I think Ive—with Jobs—were a a great pair. A kind of Lennon and McCartney of consumer digital hardware design.
But these things end up running their course.
While I don't think there's much real change (yet) in Apple's design philosophy—besides the obvious willingness to listen more to customers and balance form and function better than in the past—it probably is time for some fresh eyes and free thinking. Like it or not, Apple is in the fashion business. Design needs to evolve accordingly. As much as I'd love there to be some "perfect" (and perennial) design aesthetic, that's probably not very realistic.
Looking to the past might be interesting for Apple. The "Snow White" design language (and other related design concepts that were never productized...some made their way into the NeXT design language) created by Harmut Esslinger was (and still is) nice.
Apple does always seem to have some sense of its own history (for example recent iMacs still give a small nod to the original Macintosh). To see Apple go down an "everything that's old is new again" route is not completely insane.
P.S. I don't think it should be lost or forgotten that Ive (and possibly Jobs) was clearly (and strongly) influenced by Dieter Rams. This isn't a bad thing, but it does raise a question about originality.
I actually greatly prefer the original Siri remote. Tried the redesign for a week and hated it / returned it. I know I’m in the minority. Having a mute button was nice but that’s about it.
In summary, the old apple design with Ive was a trailblazer that inevitably hit snags along the way and had to pivot.
The new Apple design without Ive follows well worn paths and still hits some snags along the way.
Still good stuff, but not the rock stars as before.
So glad we have the M series SOCs to add some shine back to the Mac.
And at the end of this long post, looking forward to WWDC with hope that some sweet (even innovative?) design is revealed next week. Apple has some of the best designers and technical people in the world. But as soon as the anti-Ive sentiment goes away, the better. Get back to the Ive philosophy, but learn from mistakes and get things before committing to production.
I agree that much of the anti-Ive sentiment is misplaced and undeserved. On the other hand, I think he did his best work under Jobs who was probably the only person who had the ability to really curb the "excesses" — i.e., the moments when the design swung a bit too far in the direction of "form". On the third hand, sometimes you probably need the excesses to really see how far you can push certain ideas.
The one area where I think Ive was really in over his head was in software UI design, and hopefully Apple will put that legacy behind them as quickly as possible.
Interesting.
At the time Ive took the UI reigns, people were tired of skeuomorphism. Android was even starting to look like the more modern UI in the minds of many pundits. Forstalls shredder animation for file deletion was laughed at.
When Ive’s iOS 7 rolled out, it was widely praised and brought young people to iPhone in droves.
He took a lighter touch on the Mac and brought a consistency to iOS and Mac OS that was sharp and professional looking. Matched the aesthetic of his hardware.
But as with any radical shift, there were bound to be some detractors snd even some areas that need another look. As Ive iterated the next few releases, it became just about perfect.
With Big Sur and Monterey, Apple has largely kept Ive’s UI intact, but with a smattering of cartoonish ness to adorn some elements along with bringing Ive’s IOS language over. Big Sur was polarizing. Some liked it, some missed s more minimal approach. Monterey calmed that down somewhat.
So Ive did what had to be done and gave Apple a whole new foundation to work with for years to come, bringing Apple to the leading edge once again. When iOS 7 launched, the entire design community followed his design language. I’d call that a raging success.
As he iterated in subsequent releases, it just kept getting better.
So long as his philosophy is honored, whether admitted to or not, Apple will continue to lead. But once some entitled wannabe starts pushing his legacy to the side in favor of their own, watch out.
Hope that never happens. Ive should be treated every bit as respectfully as Jobs. Apple would not be apple if Jobs was never there. To the same degree, apple would have never gotten a new lease on life without Ive. Steve understood the make-or-break importance of iconic design. Ive was the only guy for that job, blowing Sony, Frog Design, etc. out of the water time and again. Steve and Jony. Cannot love one and hate on the other.
The new MacBook Pros look like the clearest departure from Ive. They are all about function over form, heavier and clunkier-looking than recent Intel MBPs, with a design that's pictured in the dictionary next to the word "generic." Not bad, per se, just totally meh.
Interesting.
In the eyes of many (and often published right after unveil), the new MacBook pros are heavily inspired by ive’s aluminum PowerBooks, which don’t look as nice as the enclosures they replace.
The Mac Studio also is basically Ive’s Mac mini design stretched upward.
