3 ms·
That's not what he's saying. He means if there is a conflict between the two most people chose function - that's what matters, that the thing actually work. Not
by ars 2y ago
That's not what he's saying. He means if there is a conflict between the two most people chose function - that's what matters, that the thing actually work. Not Apple. They pick form, even if the function is harmed. (They will of course try to make it work anyway, but that's not the point being made here.)
- shiroiushi 2y ago>They pick form, even if the function is harmed. I understood perfectly well what he's saying. My point is: the Apple ][ is not like this. And it was less than 50 years ago.
- MaxikCZ 2y agoBecause silver shit will sell more units than shit spoon. Imo Apple is roght to go form first, function second. The fact they invest so mich to put actual good function in while keeping the form is testament to their understanding of normal humans
- Angostura 2y agoApple is a company which understands how important form is to function and has a deep appreciation of user experience. Which is why you often get people on the internet saying ‘but you could cobble something similar together yourself, just using x,y,z’ who are then seemingly baffled that customers choose a simple, pleasant to-use alternative
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago> if there is a conflict between the two most people chose function - that's what matters More often, if there is a conflict between the two it's because a paradigm is wrong. Form and function go together. Apple's philosophy embraces this; its praxis is variable.