5 ms·

Gosh such negativity. Instead of rehashing the same anti-Ive narrative, how about we discuss the seal? It’s subtly beautiful, with light lilting colors, like an

Gosh such negativity. Instead of rehashing the same anti-Ive narrative, how about we discuss the seal? It’s subtly beautiful, with light lilting colors, like an Erik Satie or Ravel song. I love how it emphasizes natural beauty, something so remote in Apple’s products (other than maybe a vague mathematical aesthetic). The dark version is wonderful and definitely elicited more of a reaction from me, with that lovely dark green contrasting the white flowers beautifully.

GloriousKoji 5y ago
I agree the seal is beautiful with it's tones of green and a sense of overflowing nature. But the vines growing over key points of the point makes it hard for me to read, the C in CARTTA keeps morphing into what looks like an E or G when I look at it.
- hardwaregeek 5y ago
  I agree that it's a little less legible, but it's also two words that need to be read once before the seal itself becomes recognizable. In my view that's an acceptable tradeoff
jonwachob91 5y ago
Why would we discuss a seal that anyone on fivrr could have come up with for $5? If I came up with this seal, would you still be interested in talking about it? You'd probably be wondering how it ended up on the front page of HN... The seal isn't anything special. It's a small area with too much going on. It's an eye strain to understand what is happening on the seal b/c so much is happening in such a small area. This article isn't on the front page of HN b/c of the seal, it's on the front page b/c of who designed the seal. Thus, people will talk about the designer not the seal.
- parafactual 5y ago
  I would be interested in talking about it if you or anyone else came up with it. I find the seal very aesthetically pleasing.
  - teh_klev 5y ago
    But there's a bit of a problem with Ive's design demonstrating some historical ignorance. At the top we have a crown, who's crown, the (imported) House of Windsor? I don't know? But at the bottom we have a white rose which is the moniker of the house of York. The house of York's lineage ended in 1499. There was this thing called The War of The Roses, which saw the House of Lancaster and the House of York in conflict with each other. If this was signed off by Prince Charles then he's as equally ignorant of the significance of the white rose. Even to this day it ruffles feather. The Tudor line pretty much ended when James VI of Scotland took the throne. Years down the line the Windsors were an imported royalty supplanting the House of Hanover at the turn of the 20th century, and has no direct connection with York or Lancaster sigils. Most UK folks with the faintest awareness of history on the British Isles would spot this right away. We got this stage of English history rammed down our throats, even in Scottish schools. In short, it's just another corporate logo that "looks nice" but the designer is clearly a bit clueless. I thought Ive would know better.
    - gjm11 5y ago
      The thing at the bottom is not a York white rose. The design of the York rose is quite consistent. It isn't merely "a flower with white petals". In particular, these always have five petals; the one at the bottom has six. Not every white flower is a symbol of York versus Lancaster.
    - ttepasse 5y ago
