rogifan_new

matrix077 said:

rogifan_new said:

matrix077 said:

foregoneconclusion said:

I find it hard to believe that Cook not visiting the design studio as often as Jobs would be "dispiriting" to Ive. It seems more likely that Ive just missed having Jobs provide his own specific input. It's not like Ive isn't smart enough to understand that Cook isn't going to be a clone of Jobs and may not believe he has as much to offer when it comes to providing critiques of the designs. That's not actually a standard skill for business executives.

Exactly. If Cook, who’s not design-savvy, visiting the studio as often as Jobs it will be more harmful than beneficial, or at best just pointless. We operate best when we operate on what we know best. 

And Ive wouldn’t listen to Cook’s input on design anyway so what’s the point?

Maybe it’s less about specific input but if Cook rarely showed up it gave the impression he didn’t really care.

I don’t think it is. I think Ive knows very well who Cook is and if Cook coming to the studio as often as Jobs it will be pretentious. Everything I heard pointing that Ive always have Cook’s ear so there no need for Cook to pretend to be Jobs. Just media sensationalism coming from the usual suspect like WSJ more likely. 

Sure who knows how accurate this story really is. I didn’t get the impression from the story that Ive was expecting Cook to be just like Steve. But there’s a difference between hardly ever stepping foot in the design studio and being there every day. If he never comes around I can see where one would think he doesn’t care.

matrix077 said:

foregoneconclusion said:

I find it hard to believe that Cook not visiting the design studio as often as Jobs would be "dispiriting" to Ive. It seems more likely that Ive just missed having Jobs provide his own specific input. It's not like Ive isn't smart enough to understand that Cook isn't going to be a clone of Jobs and may not believe he has as much to offer when it comes to providing critiques of the designs. That's not actually a standard skill for business executives.

Exactly. If Cook, who’s not design-savvy, visiting the studio as often as Jobs it will be more harmful than beneficial, or at best just pointless. We operate best when we operate on what we know best. 

And Ive wouldn’t listen to Cook’s input on design anyway so what’s the point?

Maybe it’s less about specific input but if Cook rarely showed up it gave the impression he didn’t really care.

You always have to take stories like these with caution (and Rene Ritchie claims he’s heard different though he doesn’t go into details). BUT if any of it is true it’s kind of depressing, especially the part about Tim Cook rarely showing up in the design studio. Going from someone who was there every day and very interested in what you were doing to someone who doesn’t really care must be dispiriting. I also wonder if some of the design staff departures the past few years were because Ive wasn’t around as much.If he’s sort of checked out and Tim Cook never comes around I can see where that wouldn’t be a great environment. Ben Bajarin claims Jeff Williams is more interested in design than is publicly known. So maybe it’s a good thing these teams are reporting to him and not Cook. And perhaps promotions his number two to SVP of operations gives him the time to focus on product and the design teams.

gatorguy said:

Quote:
This Android ideology seeks to claim legitimacy for the Google empire by citing the history of Windows PCs. That allows it to portray Apple, the only significant phone maker not using Android, as being in the same position it was during the rise of Microsoft's monopoly over PCs: a sort of oddball that's on the brink of doom, which will soon be entirely taken over by commodity because of the natural law of "good enough" mediocracy established by Windows precedent.

Says no one but a blogger or two and maybe a few disconnected fans. 

So who is this "it" you refer to, the presumed spokesperson for "Android" who is predicting Apple's doom? 

So this is basically just another long worded “editorial” from DED which can be boiled down to whining about media coverage of Apple.

macplusplus said:

henrybay said:

This is an insightful editorial. Thank you. Jony Ive is obviously a great designer who had made an immeasurable contribution to Apple’s success. However, I do think he got stuck in a rigid neural loop in recent years, which caused him to become obsessed with a singular design concept. This concept is ‘thinness at all costs’. 

This obsession has undermined a number of key Apple products, such as the MacBook which suffers from an ultra shallow keyboard with no travel, a lack of ports and the mystifying removal of MagSafe. It is also very difficult to comprehend how Apple can charge $1,000 for a computer stand.

Whoever steps into Ive’s shoes needs to strike a better balance between design purity and functionality. 

This is simply not true. Neither Apple Watch nor Apple Pencil are thin, both are Ive's creations. Don't we need the Watch or the Pencil to be a couple of mm thinner? Of course we do. But there is a limit of tweaking aesthetics, this is the point where you begin to compromise functionality. The thinness of Macbooks are due to functional reasons just like the choice of aluminium: dissipation of heat. Give the laptop more volume it will retain more heat, which will require a bigger fan, which in turn will require a bigger power supply and bigger battery... you enter into vicious circle. The Macbooks have reached their optimal designs. If that doesn't suit your needs then your expectations are less than optimal, you may need a desktop Mac or a disposable PC laptop.

People can’t make up theirs minds. They criticize the Macs for supposedly putting form over function but then have a go at the iPhone because they don’t like the way the notch or rumored triple lens camera looks.