flat UI. It turned into Windows 8. You think Ivy did that as well? Android went flat before Apple did. You think Google hired home too?
If this means that new design leads at Apple give a little more emphasis to function over form, I'm all for it. If Apple doesn't return to a machine in which the end-users can replace/upgrade memory, storage and battery, my current late-2016 MacBook Pro will be my last Mac. It needs a new battery and Apple has quoted $450 for that service. Although my keyboards have been okay, my daughter recently bought two Macs that have to go back to Apple for keyboard replacement. And in addition, I think their OS QA has really gotten far worse in recent years. Every update seems to bring more issues, especially to older applications that had always worked fine. Sometimes I have to wonder what all these hires at Apple are actually doing. My personal feeling, observing from a distance, is that Apple has perhaps gotten too large to effectively manage. I can remember when Apple used to test every single phrase that would be displayed to a user to make sure it conveyed the correct meaning. Today their language is as bad as Microsoft's and sounds like it was written by programmers.
I always thought it was a bit insane that the phones got thinner and thinner and Ive would make videos showing how great the back looked and yet, you really had to keep it in a case, because if you dropped it without a case, chances are the phone was destroyed. So if you had to keep it in a case anyway, what was the point of making it so thin and having reduced battery life because of the limitations on battery size?
I always thought Ive seemed like he cared how a machine looked, but didn't seem to care too much how it operated.
That’s untrue. If you ever read an interview with him, you would know that he considered design to be everything. That is, function as well as looks. The two can’t be separated. That doesn’t mean that everything worked as intended, not everything did.
app,es I tend with notebooks, and remember they created the category with the original MacBook Air, was to make notebooks easier to carry. After all, the purpose of a portable is to be able to easily take it everywhere, ideally. The more weight you shave off, the more portable it becomes. Apple possibly went a bit too far, and now they’re pulling back a bit. We have no idea how much he was involved in the design of the 16”Macbook Pro, or the new iPhones, which are also a bit thicker. Since these have been in development for at least a year, and possibly more, it’s likely they have a large Ivy stamp on them.
Yeh, well sort of: Ive made design co-equal with engineering. And that worked. But, it seems that over the past several years, increasingly, slick design triumphed over functional engineering in too many Apple products. My feeling is that Ive needed Jobs' mitigating influence to balance things and, without it, he began to take design too far to the detriment of function. And further, without Jobs, nobody could say "No!" to him.
That's not to denigrate him. He is likely a genius. But genius needs to stay grounded and, I believe, Ive lost his tether.
Perhaps that is illustrated by your own illustration: The MacBook Air was revolutionary and, yes, its portability ushered in a new paradigm. But, then Apple made that design their only design and neglected the more functional business class machines that are expandable, repairable, upgradeable, with sufficient ports and great keyboards.... Basically it became too much of a good thing.
In general, the laptop industry followed Apple into the thin and light area. If you look around, there are more that look like a Macbook of some kind than any other. Yes, there are big, heavy game machines with a whole 2.5 hour battery life. But that’s not the direction Apple has been interested in. You blame Ivy for that? I don’t. I know it’s popular to blame him for everything somebody doesn’t like. But nobody here knows how things are apportioned there. We can pretend we do, but we don’t. But we should understand how companies work.
its still the responsibility of engineering management to do what marketing needs. That’s the way it works everywhere. Ivy’s job is to try to have everything work well together. That’s what the design department does. Ivy has said many times that design isn’t just looks, it’s having everything function together. Sometimes Apple makes mistakes. But products don’t go out the door without having senior management approve of it. Ivy may have had a lot of influence at Apple, but he wasn’t Jobs.
a lot of what we’re seein come out now was designed to a large extent a year ago. When he was still in charge. He may have been letting go gradually, as word has had it, but he didn’t just go away a year ago, and tell people to do whatever they wanted. I can’t prove that, of course, but it’s just not the way it works.
most notebooks these days are not expandable, and if they are, it’s not by much. Just remember that the lack of expandability was really a Jobs thing. He was the one who said that computers should be an appliance. Turn it on and use it without fiddling around or needing to upgrade it.
so if anything, Apple has been returning to its original almost impossible to open Mac roots.
Yeh, I blame an unchained Ive's for steering Apple down a narrow, single purpose path with restricted appeal.
Walk into an Apple Store and all you see are clones of the MacBook AIr -- you need a saleperson to tell one for the other.
Walk into a Best Buy and you see a plethora of options designed to fit user needs, desires and preferences (online even more so) where function drives the form rather than the way it became in the closed in world of a post-Jobs Ive's Apple. In the Apple Store the user has to adapt to what Ive decided they should have. In the real world, the manufacturers adapt to what the user want, needs and desires.
Again, I am not trashing Ive. He is/was a genius. But, his genius was left to run unconstrained and Apple ended up with too much of a good thing.
So, to state my first point more correctly: I blame Apple for letting the Ive design philosophy unnecessarily restrict their product lines.