People are really reaching in trying to pretend Apple is somehow moving away From Ive’s aesthetic. Apple isn’t foolish.
Even without Ive, Apple still can't build an acceptable mouse.
I like the current mouse. Sure, I wish it had a USB port instead of the idiotic Lightning port, and I wish that port was on the end so you could charge it while using it, but as long as it's charged it's the best mouse on the market today.
The current mouse is rad. I’m spoiled for anything else.
When I teach someone something on my computer and let them take the wheel, they are consistently astonished that such an amazing device exists.
People like to complain about the craziest things.
The new iMac looks great IMHO, and as the article states, feels very Ivy-ian. Several products now balance usability and design better. However the Mac Studio looks ugly and the designers didn't have the balls to move beyond stacking two Minis together; a wasted opportunity. I hope the new Mac Pro and iMac Pro will show a more ambitious design.
Loving my new iMac, which replaced a 2009 27" system and very pleased to have the mains power and ethernet connector removed to a remote 'brick'. Increasingly, systems like this will not require mains voltage and will permit more interesting use cases, such as in the Apple car. I hope the car is a design knockout and up with the best performers. We can hope.
The new MacBook Pros look like the clearest departure from Ive. They are all about function over form, heavier and clunkier-looking than recent Intel MBPs, with a design that's pictured in the dictionary next to the word "generic." Not bad, per se, just totally meh.
Interesting.
In the eyes of many (and often published right after unveil), the new MacBook pros are heavily inspired by ive’s aluminum PowerBooks, which don’t look as nice as the enclosures they replace.
Inspired by is an understatement. With iPhone 12 and latest MacBook Pros Apple is definitely going "back to the future". These are basically updated versions of iPhone 4 and the aluminum PowerBook G4. And iMac is simply a natural design evolution of Jony's iMac designs: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IMac#/media/File:Timeline_of_the_product_Apple_iMac.svg
Absolutely agreed.
Also, great iMac link. It really shows how it’s the true quintessential Mac. Can’t wait to see what the larger premium version ends up like in a year or so. Ive nailed multiple radically different versions from the g3 to g4 to Intel. Amazing works of art for each respective era.
The opinion appears to be that Apple design has become less and less daring and innovative, with Ive's departure pointed to as a key inflection point.
Throughout this discussion about the evolution in Apple's design philosophy, though, nobody mentions the relationship between design and the volume of product sold.
A boutique manufacturer can afford to address only that segment of the market that is willing to trade off function for form.* (It doesn't work as well as it could but hey, it looks nice. More importantly, it makes me look nice.) Not that many people think that way so mass manufacturers have to pay more attention to function than to form because the majority of customers, or people in general, really, will not sacrifice too much function for form.
Like it or not, Apple is now a mass manufacturer. The type of Apple customer who posts on this particular thread, who cares enough about form to take time to meticulously analyze and critique Apple's design evolution, is not the typical Apple customer anymore. Those videos that have Ive waxing poetic about the finer design details of a new iPhone or Mac were not meant for the bulk of Apple's customers, they were for the people who watch keynotes and product intros. i.e. a very small segment of Apple's customers.
Does anyone remember Apple's main pitch that persuaded people to switch from PCs to Macs? It's not "It looks like a work of art." It's "It just works." Think about the "I'm a Mac. I'm a PC" campaign. It was all about function! The ads didn't even show an actual Mac, just an anthropomorphic portrayal of one.
Most people couldn't care less that a laptop is 1 cm thick rather than 1.2, or whether the iMac has a chin or not, or that an iPhone has rounded rather than sharp corners. They do care very much about 1) what the device can do, 2) that it does it with minimum fuss, 3) that it's reliable, and 4) that they can get help if they run into a problem. And Apple has addressed all 4 requirements better than any of their competitors.
*The extreme case of this is Frank Lloyd Wright. Every single building he built leaks water or is structurally unsound, and thus requires expensive maintenance, repair, and updating. An extreme case of focusing solely on form and completely disregarding function.
Two areas that IMO are solid signs that Apple's design philosophy has changed. The newer MacBooks with lots of different ports. Ive was the one who made the MacBook with just one, and other models with only one kind. The other place is the Mac Studio. Ive would never have put ports on the front. These are good changes in philosophy. Ive was so focussed on design that very often functionality took a back seat and the user, the customer, suffered.
