This along with signing the CEO of Burberry and Yves Saint Laurent. Clearly, they're not trying to win the battle for best tech gadget which Samsung and others have flung themselves into in an attempt to beat Apple products.
I'm guessing things like the iWatch, phones, and tables will be fashionable, high margin products built to
>> I'm guessing things like the iWatch, phones, and tables will be fashionable, high margin products built to
1) be easy to use 2) look very good and stylish
rather than have the most features...
That seems like the smart way to go. Regardless of the features, for most people, it's a fashion accessory first. Take Google Glass for example. I tried one for a week. It was cool tech and I could see how it would be useful for me but there is no way I wearing that thing. Same goes for the watches.
2) have a very high build quality(no cheap plastic, lots of aluminum)
3) "just work"
Honestly 2 and 3 are why I stick with them. After owning a mbp and iphone I can't go back to the crappy plastic that every piece of tech seems to be made out of these days, and I never have to worry about something not working on my phone or laptop like I had to with my countless android devices.
When I need to get work done I'll open up my vm or boot into ubuntu/fedora/etc. but other than that I don't need/care about endless customizability that android/linux offer me. I want something works and is easy to use.
I don't see how anyone would draw this conclusion from the facts given. They haven't had high-profile engineering-centric hires in the past year because there haven't been any high-profile engineering vacancies.
In any event, not trying to have the most features is a good thing. It's pointless to have the most features if the features aren't appropriate for the product. A big part of good product design is making sure that every feature that is in the product has a damn good reason for being there. Companies that pursue feature bloat for its own sake are usually just trying to pad out their marketing blurbs, or have a screwed-up management structure that incentivizes everyone involved to cram their pet features into everything for the sake of internal corporate politics.
Feature creep isn't the sign of high tech products, it's the sign of an unhealthy organization that doesn't know (or care?) what it's actually creating.
If I were running Apple, I'd be more worried about becoming great at online services (cloud, auth, security, identity) rather than doubling down on their expertise in fashion and user interface.
This is probably just some poorly timed high-profile acquisitions (Beats) and hires (Dre, Iovine, Ahrendts, Newson), though. I'm sure this occurs to them as well...
I'd have to agree sadly. "Use android you can do way more stuff with it and install custom ROMS". Too bad they all look like shit, especially the vendor specific UIs.
Google really needs to start working on the Android UI and forcing vendors to use it, windows phone/iOS blow android out of the water when it comes to design.
Also, Android should really start restricting their users to a certain screen size. Preferably very very small. This is a basic design principle that they really should have done their homework on.
And that's why you're effectively a nobody and most of the Apple execs are considered leaders in the field.
Pretty sure focusing on strengthening their music talent (given how important it is to the iEcosystem) is far more important than worrying about cloud identity.
It's really difficult for me to see Newson's work as anything but very, very anachronistic. His formal language seems to me to be hopelessly trapped in the 90s.
That being said, his range is impressive. He's capable of working in many different scales and materials. Beside the fact that he's a friend of Ive's, this seems like the best argument for him being a good fit at Apple.
Excessive rounded edges, bright pop-colors and lots of plastic seem to me a staple of the 90s. CAM techniques were just starting to hit their stride, so the work from the period often feels like it's just a direct product of the software. Newson's work looks to me like it popped out of a rendering on a Silicon Graphics machine. Karim Rashid, Greg Lyn are easy references. There are many others I can't think of.
It's not just that his work fits the style, but that even his recent work still employs the same techniques.
> It's really difficult for me to see Newson's work as anything but very, very anachronistic. His formal language seems to me to be hopelessly trapped in the 90s.
I could not agree more. Newson is someone I really want to like because he seems like a cool guy, but I've just never been very impressed with either his work or how he talks about it.
24 comments
[ 3.5 ms ] story [ 24.4 ms ] threadI'm guessing things like the iWatch, phones, and tables will be fashionable, high margin products built to
1) be easy to use 2) look very good and stylish
rather than have the most features...
That seems like the smart way to go. Regardless of the features, for most people, it's a fashion accessory first. Take Google Glass for example. I tried one for a week. It was cool tech and I could see how it would be useful for me but there is no way I wearing that thing. Same goes for the watches.
1) are very pretty/trendy/fashionable
2) have a very high build quality(no cheap plastic, lots of aluminum)
3) "just work"
Honestly 2 and 3 are why I stick with them. After owning a mbp and iphone I can't go back to the crappy plastic that every piece of tech seems to be made out of these days, and I never have to worry about something not working on my phone or laptop like I had to with my countless android devices.
When I need to get work done I'll open up my vm or boot into ubuntu/fedora/etc. but other than that I don't need/care about endless customizability that android/linux offer me. I want something works and is easy to use.
4) designed to the limits of failure, low design quality/resilience
She is a much needed and highly qualified replacement for Ron Johnson.
The YSL hire was specifically to help sell the iWatch.
In any event, not trying to have the most features is a good thing. It's pointless to have the most features if the features aren't appropriate for the product. A big part of good product design is making sure that every feature that is in the product has a damn good reason for being there. Companies that pursue feature bloat for its own sake are usually just trying to pad out their marketing blurbs, or have a screwed-up management structure that incentivizes everyone involved to cram their pet features into everything for the sake of internal corporate politics.
Feature creep isn't the sign of high tech products, it's the sign of an unhealthy organization that doesn't know (or care?) what it's actually creating.
I know Apple has made some fashion specific hires in the past but I don't think this is one of them.
This is probably just some poorly timed high-profile acquisitions (Beats) and hires (Dre, Iovine, Ahrendts, Newson), though. I'm sure this occurs to them as well...
Google really needs to start working on the Android UI and forcing vendors to use it, windows phone/iOS blow android out of the water when it comes to design.
Pretty sure focusing on strengthening their music talent (given how important it is to the iEcosystem) is far more important than worrying about cloud identity.
That being said, his range is impressive. He's capable of working in many different scales and materials. Beside the fact that he's a friend of Ive's, this seems like the best argument for him being a good fit at Apple.
Can you elaborate on this?
Excessive rounded edges, bright pop-colors and lots of plastic seem to me a staple of the 90s. CAM techniques were just starting to hit their stride, so the work from the period often feels like it's just a direct product of the software. Newson's work looks to me like it popped out of a rendering on a Silicon Graphics machine. Karim Rashid, Greg Lyn are easy references. There are many others I can't think of.
It's not just that his work fits the style, but that even his recent work still employs the same techniques.
I could not agree more. Newson is someone I really want to like because he seems like a cool guy, but I've just never been very impressed with either his work or how he talks about it.
He's most famous for this: http://static0.bornrichimages.com/wp-content/uploads/s3/imag...
Which I find to be a cool idea, but:
a) not very functional b) not very aesthetically pleasing in execution
A lot of that is just my taste, but I did not expect to see the top voted comment here be something I so thoroughly agreed with.
http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/2012/09/marc-newson-design...
Newson's timepiece designs, from his own website:
http://www.marc-newson.com/ProjectCategorys.aspx?GroupSelect...