Does this mean Apple can get rid of that “flat” interface Jonny forced on the iPhone?
Sigh. Everyone in the computer industry went with a flat UI. It was time for the old ones to go. You think Ivy changed the UI to the Zune HD? That was the very first flat UI. It turned into Windows 8. You think Ivy did that as well? Android went flat before Apple did. You think Google hired home too?
don’t people know anything anymore?
Why do you keep calling him Ivy?
Because I’ve given up trying to correct spellcheck. Sometimes I correct it, tap on my spelling in the corrections bar, and it changes it anyway. This is true even when I have spellings in text replacement set. Sometimes they work, and sometimes not. Just like somehow, on this site, the first word to every paragraph except the first, aren’t capitalized. I gave up remembering to manually hit shift every time.
If this means that new design leads at Apple give a little more emphasis to function over form, I'm all for it. If Apple doesn't return to a machine in which the end-users can replace/upgrade memory, storage and battery, my current late-2016 MacBook Pro will be my last Mac. It needs a new battery and Apple has quoted $450 for that service. Although my keyboards have been okay, my daughter recently bought two Macs that have to go back to Apple for keyboard replacement. And in addition, I think their OS QA has really gotten far worse in recent years. Every update seems to bring more issues, especially to older applications that had always worked fine. Sometimes I have to wonder what all these hires at Apple are actually doing. My personal feeling, observing from a distance, is that Apple has perhaps gotten too large to effectively manage. I can remember when Apple used to test every single phrase that would be displayed to a user to make sure it conveyed the correct meaning. Today their language is as bad as Microsoft's and sounds like it was written by programmers.
I always thought it was a bit insane that the phones got thinner and thinner and Ive would make videos showing how great the back looked and yet, you really had to keep it in a case, because if you dropped it without a case, chances are the phone was destroyed. So if you had to keep it in a case anyway, what was the point of making it so thin and having reduced battery life because of the limitations on battery size?
I always thought Ive seemed like he cared how a machine looked, but didn't seem to care too much how it operated.
That’s untrue. If you ever read an interview with him, you would know that he considered design to be everything. That is, function as well as looks. The two can’t be separated. That doesn’t mean that everything worked as intended, not everything did.
app,es I tend with notebooks, and remember they created the category with the original MacBook Air, was to make notebooks easier to carry. After all, the purpose of a portable is to be able to easily take it everywhere, ideally. The more weight you shave off, the more portable it becomes. Apple possibly went a bit too far, and now they’re pulling back a bit. We have no idea how much he was involved in the design of the 16”Macbook Pro, or the new iPhones, which are also a bit thicker. Since these have been in development for at least a year, and possibly more, it’s likely they have a large Ivy stamp on them.
Yeh, well sort of: Ive made design co-equal with engineering. And that worked. But, it seems that over the past several years, increasingly, slick design triumphed over functional engineering in too many Apple products. My feeling is that Ive needed Jobs' mitigating influence to balance things and, without it, he began to take design too far to the detriment of function. And further, without Jobs, nobody could say "No!" to him.
That's not to denigrate him. He is likely a genius. But genius needs to stay grounded and, I believe, Ive lost his tether.
Perhaps that is illustrated by your own illustration: The MacBook Air was revolutionary and, yes, its portability ushered in a new paradigm. But, then Apple made that design their only design and neglected the more functional business class machines that are expandable, repairable, upgradeable, with sufficient ports and great keyboards.... Basically it became too much of a good thing.
In general, the laptop industry followed Apple into the thin and light area. If you look around, there are more that look like a Macbook of some kind than any other. Yes, there are big, heavy game machines with a whole 2.5 hour battery life. But that’s not the direction Apple has been interested in. You blame Ivy for that? I don’t. I know it’s popular to blame him for everything somebody doesn’t like. But nobody here knows how things are apportioned there. We can pretend we do, but we don’t. But we should understand how companies work.
its still the responsibility of engineering management to do what marketing needs. That’s the way it works everywhere. Ivy’s job is to try to have everything work well together. That’s what the design department does. Ivy has said many times that design isn’t just looks, it’s having everything function together. Sometimes Apple makes mistakes. But products don’t go out the door without having senior management approve of it. Ivy may have had a lot of influence at Apple, but he wasn’t Jobs.
a lot of what we’re seein come out now was designed to a large extent a year ago. When he was still in charge. He may have been letting go gradually, as word has had it, but he didn’t just go away a year ago, and tell people to do whatever they wanted. I can’t prove that, of course, but it’s just not the way it works.
most notebooks these days are not expandable, and if they are, it’s not by much. Just remember that the lack of expandability was really a Jobs thing. He was the one who said that computers should be an appliance. Turn it on and use it without fiddling around or needing to upgrade it.
so if anything, Apple has been returning to its original almost impossible to open Mac roots.
Yeh, I blame an unchained Ive's for steering Apple down a narrow, single purpose path with restricted appeal.
Walk into an Apple Store and all you see are clones of the MacBook AIr -- you need a saleperson to tell one for the other.
