You sure don't understand the nuances of design, do you. Especially industrial design. Many designs follow similar "form", but are applied very differently. "Round" tables can appear SO very differently, and yet, they are all "round". Are you saying all round tables are "just copying" some far-flung original design? Of course not!
These tables also follow a similar FORM, true. But the similarities stop there. In designs like these, nuances take over. Your supposition although seeming "smart" is actually fairly ignorant.
Typography is a good example. Helvetica is a modern, san serif typeface. There are many san serif typefaces, some quite similar to Helvetica, but they are not actually COPIES of it. Many ARE variations of Helvetica (e.g Helvetica Neue), but many even similar looking fonts, are NOT remotely the same. And again, the devil is in the details. If you compare the Shift right alongside the Ive/Newson table, the DIFFERENCES stand out far more obviously than the similarities do.
Beginning with materials and finish, they are completely different animals.
Next is proportion. Also very different, from the overhang to the supports in relation to the overall width/height.
"Weight" (meaning as a subset of proportion) is also handled very differently in the designs.
Overall shape: even though both are 'rectangular slabs with rounded extremities', looking at them closely, they are treated completely differently. The Shift has an "oval" at the ends, where the other is much flatter in the curve. The Shift could be called an "elongated oval" (and you'd be nuts to try and say THAT has never been done before the Shift came along), while the Ive/Newsone piece more a "rounded rectangle".
They are similar forms (rather Pi shaped, or based on asian temple motifs), with the slab legs (and neither are "ground breaking firsts" there either), but the similarities really do stop there.
Yours was a pretty simple-minded comparison.
I should also say, I've seen the Shift in person, and found it a fairly ugly piece of furniture. Something tells me I wouldn't feel the same about this one. And THAT is where design really sets things apart.
All this environmental nonsense is just a sham. Just a bunch of feel good PC crap from people who would rather reduce my standard of living than raise someone else's up.
Do you think the small continent of trash floating in the pacific is a sham? How about the air quality in china? Should we go back to the days of no environmental regulations and have more rivers catch on fire like the cuyahoga river?(gotta mention Randy Newmans "burn on"). I can understand having a difference of opinion on where our priorities should be but blanket statements like "it's all a sham" seems silly. Recycled aluminum takes something like 95%less energy to use over virgin material. That's saving a ton of money and reduces power plant emissions. Of course using recycled aluminum (or any other recycled material) isn't always practical and and sometimes people won't understand that. On the other hand if your personal standard of living is the only consideration then, well, burn on.
Newson has some experience designing furniture from solid blocks of source material. This table was cut from a giant block of marble using a specialized saw with an abrasive cable as the cutting edge. It is a continuous single piece of marble shaped like a table. http://tinyurl.com/mqbdt9a
Gosh dang it, there are actually restrictions on font size now. I used to be able to type as large as I manually set it to be. Maybe that’s only for mods/admins.
Do you think the small continent of trash floating in the pacific is a sham? How about the air quality in china? Should we go back to the days of no environmental regulations and have more rivers catch on fire like the cuyahoga river?(gotta mention Randy Newmans "burn on"). I can understand having a difference of opinion on where our priorities should be but blanket statements like "it's all a sham" seems silly. Recycled aluminum takes something like 95%less energy to use over virgin material. That's saving a ton of money and reduces power plant emissions. Of course using recycled aluminum (or any other recycled material) isn't always practical and and sometimes people won't understand that. On the other hand if your personal standard of living is the only consideration then, well, burn on.
Thank you! I wasn't going to bother because his comments were so ridiculous as to not seem necessary and I didn't want to feed the troll.
You sure don't understand the nuances of design, do you. Especially industrial design. Many designs follow similar "form", but are applied very differently. "Round" tables can appear SO very differently, and yet, they are all "round". Are you saying all round tables are "just copying" some far-flung original design? Of course not!
These tables also follow a similar FORM, true. But the similarities stop there. In designs like these, nuances take over. Your supposition although seeming "smart" is actually fairly ignorant.
