flaneur

avon b7 said:

StrangeDays said:

avon b7 said:

slurpy said:

Even if he did...and? I'm sure every single kind of idea and course of action was discussed and thrown around when developing the iPhone. Steve Jobs did a shitload of 180s himself. He didn't even want an AppStore. Even if Schiller thought a KB might be best at some point in time, I'm not going to hold that against him or pretend he's unfit for the job because of it. 

Also, I don't trust a word that comes out of Faddels mouth. It's well known that he consistently exaggerated his role and accomplishments at Apple in order to bring more legitimacy and hype to his new company (now sold out to Google of course). 

Something similar surely happened with the new MBP. I'm convinced that internally, Apple was divided on the thinness issue.

What possible evidence do you have of that? Sounds like wishful thinking. 

Evidence is not required.

However, judging by the content of this article, we'll have to wait around 10 years for someone to spill the beans on what really happened during the design phase of the new MBPs and how it passed through executive approval.

Perhaps we will see the Jony Ive unauthorized biography at some point.

We already have rumours of competing MBP designs at Apple (fighter vs bomber) and supposing those rumours have some truth in them,  it is very reasonable to suspect that the 'thin at any cost' design is far from universally backed at the company. Then we have someone from HP going on record last year (during the backlash) and claiming that they carried out a lot of research and found that a lot of people preferred thin without compromises. As a result, HP is trying to cater to both markets. I doubt Apple's own research brought back differing results. The difference is on the executive side. A decision was taken and they had to run with it. Apple is not a company of options. Look how long it took them to finally release a large screen iPhone.

I mean no disrespect when I say you're still full of it on this issue. You are not thinking of the larger picture on Apple's design mandates.

In the case of the larger-screened phone, it was the lack of production capacity for making LTPS screens in enough quantity to supply Apple's needs for the 6 and 6 Plus, up until the time they finally could introduce them. Look it up. Apple was already using 70-75 percent of the world's capacity of LTPS screens before the larger screens arrived. The myth that it was a design choice to resist larger screens was fostered by Apple's PR on one-handed use being ideal, but you don't have to believe and parrot this narrow interim spin from marketing-think. The real reason was production determined.

In the case of the thin MacBook Pro, you are not thinking largely enough about the cluster of mandates that came available with the availability of sufficient production of oxide-backed (IGZO) screens. The energy savings from the IGZO backplane allowed for less backlghting and more efficient heat management. These, along with the availability of USB 3, allowed for the shrinkage in all dimensions. No self-respecting, honest  engineer would throw away—waste—these space savings just to accomodate the antiquated, oversized USB legacy port. 

If there was any argument from retrograde thinkers on the engineering/design team, as you imagine, you're going to have to produce evidence to be taken seriously. Or even from the marketing side, but that would be still easy to dismiss as retrograde thinking.

Hardware rules. Enjoy the progress.

Soli said:

tallest skil said:

Soli said:

Gender is a cultural construct.

If gender is a social construct, then there is no such thing as a “gender binary.” If this is true, how can one “transition” between “genders” or be “genderfluid?”

1) I's because it's invented that makes it possible. It's sex that can't be fluid, at least not in organisms as complex as humans.

2) Just because some are just now realizing the shadows on the cave wall aren't all there is to see doesn't mean this is new ground. Societies throughout time have had multiple genders to suit various needs of cultural traditions and resources of the environment. If you can't wrap your head around that then consider the social construct of marriage. There's nothing natural about it for humans as an animals, but in society there are reasons why it makes sense religious texts to make this a requirement. Why it behooved the Mormons to engage in polygamy and Tibetans living on a resource deficient plateau engage in polyandry (a woman taking multiple husbands). You may say these are wrong, but would just be you imposing your narrow view of society on the rest of the world because it doesn't conform with your comfort zone.

Excellent post.

StrangeDays said:

Benny_Frost said:

Methinks Jony has popped into Greggs while visiting the UK.  So that's why there's been no redesign since the 6 for Sir Jony has been eating all the pies!

Ah is the king troll back? Weren't you perma-banned?

More like peanut gallery troll.

The good news is that Ive gets to spread his functional, clean, no-nonsense Apple aesthetic around more widely.

The world could use it, looking at the present state of Darth Vader car design, for example.

Great article by Levy so far. Here's a sample sentence:

" It turns out that when you turn a skyscraper on its side, all of its bullying power dissipates into a humble serenity."