In general, I'd like to say how completely ignorant a large percentage of these post sound to me. This notion that Ives is the puppet master and is the sole-artist behind everything. If you read any of the interviews with him, you'll notice that said notion is totally BS. In fact, he goes out of his way to reinforce the idea that the ID team at Apple prides itself on collaboration. They don't even have assigned seating. It's all one big communal space and everyone works together to find the best solution for a given problem. Sure Ives is the face behind the end product, but he's only the spokesman, and the tie-breaker.
Second, most of you here sound like you know very little about the design process. It's not about simply changing the look of the UI, it's about how they function as well, the synthesis between concept and application...form follows function. Have any of you even thought about the notion that maybe the "Fresh Approach" we all keep hearing about by speculative bloggers will look at how the UI works globally over the entire OS, then to the App, and specifically each function...rather than just changing the look of everything and calling it a day? Have you thought that maybe the simple notion of re-thinking how each UI task functions will be the starting point rather than just what it looks like?
If anything, that's where I think Team Ives (as I like to call them) will start. Let's look at the previous over-all design concept for OSX and iOS. Analyze them, find their deficiencies, and come up with some solutions that help reinforce what made the original concept great, and continue unify them by a fresh new concept that backs up the original idea, but in a fresh new way. Then we can look at finding the best possible solution to how we interact with each individual function, find the commonalities to the over-all conceptual approach to the OS and apply it system-wide.
That's the difference between the Artist and the Engineer...The designer and the builder. However, the exceptional Artists are the ones who have a firm understanding and appreciation of the engineering. And like-wise the most gifted Engineers are the ones who have a tremendous eye for design. Sound familiar? "The intersection of the Liberal Arts and Technology".
Aesthetic is always going to be a subjective thing. Some people like one type of design, some the opposite...and some, a third option. IMO, what makes Apple's UI so successful are two things: Easy to use, and friendly. Even the original Macintosh, Jobs wanted the aesthetic to look like it was smiling, and look as easy to use as a food-processor. Those are the two core concepts that I think Apple's products have never wavered from. Like them or not the skeuomorphic designs give Apples products friendly association (albeit sometimes dated) and very clearly tell the customer what they do. In most cases, they are quite brilliant, and in specific cases, those skeuomorphic designs are also reflected in the actual UI as well. Contacts is an address book and the UI functions just like a book. Same with Calendars, iBooks. Maps has that lovely flipping of the map like a physical paper map to reveal additional functions, like a real map would to find an index or further explanation. However, as a side note, I'd like to say I'd rather it folded up a bit with some creases to reveal the additional functions to further draw the connection. Notes looks like an Office Depot generic yellow pad of paper. Why? Probably because the yellow is a bit easier on the eyes with such a bright display. The lines on the paper make it easier to read and makes it feel more like real life. The examples continue, and you probably get where i'm going. It's the synthesis between function and form and reinforcing the core concepts (easy and friendly) is what makes Apple's products so compelling.
For someone to say that Team Ives is just going to make everything a minimalist clean look is totally misunderstanding the concepts behind Apple's products and clearly thinking only skin-deep.
So, according to the Wall Street Journal, Greg Christie, who is VP of Human Interface and reported to Scott Forstall, will now report to Craig Federighi. The WSJ also said Forstwll and Christie had regular design meetings with Steve. I'm assuming Jony Ive will now sit in on those meetings. But it makes me wonder then how much influence Ive will really have in this area if HI isn't actually reporting to him. Who makes the call then on what the final UI design will look like? Ive or Federighi? And how much direction will HI take from Ive when they don't report to him? I mean its one thing if Steve Jobs is giving you direction. Would Ive command the same respect?
Thank goodness. Everytime Game Centre popped up I thought it was some annoying in-game promotion for a poker site. Only recently did I realise its actually something to do with Apple.
The worst thing is the unfinished products Apple has released, going back to the new iMovie and continuing through QuickTime X, Final Cut X, Siri, maps, etc.
As one closes in on true artificial intelligence, the more unfinished one's ambitious undertaking appears to one's impatient mind.
For someone to say that Team Ives is just going to make everything a minimalist clean look is totally misunderstanding the concepts behind Apple's products and clearly thinking only skin-deep.
