3 ms·

If you remove all the jokes in the list, you basically get the Apple corporate roadmap for the past ten years.

by seiji 17y ago

wtallis 17y ago
Really? It seems to me that half of those items are the exact opposite of what worked well for Apple, and many of the things from the list that Apple tried didn't work out so well (eg. 63, about embracing Java). I think Apple's formula for success over the past decade boils down to three key elements: 1. Throwing out all the old hardware and software designs 2. Taking NeXTSTEP mainstream 3. Jonathan Ive Number 1 in my list was only weakly expressed by the Wired list, number 2 was said in some ways, but there were also some conflicting suggestions, and number 3 was completely unanticipated, despite being by far the most important factor.
- joezydeco 17y ago
  4. Don't listen to outsiders and know-it-alls that make lists.
- tortilla 17y ago
  People worry about replacing Steve Jobs. Who's going to replace Ive?
- staunch 17y ago
  What do you actually know about what Jonathan Ive has done at Apple? I've never read any books or insider accounts of what kind of contribution he makes, so I don't know much about him. I find it mystifying that he's built up such a reputation that some consider him the most important factor in Apple's resurgence. Even if he is the best industrial designer in the world, does that really account for Apple's success? What about the people designing the software and the hardware internals? Aren't those roles at least as important?
  - wtallis 17y ago
    I was being a bit facetious in listing just Ive, but I don't think it's a stretch to say that his industrial design department has been that important to Apple's success. Most notably, the iPod is almost certainly the product that gave Apple the financial stability to develop OS X into what it is today, and to undertake the Intel transition that enabled them to take over the high-end computer market. If the iPod had been only slightly better than the other mp3 players of the time, Apple probably wouldn't have been able to make much profit off it or the iTunes Media Store.
    - replicatorblog 17y ago
      The iPod was the big driver, but it was the software/hardware ecosystem, the content, the ads, as well as the design that made it a success. There were full/touchscreen phones before the iPhone. I don't think it was the clunky ID that kept them from being successful. It was poor feature design, implementation, and crappy software. That said Ive is awesome, the products are lustworthy, but too much credit for the "design" is given to the ID team.
      - wtallis 17y ago
        I think you're confusing the circumstances of the introduction of the iPod and the iPhone. I certainly agree with you that the iPhone's success is only minimally related to industrial design, and mostly due to a well-designed operating system and ecosystem. The iPod, on the other hand, was on the market for a year and a half before the iTunes store opened. Its competitors were the likes of the Creative NOMAD players, which were very much clunky, some even in comparison to portable CD players. The iPod software certainly wasn't revolutionary. It was the physical interface, centered around the clickwheel and far simpler than the competition that was so groundbreaking. As slashdot so famously and bluntly put it, the iPod was downright lame in most other respects.
- replicatorblog 17y ago
  Do you really think Ive is that important? I'm a designer and love Apple's ID, but I think it is over rated as a success factor. The iPod gets credit for design, but it is really product management, more than ID, that accounts for the success IMO. You could make a case that the revolutionary aesthetics of the first iMac helped put Apple back on the winning track with free media and general excitement, but is it more important than "Think Differnet?"
  - protomyth 17y ago
    Good industrial design drives the rest of the product. It provides a laser focused attention to detail that drag the software and hardware along with it.

If you remove all the jokes in the list, you basically get the Apple corporate roadmap for the past ten years.

by seiji 17y ago

If you remove all the jokes in the list, you basically get the Apple corporate roadmap for the past ten years.

Really? It seems to me that half of those items are the exact opposite of what worked well for Apple, and many of the things from the list that Apple tried didn't work out so well (eg. 63, about embracing Java). I think Apple's formula for success over the past decade boils down to three key elements: 1. Throwing out all the old hardware and software designs 2. Taking NeXTSTEP mainstream 3. Jonathan Ive Number 1 in my list was only weakly expressed by the Wired list, number 2 was said in some ways, but there were also some conflicting suggestions, and number 3 was completely unanticipated, despite being by far the most important factor.

joezydeco 17y ago
4. Don't listen to outsiders and know-it-alls that make lists.
tortilla 17y ago
People worry about replacing Steve Jobs. Who's going to replace Ive?
staunch 17y ago
What do you actually know about what Jonathan Ive has done at Apple? I've never read any books or insider accounts of what kind of contribution he makes, so I don't know much about him. I find it mystifying that he's built up such a reputation that some consider him the most important factor in Apple's resurgence. Even if he is the best industrial designer in the world, does that really account for Apple's success? What about the people designing the software and the hardware internals? Aren't those roles at least as important?
- wtallis 17y ago
  I was being a bit facetious in listing just Ive, but I don't think it's a stretch to say that his industrial design department has been that important to Apple's success. Most notably, the iPod is almost certainly the product that gave Apple the financial stability to develop OS X into what it is today, and to undertake the Intel transition that enabled them to take over the high-end computer market. If the iPod had been only slightly better than the other mp3 players of the time, Apple probably wouldn't have been able to make much profit off it or the iTunes Media Store.
  - replicatorblog 17y ago
    The iPod was the big driver, but it was the software/hardware ecosystem, the content, the ads, as well as the design that made it a success. There were full/touchscreen phones before the iPhone. I don't think it was the clunky ID that kept them from being successful. It was poor feature design, implementation, and crappy software. That said Ive is awesome, the products are lustworthy, but too much credit for the "design" is given to the ID team.
    - wtallis 17y ago
      I think you're confusing the circumstances of the introduction of the iPod and the iPhone. I certainly agree with you that the iPhone's success is only minimally related to industrial design, and mostly due to a well-designed operating system and ecosystem. The iPod, on the other hand, was on the market for a year and a half before the iTunes store opened. Its competitors were the likes of the Creative NOMAD players, which were very much clunky, some even in comparison to portable CD players. The iPod software certainly wasn't revolutionary. It was the physical interface, centered around the clickwheel and far simpler than the competition that was so groundbreaking. As slashdot so famously and bluntly put it, the iPod was downright lame in most other respects.
replicatorblog 17y ago
Do you really think Ive is that important? I'm a designer and love Apple's ID, but I think it is over rated as a success factor. The iPod gets credit for design, but it is really product management, more than ID, that accounts for the success IMO. You could make a case that the revolutionary aesthetics of the first iMac helped put Apple back on the winning track with free media and general excitement, but is it more important than "Think Differnet?"
- protomyth 17y ago
  Good industrial design drives the rest of the product. It provides a laser focused attention to detail that drag the software and hardware along with it.