Walk into a Best Buy and you see a plethora of options designed to fit user needs, desires and preferences (online even more so) where function drives the form rather than the way it became in the closed in world of a post-Jobs Ive's Apple. In the Apple Store the user has to adapt to what Ive decided they should have. In the real world, the manufacturers adapt to what the user want, needs and desires.
Again, I am not trashing Ive. He is/was a genius. But, his genius was left to run unconstrained and Apple ended up with too much of a good thing.
So, to state my first point more correctly: I blame Apple for letting the Ive design philosophy unnecessarily restrict their product lines.
I think you missed the entire point to what I was saying.
but a long time ago, when Apple did have “a plethora of options” they were severely criticized for it, and were to,d to cut down the number of different lines of computers and goods. So they did. Jobs certainly cut drastically after he came back. It’s been like that ever since.
If this means that new design leads at Apple give a little more emphasis to function over form, I'm all for it. If Apple doesn't return to a machine in which the end-users can replace/upgrade memory, storage and battery, my current late-2016 MacBook Pro will be my last Mac. It needs a new battery and Apple has quoted $450 for that service. Although my keyboards have been okay, my daughter recently bought two Macs that have to go back to Apple for keyboard replacement. And in addition, I think their OS QA has really gotten far worse in recent years. Every update seems to bring more issues, especially to older applications that had always worked fine. Sometimes I have to wonder what all these hires at Apple are actually doing. My personal feeling, observing from a distance, is that Apple has perhaps gotten too large to effectively manage. I can remember when Apple used to test every single phrase that would be displayed to a user to make sure it conveyed the correct meaning. Today their language is as bad as Microsoft's and sounds like it was written by programmers.
I always thought it was a bit insane that the phones got thinner and thinner and Ive would make videos showing how great the back looked and yet, you really had to keep it in a case, because if you dropped it without a case, chances are the phone was destroyed. So if you had to keep it in a case anyway, what was the point of making it so thin and having reduced battery life because of the limitations on battery size?
I always thought Ive seemed like he cared how a machine looked, but didn't seem to care too much how it operated.
That’s untrue. If you ever read an interview with him, you would know that he considered design to be everything. That is, function as well as looks. The two can’t be separated. That doesn’t mean that everything worked as intended, not everything did.
app,es I tend with notebooks, and remember they created the category with the original MacBook Air, was to make notebooks easier to carry. After all, the purpose of a portable is to be able to easily take it everywhere, ideally. The more weight you shave off, the more portable it becomes. Apple possibly went a bit too far, and now they’re pulling back a bit. We have no idea how much he was involved in the design of the 16”Macbook Pro, or the new iPhones, which are also a bit thicker. Since these have been in development for at least a year, and possibly more, it’s likely they have a large Ivy stamp on them.
Yeh, well sort of: Ive made design co-equal with engineering. And that worked. But, it seems that over the past several years, increasingly, slick design triumphed over functional engineering in too many Apple products. My feeling is that Ive needed Jobs' mitigating influence to balance things and, without it, he began to take design too far to the detriment of function. And further, without Jobs, nobody could say "No!" to him.
That's not to denigrate him. He is likely a genius. But genius needs to stay grounded and, I believe, Ive lost his tether.
Perhaps that is illustrated by your own illustration: The MacBook Air was revolutionary and, yes, its portability ushered in a new paradigm. But, then Apple made that design their only design and neglected the more functional business class machines that are expandable, repairable, upgradeable, with sufficient ports and great keyboards.... Basically it became too much of a good thing.
In general, the laptop industry followed Apple into the thin and light area. If you look around, there are more that look like a Macbook of some kind than any other. Yes, there are big, heavy game machines with a whole 2.5 hour battery life. But that’s not the direction Apple has been interested in. You blame Ivy for that? I don’t. I know it’s popular to blame him for everything somebody doesn’t like. But nobody here knows how things are apportioned there. We can pretend we do, but we don’t. But we should understand how companies work.
its still the responsibility of engineering management to do what marketing needs. That’s the way it works everywhere. Ivy’s job is to try to have everything work well together. That’s what the design department does. Ivy has said many times that design isn’t just looks, it’s having everything function together. Sometimes Apple makes mistakes. But products don’t go out the door without having senior management approve of it. Ivy may have had a lot of influence at Apple, but he wasn’t Jobs.
a lot of what we’re seein come out now was designed to a large extent a year ago. When he was still in charge. He may have been letting go gradually, as word has had it, but he didn’t just go away a year ago, and tell people to do whatever they wanted. I can’t prove that, of course, but it’s just not the way it works.
most notebooks these days are not expandable, and if they are, it’s not by much. Just remember that the lack of expandability was really a Jobs thing. He was the one who said that computers should be an appliance. Turn it on and use it without fiddling around or needing to upgrade it.
so if anything, Apple has been returning to its original almost impossible to open Mac roots.
Yeh, I blame an unchained Ive's for steering Apple down a narrow, single purpose path with restricted appeal.