Typography is a good example. Helvetica is a modern, san serif typeface. There are many san serif typefaces, some quite similar to Helvetica, but they are not actually COPIES of it. Many ARE variations of Helvetica (e.g Helvetica Neue), but many even similar looking fonts, are NOT remotely the same. And again, the devil is in the details. If you compare the Shift right alongside the Ive/Newson table, the DIFFERENCES stand out far more obviously than the similarities do.
Beginning with materials and finish, they are completely different animals.
Next is proportion. Also very different, from the overhang to the supports in relation to the overall width/height.
"Weight" (meaning as a subset of proportion) is also handled very differently in the designs.
Overall shape: even though both are 'rectangular slabs with rounded extremities', looking at them closely, they are treated completely differently. The Shift has an "oval" at the ends, where the other is much flatter in the curve. The Shift could be called an "elongated oval" (and you'd be nuts to try and say THAT has never been done before the Shift came along), while the Ive/Newsone piece more a "rounded rectangle".
They are similar forms (rather Pi shaped, or based on asian temple motifs), with the slab legs (and neither are "ground breaking firsts" there either), but the similarities really do stop there.
Yours was a pretty simple-minded comparison.
I should also say, I've seen the Shift in person, and found it a fairly ugly piece of furniture. Something tells me I wouldn't feel the same about this one. And THAT is where design really sets things apart.
I think you're reading too much into the word "copy" and you're downplaying the similarities of these tables.
When we say that many recently "ultrabooks" look like copies of a MacBook Air, we're not wrong. Are they exact copies in every detail? Of course not. The point is, if you look at one of these laptops and say "wow, I've never seen anything quite like it" and someone shows you another one you're most likely surprised. It's obvious that one is a copy of the other.
Is this new table a copy of the Shift table in the same way? I really doubt it; that would be pretty lame. Is it very, very similar? Absolutely. The materials are different and the shape of the top of different, but most of the striking features of the new table are present in the commercial one. The proportions are very close. The design of the legs are almost exactly the same (both appear to be the full width of the table, very slim, tapered along both dimensions, rounded on the edges). Yes the new one appears to be slimmer, and that makes it more striking. I don't think anyone is saying that the original is better or that Ive and friend just took the design of the Shift and made the same table out of aluminium. One could argue that the new one is more striking, elegant desk than the Shift. But if you like the Ive table and don't have a bazillion dollars to spend, it's worth a look at the Shift. Likewise, if you like the MacBook Air and don't want a great OS, you can get a Windows ultrabook.
I disagree. To me the most damning part of the trial was when the judge held up the iPad and Samsungs clone and asked their lawyers if they could tell the difference. I'd definitely say they are similar styles though, maybe an homage even.
I disagree. To me the most damning part of the trial was when the judge held up the iPad and Samsungs clone and asked their lawyers if they could tell the difference. I'd definitely say they are similar styles though, maybe an homage even.
It wasn't that damning because Samsung was found not guilty in copying the iPad.
Gosh dang it, there are actually restrictions on font size now. I used to be able to type as large as I manually set it to be. Maybe that’s only for mods/admins.
Comments
You would've made a great lawyer for Samsung.
Do you think the small continent of trash floating in the pacific is a sham? How about the air quality in china? Should we go back to the days of no environmental regulations and have more rivers catch on fire like the cuyahoga river?(gotta mention Randy Newmans "burn on"). I can understand having a difference of opinion on where our priorities should be but blanket statements like "it's all a sham" seems silly. Recycled aluminum takes something like 95%less energy to use over virgin material. That's saving a ton of money and reduces power plant emissions. Of course using recycled aluminum (or any other recycled material) isn't always practical and and sometimes people won't understand that. On the other hand if your personal standard of living is the only consideration then, well, burn on.
Newson has some experience designing furniture from solid blocks of source material. This table was cut from a giant block of marble using a specialized saw with an abrasive cable as the cutting edge. It is a continuous single piece of marble shaped like a table. http://tinyurl.com/mqbdt9a
He also designed this aluminum table that appears to be a single cast piece. http://tinyurl.com/kpogdsq
Okay.
Gosh dang it, there are actually restrictions on font size now. I used to be able to type as large as I manually set it to be. Maybe that’s only for mods/admins.