      > At the top we have a crown, who's crown, the (imported) House of Windsor? I don't know? It's not a crown but a coronet. Coronet are a heraldic device to symbolise noble ranks, including those of the royal family. In British usage a coronet of crosses and fleur-de-lis symbolises a child of the sovereign. One could quibble about another detail: traditionally Charles’ coronet as heir apparent is displayed with a single arch. Crowns have two or more arches. That single arch is almost not there apart from the green arch formed by those interlocking circles of the seal. Btw: It’s seems a bit silly to call the House of Windsor or Saxe-Coburg and Gotha “imported”. Queen Victoria of Hanover married, her son and heir took the “house” from his father, that’s pretty much it. What’s far more annoying was the patriarchal habit that “houses” go with the father’s line, at least until EIIR and Philipp. Btw 2: Isn’t every British and English royal house “imported”? Hanover was imported from Germany, based on distant descent from James’ VI/I second child and of course protestantism. Stuart was imported, based on distant descent. Tudor … imported and invented themselves, based on distant descent. Plantagenet was Angevin, meaning from Anjou in France, because Geoffrey of Anjou married Matilda. Normandy imported themselves, because of distant descend from Wessex. Denmark is Denmark. Wessex is homegrown, apart from the whole “sex” part.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
Alex3917 5y ago
The typeface itself is subtly trippy and psychedelic, which is pretty interesting and unique; hard to think of any other typeface going for that.
smt88 5y ago
It's absolutely OK for people to be negative. Ive isn't reading this. He's not some downtrodden underdog that we should root for. He's arguably the most famous non-clothing designer in the world. We can and should critique his work and, if it's bad, rip it to shreds. This looks like it would be a nice pattern for cross-stitching. It doesn't have any qualities that make it succeed as a logo. To prove my point: try to remember and draw any part of this logo after it leaves your screen. Do you even remember the name of the company? Could you read that name at a glance?
- hardwaregeek 5y ago
  I'm not saying the logo should be left unchallenged. It's more so that the top comments at the time were all complaining about Apple's design direction and ascribing it all to Ive as if he's some horrid aesthetics anti-Christ who wrecked the company. Which first, is besides the point of this logo, and second, is ignoring his vast body of successful work. Criticizing the logo is valid, but rehashing the same over-dramatic conversation about Ive is not worth the digital ink.
  - smt88 5y ago
    > It's more so that the top comments at the time were all complaining about Apple's design direction and ascribing it all to Ive as if he's some horrid aesthetics anti-Christ who wrecked the company. Have you ever bought a poorly-designed $2,000 device? Apple products can inspire deep, personal anger in a way that other brands can't because they're expensive and the company's leadership was a combination of oblivious and smug about user-hostile decisions. Look at the touch bar: it ruined generations of some people's favorite laptops. Ive isn't the anti-Christ, but it's frustrating seeing someone so lauded after making some unbelievably bad design decisions and then stubbornly sticking to them. It may not make sense to you, but Ive's work is very personal to some people (on both the good and bad ends of the spectrum).
    - hardwaregeek 5y ago
      I mean I own quite a few Apple products. I wouldn't call them poorly-designed per se. Okay, the Touch Bar was a truly awful feature and I'll admit I don't love it. Other than that, I've liked my Apple products. I've also struggled to find any alternative to Apple that comes close. What invokes deep, personal anger for me isn't Apple's products, but the sheer amount of ugly, bad design outside of Apple's sphere. I don't want to get into a rant about this, because as I've stated before, this argument has been rehashed endlessly, but it's incredible that in this day, no company comes close in design and aesthetic. If you're going to be furious at Jony Ive for the Macbook Pro, why not be angry at his competitors who can't seem to make a credible competitor? And if that is incorrect and there is a credible competitor, why not buy it and ignore Apple?