Steve Jobs used to say "Design is not about how it looks but how it works." Or words to that effect. Jony Ive started to drift away from this when Jobs passed away.
I don’t know how much the 2021 MacBook Pro’s got LoveFrom Ive (pardon my bad pun), if any, but they are the best portables Apple had designed in 20 years IMHO.
However the Mac Studio looks ugly and the designers didn't have the balls to move beyond stacking two Minis together; a wasted opportunity. I hope the new Mac Pro and iMac Pro will show a more ambitious design.
I'm just a little surprised that they didn't just do the obvious by going a little taller for a cube shape.
Another thing that might be easier to do with Ive gone — take supply chain diversification into account at the design stage. Apple needs to be able to make products in more places than just China. So designs that require two million small hands to assemble need to be replaced with designs that are easier to assemble with machines.
The opinion appears to be that Apple design has become less and less daring and innovative, with Ive's departure pointed to as a key inflection point.
Throughout this discussion about the evolution in Apple's design philosophy, though, nobody mentions the relationship between design and the volume of product sold.
A boutique manufacturer can afford to address only that segment of the market that is willing to trade off function for form.* (It doesn't work as well as it could but hey, it looks nice. More importantly, it makes me look nice.) Not that many people think that way so mass manufacturers have to pay more attention to function than to form because the majority of customers, or people in general, really, will not sacrifice too much function for form.
Like it or not, Apple is now a mass manufacturer. The type of Apple customer who posts on this particular thread, who cares enough about form to take time to meticulously analyze and critique Apple's design evolution, is not the typical Apple customer anymore. Those videos that have Ive waxing poetic about the finer design details of a new iPhone or Mac were not meant for the bulk of Apple's customers, they were for the people who watch keynotes and product intros. i.e. a very small segment of Apple's customers.
Does anyone remember Apple's main pitch that persuaded people to switch from PCs to Macs? It's not "It looks like a work of art." It's "It just works." Think about the "I'm a Mac. I'm a PC" campaign. It was all about function! The ads didn't even show an actual Mac, just an anthropomorphic portrayal of one.
Most people couldn't care less that a laptop is 1 cm thick rather than 1.2, or whether the iMac has a chin or not, or that an iPhone has rounded rather than sharp corners. They do care very much about 1) what the device can do, 2) that it does it with minimum fuss, 3) that it's reliable, and 4) that they can get help if they run into a problem. And Apple has addressed all 4 requirements better than any of their competitors.
*The extreme case of this is Frank Lloyd Wright. Every single building he built leaks water or is structurally unsound, and thus requires expensive maintenance, repair, and updating. An extreme case of focusing solely on form and completely disregarding function.
It was under Ive's design that. Apple became the sales behemoth it is now and the "it just works" theme was referring to Ive-designed products. The current products are basically riding on his coattails - not a bad thing at all. And it isn't design that is seeing a renewed interest in the Mac (since it's basically more of the same) - it is the M series SOCs.
The opinion appears to be that Apple design has become less and less daring and innovative, with Ive's departure pointed to as a key inflection point.
Throughout this discussion about the evolution in Apple's design philosophy, though, nobody mentions the relationship between design and the volume of product sold.
A boutique manufacturer can afford to address only that segment of the market that is willing to trade off function for form.* (It doesn't work as well as it could but hey, it looks nice. More importantly, it makes me look nice.) Not that many people think that way so mass manufacturers have to pay more attention to function than to form because the majority of customers, or people in general, really, will not sacrifice too much function for form.
Like it or not, Apple is now a mass manufacturer. The type of Apple customer who posts on this particular thread, who cares enough about form to take time to meticulously analyze and critique Apple's design evolution, is not the typical Apple customer anymore. Those videos that have Ive waxing poetic about the finer design details of a new iPhone or Mac were not meant for the bulk of Apple's customers, they were for the people who watch keynotes and product intros. i.e. a very small segment of Apple's customers.
Does anyone remember Apple's main pitch that persuaded people to switch from PCs to Macs? It's not "It looks like a work of art." It's "It just works." Think about the "I'm a Mac. I'm a PC" campaign. It was all about function! The ads didn't even show an actual Mac, just an anthropomorphic portrayal of one.
