tundraboy
About
- Username
- tundraboy
- Joined
- Visits
- 138
- Last Active
- Roles
- member
- Points
- 1,671
- Badges
- 1
- Posts
- 1,937
Reactions
-
Electric vehicle maker Polestar beats Tesla to Apple CarPlay
As CarPlay becomes more and more seamlessly integrated into cars' digital systems, only Tesla fanatics will be willing to put up with the inconvenience of having one system for their car and a different one for the rest of their digital needs and functions. There aren't that many Tesla fanatics around to sustain a car company with mass rather than niche ambitions. Most people who can afford a Tesla own iPhones not Androids. It would be foolish for Tesla to close off the part of the car buying public who own iPhones.bloggerblog said:Tesla and Rivian have been resisting CarPlay
Unless Tesla is planning to sell a smartphone good enough to yank customers from their iPhones, they will eventually fold and offer CarPlay integration.
Tesla probably knows all this, or would know all this if they stop lying to themselves. But as we all know, lying and declaring things that cannot be backed up by something beyond saliva and exhaled gases is something that the top dog over there is very good at.
-
Germany launches antitrust investigation over App Tracking Transparency [u]
Is this a verified fact or something you just assumed? This keeps getting asserted on the web but I have yet to see anyone raising real evidence to back it up.The problem is that Apple does not respect the user's choice for their own apps and the OS itself.
-
Hands on: Everything new with CarPlay in iOS 16
Some dashboard meters/displays are considered to be safety-critical items by the DOT. At least that was the case a few years ago when BMW had to fix the dash readout on my car for free because the DOT deemed it showed safety-critical info and thus was required to have a longer warranty coverage.
If CarPlay takes over the dash display, I wonder who takes on that liability, Apple or the car company? Who pays if a dashboard malfunction leads to an accident?
-
After Jony Ive's departure, Apple's design philosophy is slowly changing
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.)9secondkox2 said:
Negative.tundraboy said:
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.9secondkox2 said:
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.tundraboy said: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.
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.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.
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.
-
After Jony Ive's departure, Apple's design philosophy is slowly changing
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.9secondkox2 said:
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.tundraboy said: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.
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.