Tim Cook is the consummate COO whom fate has thrusted into a consummate CEO succession. The Peter Principle plays to the fullest of its ill-fated conclusion here. He direly needs to lean on a designer's chutzpah to keep this tall ship afloat, ...and fold onto a master craftsman's lap his 'Grand Design' shortcomings and his somehow overly grounded field of vision.
Team Ive is used to work wonder on 3D physical space, ...with Time weighing in as a constant. A natural follow-up to sculpting physical objects, ...and give them further depth of meaning, would be to extend his acute 3D sensitivity to virtual space...with Time acting out as the fourth variable. And make iOS/OSX virtual and physical interfaces...one space-time interface continuum. By artistic design. Space-time curvature shaping reality from the physical object to its functionality through an interface lensing effect. A grand unified theory of design as applied to the iOS/OSX universe, ...be it tied up to physical boundaries, ...or lightened up from quanta of information...buoyant offsprings of the Principle of Uncertainty.
The up-and-coming transitional phase from virtual planar to virtual three-space + 1(time) needs be carved out of the sculptor-in-residence ethos. The exquisite robustness of iPhone 5 and iPad Mini laid out in the ethereal space-time interval between form and function. An iOS/OSX UI...depth revolution. Coming next...
Tim Cook is the consummate COO whom fate has thrusted into a consummate CEO succession. The Peter Principle plays to the fullest of its ill-fated conclusion here. He direly needs to lean on a designer's chutzpah to keep this tall ship afloat, ...and fold onto a master craftsman's lap his 'Grand Design' shortcomings and his somehow overly grounded field of vision.
Team Ive is used to work wonder on 3D physical space, ...with Time weighing in as a constant. A natural follow-up to sculpting physical objects, ...and give them further depth of meaning, would be to extend his acute 3D sensitivity to virtual space...with Time acting out as the fourth variable. And make iOS/OSX virtual and physical interfaces...one space-time interface continuum. By artistic design. Space-time curvature shaping reality from the physical object to its functionality through an interface lensing effect. A grand unified theory of design as applied to the iOS/OSX universe, ...be it tied up to physical boundaries, ...or lightened up from quanta of information...buoyant offsprings of the Principle of Uncertainty.
The up-and-coming transitional phase from virtual planar to virtual three-space + 1(time) needs be carved out of the sculptor-in-residence ethos. The exquisite robustness of iPhone 5 and iPad Mini laid out in the ethereal space-time interval between form and function. An iOS/OSX UI...depth revolution. Coming next...
It's worth quoting this perspective, even though it probably sits just above. I agree completely, and was thinking along the same lines while considering the Jobs/Ive penchant for tactility in their designs, carried into software.
Adding your view, what has been called "texture" in the s'morphic interfaces has actually been preparation for true 3D space in display and manipulation. The desktop can eventually become a room, or many rooms, with maybe a solarium and a garden attached, within which we move and react with things. Onward and outward from there, but the groundwork has been tried out with the 3D-ish "texturing" we've already seen. Truer tactility awaits when we have wearable stereo screens, which I hope Apple is still working on as one of their next big things.
Edit: antkm1 above also sees the shaping of the interface as a crucial part of shaping the hardware. Going to flat, rectilinear and visual-only (Microsoft's approach) would be anti-tactile, and therefore alienating. Except to those who prefer things to be ordered that way, of course—my point about the left-brain dominants who are annoyed by s'morphism. There may also be a number of right-brain people who just think the "textures" are uncool, unhip, too cute. Apple should maybe cool things out a bit to assuage them. Maybe that's what Sir Jony will do: cool things down a bit.
So, according to the Wall Street Journal, Greg Christie, who is VP of Human Interface and reported to Scott Forstall, will now report to Craig Federighi. The WSJ also said Forstwll and Christie had regular design meetings with Steve. I'm assuming Jony Ive will now sit in on those meetings.
Since one is dead and the other gone from the company, I'd guess those meetings will be with Ive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan
But it makes me wonder then how much influence Ive will really have in this area if HI isn't actually reporting to him. Who makes the call then on what the final UI design will look like? Ive or Federighi? And how much direction will HI take from Ive when they don't report to him?
I believe that HI will be reporting up to Ive. That's the whole point. I suspect that Ive and his team will have the say on UI/HI/design issues. Federighi will be about software design, development and implementation. Of course they will need to work closely as I'm sure Ive's team has done in the past with hardware engineering and manufacturing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan
Would Ive command the same respect?
