Apple focuses on quality products not money, says designer Jonathan Ive
In a speech at the British Embassy's Creative Summit on Monday, Apple's Senior Vice President of Industrial Design Sir Jonathan Ive gave an inside look at the company's design process and philosophy, two assets many have credited as being key to the iPhone maker's great success.
Ive compared and contrasted a near-bankrupt Apple circa the 90s to the company after co-founder Steve Jobs retook the reins in 1997, saying that "you learn a lot about vital corporations through non-vital corporations," reports Wired UK.
The design guru noted Jobs was successful in turning Apple around where others had failed because his approach focused on the products rather than financial minutiae.
"We are really pleased with our revenues but our goal isn't to make money," Ive said of Apple. "It sounds a little flippant, but it's the truth. Our goal and what makes us excited is to make great products. If we are successful people will like them and if we are operationally competent, we will make money."
Taking a page out of legendary Braun designer Dieter Rams, who was a major influence on Ive's work, the Apple SCP said "I refute that design is important. Design is a prerequisite. Good design -- innovation -- is really hard." Rams alluded to the same ethos in many quotes and writings.
Indeed, much of Apple's success has been attributed to its functionally simple and clean designs that a U.K. judge recently referred to as "cool."
Speaking as to whether mass-produced products can be beautiful, Ive said "[y]ou can make one chair carelessly, thoughtlessly, that is valueless. Or you can make a phone [that will eventually go on to be mass produced] and invest so many years of care and have so many people so driven to make the very best phone way beyond any sort of functional imperative that there is incredible value."
Designing is no easy task, however, and Apple's design chief said being continuously innovative is a struggle.
"Really great design is hard. Good is the enemy of great," Ive said. "Competent design is not too much of a stretch. But if you are trying to do something new, you have challenges on so many axes."
Ive, who joined Apple in 1992 and became the company's lead designer in 1997, was recently quoted as saying the projects he's currently working on are "the most important and the best work" his team has ever done.
Ive compared and contrasted a near-bankrupt Apple circa the 90s to the company after co-founder Steve Jobs retook the reins in 1997, saying that "you learn a lot about vital corporations through non-vital corporations," reports Wired UK.
The design guru noted Jobs was successful in turning Apple around where others had failed because his approach focused on the products rather than financial minutiae.
"We are really pleased with our revenues but our goal isn't to make money," Ive said of Apple. "It sounds a little flippant, but it's the truth. Our goal and what makes us excited is to make great products. If we are successful people will like them and if we are operationally competent, we will make money."
Taking a page out of legendary Braun designer Dieter Rams, who was a major influence on Ive's work, the Apple SCP said "I refute that design is important. Design is a prerequisite. Good design -- innovation -- is really hard." Rams alluded to the same ethos in many quotes and writings.
Indeed, much of Apple's success has been attributed to its functionally simple and clean designs that a U.K. judge recently referred to as "cool."
Speaking as to whether mass-produced products can be beautiful, Ive said "[y]ou can make one chair carelessly, thoughtlessly, that is valueless. Or you can make a phone [that will eventually go on to be mass produced] and invest so many years of care and have so many people so driven to make the very best phone way beyond any sort of functional imperative that there is incredible value."
Designing is no easy task, however, and Apple's design chief said being continuously innovative is a struggle.
"Really great design is hard. Good is the enemy of great," Ive said. "Competent design is not too much of a stretch. But if you are trying to do something new, you have challenges on so many axes."
Ive, who joined Apple in 1992 and became the company's lead designer in 1997, was recently quoted as saying the projects he's currently working on are "the most important and the best work" his team has ever done.
Comments
Thanks for the transparent background version of that image, guys! I could never get it to save properly and keep the transparency on my old one. Stupid TIFF-PNG conversions.
Thanks for all your hard work Jony!
Hurry up with those designs Johnny!!! Samsung needs to start their next iClone product line!
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
Ive, who joined Apple in 1992 and became the company's lead designer in 1997, was recently quoted as saying the projects he's currently working on are "the most important and the best work" his team has ever done.
They must be trying to come up with a cover for the iPad that includes a keyboard.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
"We are really pleased with our revenues but our goal isn't to make money," Ive said of Apple.
I would believe that more if they didn't make 40% Gross Margin on most of their products.
Of course it's all about making money. That's what public corporations do. Apple is not a charity building products for the good of humanity.
If it's not about the money why don't they donate all their profits to charity.
Originally Posted by Shaun, UK
If it's not about the money why don't they donate all their profits to charity.
I wish the blink tag still worked.
Then I could have just had ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ NOT A BUSINESSMAN ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ in this post.
[IMG]http://i45.tinypic.com/29zu0wz.jpg[/IMG]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaun, UK
I would believe that more if they didn't make 40% Gross Margin on most of their products.
Of course it's all about making money. That's what public corporations do. Apple is not a charity building products for the good of humanity.
If it's not about the money why don't they donate all their profits to charity.
I'm guessing that was rhetorical, but I'll answer anyway. Without profits, they cannot fund the research and development of future products. I guess you could argue they make more money than is necessary for R&D. However, the cash hoard has been used to create economies of scale necessary to bring the products to market at a price point that is required by the market. So, I'd still argue the "excess" profit is part of the strategy to use money for the benefit of the product.
Besides, the quote from Ive is a statement of priority and focus not absolutes. Money exists to allow for the creation of products rather than products being produced for the creation of profit. Both statements require two things - money and products. The difference is one of priority and focus.
Of course, the simplest answer is that Ive is in a better position to speak about the goals and motivations of Apple than you or I. Without real information to the contrary, I see no reason to doubt Ive's statement.