Most people couldn't care less that a laptop is 1 cm thick rather than 1.2, or whether the iMac has a chin or not, or that an iPhone has rounded rather than sharp corners. They do care very much about 1) what the device can do, 2) that it does it with minimum fuss, 3) that it's reliable, and 4) that they can get help if they run into a problem. And Apple has addressed all 4 requirements better than any of their competitors.
*The extreme case of this is Frank Lloyd Wright. Every single building he built leaks water or is structurally unsound, and thus requires expensive maintenance, repair, and updating. An extreme case of focusing solely on form and completely disregarding function.
It was under Ive's design that. Apple became the sales behemoth it is now and the "it just works" theme was referring to Ive-designed products. The current products are basically riding on his coattails - not a bad thing at all. And it isn't design that is seeing a renewed interest in the Mac (since it's basically more of the same) - it is the M series SOCs.
Yes, Apple sales grew tremendously with products designed by Ive. But even as Apple was transforming itself from niche to mass manufacturer, Ive seemed to be going the opposite way as his obsession with thinness and minimalism led to own-goals like the bendable iPhone, the fragile butterfly keyboard, a Mac Pro that pros hated, and port configurations that sacrificed utility for visual appeal. Early Ive is different from later Ive, and it appears the (relatively) more practical, steadying hand of Steve Jobs was the difference.
That the renewed interest in the Mac is due to innovations in the CPU not in design only confirms that the typical Apple customer today is not as obsessed about design as the typical Apple customer of the 90s/early 2000s.
The opinion appears to be that Apple design has become less and less daring and innovative, with Ive's departure pointed to as a key inflection point.
Throughout this discussion about the evolution in Apple's design philosophy, though, nobody mentions the relationship between design and the volume of product sold.
A boutique manufacturer can afford to address only that segment of the market that is willing to trade off function for form.* (It doesn't work as well as it could but hey, it looks nice. More importantly, it makes me look nice.) Not that many people think that way so mass manufacturers have to pay more attention to function than to form because the majority of customers, or people in general, really, will not sacrifice too much function for form.
Like it or not, Apple is now a mass manufacturer. The type of Apple customer who posts on this particular thread, who cares enough about form to take time to meticulously analyze and critique Apple's design evolution, is not the typical Apple customer anymore. Those videos that have Ive waxing poetic about the finer design details of a new iPhone or Mac were not meant for the bulk of Apple's customers, they were for the people who watch keynotes and product intros. i.e. a very small segment of Apple's customers.
Does anyone remember Apple's main pitch that persuaded people to switch from PCs to Macs? It's not "It looks like a work of art." It's "It just works." Think about the "I'm a Mac. I'm a PC" campaign. It was all about function! The ads didn't even show an actual Mac, just an anthropomorphic portrayal of one.
Most people couldn't care less that a laptop is 1 cm thick rather than 1.2, or whether the iMac has a chin or not, or that an iPhone has rounded rather than sharp corners. They do care very much about 1) what the device can do, 2) that it does it with minimum fuss, 3) that it's reliable, and 4) that they can get help if they run into a problem. And Apple has addressed all 4 requirements better than any of their competitors.
*The extreme case of this is Frank Lloyd Wright. Every single building he built leaks water or is structurally unsound, and thus requires expensive maintenance, repair, and updating. An extreme case of focusing solely on form and completely disregarding function.
It was under Ive's design that. Apple became the sales behemoth it is now and the "it just works" theme was referring to Ive-designed products. The current products are basically riding on his coattails - not a bad thing at all. And it isn't design that is seeing a renewed interest in the Mac (since it's basically more of the same) - it is the M series SOCs.
Yes, Apple sales grew tremendously with products designed by Ive. But even as Apple was transforming itself from niche to mass manufacturer, Ive seemed to be going the opposite way as his obsession with thinness and minimalism led to own-goals like the bendable iPhone, the fragile butterfly keyboard, a Mac Pro that pros hated, and port configurations that sacrificed utility for visual appeal. Early Ive is different from later Ive, and it appears the (relatively) more practical, steadying hand of Steve Jobs was the difference.
That the renewed interest in the Mac is due to innovations in the CPU not in design only confirms that the typical Apple customer today is not as obsessed about design as the typical Apple customer of the 90s/early 2000s.
Negative.
Consumers are design obsessed today. In fact, other manufacturers have seen how much leading design has benefitted Apple and they have followed suit. Design matters. A lot. Jobs recognized this snd said as much.