GloriousKoji 5y ago

I agree the seal is beautiful with it's tones of green and a sense of overflowing nature. But the vines growing over key points of the point makes it hard for me to read, the C in CARTTA keeps morphing into what looks like an E or G when I look at it.

hardwaregeek 5y ago
I agree that it's a little less legible, but it's also two words that need to be read once before the seal itself becomes recognizable. In my view that's an acceptable tradeoff

jonwachob91 5y ago

Why would we discuss a seal that anyone on fivrr could have come up with for $5? If I came up with this seal, would you still be interested in talking about it? You'd probably be wondering how it ended up on the front page of HN... The seal isn't anything special. It's a small area with too much going on. It's an eye strain to understand what is happening on the seal b/c so much is happening in such a small area. This article isn't on the front page of HN b/c of the seal, it's on the front page b/c of who designed the seal. Thus, people will talk about the designer not the seal.

parafactual 5y ago
I would be interested in talking about it if you or anyone else came up with it. I find the seal very aesthetically pleasing.
- teh_klev 5y ago
  But there's a bit of a problem with Ive's design demonstrating some historical ignorance. At the top we have a crown, who's crown, the (imported) House of Windsor? I don't know? But at the bottom we have a white rose which is the moniker of the house of York. The house of York's lineage ended in 1499. There was this thing called The War of The Roses, which saw the House of Lancaster and the House of York in conflict with each other. If this was signed off by Prince Charles then he's as equally ignorant of the significance of the white rose. Even to this day it ruffles feather. The Tudor line pretty much ended when James VI of Scotland took the throne. Years down the line the Windsors were an imported royalty supplanting the House of Hanover at the turn of the 20th century, and has no direct connection with York or Lancaster sigils. Most UK folks with the faintest awareness of history on the British Isles would spot this right away. We got this stage of English history rammed down our throats, even in Scottish schools. In short, it's just another corporate logo that "looks nice" but the designer is clearly a bit clueless. I thought Ive would know better.
  - gjm11 5y ago
    The thing at the bottom is not a York white rose. The design of the York rose is quite consistent. It isn't merely "a flower with white petals". In particular, these always have five petals; the one at the bottom has six. Not every white flower is a symbol of York versus Lancaster.
  - ttepasse 5y ago
    > At the top we have a crown, who's crown, the (imported) House of Windsor? I don't know? It's not a crown but a coronet. Coronet are a heraldic device to symbolise noble ranks, including those of the royal family. In British usage a coronet of crosses and fleur-de-lis symbolises a child of the sovereign. One could quibble about another detail: traditionally Charles’ coronet as heir apparent is displayed with a single arch. Crowns have two or more arches. That single arch is almost not there apart from the green arch formed by those interlocking circles of the seal. Btw: It’s seems a bit silly to call the House of Windsor or Saxe-Coburg and Gotha “imported”. Queen Victoria of Hanover married, her son and heir took the “house” from his father, that’s pretty much it. What’s far more annoying was the patriarchal habit that “houses” go with the father’s line, at least until EIIR and Philipp. Btw 2: Isn’t every British and English royal house “imported”? Hanover was imported from Germany, based on distant descent from James’ VI/I second child and of course protestantism. Stuart was imported, based on distant descent. Tudor … imported and invented themselves, based on distant descent. Plantagenet was Angevin, meaning from Anjou in France, because Geoffrey of Anjou married Matilda. Normandy imported themselves, because of distant descend from Wessex. Denmark is Denmark. Wessex is homegrown, apart from the whole “sex” part.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

Alex3917 5y ago

The typeface itself is subtly trippy and psychedelic, which is pretty interesting and unique; hard to think of any other typeface going for that.

smt88 5y ago

It's absolutely OK for people to be negative. Ive isn't reading this. He's not some downtrodden underdog that we should root for. He's arguably the most famous non-clothing designer in the world. We can and should critique his work and, if it's bad, rip it to shreds. This looks like it would be a nice pattern for cross-stitching. It doesn't have any qualities that make it succeed as a logo. To prove my point: try to remember and draw any part of this logo after it leaves your screen. Do you even remember the name of the company? Could you read that name at a glance?

hardwaregeek 5y ago
I'm not saying the logo should be left unchallenged. It's more so that the top comments at the time were all complaining about Apple's design direction and ascribing it all to Ive as if he's some horrid aesthetics anti-Christ who wrecked the company. Which first, is besides the point of this logo, and second, is ignoring his vast body of successful work. Criticizing the logo is valid, but rehashing the same over-dramatic conversation about Ive is not worth the digital ink.
- smt88 5y ago
  > It's more so that the top comments at the time were all complaining about Apple's design direction and ascribing it all to Ive as if he's some horrid aesthetics anti-Christ who wrecked the company. Have you ever bought a poorly-designed $2,000 device? Apple products can inspire deep, personal anger in a way that other brands can't because they're expensive and the company's leadership was a combination of oblivious and smug about user-hostile decisions. Look at the touch bar: it ruined generations of some people's favorite laptops. Ive isn't the anti-Christ, but it's frustrating seeing someone so lauded after making some unbelievably bad design decisions and then stubbornly sticking to them. It may not make sense to you, but Ive's work is very personal to some people (on both the good and bad ends of the spectrum).
  - hardwaregeek 5y ago
    I mean I own quite a few Apple products. I wouldn't call them poorly-designed per se. Okay, the Touch Bar was a truly awful feature and I'll admit I don't love it. Other than that, I've liked my Apple products. I've also struggled to find any alternative to Apple that comes close. What invokes deep, personal anger for me isn't Apple's products, but the sheer amount of ugly, bad design outside of Apple's sphere. I don't want to get into a rant about this, because as I've stated before, this argument has been rehashed endlessly, but it's incredible that in this day, no company comes close in design and aesthetic. If you're going to be furious at Jony Ive for the Macbook Pro, why not be angry at his competitors who can't seem to make a credible competitor? And if that is incorrect and there is a credible competitor, why not buy it and ignore Apple?