Well he'll certainly have to earn in in some cases. But Ive has a pretty good reputation at this point. I suspect he'll do fine.
The appearance from the front is almost unchanged. Size change is only in the profile, which is actually slim only on the edge. Total space occupied is almost the same.
It doesn't mean a thing.
Who cares about the weight of a desktop computer?
The appearance from the front is almost unchanged. Size change is only in the profile, which is actually slim only on the edge. Total space occupied is almost the same.
??? Highly what?????
Argument value : 0
Apple obviously disagrees with you.
So what's your experience in building and selling game-changing computing devices that makes your opinion more valuable than theirs?
It doesn't mean a thing.
Who cares about the weight of a desktop computer?
The appearance from the front is almost unchanged. Size change is only in the profile, which is actually slim only on the edge. Total space occupied is almost the same.
??? Highly what?????
Argument value : 0
I see what you mean, and this probably won't mean anything to you either, but the first principle in tactile design is to use no more material or take up more space than necessary, and to look for a pleasing shape within that rule.
We're used to thinking of an object's "footprint" in relation to its surroundings. Ive is thinking of the computer's "eyeprint," or its "spaceprint." Is this part of its function? To take up minimal space? I think so, but I admit it's a stretch. I guess if you diagree, you get a Mac Mini or a Pro.
Order your ram for the iMac accordingly, in other words. And assume that Apple is making the machine so failure-proof that it won't have be opened up. Function still has to rule over form.
Jony Ive takes this task in a moment where computer design is in crisis: After the development and commercial success of "mobile toys" from several vendors, all computer operating systems have tried to get inspired by the success from tablets/phones and put such inspiration into conventional computers. However, the result hasn't been satisfactory at all, because they've just tried to "copy" the tablet/phone UI paradigm into a conventional computer, and this, of course, cannot work until conventional computers have touchscreens, and even if they had touchscreens, the tablet/phone paradigm doesn't necessarily fit into the workflow of a desktop computer.
As a result, all major operating systems are in crisis until they find how to overcome the tablet/phone fashion in a proper way:
Windows 8 tried to get the tablet-feeling. Failed, mainly because a PC is not a tablet.
Linux, with GNOME shell and Unity, also tried it. Failed, for the same reason (a PC is not a tablet).
Apple tried it with Lion. Failed for the same reason (they slightly fixed the bad step in Mountain Lion, but it's not satisfactory yet).
So, Jony Ive takes the role in a time like this. A really interesting time, because it's the right time for innovation in the desktop, after this tablet/phone UI copy failure.
Agreed. I think some of the design cues make more sense with the Retina displays. It seems a waste of the display to me to not incorporate some world realism within iOS as we interact with it.
I believe that HI will be reporting up to Ive. That's the whole point. I suspect that Ive and his team will have the say on UI/HI/design issues. Federighi will be about software design, development and implementation. Of course they will need to work closely as I'm sure Ive's team has done in the past with hardware engineering and manufacturing.
Wall Street Journal says Greg Christie, VP of Human Interface will report to Federighi. Not sure how they know that, Interesting note, on the majority of Forstall's patents (issued or pending) Christie is also listed. Wonder how big of a supporter he is of the current design language and how open he is to changes. Assuming he stays on. From what I've read he's a long time Apple employee (worked on Newton).
[quote]As Jony Ive worked on early iPhone designs before and since its 2007 introduction, he regularly held meetings in his design studio to get input from top Apple Inc. (AAPL) executives -- except one: Scott Forstall.
Even as Forstall oversaw the group responsible for the software that would run the iPhone, he didn’t participate in the meetings, according to people with knowledge of the matter who requested anonymity because the meetings were private. Ive and Forstall were rarely in the same room, the people said.[/quote]
If Apple makes the UI and the shape of app icons look flat and generic, Apple will lose big chunk of fanbase, including myself. Don't even think of getting rid of bookshelf in the iBooks app and paper shredder in the Passbook app, if you do, I am switching to Win 8. I promise.
You're pretty flighty,if that's all it takes, aren't you?
I believe Jobs was less and less involved in the graphic design decisions the last few years. The reason I say this is because if you look at his design aesthetic from the early days of the Macintosh, it was much more understated, and much more elegant. I feel that especially with iTunes 10, QuickTime X, and others, they really got away from good design principles, in both usability and attractiveness.