Now, you have Samsung going with an apple-esque aesthetic and even Microsoft, razer and others is going for it. The biggest compliment the razer notebooks get is how similar they tried to make it look like the MacBook Pro.
But nothing speaks louder than “all new.” Especially in the “compute” part of the computer.
And the paradigm shift in Apple creating their own SOCs is too much to ignore. Even perennial Apple haters have been forced to take notice.
Finally the internal computational performance is catching up with the outward promise of Ive’s design aesthetic.
That’s enough to excite the masses.
Inexplicably, I’ve gets blamed for things out of his control. He wasn’t the guy who ran Intel and broke the promises of suitable CPUs. He’s not the guy who decided to not support the touchbar. And he is not the guy who couldn’t engineer a slimmer keyboard.
His obsession with pursuing design excellence is a pro. Not a con.
And blaming him alone for the very few misses is ridiculous. It’s like blaming the new design duo for the studio displays technical shortcomings and price.
Jobs was an extreme appreciator of design, Ive satisfied his need and pushed the wider industry forward with 'extreme designs' e.g. the iPhone, advance intel of which the Blackberry board discounted as 'impossible - the whole thing would have to be a battery' (it was), the MacBook Air, creating an entire new category of luxe laptops that blindsided the rest of the PC industry and so on. Apple users are a broad church and the basic 2 x 2 matrix of (consumer, pro) x (portable, desktop) remains in place today.
Cook is first and foremost a logistics guy that saved Apple from going up its own bottom and actually made the business profitable, then massively profitable, then larger than many countries. He is not an aesthetics man, despite being gay, nor a natural leader, he just inherited the top job because it was Steve's wish. It was also Steve's wish for Ive to retain his God-like status at Apple. Cook the ignorant logistics man, made Ive's position untenable until he resigned.
Ive was Apple's last link with Steve's desire for boundary-pushing excellence in design.
Now we have the Mac Studio - a monstrosity, and an expensive monstrosity at that. It shows a total failing in design. Bigger and heavier than a Mac Mini with worse internal expansion. They should have made the fastest Mac Mini possible without changing the external form or else a brand new design e.g. a 'micro tower' better suited to that array of ports, better thermal release and taking less desk space. Instead we have a bastard, an expensive bastard.
I have a feeling that my current M1 MacBook Air will be the pinnacle of Apple design. It is set to get bloated and compromised due to the business guys' need to put out a new model with an incremental speed jump and another port to please the masses, in the short term. As Apple found out under Scully, pushing out increasingly mediocre products with an Apple branding and at Apple prices is not a successful business model. Without boundary-pushing design, Apple are on borrowed time.
The new Mac Pro will test the metal. It should be so fast it is classed at a military weapon, cost more than a car, built and designed to last and be upgradable for decades. It won't be.
The opinion appears to be that Apple design has become less and less daring and innovative, with Ive's departure pointed to as a key inflection point.
Throughout this discussion about the evolution in Apple's design philosophy, though, nobody mentions the relationship between design and the volume of product sold.
A boutique manufacturer can afford to address only that segment of the market that is willing to trade off function for form.* (It doesn't work as well as it could but hey, it looks nice. More importantly, it makes me look nice.) Not that many people think that way so mass manufacturers have to pay more attention to function than to form because the majority of customers, or people in general, really, will not sacrifice too much function for form.
Like it or not, Apple is now a mass manufacturer. The type of Apple customer who posts on this particular thread, who cares enough about form to take time to meticulously analyze and critique Apple's design evolution, is not the typical Apple customer anymore. Those videos that have Ive waxing poetic about the finer design details of a new iPhone or Mac were not meant for the bulk of Apple's customers, they were for the people who watch keynotes and product intros. i.e. a very small segment of Apple's customers.
Does anyone remember Apple's main pitch that persuaded people to switch from PCs to Macs? It's not "It looks like a work of art." It's "It just works." Think about the "I'm a Mac. I'm a PC" campaign. It was all about function! The ads didn't even show an actual Mac, just an anthropomorphic portrayal of one.
Most people couldn't care less that a laptop is 1 cm thick rather than 1.2, or whether the iMac has a chin or not, or that an iPhone has rounded rather than sharp corners. They do care very much about 1) what the device can do, 2) that it does it with minimum fuss, 3) that it's reliable, and 4) that they can get help if they run into a problem. And Apple has addressed all 4 requirements better than any of their competitors.
