Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Apple's aesthetic dichotomy (2011)

madebymany.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 31 posts

Re: Apple's aesthetic dichotomy (2011)

#21

Post by terryven »

barista wrote: post #15
laibert wrote: post #4

While my personal opinion regarding skeumorphic design falls very much in line with the author's, I don't think that there is a contradiction in Apple's design philosophy. The hardware is minimal because its true purpose is to let the software shine. It's a magical box that can become anything, from a calendar to a photobooth to a music studio. Apple's visual design choices in software have always seemed to fall unde…

Besides people have proved that they like Apple's approach to design. Whatever the philosophy is, if it has succeeded in the marketplace isn't it superior?

If we're judging by success in the marketplace then surely Windows XP is the most loved design on earth, right?

Re: Apple's aesthetic dichotomy (2011)

#22

Post by taligent »

I always laugh at the amount of ignorance when people talk about this topic.

Apple has been doing this since the very beginning of OSX. Aqua, Pinstripes, Brushed Metal etc. And the popularity of OSX is one of the core reasons for Apple's success. The fact is that Apple does do consumer research and would have changed approach if there was evidence it was hurting them.

Re: Apple's aesthetic dichotomy (2011)

#23

Post by jarek »

LaGrange wrote: post #8

The computer itself is different because it's just the space where the application lives. Complaining about the duality is like complaining that Dieter Rams' radio doesn't burst into fire whenever someone tries to play The Beatles on it. The radio, the computer, the modern art museum are very different from their contents. They may be achievements of design by themselves, but are ultimately meant to disappear and giv…

> Complaining about the duality is like complaining that Dieter Rams' radio doesn't burst into fire whenever someone tries to play The Beatles on it.

Not strictly - Rams didn't DJ at the radio station, but Apple is in charge of both the hardware and the software.

Re: Apple's aesthetic dichotomy (2011)

#24

Post by laibert »

terryven wrote: post #20
laibert wrote: post #4

While my personal opinion regarding skeumorphic design falls very much in line with the author's, I don't think that there is a contradiction in Apple's design philosophy. The hardware is minimal because its true purpose is to let the software shine. It's a magical box that can become anything, from a calendar to a photobooth to a music studio. Apple's visual design choices in software have always seemed to fall unde…

Au contraire, people buy iOS for the beautiful hardware. Apple hosts mainstream events to reveal new hardware, not new software. Their most famous designer, Jony Ive, is a hardware man. At most you reduce the relationship to an equal partnership. But Apple's attempts to reduce software sales to commodities clearly shows that they consider software as intended to make the hardware shine.

True. I'm not trying to diminish the importance of Apple hardware, but the design philosophy of the hardware is minimal because the software is the focal point. In the end, the phone is a rounded rectangle of varying degrees of thinness. IOS is the reason why the iPhone is a joy to use: the metal does its best job to stay out the way. Responsive touch screens and awesome cameras allows the user to forget they're even using a phone.

Re: Apple's aesthetic dichotomy (2011)

#25

Post by bsimpson »

taligent wrote: post #22

I always laugh at the amount of ignorance when people talk about this topic. Apple has been doing this since the very beginning of OSX. Aqua, Pinstripes, Brushed Metal etc. And the popularity of OSX is one of the core reasons for Apple's success. The fact is that Apple does do consumer research and would have changed approach if there was evidence it was hurting them.

In fairness, Aqua matched the original iMac and blue/white G3 tower. Brushed Metal matched the PowerBook G4 and PowerMac G5.

The author's point is that the hardware design team's aesthetic is now clashing with the software team's.

Re: Apple's aesthetic dichotomy (2011)

#26

Post by cageface »

rys wrote: post #3

I read these articles bemoaning Apple's skeuomorphic application UIs, usually evoking the spirit of Dieter Rams to put their point across. In this instance it's classed as "horrific, dishonest and childish crap". I understand the strong feelings of dislike, but I'd much rather be pointed towards alternative designs or even better alternative apps as a means to get away from the designs. Malady without remedy never si…

As an alternative you need look no further than the return to clean, strong typography and unornamented clarity found to some degree in Android post 4.x and even more so in Microsoft's new designs.

Apple is ransoming the future for the present with these cheap design tricks while their competitors are busy building new design languages for the next decade. Apple's entire UI looks dated now relative to their competition.

Re: Apple's aesthetic dichotomy (2011)

#27

Post by zacbrown »

onedev wrote: post #10

Honestly, I really don't mind. It's entertaining.

I think the author is dead wrong. I think most people very much enjoy the patterns and, also, that Apple primarily deals with hardware while letting the developer community take care of the software. If you don't like how calendar looks, go write your own or get one from the app store. That's the whole point.

Re: Apple's aesthetic dichotomy (2011)

#29

Post by benhoskins »

Hmmm. What the author fails to acknowledge is the 'bakelite' phenomenon. When bakelite was first used all those years back, it's sales tanked because it looked like the proto-plastic it was. It wasn't until it was made to look like wood that it became accepted, then the consumers of it were taken on a journey back to the original aesthetic. Put simply, sometimes people aren't ready to accept the intrinsic properties of a thing unless they've been led along a path towards it.

Re: Apple's aesthetic dichotomy (2011)

#30

Post by joe_the_user »

recoiledsnake wrote: post #13
joe_the_user wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. Reading this I had a sudden flash why Apple might just be right. The thing is that modern phones and computers are getting to the point where they can display texture to good effect. Textures are very pleasant, comforting things to add to the UI of an application. Yet what other way is there to integrate texture effects besides using images of familiar physical materials? Images of physical materials leverages o…

Here's some analysis of Metro's alternative approach. http://www.riagenic.com/archives/487 http://www.riagenic.com/archives/493 http://www.riagenic.com/archives/526

I would like an alternative approach but I don't see anything in the links here that "just works" in the way that the fake-leather thing in OP just works. I also see stuff that seems nice-looking but not-functional.

If this sounds harsh or dogmatic, sorry.

But any image that falls off the edge of screen is broken as a far as usability-at-glance goes no matter esthetically pleasing it might be. Looked at from the point of view of static beauty, the Metro stuff is indeed far superior. Looked in terms of an app I would use, I see massively wasted real estate and texture that distracts from the task rather than helping it.

I'm just a programmer pretending to be a designer but who really is creating a Facebook client.

It feels like Metro copied really-world typography that works well for situations where people simply read/consume information but I can't see it translating to interaction.

The last quote in your links: "Fantasy User Interfaces in movies are your best friend." Sadly, it seem more Metro is a fantasy user interface. The fantasy user interfaces only exist for the one-way communication from the show-writer to the viewer. They work great for that. Total fail for something people use on an ongoing basis.

I know few will care about this rant but I am honestly a discouraged at how much of failure as an interactive interface Metro seems to be.

I could be wrong. I will keep my eyes open going forward.

Post reply on HN