Do you think the small continent of trash floating in the pacific is a sham? How about the air quality in china? Should we go back to the days of no environmental regulations and have more rivers catch on fire like the cuyahoga river?(gotta mention Randy Newmans "burn on"). I can understand having a difference of opinion on where our priorities should be but blanket statements like "it's all a sham" seems silly. Recycled aluminum takes something like 95%less energy to use over virgin material. That's saving a ton of money and reduces power plant emissions. Of course using recycled aluminum (or any other recycled material) isn't always practical and and sometimes people won't understand that. On the other hand if your personal standard of living is the only consideration then, well, burn on.
Thank you! I wasn't going to bother because his comments were so ridiculous as to not seem necessary and I didn't want to feed the troll.
You sure don't understand the nuances of design, do you. Especially industrial design. Many designs follow similar "form", but are applied very differently. "Round" tables can appear SO very differently, and yet, they are all "round". Are you saying all round tables are "just copying" some far-flung original design? Of course not!
These tables also follow a similar FORM, true. But the similarities stop there. In designs like these, nuances take over. Your supposition although seeming "smart" is actually fairly ignorant.
Typography is a good example. Helvetica is a modern, san serif typeface. There are many san serif typefaces, some quite similar to Helvetica, but they are not actually COPIES of it. Many ARE variations of Helvetica (e.g Helvetica Neue), but many even similar looking fonts, are NOT remotely the same. And again, the devil is in the details. If you compare the Shift right alongside the Ive/Newson table, the DIFFERENCES stand out far more obviously than the similarities do.
Beginning with materials and finish, they are completely different animals.
Next is proportion. Also very different, from the overhang to the supports in relation to the overall width/height.
"Weight" (meaning as a subset of proportion) is also handled very differently in the designs.
Overall shape: even though both are 'rectangular slabs with rounded extremities', looking at them closely, they are treated completely differently. The Shift has an "oval" at the ends, where the other is much flatter in the curve. The Shift could be called an "elongated oval" (and you'd be nuts to try and say THAT has never been done before the Shift came along), while the Ive/Newsone piece more a "rounded rectangle".
They are similar forms (rather Pi shaped, or based on asian temple motifs), with the slab legs (and neither are "ground breaking firsts" there either), but the similarities really do stop there.
Yours was a pretty simple-minded comparison.
I should also say, I've seen the Shift in person, and found it a fairly ugly piece of furniture. Something tells me I wouldn't feel the same about this one. And THAT is where design really sets things apart.
I think you're reading too much into the word "copy" and you're downplaying the similarities of these tables.
When we say that many recently "ultrabooks" look like copies of a MacBook Air, we're not wrong. Are they exact copies in every detail? Of course not. The point is, if you look at one of these laptops and say "wow, I've never seen anything quite like it" and someone shows you another one you're most likely surprised. It's obvious that one is a copy of the other.
Is this new table a copy of the Shift table in the same way? I really doubt it; that would be pretty lame. Is it very, very similar? Absolutely. The materials are different and the shape of the top of different, but most of the striking features of the new table are present in the commercial one. The proportions are very close. The design of the legs are almost exactly the same (both appear to be the full width of the table, very slim, tapered along both dimensions, rounded on the edges). Yes the new one appears to be slimmer, and that makes it more striking. I don't think anyone is saying that the original is better or that Ive and friend just took the design of the Shift and made the same table out of aluminium. One could argue that the new one is more striking, elegant desk than the Shift. But if you like the Ive table and don't have a bazillion dollars to spend, it's worth a look at the Shift. Likewise, if you like the MacBook Air and don't want a great OS, you can get a Windows ultrabook.
I disagree. To me the most damning part of the trial was when the judge held up the iPad and Samsungs clone and asked their lawyers if they could tell the difference. I'd definitely say they are similar styles though, maybe an homage even.
It wasn't that damning because Samsung was found not guilty in copying the iPad.
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" -SolipsismX
Or even objectively true.
Design porn of the highest order (which is not a compliment.)
Some idiots (galleries?) will pay too much for them, I'm sure. Goal achieved.
At least it's for charity, nominally anyway.
Okay.
Gosh dang it, there are actually restrictions on font size now. I used to be able to type as large as I manually set it to be. Maybe that’s only for mods/admins.
No
No
Strange. And I love it.
" src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" />
This is a table .You are correct.