My feeling is that as time went along (maybe as Jobs got sicker), he was so into making the big things (iPhone, iPad, TV, etc), which were incredibly large undertakings, that he didn't oversee the little design elements of iTunes, QuickTime X, etc. so much, and let the engineers (Forstall) make those decisions. Just my opinion, but there was a marked movement away from good, clean design. (And I don't consider Aqua to be that bad - sort of an experiment that they toned down little by little).
There's also been a move away from usability, like hiding scroll bars (and making them too narrow), putting in "pretty" elements that require more clicking to use, etc. I'm guessing Jobs wasn't spending very much time examining the software design details and using the software. Again, just my opinion.
The worst thing is the unfinished products Apple has released, going back to the new iMovie and continuing through QuickTime X, Final Cut X, Siri, maps, etc.
We don't know that. People change over the years, and taste is part of that. The idea as to what is best changes as well. It's been said that SJ liked the look of leather, wood and stone in design, so it's hard to say what he approved of or not. But it should be pretty clear that it would have just taken a minute of his day to look at a design. To think that he couldn't have had input on any of this is hard to believe. If anything, he might have spent more time on it as the end became closer.
Look at what he said about his yaht. He worked on it even though he knew he wouldn't see it completed, because he felt it would allow him to think he would be alive longer. He was very dedicated to Apple. I find it hard to believe that he wouldn't take the few minutes to look over software design, and make a decision once a week or so.
Curious... Why do so many books align the text so it nearly disappears into the crack? We are left bending the book and squashing it flat until we finally break the all-to-flimsy spine.
When I'm king, the text will be rescued from the crack.
It doesn't happen with hardcover. But paperbacks are required to be cheaper, and small enough to fit into the average pocket, so size is an issue. People expect hardcover to be of good design, but not so much with a paperback. But look at magazines. Most are designed well, though, as usual with most things, not all. Never take the worst as an example, take the best.
There are places where it has gone too far the other way though - the coloured icons for shortcuts weren't distracting and actually made helpful associations but are now all grey.
Fully agree; iTunes coloured icons are sorely missed by me, and I'm reluctant to update Aperture - still running 3.2.3 in spite 3.4.2 being out today.
The capabilities of display technologies makes a huge difference in how you design the software to look as well. Again, it is a waste of a retina display to make everything monotone. The display is capable to deliver vibrant picture window colors so why not capitalize on that feature and make things pop a bit?
Comments
In general, I'd like to say how completely ignorant a large percentage of these post sound to me. This notion that Ives is the puppet master and is the sole-artist behind everything. If you read any of the interviews with him, you'll notice that said notion is totally BS. In fact, he goes out of his way to reinforce the idea that the ID team at Apple prides itself on collaboration. They don't even have assigned seating. It's all one big communal space and everyone works together to find the best solution for a given problem. Sure Ives is the face behind the end product, but he's only the spokesman, and the tie-breaker.
Second, most of you here sound like you know very little about the design process. It's not about simply changing the look of the UI, it's about how they function as well, the synthesis between concept and application...form follows function. Have any of you even thought about the notion that maybe the "Fresh Approach" we all keep hearing about by speculative bloggers will look at how the UI works globally over the entire OS, then to the App, and specifically each function...rather than just changing the look of everything and calling it a day? Have you thought that maybe the simple notion of re-thinking how each UI task functions will be the starting point rather than just what it looks like?
If anything, that's where I think Team Ives (as I like to call them) will start. Let's look at the previous over-all design concept for OSX and iOS. Analyze them, find their deficiencies, and come up with some solutions that help reinforce what made the original concept great, and continue unify them by a fresh new concept that backs up the original idea, but in a fresh new way. Then we can look at finding the best possible solution to how we interact with each individual function, find the commonalities to the over-all conceptual approach to the OS and apply it system-wide.
That's the difference between the Artist and the Engineer...The designer and the builder. However, the exceptional Artists are the ones who have a firm understanding and appreciation of the engineering. And like-wise the most gifted Engineers are the ones who have a tremendous eye for design. Sound familiar? "The intersection of the Liberal Arts and Technology".
