4 ms·

There's really one clear goal behind this: building Ive's image as a design genius, responsible for the major decisions behind Apple's products, in the same way

by minthd 12y ago

There's really one clear goal behind this: building Ive's image as a design genius, responsible for the major decisions behind Apple's products, in the same way Jobs's image was created. Why ? because it creates a unique image for Apple's products - the products of genius, which really helps positioning them as luxury brands.This is a common technique with many luxury brands. But it's most likely a false image.Most likely Apple 's products design is due to the talent of many designers within it's halls,the unique culture within, and their intense attention to detail.

ErikHuisman 12y ago
"their intense attention to detail". Someone has to lead otherwise you'll get design by committee no matter how talented.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
leoc 12y ago
That seems unfair in this case: if anything this article seems to be intended to raise the profile of the other studio members and acknowledge them by name.
mike_hearn 12y ago
Yes, you nailed it. They know Tim Cook can't carry the brand as a detail obsessed designer so they need Ive to do so instead. The problem is, does it work? I got a few impressions from the article, beyond "Jony Ive is a really nice guy" which everyone seems to agree on. One: all his experience is in hardware. All of it. He wasn't given any responsibility over software design when Jobs was in charge at all. This leads to the question of why, given their closeness .... I suspect it's because Jobs knew that Ive is really an industrial hardware designer and the skills needed to do great software design are different. Two: he comes across as kind of burned out. He's spent years designing a relatively small number of products, most of which are (as the article points out) basically just variants on the same "slab of glass with a button" idea. Can he really feel like he's fully exercising his design muscles in such an environment? The article says several times he's sort of wanted to leave and go off and do other things like luxury products several times, but feels he can't go now because so many Apple employees depend on him. Another thing is that the Apple (hardware) design team seems to be a lot smaller than I expected. They have three recruiters and hire one designer per year? Seriously? I've seen picky hiring before at Google but one hire per year given three full time recruiters is crazy. This is meant to impress upon us how incredibly elite and discerning Ive is. I read something else in it: they are all friends who trust each other, and quite simply don't like hiring. They are expected to do it by the company but would much prefer not to. It also leads me to think they are having problems. The iPod and iPhone were huge successes, partly because none of the competitors in those spaces cared much about industrial design. In some areas (in-car systems?) that's still the case. But increasingly Apple has been competing with Google and the big Asian firms for consumer electronics, and there they have been losing their edge. They started talking about the Apple watch in 2011. In 2015 it's still not on the market. Meanwhile the Android team and their hardware partners have launched several watches, of which the round Moto 360 has been attracting the most attention (disclosure: I got one for Christmas, it's neat). But despite a 50+ page article, the journalist lets Jony Ive dismiss round watches in the span of a single sentence. Apparently they just "don't make sense" because smart watches are using "for lists". Except that they do make sense and the one I have works pretty well. I got the strong impression from reading this that the design team at Apple is small, insular, ignores their competition completely, doesn't want to scale up and doesn't feel any real sense of urgency. For example, they work long hours but many of those hours were spent making dozens of slightly different sized models so they could rediscover the insight that people wanted larger smartphone screens. Something that all the other smartphone makers had already realised ages ago, designed and shipped. Surely they could have reduced their time to market by simply spending some time with their competitors products instead?
- doe88 12y ago
  All your arguments would carry more weight if Apple had released more failures and its competitors more successes in the recent past. Which seems (at least to me) not the case.
  - mike_hearn 12y ago
    Apple has released a tiny number of products that sell extremely well and are very profitable, in Japan and English-speaking markets (USA, UK, Australia, etc). Their competitors have released more products that cater to a wider range of people, and dominate the market elsewhere. In most European markets for example iPhone sits at around 10% market share. It spikes when they release a new version of the iPhone once a year then quickly settles back down again. So it depends how you define success. Apple could be successful for a long time in the same way Microsoft were successful for the last 15 years - by being highly profitable and cranking out new versions of their flagship products, whilst releasing very few new notable hits.
- pinaceae 12y ago
  so you're the one that bought a Moto 360. look at the sales numbers for Android Smartwatches and realize your anecdote is utterly meaningless. those burned out designers have been able to sell more smartphones than ever before, at a HIGHER APR. reality will not bend just because of your feelings.
  - mike_hearn 12y ago
    It was a Christmas gift. I didn't ask for it. So, I don't have any particularly strong feelings about my watch other than "it's neat". I didn't spend any money on it. Yes, Apple sells tons of smartphones to people who could get one just as good for much less money. Neat trick, if you can pull it off. Ecosystem lockin helps, I suspect.
- iMark 12y ago
  It's an interesting point about Ive having spent his time designing a relatively small number of products. However, those are only the products that have been released. Ive may have had the opportunity to work on a far greater range of products within Apple, and I'm left with the impression that he'd relish the opportunity to work on a car, for example, should that particular rumour bear truth.

