6 ms·

Came here to say something similar. My comment being "The word 'designed' is being used very generously here. I would suggest 'conceptualized' as a better word"

Forgeties79 4y ago
“I want all my music to fit in the palm of my hand.” Steve Jobs created the iPod in just one day
- daveslash 4y ago
  Heh, exactly. Succinctly put. Here's a longer-winded version: I'm an R&D Software Engineer. In a workplace setting years ago we had a Software Architect who would advise management and the implementation engineers. Me and my team were really struggling with a difficult implementation problem relating to some federated identity stuff. Management told us to go to the architect. We explained our problems and he waved them off as "that's implementation stuff, I don't do that, but the solution is very easy. Just get server X to communicate whatever token you need to server Y". It was off putting. He also told our management that our problem was an "easy one", without offering any helpful insight. It's like saying "Traveling to The Moon is easy. You simply need enough thrust to overcome Earth's gravity well. Simple!"
  - spaetzleesser 4y ago
    I always tell people that I could probably "architect" the infrastructure of my whole company (Fortune 500) in a few days if you ignored the little pesky implementation details.
  - gladiatr72 4y ago
    Or perhaps more in-line with a favorite of mine: The secret to mankind achieving unpowered flight is for someone to throw themselves at the ground and simply miss..
    - Forgeties79 4y ago
      Whelp guess it’s time to bust out the guide
- acidburnNSA 4y ago
  Meh, the Archos Jukebox was doing that well before Steve Jobs. Steve's genius concept was "I want all my music to fit in the palm of my hand, but with a way better UI than Archos Jukebox" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archos_Jukebox_series https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archos_Jukebox_series
  - monetus 4y ago
    I wonder how their ad spend compared to Apple's.
  - JohnBooty 4y ago
    As an owner of an Archos Jukebox, the differences went way beyond the software interface. The Archos was way larger and heavier than the iPod, and the build quality was abysmal. Mine essentially fell apart despite seeing only desktop use. Battery life was inferior as well. Headphone output was also much louder and cleaner on the iPod. Literally everything about the iPod was better than literally everything about the Archos.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - aaronharnly 4y ago
    Yes, but the 1.8” drive in the iPod was a true differentiator. It was the difference between “in the palm of my hand” and “it is possible to hold it, but not easy.”
  - Someone 4y ago
    The iPod also fitted easier in the typical hand (and, probably more important, in the typical pocket). Dimensions of that Archos: 3.1 in x 4.4 in x 1.2 in = 16.4 in³ Dimensions of the first iPod: 4.02 in x 2.43 in x 0.78 in = 7.62 in³. That’s less than half the volume. (Weight-wise, the difference is smaller (10.2 vs 6.5 oz)
    - BitwiseFool 4y ago
      I invite people to look at a photo of the thing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archos_Jukebox_series#/media/File:Jukeboxrecorder2b.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archos_Jukebox_series#/media/F... It looks so quintessentially late 90's, yet hideous at the same time.
- MontyCarloHall 4y ago
  You jest, but the original iPod went from conceptualization to ship in an absurdly fast 10 months [0]. [0] https://appleinsider.com/articles/20/01/13/first-ipod-went-from-conception-to-shipping-product-in-ten-months/amp/ https://appleinsider.com/articles/20/01/13/first-ipod-went-f...
PragmaticPulp 4y ago
Conceptualized is a perfect word. The claim that it was designed in a weekend is like those “overnight success” stories that ignore the decade of work that someone put in to get to that point.
- lelandfe 4y ago
  This was genuinely an overnight success, though. They got approval on the strength of this design. And the broad strokes design of the aircraft seemingly stayed intact through the subsequent processes. This entire comment chain is bewildering, we're attacking strawmen. Did anyone read this article and leave assuming no further work was done after approval? Was this HN comment chain enlightening to anyone? Who are we writing this for?
  - kingkawn 4y ago
    Thank you ffs
  - FiatLuxDave 4y ago
    I'm actually finding this comment chain useful, because I see it as showing that we need better language to describe the stages of design. Or maybe that nomenclature does already exist but people aren't using it? In R&D we will often describe the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technology_readiness_level https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technology_readiness_level of a new technology, and this is much more useful that just saying "it's in development". But I'm not aware of a similar shorthand for the design phase. There is this muddy space between concept and fully specified design which would be awesome to be able to talk about in more concrete terms. For example, let's look at the concept/design of a helicopter: DL1 (idea phase): a flying machine that can go straight up and hover DL2 (concept with basic working principle): a vehicle with a rotor which acts like wings moving in a circle to move air down and by reaction push the vehicle up DL3 (concept with important details attached): as DL2 but with a tail rotor to allow for axial control and differential tilting of the airfoils to allow forward thrust DL4 (concept with specifications that drive requirements for other specs): as DL3 with rotor lengths of 3.3 m and a NACA 0018 cross section made of 6061-T6 aluminum DL5 (concept with full specs): as DL4 but also etc. Is anyone aware of better nomenclature like this for the concept/design phase? It would help for more important things than this discussion alone. Like when discussing which is more important, idea or execution: so which level idea are we talking about? Also, the root cause of a lot of software problems is in the spec. It would be nice to be able to go back and say, "this spec is only spec level 3, can I please have a spec level 5"? This discussion is happening because "they designed it over a weekend" is really vague. It would be nice to have a quick way to make it not-vague.
tgv 4y ago
Conceptualized, but also pondered upon, and considered worthy of further effort. A conceptualization can be done as fast as a single second, but it can take ages to weigh it against alternatives.
- lisper 4y ago
  You can apply the "conceptualization" criterion retroactively to any successful project. They all started as an idea that someone noodled around with for long enough to decide to pursue it further. You can draw the line where that initial noodling ended and serious work began pretty much anywhere you like.

