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

When Stephen Fry Met Jony Ive

telegraph.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 23 posts

Re: When Stephen Fry Met Jony Ive

#11

Post by Slackwise »

dreamfactory2 wrote: post #4
morbius wrote: post #2

This seems like little more than an Apple puff piece. > Apple has recently developed a standard British power plug whose prongs fold elegantly back flush into their body. Easily stowed, no agony if accidentally trod on. A separate and wholly different solution to that offered by the Mu Plug which solves the problem in another way. > “It took ages to solve,” Ive says wistfully. And that is the point. No one else cares…

> design for the sake of design, with little regard for functional implications This is a fundamental misunderstanding. The minimalist aesthetic is underpinned by the principle that form follows function, and is absolutely opposed to ornament or visual additions. Aesthetic === functional in this worldview; it's not a separate thing which gets added in. (This is precisely why Ives and others eschewed skeumorphism.)

Yea, except, Apple most definitely favors aesthetics over functionality.

Take the iPod shuffle:

- Gen 1 was minimal, usable, and a portable USB drive,

- Gen 2 was minimal and usable, but lost its portable USB drive functionality (required a cable to also be carried around), but

- Gen 3 was smaller for no reason, moved the controls to an earbud cable which was impossible to use while running, and cost extra to buy an adapter if you didn't want to use their shitty earbuds, and then

- Gen 4 returned to the 2nd Gen design, because Gen 3 was very clearly flawed.

Seriously, explain the 3rd Gen iPod Shuffle.

I can cite many examples where they've dumped functionality for aesthetics, like non-removable batteries, fully-sealed computers (latest Mac mini), etc, but this is the clearest mistake they've made where they had to actually reverse course because of their favoritism for aesthetics over functionality.

Re: When Stephen Fry Met Jony Ive

#12

Post by jamesrom »

JacobAldridge wrote: post #6

" The development costs and development times of everything from those first iPods to the new line of Apple watches were far higher and far longer than any other company in the sector might tolerate. And AS A RESULT the revenues from those products are far, far higher than any other company can dream of ." [My emphasis] I call post hoc ergo propter hoc (after this therefore because of this). While possibly just some…

Obviously, taken in context (that other companies might not tolerate higher costs and longer development times), the "as a result" line does not imply that higher costs and longer development times are the cause of far higher revenues in general.

The "as a result" line implies that for Apple, higher costs and longer development times has yielded more revenue.

The subject of the line is Apple, not the other companies.

Re: When Stephen Fry Met Jony Ive

#13

Post by [deleted] »

morbius wrote: post #2

This seems like little more than an Apple puff piece. > Apple has recently developed a standard British power plug whose prongs fold elegantly back flush into their body. Easily stowed, no agony if accidentally trod on. A separate and wholly different solution to that offered by the Mu Plug which solves the problem in another way. > “It took ages to solve,” Ive says wistfully. And that is the point. No one else cares…

[deleted]

Re: When Stephen Fry Met Jony Ive

#14

Post by Pamar »

morbius wrote: post #5
dreamfactory2 wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> design for the sake of design, with little regard for functional implications This is a fundamental misunderstanding. The minimalist aesthetic is underpinned by the principle that form follows function, and is absolutely opposed to ornament or visual additions. Aesthetic === functional in this worldview; it's not a separate thing which gets added in. (This is precisely why Ives and others eschewed skeumorphism.)

Right-- but Ive also seeks to reduce form so much to the point where it begins to impede upon functionality. Take the thickness of the iPhone 6, for instance. The drive to reduce the noticeability of the hardware is at the direct expense of battery life and camera quality; I'd certainly consider this a failing of his design philosophy.

Regarding the non-replaceable battery, while I am sure that they had some profit-motivated reasons to go that way, you also have to take in account that high-density batteries are a bit dangerous to handle, so replaceable batteries need a protective shell (adding to their volume). In other words a non-replaceable battery can provide a bit more power for the same volume. So even if the primary motivation might have been aesthetics (no need for large openings in the body) I am sure that it wasn't the only reason for that decision.

