4 ms·
You can probably use the Ive/Jobs combination to describe evolution. Ive was the mutation source, Jobs was the selection filter. What makes evolution work is
by bborud 6y ago
You can probably use the Ive/Jobs combination to describe evolution. Ive was the mutation source, Jobs was the selection filter. What makes evolution work is selection. Without selection you get crap. Mutation is just the noise you need to have something to apply (recombination and) selection to.
It is hard to say how much post-Jobs was really Ive. But it was clear that Apple got really lost. And it does suggest that Ive was rather mediocre all along. After all, he sinned against one of the most basic principles when you design something: it has to deserve to exist.
In the latter half of the 2010s it got really bad and dare I say: Apple didn't do very well in designing laptops. They really lost touch with reality.
- odiroot 6y ago> You can probably use the Ive/Jobs combination to describe evolution. Ive was the mutation source, Jobs was the selection filter. So they were a kind of a subtractive synthesizer, one could say.
- bborud 6y agoThat’s actually a nice ANALOGy.
- 2muchcoffeeman 6y agoI find this an uncharitable view point. All sorts of creative work goes through a filter. Writers have editors, musicians have producers, actors have directors, programmers have other programmers. And when the filter fails (or dies), the result is bad.
- bborud 6y agoWhat matters is whether or not it describes observable facts.