Aesthetic is always going to be a subjective thing. Some people like one type of design, some the opposite...and some, a third option. IMO, what makes Apple's UI so successful are two things: Easy to use, and friendly. Even the original Macintosh, Jobs wanted the aesthetic to look like it was smiling, and look as easy to use as a food-processor. Those are the two core concepts that I think Apple's products have never wavered from. Like them or not the skeuomorphic designs give Apples products friendly association (albeit sometimes dated) and very clearly tell the customer what they do. In most cases, they are quite brilliant, and in specific cases, those skeuomorphic designs are also reflected in the actual UI as well. Contacts is an address book and the UI functions just like a book. Same with Calendars, iBooks. Maps has that lovely flipping of the map like a physical paper map to reveal additional functions, like a real map would to find an index or further explanation. However, as a side note, I'd like to say I'd rather it folded up a bit with some creases to reveal the additional functions to further draw the connection. Notes looks like an Office Depot generic yellow pad of paper. Why? Probably because the yellow is a bit easier on the eyes with such a bright display. The lines on the paper make it easier to read and makes it feel more like real life. The examples continue, and you probably get where i'm going. It's the synthesis between function and form and reinforcing the core concepts (easy and friendly) is what makes Apple's products so compelling.
For someone to say that Team Ives is just going to make everything a minimalist clean look is totally misunderstanding the concepts behind Apple's products and clearly thinking only skin-deep.
As one closes in on true artificial intelligence, the more unfinished one's ambitious undertaking appears to one's impatient mind.
Tim Cook is the consummate COO whom fate has thrusted into a consummate CEO succession. The Peter Principle plays to the fullest of its ill-fated conclusion here. He direly needs to lean on a designer's chutzpah to keep this tall ship afloat, ...and fold onto a master craftsman's lap his 'Grand Design' shortcomings and his somehow overly grounded field of vision.
Team Ive is used to work wonder on 3D physical space, ...with Time weighing in as a constant. A natural follow-up to sculpting physical objects, ...and give them further depth of meaning, would be to extend his acute 3D sensitivity to virtual space...with Time acting out as the fourth variable. And make iOS/OSX virtual and physical interfaces...one space-time interface continuum. By artistic design. Space-time curvature shaping reality from the physical object to its functionality through an interface lensing effect. A grand unified theory of design as applied to the iOS/OSX universe, ...be it tied up to physical boundaries, ...or lightened up from quanta of information...buoyant offsprings of the Principle of Uncertainty.
The up-and-coming transitional phase from virtual planar to virtual three-space + 1(time) needs be carved out of the sculptor-in-residence ethos. The exquisite robustness of iPhone 5 and iPad Mini laid out in the ethereal space-time interval between form and function. An iOS/OSX UI...depth revolution. Coming next...
It's worth quoting this perspective, even though it probably sits just above. I agree completely, and was thinking along the same lines while considering the Jobs/Ive penchant for tactility in their designs, carried into software.
Adding your view, what has been called "texture" in the s'morphic interfaces has actually been preparation for true 3D space in display and manipulation. The desktop can eventually become a room, or many rooms, with maybe a solarium and a garden attached, within which we move and react with things. Onward and outward from there, but the groundwork has been tried out with the 3D-ish "texturing" we've already seen. Truer tactility awaits when we have wearable stereo screens, which I hope Apple is still working on as one of their next big things.
Edit: antkm1 above also sees the shaping of the interface as a crucial part of shaping the hardware. Going to flat, rectilinear and visual-only (Microsoft's approach) would be anti-tactile, and therefore alienating. Except to those who prefer things to be ordered that way, of course—my point about the left-brain dominants who are annoyed by s'morphism. There may also be a number of right-brain people who just think the "textures" are uncool, unhip, too cute. Apple should maybe cool things out a bit to assuage them. Maybe that's what Sir Jony will do: cool things down a bit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan
So, according to the Wall Street Journal, Greg Christie, who is VP of Human Interface and reported to Scott Forstall, will now report to Craig Federighi. The WSJ also said Forstwll and Christie had regular design meetings with Steve. I'm assuming Jony Ive will now sit in on those meetings.
Since one is dead and the other gone from the company, I'd guess those meetings will be with Ive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan
But it makes me wonder then how much influence Ive will really have in this area if HI isn't actually reporting to him. Who makes the call then on what the final UI design will look like? Ive or Federighi? And how much direction will HI take from Ive when they don't report to him?
I believe that HI will be reporting up to Ive. That's the whole point. I suspect that Ive and his team will have the say on UI/HI/design issues. Federighi will be about software design, development and implementation. Of course they will need to work closely as I'm sure Ive's team has done in the past with hardware engineering and manufacturing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan
Would Ive command the same respect?
