Apple Designer Jonathan Ive Talks About Steve Jobs and New Products

For instance :

> "...The iMac banished complicated, hard-to-use PCs from our desks and made computing easy."

> "...the two men set out on their maniacal journey to remake what they saw as the bland, lazy world around them.."

> "...Tomorrow doesn’t wait for the man who designs it."

Seriously?

> "... It looks like all the other dull, un-Apple-like glass and beige — yes, beige — concrete blocks."

This last one isn't so much worshipful as ironic, considering the color chosen by Jobs for the original Macintosh.

> [...]when I ask whether he is flattered or frustrated when he sees his designs so widely referenced, reworked — ok, copied. “It’s theft,” he replies in a heartbeat, his eyes narrowing sharply.

Isn't that the real shame here? I admire Apple for their undisputed ability to strike these marvels of design and the way in which they are immitated does reinforce that they have condensed their solutions into something true, something fundamental. And - fluffiness aside, I do think they serve as demonstrations "against thoughtlessness and carelessness". I admire it in a similar way that I admire how wikipedia has become the encyclopedia. The difference is that in the latter, we have realized that it is a common good that needs to be shared, not an asset that a company posesses.

I understand the enormous amount of work that Ive and his team have put into these devices and they are justified in thinking that they deserve a lot of glory for them. But maybe they are looking for it in the wrong places?

Maybe the identity crisis that Apple has isn't so much their inability to find the next big thing, but their over-attachment to their past hits? Perhaps the key to new glory is letting go of the old glory and sharing it with the world, their ego removed from the equation?

If one applies the typical standards of high school English to this article, asking "What is it trying to communicate?" "What is someone trying to tell me?" etc., one will be left very empty. It's a puff piece, inflating a corporate celebrity. All of the text is designed to persuade you that "yes, indeed, this man surely is impressive. Yes, this company is impressive."

With all that gleaming prose, it's easy to forget all the things one might want to know, such as, "How can I do this, too?" or "Are there any pitfalls or problems with this?" "Are these appropriations of resources worth it or is this a Dutch tulip fiasco playing out in slow-motion?" "Why are people so starved for quality in other parts of their lives that they demand quality in their digital appliances?"

But none of that really matters, b/c Time is a dying, over-inflated magazine, so they'll just put "Apple" and "Design" in a headline, mollify people with fascinating details with no hint of self-reflection and call it a day.

In short, this an article for sheep, not people trying to figure out how to make the world good.