Walk into an Apple Store and all you see are clones of the MacBook AIr -- you need a saleperson to tell one for the other.
Walk into a Best Buy and you see a plethora of options designed to fit user needs, desires and preferences (online even more so) where function drives the form rather than the way it became in the closed in world of a post-Jobs Ive's Apple. In the Apple Store the user has to adapt to what Ive decided they should have. In the real world, the manufacturers adapt to what the user want, needs and desires.
Again, I am not trashing Ive. He is/was a genius. But, his genius was left to run unconstrained and Apple ended up with too much of a good thing.
So, to state my first point more correctly: I blame Apple for letting the Ive design philosophy unnecessarily restrict their product lines.
I think you missed the entire point to what I was saying.
but a long time ago, when Apple did have “a plethora of options” they were severely criticized for it, and were to,d to cut down the number of different lines of computers and goods. So they did. Jobs certainly cut drastically after he came back. It’s been like that ever since.
While that is true, it is not relevant to today's world. At that time Apple was close to bankruptcy, had too many products going down rabbit holes, and it was necessary to trim -- both for financial as well as for product viability reasons.
Today the computer market, particularly that for laptops, has matured and broadened out to include multiple form factors. Yet Apple has remained laser focused on thin, light expensive machines of limited functionality. Yeh, they work great -- IF that is the form factor that you need.
Today it is the opposite of when Jobs returned to Apple and started trimming: Today, Apple products are too limited. All they have are 3 different variations of vanilla MacBook Air) and customers are forced to go elsewhere to get the form factor that they want and need -- which is bad for both Apple and the customer.
If this means that new design leads at Apple give a little more emphasis to function over form, I'm all for it. If Apple doesn't return to a machine in which the end-users can replace/upgrade memory, storage and battery, my current late-2016 MacBook Pro will be my last Mac. It needs a new battery and Apple has quoted $450 for that service. Although my keyboards have been okay, my daughter recently bought two Macs that have to go back to Apple for keyboard replacement. And in addition, I think their OS QA has really gotten far worse in recent years. Every update seems to bring more issues, especially to older applications that had always worked fine. Sometimes I have to wonder what all these hires at Apple are actually doing. My personal feeling, observing from a distance, is that Apple has perhaps gotten too large to effectively manage. I can remember when Apple used to test every single phrase that would be displayed to a user to make sure it conveyed the correct meaning. Today their language is as bad as Microsoft's and sounds like it was written by programmers.
I always thought it was a bit insane that the phones got thinner and thinner and Ive would make videos showing how great the back looked and yet, you really had to keep it in a case, because if you dropped it without a case, chances are the phone was destroyed. So if you had to keep it in a case anyway, what was the point of making it so thin and having reduced battery life because of the limitations on battery size?
I always thought Ive seemed like he cared how a machine looked, but didn't seem to care too much how it operated.
That’s untrue. If you ever read an interview with him, you would know that he considered design to be everything. That is, function as well as looks. The two can’t be separated. That doesn’t mean that everything worked as intended, not everything did.
app,es I tend with notebooks, and remember they created the category with the original MacBook Air, was to make notebooks easier to carry. After all, the purpose of a portable is to be able to easily take it everywhere, ideally. The more weight you shave off, the more portable it becomes. Apple possibly went a bit too far, and now they’re pulling back a bit. We have no idea how much he was involved in the design of the 16”Macbook Pro, or the new iPhones, which are also a bit thicker. Since these have been in development for at least a year, and possibly more, it’s likely they have a large Ivy stamp on them.
Yeh, well sort of: Ive made design co-equal with engineering. And that worked. But, it seems that over the past several years, increasingly, slick design triumphed over functional engineering in too many Apple products. My feeling is that Ive needed Jobs' mitigating influence to balance things and, without it, he began to take design too far to the detriment of function. And further, without Jobs, nobody could say "No!" to him.
That's not to denigrate him. He is likely a genius. But genius needs to stay grounded and, I believe, Ive lost his tether.
Perhaps that is illustrated by your own illustration: The MacBook Air was revolutionary and, yes, its portability ushered in a new paradigm. But, then Apple made that design their only design and neglected the more functional business class machines that are expandable, repairable, upgradeable, with sufficient ports and great keyboards.... Basically it became too much of a good thing.