Well he'll certainly have to earn in in some cases. But Ive has a pretty good reputation at this point. I suspect he'll do fine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven N.
Weight.
Size.
Highly valuable functions.
Next.
It doesn't mean a thing.
Who cares about the weight of a desktop computer?
The appearance from the front is almost unchanged. Size change is only in the profile, which is actually slim only on the edge. Total space occupied is almost the same.
??? Highly what?????
Argument value : 0
Apple obviously disagrees with you.
So what's your experience in building and selling game-changing computing devices that makes your opinion more valuable than theirs?
I see what you mean, and this probably won't mean anything to you either, but the first principle in tactile design is to use no more material or take up more space than necessary, and to look for a pleasing shape within that rule.
We're used to thinking of an object's "footprint" in relation to its surroundings. Ive is thinking of the computer's "eyeprint," or its "spaceprint." Is this part of its function? To take up minimal space? I think so, but I admit it's a stretch. I guess if you diagree, you get a Mac Mini or a Pro.
Order your ram for the iMac accordingly, in other words. And assume that Apple is making the machine so failure-proof that it won't have be opened up. Function still has to rule over form.
Jony Ive takes this task in a moment where computer design is in crisis: After the development and commercial success of "mobile toys" from several vendors, all computer operating systems have tried to get inspired by the success from tablets/phones and put such inspiration into conventional computers. However, the result hasn't been satisfactory at all, because they've just tried to "copy" the tablet/phone UI paradigm into a conventional computer, and this, of course, cannot work until conventional computers have touchscreens, and even if they had touchscreens, the tablet/phone paradigm doesn't necessarily fit into the workflow of a desktop computer.
As a result, all major operating systems are in crisis until they find how to overcome the tablet/phone fashion in a proper way:
Windows 8 tried to get the tablet-feeling. Failed, mainly because a PC is not a tablet.
Linux, with GNOME shell and Unity, also tried it. Failed, for the same reason (a PC is not a tablet).
Apple tried it with Lion. Failed for the same reason (they slightly fixed the bad step in Mountain Lion, but it's not satisfactory yet).
So, Jony Ive takes the role in a time like this. A really interesting time, because it's the right time for innovation in the desktop, after this tablet/phone UI copy failure.
Good luck! (you'll need it, Jony)
Agreed. I think some of the design cues make more sense with the Retina displays. It seems a waste of the display to me to not incorporate some world realism within iOS as we interact with it.
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-11-01/apple-s-minimalist-ive-assumes-jobs-s-role-setting-design-vision
[quote]As Jony Ive worked on early iPhone designs before and since its 2007 introduction, he regularly held meetings in his design studio to get input from top Apple Inc. (AAPL) executives -- except one: Scott Forstall.
Even as Forstall oversaw the group responsible for the software that would run the iPhone, he didn’t participate in the meetings, according to people with knowledge of the matter who requested anonymity because the meetings were private. Ive and Forstall were rarely in the same room, the people said.[/quote]
You're pretty flighty,if that's all it takes, aren't you?
We don't know that. People change over the years, and taste is part of that. The idea as to what is best changes as well. It's been said that SJ liked the look of leather, wood and stone in design, so it's hard to say what he approved of or not. But it should be pretty clear that it would have just taken a minute of his day to look at a design. To think that he couldn't have had input on any of this is hard to believe. If anything, he might have spent more time on it as the end became closer.
Look at what he said about his yaht. He worked on it even though he knew he wouldn't see it completed, because he felt it would allow him to think he would be alive longer. He was very dedicated to Apple. I find it hard to believe that he wouldn't take the few minutes to look over software design, and make a decision once a week or so.
It doesn't happen with hardcover. But paperbacks are required to be cheaper, and small enough to fit into the average pocket, so size is an issue. People expect hardcover to be of good design, but not so much with a paperback. But look at magazines. Most are designed well, though, as usual with most things, not all. Never take the worst as an example, take the best.
Fully agree; iTunes coloured icons are sorely missed by me, and I'm reluctant to update Aperture - still running 3.2.3 in spite 3.4.2 being out today.
The capabilities of display technologies makes a huge difference in how you design the software to look as well. Again, it is a waste of a retina display to make everything monotone. The display is capable to deliver vibrant picture window colors so why not capitalize on that feature and make things pop a bit?