Forgeties79 4y ago

“I want all my music to fit in the palm of my hand.” Steve Jobs created the iPod in just one day

daveslash 4y ago
Heh, exactly. Succinctly put. Here's a longer-winded version: I'm an R&D Software Engineer. In a workplace setting years ago we had a Software Architect who would advise management and the implementation engineers. Me and my team were really struggling with a difficult implementation problem relating to some federated identity stuff. Management told us to go to the architect. We explained our problems and he waved them off as "that's implementation stuff, I don't do that, but the solution is very easy. Just get server X to communicate whatever token you need to server Y". It was off putting. He also told our management that our problem was an "easy one", without offering any helpful insight. It's like saying "Traveling to The Moon is easy. You simply need enough thrust to overcome Earth's gravity well. Simple!"
- spaetzleesser 4y ago
  I always tell people that I could probably "architect" the infrastructure of my whole company (Fortune 500) in a few days if you ignored the little pesky implementation details.
- gladiatr72 4y ago
  Or perhaps more in-line with a favorite of mine: The secret to mankind achieving unpowered flight is for someone to throw themselves at the ground and simply miss..
  - Forgeties79 4y ago
    Whelp guess it’s time to bust out the guide
acidburnNSA 4y ago
Meh, the Archos Jukebox was doing that well before Steve Jobs. Steve's genius concept was "I want all my music to fit in the palm of my hand, but with a way better UI than Archos Jukebox" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archos_Jukebox_series https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archos_Jukebox_series
- monetus 4y ago
  I wonder how their ad spend compared to Apple's.
- JohnBooty 4y ago
  As an owner of an Archos Jukebox, the differences went way beyond the software interface. The Archos was way larger and heavier than the iPod, and the build quality was abysmal. Mine essentially fell apart despite seeing only desktop use. Battery life was inferior as well. Headphone output was also much louder and cleaner on the iPod. Literally everything about the iPod was better than literally everything about the Archos.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- aaronharnly 4y ago
  Yes, but the 1.8” drive in the iPod was a true differentiator. It was the difference between “in the palm of my hand” and “it is possible to hold it, but not easy.”
- Someone 4y ago
  The iPod also fitted easier in the typical hand (and, probably more important, in the typical pocket). Dimensions of that Archos: 3.1 in x 4.4 in x 1.2 in = 16.4 in³ Dimensions of the first iPod: 4.02 in x 2.43 in x 0.78 in = 7.62 in³. That’s less than half the volume. (Weight-wise, the difference is smaller (10.2 vs 6.5 oz)
  - BitwiseFool 4y ago
    I invite people to look at a photo of the thing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archos_Jukebox_series#/media/File:Jukeboxrecorder2b.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archos_Jukebox_series#/media/F... It looks so quintessentially late 90's, yet hideous at the same time.
MontyCarloHall 4y ago
You jest, but the original iPod went from conceptualization to ship in an absurdly fast 10 months [0]. [0] https://appleinsider.com/articles/20/01/13/first-ipod-went-from-conception-to-shipping-product-in-ten-months/amp/ https://appleinsider.com/articles/20/01/13/first-ipod-went-f...

PragmaticPulp 4y ago

Conceptualized is a perfect word. The claim that it was designed in a weekend is like those “overnight success” stories that ignore the decade of work that someone put in to get to that point.

lelandfe 4y ago
This was genuinely an overnight success, though. They got approval on the strength of this design. And the broad strokes design of the aircraft seemingly stayed intact through the subsequent processes. This entire comment chain is bewildering, we're attacking strawmen. Did anyone read this article and leave assuming no further work was done after approval? Was this HN comment chain enlightening to anyone? Who are we writing this for?
- kingkawn 4y ago
  Thank you ffs
- FiatLuxDave 4y ago
  I'm actually finding this comment chain useful, because I see it as showing that we need better language to describe the stages of design. Or maybe that nomenclature does already exist but people aren't using it? In R&D we will often describe the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technology_readiness_level https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technology_readiness_level of a new technology, and this is much more useful that just saying "it's in development". But I'm not aware of a similar shorthand for the design phase. There is this muddy space between concept and fully specified design which would be awesome to be able to talk about in more concrete terms. For example, let's look at the concept/design of a helicopter: DL1 (idea phase): a flying machine that can go straight up and hover DL2 (concept with basic working principle): a vehicle with a rotor which acts like wings moving in a circle to move air down and by reaction push the vehicle up DL3 (concept with important details attached): as DL2 but with a tail rotor to allow for axial control and differential tilting of the airfoils to allow forward thrust DL4 (concept with specifications that drive requirements for other specs): as DL3 with rotor lengths of 3.3 m and a NACA 0018 cross section made of 6061-T6 aluminum DL5 (concept with full specs): as DL4 but also etc. Is anyone aware of better nomenclature like this for the concept/design phase? It would help for more important things than this discussion alone. Like when discussing which is more important, idea or execution: so which level idea are we talking about? Also, the root cause of a lot of software problems is in the spec. It would be nice to be able to go back and say, "this spec is only spec level 3, can I please have a spec level 5"? This discussion is happening because "they designed it over a weekend" is really vague. It would be nice to have a quick way to make it not-vague.

tgv 4y ago

Conceptualized, but also pondered upon, and considered worthy of further effort. A conceptualization can be done as fast as a single second, but it can take ages to weigh it against alternatives.

lisper 4y ago
You can apply the "conceptualization" criterion retroactively to any successful project. They all started as an idea that someone noodled around with for long enough to decide to pursue it further. You can draw the line where that initial noodling ended and serious work began pretty much anywhere you like.