*The extreme case of this is Frank Lloyd Wright. Every single building he built leaks water or is structurally unsound, and thus requires expensive maintenance, repair, and updating. An extreme case of focusing solely on form and completely disregarding function.
It was under Ive's design that. Apple became the sales behemoth it is now and the "it just works" theme was referring to Ive-designed products. The current products are basically riding on his coattails - not a bad thing at all. And it isn't design that is seeing a renewed interest in the Mac (since it's basically more of the same) - it is the M series SOCs.
Yes, Apple sales grew tremendously with products designed by Ive. But even as Apple was transforming itself from niche to mass manufacturer, Ive seemed to be going the opposite way as his obsession with thinness and minimalism led to own-goals like the bendable iPhone, the fragile butterfly keyboard, a Mac Pro that pros hated, and port configurations that sacrificed utility for visual appeal. Early Ive is different from later Ive, and it appears the (relatively) more practical, steadying hand of Steve Jobs was the difference.
That the renewed interest in the Mac is due to innovations in the CPU not in design only confirms that the typical Apple customer today is not as obsessed about design as the typical Apple customer of the 90s/early 2000s.
Negative.
Consumers are design obsessed today. In fact, other manufacturers have seen how much leading design has benefitted Apple and they have followed suit. Design matters. A lot. Jobs recognized this snd said as much.
Now, you have Samsung going with an apple-esque aesthetic and even Microsoft, razer and others is going for it. The biggest compliment the razer notebooks get is how similar they tried to make it look like the MacBook Pro.
But nothing speaks louder than “all new.” Especially in the “compute” part of the computer.
And the paradigm shift in Apple creating their own SOCs is too much to ignore. Even perennial Apple haters have been forced to take notice.
Finally the internal computational performance is catching up with the outward promise of Ive’s design aesthetic.
That’s enough to excite the masses.
Inexplicably, I’ve gets blamed for things out of his control. He wasn’t the guy who ran Intel and broke the promises of suitable CPUs. He’s not the guy who decided to not support the touchbar. And he is not the guy who couldn’t engineer a slimmer keyboard.
His obsession with pursuing design excellence is a pro. Not a con.
And blaming him alone for the very few misses is ridiculous. It’s like blaming the new design duo for the studio displays technical shortcomings and price.
You only think consumers are obsessed with design because you and the circle of people in your milieu are obsessed with design. I would grant that novelty is way up there in what appeals to consumers and the easiest and quickest way to scratch that itch is to come up with a 'new' design. (Bin the curved edges, we're doing sharp corners now.)
But let's be clear, the obsession is with novelty not design.
Obsession with pursuing design excellence is a pro. I agree. But not if you are designing a mass market product and you pursue design excellence at the expense of function and utility.
The opinion appears to be that Apple design has become less and less daring and innovative, with Ive's departure pointed to as a key inflection point.
Throughout this discussion about the evolution in Apple's design philosophy, though, nobody mentions the relationship between design and the volume of product sold.
A boutique manufacturer can afford to address only that segment of the market that is willing to trade off function for form.* (It doesn't work as well as it could but hey, it looks nice. More importantly, it makes me look nice.) Not that many people think that way so mass manufacturers have to pay more attention to function than to form because the majority of customers, or people in general, really, will not sacrifice too much function for form.
Like it or not, Apple is now a mass manufacturer. The type of Apple customer who posts on this particular thread, who cares enough about form to take time to meticulously analyze and critique Apple's design evolution, is not the typical Apple customer anymore. Those videos that have Ive waxing poetic about the finer design details of a new iPhone or Mac were not meant for the bulk of Apple's customers, they were for the people who watch keynotes and product intros. i.e. a very small segment of Apple's customers.
Does anyone remember Apple's main pitch that persuaded people to switch from PCs to Macs? It's not "It looks like a work of art." It's "It just works." Think about the "I'm a Mac. I'm a PC" campaign. It was all about function! The ads didn't even show an actual Mac, just an anthropomorphic portrayal of one.
Most people couldn't care less that a laptop is 1 cm thick rather than 1.2, or whether the iMac has a chin or not, or that an iPhone has rounded rather than sharp corners. They do care very much about 1) what the device can do, 2) that it does it with minimum fuss, 3) that it's reliable, and 4) that they can get help if they run into a problem. And Apple has addressed all 4 requirements better than any of their competitors.