by minthd 12y ago

ErikHuisman 12y ago

"their intense attention to detail". Someone has to lead otherwise you'll get design by committee no matter how talented.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

leoc 12y ago

That seems unfair in this case: if anything this article seems to be intended to raise the profile of the other studio members and acknowledge them by name.

mike_hearn 12y ago

Yes, you nailed it. They know Tim Cook can't carry the brand as a detail obsessed designer so they need Ive to do so instead. The problem is, does it work? I got a few impressions from the article, beyond "Jony Ive is a really nice guy" which everyone seems to agree on. One: all his experience is in hardware. All of it. He wasn't given any responsibility over software design when Jobs was in charge at all. This leads to the question of why, given their closeness .... I suspect it's because Jobs knew that Ive is really an industrial hardware designer and the skills needed to do great software design are different. Two: he comes across as kind of burned out. He's spent years designing a relatively small number of products, most of which are (as the article points out) basically just variants on the same "slab of glass with a button" idea. Can he really feel like he's fully exercising his design muscles in such an environment? The article says several times he's sort of wanted to leave and go off and do other things like luxury products several times, but feels he can't go now because so many Apple employees depend on him. Another thing is that the Apple (hardware) design team seems to be a lot smaller than I expected. They have three recruiters and hire one designer per year? Seriously? I've seen picky hiring before at Google but one hire per year given three full time recruiters is crazy. This is meant to impress upon us how incredibly elite and discerning Ive is. I read something else in it: they are all friends who trust each other, and quite simply don't like hiring. They are expected to do it by the company but would much prefer not to. It also leads me to think they are having problems. The iPod and iPhone were huge successes, partly because none of the competitors in those spaces cared much about industrial design. In some areas (in-car systems?) that's still the case. But increasingly Apple has been competing with Google and the big Asian firms for consumer electronics, and there they have been losing their edge. They started talking about the Apple watch in 2011. In 2015 it's still not on the market. Meanwhile the Android team and their hardware partners have launched several watches, of which the round Moto 360 has been attracting the most attention (disclosure: I got one for Christmas, it's neat). But despite a 50+ page article, the journalist lets Jony Ive dismiss round watches in the span of a single sentence. Apparently they just "don't make sense" because smart watches are using "for lists". Except that they do make sense and the one I have works pretty well. I got the strong impression from reading this that the design team at Apple is small, insular, ignores their competition completely, doesn't want to scale up and doesn't feel any real sense of urgency. For example, they work long hours but many of those hours were spent making dozens of slightly different sized models so they could rediscover the insight that people wanted larger smartphone screens. Something that all the other smartphone makers had already realised ages ago, designed and shipped. Surely they could have reduced their time to market by simply spending some time with their competitors products instead?

doe88 12y ago
All your arguments would carry more weight if Apple had released more failures and its competitors more successes in the recent past. Which seems (at least to me) not the case.
- mike_hearn 12y ago
  Apple has released a tiny number of products that sell extremely well and are very profitable, in Japan and English-speaking markets (USA, UK, Australia, etc). Their competitors have released more products that cater to a wider range of people, and dominate the market elsewhere. In most European markets for example iPhone sits at around 10% market share. It spikes when they release a new version of the iPhone once a year then quickly settles back down again. So it depends how you define success. Apple could be successful for a long time in the same way Microsoft were successful for the last 15 years - by being highly profitable and cranking out new versions of their flagship products, whilst releasing very few new notable hits.
pinaceae 12y ago
so you're the one that bought a Moto 360. look at the sales numbers for Android Smartwatches and realize your anecdote is utterly meaningless. those burned out designers have been able to sell more smartphones than ever before, at a HIGHER APR. reality will not bend just because of your feelings.
- mike_hearn 12y ago
  It was a Christmas gift. I didn't ask for it. So, I don't have any particularly strong feelings about my watch other than "it's neat". I didn't spend any money on it. Yes, Apple sells tons of smartphones to people who could get one just as good for much less money. Neat trick, if you can pull it off. Ecosystem lockin helps, I suspect.
iMark 12y ago
It's an interesting point about Ive having spent his time designing a relatively small number of products. However, those are only the products that have been released. Ive may have had the opportunity to work on a far greater range of products within Apple, and I'm left with the impression that he'd relish the opportunity to work on a car, for example, should that particular rumour bear truth.