3 ms·
This was famously an issue with the original NeXT Cube: Recounted in an article in Fast Company: As Isaacson relates in Steve Jobs, most parts cast in molds
by jdblair 3y ago
This was famously an issue with the original NeXT Cube:
Recounted in an article in Fast Company:
As Isaacson relates in Steve Jobs, most parts cast in molds have an angle that is slightly greater than 90 degrees, because the extra degrees make it much easier to get the parts out of the mold. That’s the kind of compromise neither Esslinger or Jobs was willing to make for the NeXT, arguing it would ruin the “purity and perfection” of the NeXT cube. So the sides had to be produced separately, using molds that cost $650,000, at a specialty machine shop in Chicago.
https://www.fastcompany.com/3056684/remembering-the-design-legacy-of-steve-jobss-other-great-computer-company https://www.fastcompany.com/3056684/remembering-the-design-l...:
- SoftTalker 3y agoGave up on that with the first generation of iMacs. Not a right angle to be found, all curves and plastic.
- car 3y agoThis was also the case with the 1st gen version of the iPod Shuffle [0], as a friend who worked at IDEO at the time pointed out. Perfect 90 degree angles. [0] https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT204217 https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT204217
- Kon-Peki 3y ago> using molds that cost $650,000, at a specialty machine shop Just because the mold was really expensive doesn't mean that the marginal cost of each unit created by it is more than a unit produced by a cheap mold. In many cases, the marginal cost is significantly less as you are able to use less raw material thanks to variable thicknesses, etc. There's a break-even point where the expensive mold becomes cheaper/better and that's another area where experienced manufacturing consultants help out.