In general, the laptop industry followed Apple into the thin and light area. If you look around, there are more that look like a Macbook of some kind than any other. Yes, there are big, heavy game machines with a whole 2.5 hour battery life. But that’s not the direction Apple has been interested in. You blame Ivy for that? I don’t. I know it’s popular to blame him for everything somebody doesn’t like. But nobody here knows how things are apportioned there. We can pretend we do, but we don’t. But we should understand how companies work.
its still the responsibility of engineering management to do what marketing needs. That’s the way it works everywhere. Ivy’s job is to try to have everything work well together. That’s what the design department does. Ivy has said many times that design isn’t just looks, it’s having everything function together. Sometimes Apple makes mistakes. But products don’t go out the door without having senior management approve of it. Ivy may have had a lot of influence at Apple, but he wasn’t Jobs.
a lot of what we’re seein come out now was designed to a large extent a year ago. When he was still in charge. He may have been letting go gradually, as word has had it, but he didn’t just go away a year ago, and tell people to do whatever they wanted. I can’t prove that, of course, but it’s just not the way it works.
most notebooks these days are not expandable, and if they are, it’s not by much. Just remember that the lack of expandability was really a Jobs thing. He was the one who said that computers should be an appliance. Turn it on and use it without fiddling around or needing to upgrade it.
so if anything, Apple has been returning to its original almost impossible to open Mac roots.
Yeh, I blame an unchained Ive's for steering Apple down a narrow, single purpose path with restricted appeal.
Walk into an Apple Store and all you see are clones of the MacBook AIr -- you need a saleperson to tell one for the other.
Walk into a Best Buy and you see a plethora of options designed to fit user needs, desires and preferences (online even more so) where function drives the form rather than the way it became in the closed in world of a post-Jobs Ive's Apple. In the Apple Store the user has to adapt to what Ive decided they should have. In the real world, the manufacturers adapt to what the user want, needs and desires.
Again, I am not trashing Ive. He is/was a genius. But, his genius was left to run unconstrained and Apple ended up with too much of a good thing.
So, to state my first point more correctly: I blame Apple for letting the Ive design philosophy unnecessarily restrict their product lines.
I think you missed the entire point to what I was saying.
but a long time ago, when Apple did have “a plethora of options” they were severely criticized for it, and were to,d to cut down the number of different lines of computers and goods. So they did. Jobs certainly cut drastically after he came back. It’s been like that ever since.
While that is true, it is not relevant to today's world. At that time Apple was close to bankruptcy, had too many products going down rabbit holes, and it was necessary to trim -- both for financial as well as for product viability reasons.
Today the computer market, particularly that for laptops, has matured and broadened out to include multiple form factors. Yet Apple has remained laser focused on thin, light expensive machines of limited functionality. Yeh, they work great -- IF that is the form factor that you need.
Today it is the opposite of when Jobs returned to Apple and started trimming: Today, Apple products are too limited. All they have are 3 different variations of vanilla MacBook Air) and customers are forced to go elsewhere to get the form factor that they want and need -- which is bad for both Apple and the customer.
When they were to,d to cut, it was well befor Apple was in bankruptcy. It was when Scully was in charge. Jobs was back at Apple for 12 years before he passed away. That last year, Apple did $67 billion in sales, and was very profitable. If Jobs had wanted to, several years before, as Apple had become very successful again, he could have expanded the product line to beyond the four legs that he proclaimed Apple would have, but he didn’t. None of this has anything to do with Ive. It’s a philosophy that Jobs expounded, andcthat Apple still follows today. Indeed, when they came out with the iMac Pro, they were told it would confuse people, and wasn’t needed.
If this means that new design leads at Apple give a little more emphasis to function over form, I'm all for it. If Apple doesn't return to a machine in which the end-users can replace/upgrade memory, storage and battery, my current late-2016 MacBook Pro will be my last Mac. It needs a new battery and Apple has quoted $450 for that service. Although my keyboards have been okay, my daughter recently bought two Macs that have to go back to Apple for keyboard replacement. And in addition, I think their OS QA has really gotten far worse in recent years. Every update seems to bring more issues, especially to older applications that had always worked fine. Sometimes I have to wonder what all these hires at Apple are actually doing. My personal feeling, observing from a distance, is that Apple has perhaps gotten too large to effectively manage. I can remember when Apple used to test every single phrase that would be displayed to a user to make sure it conveyed the correct meaning. Today their language is as bad as Microsoft's and sounds like it was written by programmers.
I always thought it was a bit insane that the phones got thinner and thinner and Ive would make videos showing how great the back looked and yet, you really had to keep it in a case, because if you dropped it without a case, chances are the phone was destroyed. So if you had to keep it in a case anyway, what was the point of making it so thin and having reduced battery life because of the limitations on battery size?
I always thought Ive seemed like he cared how a machine looked, but didn't seem to care too much how it operated.
That’s untrue. If you ever read an interview with him, you would know that he considered design to be everything. That is, function as well as looks. The two can’t be separated. That doesn’t mean that everything worked as intended, not everything did.
app,es I tend with notebooks, and remember they created the category with the original MacBook Air, was to make notebooks easier to carry. After all, the purpose of a portable is to be able to easily take it everywhere, ideally. The more weight you shave off, the more portable it becomes. Apple possibly went a bit too far, and now they’re pulling back a bit. We have no idea how much he was involved in the design of the 16”Macbook Pro, or the new iPhones, which are also a bit thicker. Since these have been in development for at least a year, and possibly more, it’s likely they have a large Ivy stamp on them.
