3 ms·

*If a 1:1 ratio served the consumer. There is a key difference. In OP example even the 1:1 request is based on cost of goods, not consumer utility Steve Jobs’

*If a 1:1 ratio served the consumer. There is a key difference. In OP example even the 1:1 request is based on cost of goods, not consumer utility Steve Jobs’ mythologized demands were in service of the consumer, while shouldering the manufacturing burden inherent in them

vkou 5y ago
> *If a 1:1 ratio served the consumer. There is a key difference. Please keep in mind that the same Steve Jobs championed the abomination that was the hockey-puck mouse.
- ChrisMarshallNY 5y ago
  He was quite often, wrong. People seem to forget that. I’ve never counted, but I’ll bet he had more failures, than successes; It’s just that his successes were big successes. He had absolute power, so he was able to create fairly “pure” renditions of his vision; for good or ill.
- bitwize 5y ago
  My girlfriend loves that mouse, and considers it exemplary of Apple's tasteful, fun design. She still has hers.
  - dwighttk 5y ago
    I don’t use it anymore, but loved the puck mouse too.
- hammock 5y ago
  Forgot about that. Maybe if enough people/generations use the mouse, our hands will start morphing to a more appropriate shape?
- TimTheTinker 5y ago
  That mouse was an indelible part of the feeling of "this is new and fun" that Steve and Jonny were trying to create with the original iMac. Of course they could have used a different shape from a hockey puck. The most important thing was that the mouse be new and fun-looking, to match the novel case design. The iMac's design was important because it declared that Apple was on a new trajectory (no more boring beige boxes), and thus promised more new and wonderful things were on the way.
- jedberg 5y ago
  That hockey puck mouse was perfect for kids' hands, one of the key target audiences for the iMac it came with.
- evilduck 5y ago
  For a company coming out of serious trouble in the 90's, it seems like it was a good idea even if it was a bad ergonomic design. How many other computer mice do you talk about for a quarter of a century?
munk-a 5y ago
> Steve Jobs’ mythologized demands were in service of the consumer, while shouldering the manufacturing burden inherent in them I think a citation is needed for this - my opinion is that in most cases Apple's design choices focused on doing things differently, whether that was an upgrade, sidegrade or downgrade. They tried to make sure their design choices were positive but there are enough examples of Apple changing things for seemingly no reason because they weren't broken. And a lot of other manufacturers followed suit because Apple remains a trend setter and consumers then started to demand the feature. It's less like leading a horse to water and more like leading a horse to a craps table and then assuming that because the horse likes you they'll consider that playing craps in the middle of the desert is a natural state. All that said, being different and being innovators was Apple's brand, so failing to deliver strange design decisions actually would fail to meet consumer expectations... the consumer didn't demand hockey puck mice, but they demanded something different from regular mice and delighted in the new shape (for a while, until the ergonomics of the mouse became clear - but for quite some time people really celebrated those mice, at least where I grew up)
- memetomancer 5y ago
  In >my< opinion, it sounds kinda like you didn't read the Letter from the Carnation Company, or at least didn't quite grasp the point prior to rushing out your simplistic take and weird analogy about horses. Apple has surely never engaged in change-for-change's-sake as you are asserting. If you step back and consider all the factors in the changes they make - developing high quality materials, reducing size and weight, optimizing yields, durability, integration of technical advances like bus speeds, resolution and energy density, thermal characteristics... on and on, there are probably a thousands more factors that inform the changes they make to any given product. Not whatever hand-wavey dismissal you are asserting here. Sometimes their industrial design misses the mark, such as with the hockey puck mouse, or the charge port on the current mouse, but these are fairly rare when contrasted against the full spectrum of their ever evolving products. And that's the whole point of that letter from Carnation. There is a lot more going on behind the scenes that drive these engineering decisions. Simply writing them off with a simple take totally misses the mark.

vkou 5y ago

> *If a 1:1 ratio served the consumer. There is a key difference. Please keep in mind that the same Steve Jobs championed the abomination that was the hockey-puck mouse.

ChrisMarshallNY 5y ago
He was quite often, wrong. People seem to forget that. I’ve never counted, but I’ll bet he had more failures, than successes; It’s just that his successes were big successes. He had absolute power, so he was able to create fairly “pure” renditions of his vision; for good or ill.
bitwize 5y ago
My girlfriend loves that mouse, and considers it exemplary of Apple's tasteful, fun design. She still has hers.
- dwighttk 5y ago
  I don’t use it anymore, but loved the puck mouse too.
hammock 5y ago
Forgot about that. Maybe if enough people/generations use the mouse, our hands will start morphing to a more appropriate shape?
TimTheTinker 5y ago
That mouse was an indelible part of the feeling of "this is new and fun" that Steve and Jonny were trying to create with the original iMac. Of course they could have used a different shape from a hockey puck. The most important thing was that the mouse be new and fun-looking, to match the novel case design. The iMac's design was important because it declared that Apple was on a new trajectory (no more boring beige boxes), and thus promised more new and wonderful things were on the way.
jedberg 5y ago
That hockey puck mouse was perfect for kids' hands, one of the key target audiences for the iMac it came with.
evilduck 5y ago
For a company coming out of serious trouble in the 90's, it seems like it was a good idea even if it was a bad ergonomic design. How many other computer mice do you talk about for a quarter of a century?

munk-a 5y ago

> Steve Jobs’ mythologized demands were in service of the consumer, while shouldering the manufacturing burden inherent in them I think a citation is needed for this - my opinion is that in most cases Apple's design choices focused on doing things differently, whether that was an upgrade, sidegrade or downgrade. They tried to make sure their design choices were positive but there are enough examples of Apple changing things for seemingly no reason because they weren't broken. And a lot of other manufacturers followed suit because Apple remains a trend setter and consumers then started to demand the feature. It's less like leading a horse to water and more like leading a horse to a craps table and then assuming that because the horse likes you they'll consider that playing craps in the middle of the desert is a natural state. All that said, being different and being innovators was Apple's brand, so failing to deliver strange design decisions actually would fail to meet consumer expectations... the consumer didn't demand hockey puck mice, but they demanded something different from regular mice and delighted in the new shape (for a while, until the ergonomics of the mouse became clear - but for quite some time people really celebrated those mice, at least where I grew up)

memetomancer 5y ago
In >my< opinion, it sounds kinda like you didn't read the Letter from the Carnation Company, or at least didn't quite grasp the point prior to rushing out your simplistic take and weird analogy about horses. Apple has surely never engaged in change-for-change's-sake as you are asserting. If you step back and consider all the factors in the changes they make - developing high quality materials, reducing size and weight, optimizing yields, durability, integration of technical advances like bus speeds, resolution and energy density, thermal characteristics... on and on, there are probably a thousands more factors that inform the changes they make to any given product. Not whatever hand-wavey dismissal you are asserting here. Sometimes their industrial design misses the mark, such as with the hockey puck mouse, or the charge port on the current mouse, but these are fairly rare when contrasted against the full spectrum of their ever evolving products. And that's the whole point of that letter from Carnation. There is a lot more going on behind the scenes that drive these engineering decisions. Simply writing them off with a simple take totally misses the mark.