Slashdot Mirror
Interview With iMac designer, Jonathan Ive
rleyton writes "The Independent has an interesting interview with Jonathan Ive, the designer of the new imac (and the iBook, the iPod and original iMac...)" It's actually a pretty interesting
even if you think the new iMac is repulsive. Personally I dig it.
This may have been the best trick of all. Forget the round motherboard or the pivoting head. This guy and his team kept the whole thing under pretty tight lip for almost two years!
Luck favors the prepared, darling.
Granted, the new iMac is beautiful on the surface. But that great design is not limited to the outer shell. Check out what the iMac looks like on the inside. This Apple draft service manual has great pictures of the guts of the iMac.
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
Because building decent speakers into a small design is pretty impossible. It comes with one speaker built into the housing, and the middle and high end models come with some reasonable sounding separate Harmon Kardon speakers. The fact is that most people will be quite happy with the sound that comes as standard, and the people that aren't happy with it are likely to have a decent stereo system to plug the iMac into anyway. You can't satisfy the budget conscious and the audiophile at once, so you might as well deal with the budget conscious and let those who want the best sound set up their own stuff, which they'll no doubt be much happier with.
This interview touches on a few concepts that I think today's geeks (and many of yesterday's geeks too) are no longer in touch with.
Quality. Art. The "soul" of a machine.
There is something to be said for the amount of sheer human effort put in to designing a product like this. A Quality product shines in it's attention to human-machine interaction, but is a result of "inner beauty". For those of you who haven't programmed using Cocoa or haven't messed around much with OS X or actually seen and used a recent iMac in person, there's no substitute for the tangible results of Apple's years of dedication.
When I use Mac OS X, I can *feel* that somewhere in Cupertino there's an English major who was losing sleep at nights trying to make the text in the dialog boxes as clear and understandable as possible. When was the last time you felt that way about the latest d/l off of sourceforge?
The subject/object duality is something that premeates the "geek world" - I beg of the programmers and techs out there try to move beyond it. Apple's certainly tried to.
(I'd post more, but I haven't had my coffee yet... )
------------
"...and Maddest of all, to see Life as it Is, and not as it Should Be."
As posted above even if you dont like his stuff, its different, there are some things I do and dont like, But he seems to be one of the few designers that takes any amount of function into account.
:()
Personally I dont like the new Imac, BUT that really dosent mean SQUAT since Im not a prospective customer. Ill stick with the UltraSparcs.
What matters is Mac people do, and they liked the original, and the I book, I have used both and I can say I came closer than EVER to buying a Apple for the Wife, Part of that was the integrated packaging, part of it "ease of use" etc.
If they almost had me hooked after my last Apple experience (I bought a Lisa when they were new
Im sure they wont have a problem hooking people in.
Does it remind anyone else of their home-ec project gone awary , a slunk of dough , then sticking a pencil in it with a sign, (insert team name here) RULE ! ??? No wonder I failed HomeEc....
Sig went tro...aahemmm.....fishing........
"The thing is, it's very easy to be different, but very difficult to be better. That's what we have tried to do with the new iMac."
Personally, I like the new iMac. Not enough to abandon my 6 month old PC and switch back to Macs, but I think it's a pretty cool computer. No matter what your opinion of Macintosh or their employees is, you have to like what the designer said. So many times in this industry (think about all Microsoft products) people forget that it's easy to make new and different things, the hard part is making reliable, efficient products that truly are "better." I say score one for Macintosh with this new computer, and even if it doesn't sell like hotcakes, they are in good shape if they all think like this guy does.
~ now you know
Say what you may about the new machine, but I've already purchased one for my parents. It's the logical next step, since my father's got an obscenely expensive AV center, and a nice Sony DV camcorder, all of which he set up himself, yet refuses to check his own e-mail because of some ingrained fear of computers being as hard to use as they were 10 years ago. I'm betting this machine will change that for him.