Yeh, well sort of: Ive made design co-equal with engineering. And that worked. But, it seems that over the past several years, increasingly, slick design triumphed over functional engineering in too many Apple products. My feeling is that Ive needed Jobs' mitigating influence to balance things and, without it, he began to take design too far to the detriment of function. And further, without Jobs, nobody could say "No!" to him.
That's not to denigrate him. He is likely a genius. But genius needs to stay grounded and, I believe, Ive lost his tether.
Perhaps that is illustrated by your own illustration: The MacBook Air was revolutionary and, yes, its portability ushered in a new paradigm. But, then Apple made that design their only design and neglected the more functional business class machines that are expandable, repairable, upgradeable, with sufficient ports and great keyboards.... Basically it became too much of a good thing.
In general, the laptop industry followed Apple into the thin and light area. If you look around, there are more that look like a Macbook of some kind than any other. Yes, there are big, heavy game machines with a whole 2.5 hour battery life. But that’s not the direction Apple has been interested in. You blame Ivy for that? I don’t. I know it’s popular to blame him for everything somebody doesn’t like. But nobody here knows how things are apportioned there. We can pretend we do, but we don’t. But we should understand how companies work.
its still the responsibility of engineering management to do what marketing needs. That’s the way it works everywhere. Ivy’s job is to try to have everything work well together. That’s what the design department does. Ivy has said many times that design isn’t just looks, it’s having everything function together. Sometimes Apple makes mistakes. But products don’t go out the door without having senior management approve of it. Ivy may have had a lot of influence at Apple, but he wasn’t Jobs.
a lot of what we’re seein come out now was designed to a large extent a year ago. When he was still in charge. He may have been letting go gradually, as word has had it, but he didn’t just go away a year ago, and tell people to do whatever they wanted. I can’t prove that, of course, but it’s just not the way it works.
most notebooks these days are not expandable, and if they are, it’s not by much. Just remember that the lack of expandability was really a Jobs thing. He was the one who said that computers should be an appliance. Turn it on and use it without fiddling around or needing to upgrade it.
so if anything, Apple has been returning to its original almost impossible to open Mac roots.
Yeh, I blame an unchained Ive's for steering Apple down a narrow, single purpose path with restricted appeal.
Walk into an Apple Store and all you see are clones of the MacBook AIr -- you need a saleperson to tell one for the other.
Walk into a Best Buy and you see a plethora of options designed to fit user needs, desires and preferences (online even more so) where function drives the form rather than the way it became in the closed in world of a post-Jobs Ive's Apple. In the Apple Store the user has to adapt to what Ive decided they should have. In the real world, the manufacturers adapt to what the user want, needs and desires.
Again, I am not trashing Ive. He is/was a genius. But, his genius was left to run unconstrained and Apple ended up with too much of a good thing.
So, to state my first point more correctly: I blame Apple for letting the Ive design philosophy unnecessarily restrict their product lines.
I think you missed the entire point to what I was saying.
but a long time ago, when Apple did have “a plethora of options” they were severely criticized for it, and were to,d to cut down the number of different lines of computers and goods. So they did. Jobs certainly cut drastically after he came back. It’s been like that ever since.
While that is true, it is not relevant to today's world. At that time Apple was close to bankruptcy, had too many products going down rabbit holes, and it was necessary to trim -- both for financial as well as for product viability reasons.
Today the computer market, particularly that for laptops, has matured and broadened out to include multiple form factors. Yet Apple has remained laser focused on thin, light expensive machines of limited functionality. Yeh, they work great -- IF that is the form factor that you need.
Today it is the opposite of when Jobs returned to Apple and started trimming: Today, Apple products are too limited. All they have are 3 different variations of vanilla MacBook Air) and customers are forced to go elsewhere to get the form factor that they want and need -- which is bad for both Apple and the customer.
When they were to,d to cut, it was well befor Apple was in bankruptcy. It was when Scully was in charge. Jobs was back at Apple for 12 years before he passed away. That last year, Apple did $67 billion in sales, and was very profitable. If Jobs had wanted to, several years before, as Apple had become very successful again, he could have expanded the product line to beyond the four legs that he proclaimed Apple would have, but he didn’t. None of this has anything to do with Ive. It’s a philosophy that Jobs expounded, andcthat Apple still follows today. Indeed, when they came out with the iMac Pro, they were told it would confuse people, and wasn’t needed.
Not only did Jobs return to, first slash Apple's product lines but then he drastically expanded them. He revolutionized things with innovations such as the MacBook Air, iPod, iPhone and iPad. And, of all of them, the only one he was 'guilty' of restricitng was the iPhone which he kept in a small form factor. For instance: How many variations of iPod did we end up with? Was it just one that everybody had to adapt to? Or was it several to fit different needs?
Plus, you ignore the fact that the industry has dramatically changed since his death and become far more mature: instead of revolutionary change it has slipped increasingly into evolutionary change. And, in that environment it is important for Apple to adapt -- and, without Jobs, Ive could not adapt. He was stuck in the world of thin & light at the expense of functionality and holding Apple back.