*The extreme case of this is Frank Lloyd Wright. Every single building he built leaks water or is structurally unsound, and thus requires expensive maintenance, repair, and updating. An extreme case of focusing solely on form and completely disregarding function.
It was under Ive's design that. Apple became the sales behemoth it is now and the "it just works" theme was referring to Ive-designed products. The current products are basically riding on his coattails - not a bad thing at all. And it isn't design that is seeing a renewed interest in the Mac (since it's basically more of the same) - it is the M series SOCs.
Yes, Apple sales grew tremendously with products designed by Ive. But even as Apple was transforming itself from niche to mass manufacturer, Ive seemed to be going the opposite way as his obsession with thinness and minimalism led to own-goals like the bendable iPhone, the fragile butterfly keyboard, a Mac Pro that pros hated, and port configurations that sacrificed utility for visual appeal. Early Ive is different from later Ive, and it appears the (relatively) more practical, steadying hand of Steve Jobs was the difference.
That the renewed interest in the Mac is due to innovations in the CPU not in design only confirms that the typical Apple customer today is not as obsessed about design as the typical Apple customer of the 90s/early 2000s.
Negative.
Consumers are design obsessed today. In fact, other manufacturers have seen how much leading design has benefitted Apple and they have followed suit. Design matters. A lot. Jobs recognized this snd said as much.
Now, you have Samsung going with an apple-esque aesthetic and even Microsoft, razer and others is going for it. The biggest compliment the razer notebooks get is how similar they tried to make it look like the MacBook Pro.
But nothing speaks louder than “all new.” Especially in the “compute” part of the computer.
And the paradigm shift in Apple creating their own SOCs is too much to ignore. Even perennial Apple haters have been forced to take notice.
Finally the internal computational performance is catching up with the outward promise of Ive’s design aesthetic.
That’s enough to excite the masses.
Inexplicably, I’ve gets blamed for things out of his control. He wasn’t the guy who ran Intel and broke the promises of suitable CPUs. He’s not the guy who decided to not support the touchbar. And he is not the guy who couldn’t engineer a slimmer keyboard.
His obsession with pursuing design excellence is a pro. Not a con.
And blaming him alone for the very few misses is ridiculous. It’s like blaming the new design duo for the studio displays technical shortcomings and price.
You only think consumers are obsessed with design because you and the circle of people in your milieu are obsessed with design. I would grant that novelty is way up there in what appeals to consumers and the easiest and quickest way to scratch that itch is to come up with a 'new' design. (Bin the curved edges, we're doing sharp corners now.)
But let's be clear, the obsession is with novelty not design.
Obsession with pursuing design excellence is a pro. I agree. But not if you are designing a mass market product and you pursue design excellence at the expense of function and utility.
It’s especially true if you are pursuing mass market. You have to not just meet peoples expectations, but exceed an even lead them to something they could not expect. Form follows function, but when that form is iconic, “boom.”a star is born.
Jony Ive took a dying little company that was horrendously trounced by nasty beige box competitors that were much cheaper and brought the Mac back from the brink and to where it is today. He also presided over the mass market iPod, the decidedly mass market #1 smartphone, and the most mass market iPad. Each of these are works of art and yet (gasp!) still mass market. The masses like nice things. Go figure.
min a windows dominated world, it was Ive’s work that consistently away at the gap in the early days it took a while as it was an impossible task but his design became the stuff of legends and brought apple to the point of becoming the most successful company on earth. Ive’s iconic design is inherently mass market. It’s erroneous to think that you must compromise or skimp on pursuing perfection in order to successfully appeal to the masses. People want nice things that work well. That’s Ive’s brand. You can’t choose a few hiccups over a long and storied career and try to define him by that anymore than you can stain the budding careers of those he trained up to replace him because the Mac studio can’t make full use of the m1 ultra or that the studio display has a crappy webcam.
Ive’s legacy is iconic design that almost always “just works.” The masses woke up to that awhile back and apple is still reaping the benefits.
iPod -mass market iPad - mass market iPhone - ridiculously mass market mac -been mass market for awhile now.