Re: When Stephen Fry Met Jony Ive

#15

Post by morbius »

Pamar wrote: post #14
morbius wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right-- but Ive also seeks to reduce form so much to the point where it begins to impede upon functionality. Take the thickness of the iPhone 6, for instance. The drive to reduce the noticeability of the hardware is at the direct expense of battery life and camera quality; I'd certainly consider this a failing of his design philosophy.

Regarding the non-replaceable battery, while I am sure that they had some profit-motivated reasons to go that way, you also have to take in account that high-density batteries are a bit dangerous to handle, so replaceable batteries need a protective shell (adding to their volume). In other words a non-replaceable battery can provide a bit more power for the same volume. So even if the primary motivation might have be…

Of course, I've no reason to doubt that. Apple's design philosophy is great for many people, but the trend of its design becoming the only design for interfaces (see also: Galaxy S6) is disappointing. It homogenises the market and ultimately makes it less interesting.

Re: When Stephen Fry Met Jony Ive

#17

Post by klum »

JacobAldridge wrote: post #6

" The development costs and development times of everything from those first iPods to the new line of Apple watches were far higher and far longer than any other company in the sector might tolerate. And AS A RESULT the revenues from those products are far, far higher than any other company can dream of ." [My emphasis] I call post hoc ergo propter hoc (after this therefore because of this). While possibly just some…

There's another piece of the puzzle, which, in Apples case, may be attributed to the long and costly development process--that after this process, great products (which are not too late for the market) are released. If the hardware Kickstarter managed this, they probably wouldn't do too badly.

Re: When Stephen Fry Met Jony Ive

#18

Post by camillomiller »

morbius wrote: post #15
Pamar wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Regarding the non-replaceable battery, while I am sure that they had some profit-motivated reasons to go that way, you also have to take in account that high-density batteries are a bit dangerous to handle, so replaceable batteries need a protective shell (adding to their volume). In other words a non-replaceable battery can provide a bit more power for the same volume. So even if the primary motivation might have be…

Of course, I've no reason to doubt that. Apple's design philosophy is great for many people, but the trend of its design becoming the only design for interfaces (see also: Galaxy S6) is disappointing. It homogenises the market and ultimately makes it less interesting.

How Is that Apple's fault, if somebody decides to rip off their design decisions instead of making different ones that could prove them as better option on the market? Samsung Galaxy s5 had a removable battery, and the company even touted the functionality pretty heavily in its marketing materials. Did that saved the S5 from failing on the market?

Re: When Stephen Fry Met Jony Ive

#19

Post by pilsetnieks »

morbius wrote: post #2

This seems like little more than an Apple puff piece. > Apple has recently developed a standard British power plug whose prongs fold elegantly back flush into their body. Easily stowed, no agony if accidentally trod on. A separate and wholly different solution to that offered by the Mu Plug which solves the problem in another way. > “It took ages to solve,” Ive says wistfully. And that is the point. No one else cares…

The Thinkpads on the ISS isn't really a criteria to measure innovation or design. Those T60s are there because that's a standardized piece of equipment with a proven process for radiation hardening and for installing active cooling on them (traditional cooling doesn't work because it relies on convection which doesn't work in microgravity.) However, the people on the ISS are free to use personal devices (phones, tablets, etc.) and guess which are the most popular?

Re: When Stephen Fry Met Jony Ive

#20

Post by digi_owl »

seiji wrote: post #9
JacobAldridge wrote: post #6

" The development costs and development times of everything from those first iPods to the new line of Apple watches were far higher and far longer than any other company in the sector might tolerate. And AS A RESULT the revenues from those products are far, far higher than any other company can dream of ." [My emphasis] I call post hoc ergo propter hoc (after this therefore because of this). While possibly just some…

> Apple, in so many ways, is the exception not the rule. I think Apple follows traditional device manufacturing rules pretty closely. It takes 3-7 years to get a new hardware product market ready. The exceptions are startups or crowdfunded doodads that are able to launch in 18 months. Nobody's going to crowdfund on 3-7 year timescales though, so you end up with a lot of optimistic lies (even the creators lying to the…

More recent Kickstarter stuff is likely all done with R&D by the time they hit the site. This because after the initial year or so Kickstarter put into place a rule demanding a working prototype. Before that you had a mess of CAD renders and such being peddled. If you go over to Indiegogo you still find all those CAD renders and such, and i think that site has had a much lower success rate on delivery.
Post reply on HN