We see them now adapting with the introduction of the MacPro and the scrapping of the butterfly keyboard. Next up I suspect we will see either an iPad with a trackpad or a hybrid tablet/laptop combination. Ive could not tolerate such blasphemy -- sacrificing product purity for functionality.
one man's trash (trash can 2013) is another's treasure. the design showcase the well considered vent for cooling and easy access to the guts that allow swap functionality for future upgrade. The black can design can be easily mixed with mordern table top setting (not look like a typical computer, but a accessory or art). If any complain, I would put a steal F-117 on top to enhance cooling (use heat pipe and F-117 metal). Many good things to learn from the "trash can" design. One thing for sure, it is not for the majority of Apple users. sort of singularly... ;-)...
If this means that new design leads at Apple give a little more emphasis to function over form, I'm all for it. If Apple doesn't return to a machine in which the end-users can replace/upgrade memory, storage and battery, my current late-2016 MacBook Pro will be my last Mac. It needs a new battery and Apple has quoted $450 for that service. Although my keyboards have been okay, my daughter recently bought two Macs that have to go back to Apple for keyboard replacement. And in addition, I think their OS QA has really gotten far worse in recent years. Every update seems to bring more issues, especially to older applications that had always worked fine. Sometimes I have to wonder what all these hires at Apple are actually doing. My personal feeling, observing from a distance, is that Apple has perhaps gotten too large to effectively manage. I can remember when Apple used to test every single phrase that would be displayed to a user to make sure it conveyed the correct meaning. Today their language is as bad as Microsoft's and sounds like it was written by programmers.
I always thought it was a bit insane that the phones got thinner and thinner and Ive would make videos showing how great the back looked and yet, you really had to keep it in a case, because if you dropped it without a case, chances are the phone was destroyed. So if you had to keep it in a case anyway, what was the point of making it so thin and having reduced battery life because of the limitations on battery size?
I always thought Ive seemed like he cared how a machine looked, but didn't seem to care too much how it operated.
That’s untrue. If you ever read an interview with him, you would know that he considered design to be everything. That is, function as well as looks. The two can’t be separated. That doesn’t mean that everything worked as intended, not everything did.
app,es I tend with notebooks, and remember they created the category with the original MacBook Air, was to make notebooks easier to carry. After all, the purpose of a portable is to be able to easily take it everywhere, ideally. The more weight you shave off, the more portable it becomes. Apple possibly went a bit too far, and now they’re pulling back a bit. We have no idea how much he was involved in the design of the 16”Macbook Pro, or the new iPhones, which are also a bit thicker. Since these have been in development for at least a year, and possibly more, it’s likely they have a large Ivy stamp on them.
Yeh, well sort of: Ive made design co-equal with engineering. And that worked. But, it seems that over the past several years, increasingly, slick design triumphed over functional engineering in too many Apple products. My feeling is that Ive needed Jobs' mitigating influence to balance things and, without it, he began to take design too far to the detriment of function. And further, without Jobs, nobody could say "No!" to him.
That's not to denigrate him. He is likely a genius. But genius needs to stay grounded and, I believe, Ive lost his tether.
Perhaps that is illustrated by your own illustration: The MacBook Air was revolutionary and, yes, its portability ushered in a new paradigm. But, then Apple made that design their only design and neglected the more functional business class machines that are expandable, repairable, upgradeable, with sufficient ports and great keyboards.... Basically it became too much of a good thing.
In general, the laptop industry followed Apple into the thin and light area. If you look around, there are more that look like a Macbook of some kind than any other. Yes, there are big, heavy game machines with a whole 2.5 hour battery life. But that’s not the direction Apple has been interested in. You blame Ivy for that? I don’t. I know it’s popular to blame him for everything somebody doesn’t like. But nobody here knows how things are apportioned there. We can pretend we do, but we don’t. But we should understand how companies work.
its still the responsibility of engineering management to do what marketing needs. That’s the way it works everywhere. Ivy’s job is to try to have everything work well together. That’s what the design department does. Ivy has said many times that design isn’t just looks, it’s having everything function together. Sometimes Apple makes mistakes. But products don’t go out the door without having senior management approve of it. Ivy may have had a lot of influence at Apple, but he wasn’t Jobs.
a lot of what we’re seein come out now was designed to a large extent a year ago. When he was still in charge. He may have been letting go gradually, as word has had it, but he didn’t just go away a year ago, and tell people to do whatever they wanted. I can’t prove that, of course, but it’s just not the way it works.
most notebooks these days are not expandable, and if they are, it’s not by much. Just remember that the lack of expandability was really a Jobs thing. He was the one who said that computers should be an appliance. Turn it on and use it without fiddling around or needing to upgrade it.
so if anything, Apple has been returning to its original almost impossible to open Mac roots.
Yeh, I blame an unchained Ive's for steering Apple down a narrow, single purpose path with restricted appeal.
Walk into an Apple Store and all you see are clones of the MacBook AIr -- you need a saleperson to tell one for the other.
