
When Stephen Fry Met Jony Ive - Stevo11
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/apple/11628710/When-Stephen-Fry-met-Jony-Ive-the-self-confessed-fanboi-meets-Apples-newly-promoted-chief-design-officer.html
======
morbius
This seems like little more than an Apple puff piece.

> Apple has recently developed a standard British power plug whose prongs fold
> elegantly back flush into their body. Easily stowed, no agony if
> accidentally trod on. A separate and wholly different solution to that
> offered by the Mu Plug which solves the problem in another way.

> “It took ages to solve,” Ive says wistfully. And that is the point. No one
> else cares as much. Of course it took ages, because anything worth doing
> does. People who take pains to the extent he and his team do are very very
> rare.

This sort of design has been present in countless cheap, $3 international
power adapters. Ive's ego and insistence on exalting his own genius at the
expense of others' is maddening, and to call something so simple an
"innovation" illustrates how little is necessary for something to be deemed a
work of ingenuity.

Like Marc Newson, much of his work is design for the sake of design, with
little regard for functional implications. To have a company's philosophy be
singularly focussed on aesthetics and minimalism alone is not a bad thing. But
as Larry Wall prophetically said several years ago, "Apple is the arbiter of
good taste. But when good taste becomes mandatory, it's no longer good taste,
just manners."

I feel similarly about Apple's design philosophy. Their level of influence
doesn't inspire opposing philosophies from their competitors, it inspires
imitation-- since imitation is a basic, natural, fundamental reaction to
something successful. The problem is that it alienates those who have other
requirements that differ vastly from those of Apple's, and who would be better
served with a little less aesthetic sense, and more functionality or
durability at the expense of (largely arbitrary) things such as thickness,
gloss, polish, and shine.

There is a reason you only see ThinkPads on ISS rather than MacBooks. Similar
design goals -- minimalism, starkness, and abstraction -- but with vastly
different approaches.

~~~
dreamfactory2
> design for the sake of design, with little regard for functional
> implications

This is a fundamental misunderstanding. The minimalist aesthetic is
underpinned by the principle that form follows function, and is absolutely
opposed to ornament or visual additions. Aesthetic === functional in this
worldview; it's not a separate thing which gets added in. (This is precisely
why Ives and others eschewed skeumorphism.)

~~~
morbius
Right-- but Ive also seeks to reduce form so much to the point where it begins
to impede upon functionality. Take the thickness of the iPhone 6, for
instance. The drive to reduce the noticeability of the hardware is at the
direct expense of battery life and camera quality; I'd certainly consider this
a failing of his design philosophy.

~~~
Pamar
Regarding the non-replaceable battery, while I am sure that they had some
profit-motivated reasons to go that way, you also have to take in account that
high-density batteries are a bit dangerous to handle, so replaceable batteries
need a protective shell (adding to their volume). In other words a non-
replaceable battery can provide a bit more power for the same volume. So even
if the primary motivation might have been aesthetics (no need for large
openings in the body) I am sure that it wasn't the only reason for that
decision.

~~~
morbius
Of course, I've no reason to doubt that. Apple's design philosophy is great
for many people, but the trend of its design becoming the _only_ design for
interfaces (see also: Galaxy S6) is disappointing. It homogenises the market
and ultimately makes it less interesting.

~~~
camillomiller
How Is that Apple's fault, if somebody decides to rip off their design
decisions instead of making different ones that could prove them as better
option on the market? Samsung Galaxy s5 had a removable battery, and the
company even touted the functionality pretty heavily in its marketing
materials. Did that saved the S5 from failing on the market?

------
kbart
_" Ive’s inventiveness can perhaps most starkly be expressed by revealing that
he has nearly 5,000 patents to his name."_

Because patenting "rounded corners"[1] is really an impressive achievement.
Not to mention other trivial/stupid patents (see lawsuit against Samsung).

1\. [http://www.businessinsider.com/apple-ipad-design-
patent-2012...](http://www.businessinsider.com/apple-ipad-design-
patent-2012-11?op=1)

------
JacobAldridge
" _The development costs and development times of everything from those first
iPods to the new line of Apple watches were far higher and far longer than any
other company in the sector might tolerate._

 _And AS A RESULT the revenues from those products are far, far higher than
any other company can dream of_." [My emphasis]

I call _post hoc ergo propter hoc_ (after this therefore because of this).
While possibly just some lazy copy editing, I think everyone who's backed a
hardware Kickstarter is well aware that blown out costs and development times
do not normally result in far greater revenues.

Apple, in so many ways, is the exception not the rule. And in general this
"fanboi" piece does a good job of highlighting some of their exceptions.

~~~
seiji
> Apple, in so many ways, is the exception not the rule.

I think Apple follows traditional device manufacturing rules pretty closely.
It takes 3-7 years to get a new hardware product market ready. The exceptions
are startups or crowdfunded doodads that _are_ able to launch in 18 months.

Nobody's going to crowdfund on 3-7 year timescales though, so you end up with
a lot of optimistic lies (even the creators lying to themselves about how
quickly things can get made).

~~~
digi_owl
More recent Kickstarter stuff is likely all done with R&D by the time they hit
the site. This because after the initial year or so Kickstarter put into place
a rule demanding a working prototype. Before that you had a mess of CAD
renders and such being peddled. If you go over to Indiegogo you still find all
those CAD renders and such, and i think that site has had a much lower success
rate on delivery.

------
raverbashing
> “Maybe it should be called the Steve Jobs Campus?” I suggest. “Oh, Steve
> made his views on that very clear,” says Cook.

Good!