That's a stupid comment. There is a different between your focus being profit at the cost of quality profits and your focus being quality products that lead to huge sales.
Ives even went so far as to include "If we are successful people will like them and if we are operationally competent, we will make money." Apple is efficient which leads to a lot of their operating profits and why other vendors can't compete with them directly. Example, 7" tablets that cost more than the iPad that all failed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaun, UK
I would believe that more if they didn't make 40% Gross Margin on most of their products.
Of course it's all about making money. That's what public corporations do. Apple is not a charity building products for the good of humanity.
If it's not about the money why don't they donate all their profits to charity.
The profits belong to the shareholders.
Anyway, I don't see how this is any different from a sportsman saying they're not in it for the fame and money, even if they have a lot of both. Fame and money are a byproduct of being good at something. Neither does the sportsman have to shun fame and donate all his money.
The idea that corporations exist only to generate profit is a recent and utterly disastrous invention. Corporations can have all sorts of goals, just like any other organisation. As long as they stay in business they can continue to pursue those goals.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
"...our goal isn't to make money,"
And in other news, AppleFans swallow it hook, line and sinker.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmmfe
I see no reason to doubt Ive's statement.
Because the statement makes little or no sense in the context of a for-profit multinational corporation?
"We are really pleased with our revenues but our goal isn't to make money," Ive said of Apple. "It sounds a little flippant, but it's the truth. Our goal and what makes us excited is to make great products. If we are successful people will like them and if we are operationally competent, we will make money."
I don't believe this for one second. We've read here about how Apple store managers regularly push their salespeople to make more sales. If they weren't about making money then there would be no pressure on the Apple Store employees to constantly get their numbers up? If it weren't about money then they wouldn't have fought me about replacing a defective battery in my Mac Book nor the tens of thousands that were replaced back in 2007?
If it weren't about the money then why is Apple disputing the designs of Samsung and things related to Android?
If it weren't about the money then why aren't all of Apples products created and produced in the USA?
It's at least 80% about the money and just a few percent about the design and functionality. Fill in any other percentages about job creation, environmental concern, pushing technology forward, or whatever. It's about the money. If it isn't for Ive then how much of the millions of dollars he gets paid does he donate to other causes?
I'm not saying that anybody must do things with their money to benefit others, but; if you're going to make a statement about it not being about the money then you should at least walk the walk if you're going to talk the talk.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerrySwitched26
Because the statement makes little or no sense in the context of a for-profit multinational corporation?
Funny you left off the first part of the sentence. Opinion is not a meaningful substitute for real information.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smallwheels
It's at least 80% about the money and just a few percent about the design and functionality.
The goal is 100% about money. The means to that goal involves making products that people pay lots of money for.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan
Are you really that obtuse?
He came off as a bit obtuse, but his overall point is still valid.
It is completely ridiculous to say that Apple does not focus on money. Certainly, Apple places a greater emphasis (both financial and cultural) on design than other companies.
However, money is and has to always be the first consideration, even for Apple. You know what would be a great design? Carbon Fiber. I would buy a Carbon Fiber iPad in a second . . . if it didn't cost me $3,000.
What happens at a company like Apple is that the initial components are sketched up by looking at cost factors. IN other words: at what price point is a potential product going to be successful, and how much can we spend to get there? Once this is established, a list of workable materials, etc., is composed to fit within that price point.
AT THAT POINT, once the groundwork has been set, then the designers shift the focus away from money. And I do believe that Apple gives its designers tremendous freedom, and that it does encourage great design over cost savings more than most companies. But at the end of the day, the cost drives the device. This is why you don't see lightweight titanium iphones, or Carbon Fiber laptops. More importantly, this is why components are designed in certain ways, such as the soldered-in memory of the more recent Macbook Airs and Macbook Pros.
But for those of you that think Apple exists for the sole purpose of design over all else -- you are quite simply wrong. Such an entity would be constructed (probably) as a 501(c)(3) nonprofit corporation (perhaps 501(c)(4)), and would thereby have no shareholders with no profit motive.
I will say it again: I do not doubt that apple emphasizes purity of design moreso than any other company out there. But it is most certainly about money, from beginning to end. It's about maximizing form and function while minimizing costs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmmfe
Funny you left off the first part of the sentence. Opinion is not a meaningful substitute for real information.
Well, unless and until there is real information, I'll assume that Apple is a typical for-profit corporation with fiduciary responsibilities to maximize total profits.
And no, some design guy's PR stunt does not count as "real information".
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
There is a different between your focus being profit at the cost of quality profits and your focus being quality products that lead to huge sales.
And you called my statement stupid.
Profit is profit. It doesn't matter if you make cheap shit or expensive designer products. The aim is the same. To make a profit. That's what corporations do. Apple is no different.
If you don't build a product or service that people want to buy then you go out of business. THAT IS THE SAME FOR EVERY BUSINESS ON THE PLANET.
Do you honestly think that Jony Ive and Steve Jobs would sit down and say hey lets build the best product we can regardless of whether anyone buys it or not? That's what they did in the late 80's and 90's and they nearly went bankrupt. Of course it's all about the money. Money makes the world go round or didn't they teach you that in class.
Quote:
Originally Posted by poke
The idea that corporations exist only to generate profit is a recent and utterly disastrous invention. Corporations can have all sorts of goals, just like any other organisation. As long as they stay in business they can continue to pursue those goals.
Are you serious? This is THE principle on which capitalism is founded. Without profits any company will not stay in business however well intentioned their goals.