Walk into a Best Buy and you see a plethora of options designed to fit user needs, desires and preferences (online even more so) where function drives the form rather than the way it became in the closed in world of a post-Jobs Ive's Apple. In the Apple Store the user has to adapt to what Ive decided they should have. In the real world, the manufacturers adapt to what the user want, needs and desires.
Again, I am not trashing Ive. He is/was a genius. But, his genius was left to run unconstrained and Apple ended up with too much of a good thing.
So, to state my first point more correctly: I blame Apple for letting the Ive design philosophy unnecessarily restrict their product lines.
I think you missed the entire point to what I was saying.
but a long time ago, when Apple did have “a plethora of options” they were severely criticized for it, and were to,d to cut down the number of different lines of computers and goods. So they did. Jobs certainly cut drastically after he came back. It’s been like that ever since.
While that is true, it is not relevant to today's world. At that time Apple was close to bankruptcy, had too many products going down rabbit holes, and it was necessary to trim -- both for financial as well as for product viability reasons.
Today the computer market, particularly that for laptops, has matured and broadened out to include multiple form factors. Yet Apple has remained laser focused on thin, light expensive machines of limited functionality. Yeh, they work great -- IF that is the form factor that you need.
Today it is the opposite of when Jobs returned to Apple and started trimming: Today, Apple products are too limited. All they have are 3 different variations of vanilla MacBook Air) and customers are forced to go elsewhere to get the form factor that they want and need -- which is bad for both Apple and the customer.
When they were to,d to cut, it was well befor Apple was in bankruptcy. It was when Scully was in charge. Jobs was back at Apple for 12 years before he passed away. That last year, Apple did $67 billion in sales, and was very profitable. If Jobs had wanted to, several years before, as Apple had become very successful again, he could have expanded the product line to beyond the four legs that he proclaimed Apple would have, but he didn’t. None of this has anything to do with Ive. It’s a philosophy that Jobs expounded, andcthat Apple still follows today. Indeed, when they came out with the iMac Pro, they were told it would confuse people, and wasn’t needed.
Not only did Jobs return to, first slash Apple's product lines but then he drastically expanded them. He revolutionized things with innovations such as the MacBook Air, iPod, iPhone and iPad. And, of all of them, the only one he was 'guilty' of restricitng was the iPhone which he kept in a small form factor. For instance: How many variations of iPod did we end up with? Was it just one that everybody had to adapt to? Or was it several to fit different needs?
Plus, you ignore the fact that the industry has dramatically changed since his death and become far more mature: instead of revolutionary change it has slipped increasingly into evolutionary change. And, in that environment it is important for Apple to adapt -- and, without Jobs, Ive could not adapt. He was stuck in the world of thin & light at the expense of functionality and holding Apple back.
We see them now adapting with the introduction of the MacPro and the scrapping of the butterfly keyboard. Next up I suspect we will see either an iPad with a trackpad or a hybrid tablet/laptop combination. Ive could not tolerate such blasphemy -- sacrificing product purity for functionality.
They still have the four legs of the stool as Jobs described it. In fact, they just discontinued the Macbook. Not much has changed, really.
but in an interview shortly before Next was bought by Apple, he was asked what he would do if he were in charge again. He said that he would milk the Mac for all it was worth, and then go on to the next big thing.
that’s exactly what he did. The Mac is more ably taken care of in Apple since he left.
Comments
so no, Apple products work quite well for a long time. Sure, there is the re]are occupancy of early failure, but that what warrantees are for isn’t it?
don’t people know anything anymore?
its still the responsibility of engineering management to do what marketing needs. That’s the way it works everywhere. Ivy’s job is to try to have everything work well together. That’s what the design department does. Ivy has said many times that design isn’t just looks, it’s having everything function together. Sometimes Apple makes mistakes. But products don’t go out the door without having senior management approve of it. Ivy may have had a lot of influence at Apple, but he wasn’t Jobs.
a lot of what we’re seein come out now was designed to a large extent a year ago. When he was still in charge. He may have been letting go gradually, as word has had it, but he didn’t just go away a year ago, and tell people to do whatever they wanted. I can’t prove that, of course, but it’s just not the way it works.
most notebooks these days are not expandable, and if they are, it’s not by much. Just remember that the lack of expandability was really a Jobs thing. He was the one who said that computers should be an appliance. Turn it on and use it without fiddling around or needing to upgrade it.
so if anything, Apple has been returning to its original almost impossible to open Mac roots.
I think you missed the entire point to what I was saying.
but a long time ago, when Apple did have “a plethora of options” they were severely criticized for it, and were to,d to cut down the number of different lines of computers and goods. So they did. Jobs certainly cut drastically after he came back. It’s been like that ever since.
but in an interview shortly before Next was bought by Apple, he was asked what he would do if he were in charge again. He said that he would milk the Mac for all it was worth, and then go on to the next big thing.
that’s exactly what he did. The Mac is more ably taken care of in Apple since he left.