The right way to address this:
Thank you Jony Ive. Youv done the impossible with your insanely great and legendary design. You’ve brought apple from nothing to the biggest company in the world and you’ve set the next generation up for success. Kudos and only kudos
Comments
Throughout this discussion about the evolution in Apple's design philosophy, though, nobody mentions the relationship between design and the volume of product sold.
A boutique manufacturer can afford to address only that segment of the market that is willing to trade off function for form.* (It doesn't work as well as it could but hey, it looks nice. More importantly, it makes me look nice.) Not that many people think that way so mass manufacturers have to pay more attention to function than to form because the majority of customers, or people in general, really, will not sacrifice too much function for form.
Like it or not, Apple is now a mass manufacturer. The type of Apple customer who posts on this particular thread, who cares enough about form to take time to meticulously analyze and critique Apple's design evolution, is not the typical Apple customer anymore. Those videos that have Ive waxing poetic about the finer design details of a new iPhone or Mac were not meant for the bulk of Apple's customers, they were for the people who watch keynotes and product intros. i.e. a very small segment of Apple's customers.
Does anyone remember Apple's main pitch that persuaded people to switch from PCs to Macs? It's not "It looks like a work of art." It's "It just works." Think about the "I'm a Mac. I'm a PC" campaign. It was all about function! The ads didn't even show an actual Mac, just an anthropomorphic portrayal of one.
Most people couldn't care less that a laptop is 1 cm thick rather than 1.2, or whether the iMac has a chin or not, or that an iPhone has rounded rather than sharp corners. They do care very much about 1) what the device can do, 2) that it does it with minimum fuss, 3) that it's reliable, and 4) that they can get help if they run into a problem. And Apple has addressed all 4 requirements better than any of their competitors.
*The extreme case of this is Frank Lloyd Wright. Every single building he built leaks water or is structurally unsound, and thus requires expensive maintenance, repair, and updating. An extreme case of focusing solely on form and completely disregarding function.
Jony Ive started to drift away from this when Jobs passed away.
That the renewed interest in the Mac is due to innovations in the CPU not in design only confirms that the typical Apple customer today is not as obsessed about design as the typical Apple customer of the 90s/early 2000s.
Cook is first and foremost a logistics guy that saved Apple from going up its own bottom and actually made the business profitable, then massively profitable, then larger than many countries. He is not an aesthetics man, despite being gay, nor a natural leader, he just inherited the top job because it was Steve's wish. It was also Steve's wish for Ive to retain his God-like status at Apple. Cook the ignorant logistics man, made Ive's position untenable until he resigned.
Ive was Apple's last link with Steve's desire for boundary-pushing excellence in design.
Now we have the Mac Studio - a monstrosity, and an expensive monstrosity at that. It shows a total failing in design. Bigger and heavier than a Mac Mini with worse internal expansion. They should have made the fastest Mac Mini possible without changing the external form or else a brand new design e.g. a 'micro tower' better suited to that array of ports, better thermal release and taking less desk space. Instead we have a bastard, an expensive bastard.
I have a feeling that my current M1 MacBook Air will be the pinnacle of Apple design. It is set to get bloated and compromised due to the business guys' need to put out a new model with an incremental speed jump and another port to please the masses, in the short term. As Apple found out under Scully, pushing out increasingly mediocre products with an Apple branding and at Apple prices is not a successful business model. Without boundary-pushing design, Apple are on borrowed time.
The new Mac Pro will test the metal. It should be so fast it is classed at a military weapon, cost more than a car, built and designed to last and be upgradable for decades. It won't be.
But let's be clear, the obsession is with novelty not design.
Obsession with pursuing design excellence is a pro. I agree. But not if you are designing a mass market product and you pursue design excellence at the expense of function and utility.
min a windows dominated world, it was Ive’s work that consistently away at the gap in the early days it took a while as it was an impossible task but his design became the stuff of legends and brought apple to the point of becoming the most successful company on earth. Ive’s iconic design is inherently mass market. It’s erroneous to think that you must compromise or skimp on pursuing perfection in order to successfully appeal to the masses. People want nice things that work well. That’s Ive’s brand. You can’t choose a few hiccups over a long and storied career and try to define him by that anymore than you can stain the budding careers of those he trained up to replace him because the Mac studio can’t make full use of the m1 ultra or that the studio display has a crappy webcam.
iPad - mass market
iPhone - ridiculously mass market
mac -been mass market for awhile now.