Michael C. Hollinger
Admittedly it is a cool design, but I can't help feeling once again, that NO ONE is out there designing anything targeted at me and I'm left to hunt for obscure parts vendors and try to cobble together something that appeals to me.
Personally I'd just like some more variety in the choices available to me, especially if that means machines that fit in seamlessly with my existing home electronics.
i still can't believe no one's addressed the really important part: What is the LCD drops a pixel or two? You're stuck with a proprietary solution that's loaded with all this great hardware, and you have to either hook up an external monitor, which would ruin the reason you got this thing in the first place, or get an authorized Mac replacement, which would probably be 3/4 of the original price. Apple better have a five year warranty on these things... if the neck breaks, if the monitor dies, if x fails... then forget it. the beautiful thing about PCs is everytime i built a new one, i used about half the hardware from the old one. PC replacement hardware is cheap and easy to install. I can't say the same for Macs
I work selling TVs at sears, and the number one reason people don't buy tv-vcr combo units, or tv-dvd combos, is because their afraid the internal unit will break, thus rendering it useless.
Reason, free market capitalism, and individualism
Frankly, this is the dumbest design decision ever. If you're trying to make a "simple" computer, why use a dongle that consumers will most certainly forget or lose? What could be more simple than the same connector used on 99% of the world's personal computers?
This is extra stupid, since there is plenty of space to put a standard VGA-out connector on both systems. Additionally, making a custom port and dongle adds to the cost of an already expensive computer.
I'm all for design improvements, but there is no point being proprietary just for the sake of being different.
Virtual PC is a fantastic program. Adding it to the base config will mean:
1) Macs would become more expensive, by the cost of VPC+Win??? - and which version of Windows should they include?
2) every user who chooses Apple to avoid paying MS money would be unable to do so
All in all, this would shrink, not expand, their market share.
-- Two men say they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong. - Dire Straits
When I use Mac OS X, I can *feel* that somewhere in Cupertino there's an English major who was losing sleep at nights trying to make the text in the dialog boxes as clear and understandable as possible. When was the last time you felt that way about the latest d/l off of sourceforge?
While I agree about SourceForge, OSX is a step down from OS9 in dialog box text (and help in general).
For example, I just love the error "No file services are available at the URL . Try again later or try another URL (server returned error 1)" OSX returns this when it can't connect to an SMB share no matter what the actual reason. Wrong password? Invalid user? No such share? Everything gets the same error.
Worse, the MacOSX Help files are nicely written, but there are so few of them that help is very close to useless. It will tell you how to copy a file, but for anything more complex you're basically SOL.
Still, compared to the average Open Source app, they're amazing.
Eric
"Seven Deadly Sins? I thought it was a to-do list!"
However, since the introduction of the PPC, mac hardware has generally been respected by the geek community. Now that macs run OS X, the geeks like it even more.
However, there's always going to be somebody who has to bash the mac for whatever reason. But lets face it, in the year 2002 you can't show how cool of a computer user you are by simply bashing Apple.
Now Microsoft on the other hand....
/bin/fortune | slashdotsig.sh
Mostly Mac geeks, since many of us are graphic designers. It's no coincidence ;)
"Reality is just a convenient measure of complexity" -Alvy Ray Smith
This actually started me thinking about Compaq. Not today's company, but the company 5 or 10 years ago. They used to be a huge amount of thought into their computers, trying to make them the best they could be. You know what happened?
I freaking despised them.
Yes, they were well built. Yes, they managed to typically squeeze another 5-10% performance over their competitors. But to do all that, very often they used non-standard components. They had wacky partitions on the hard drives that for extra management functions. I believe they even had special "Compaq memory" (I could be misremembering the latter).
It was a total pain in the ass, and for many components there was only one place to go: Compaq, and the parts were very expensive.
I'm all in favor of better, but when it comes to computers, I think I would rather have better AND standard AND reasonably priced. The thing about Apple is that they don't make computers for "the rest of us", they make computers for the 3% of the population who like shopping at boutiques.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
The trouble with LCD iMacs is the education market. Schools don't buy iMacs just because they are cheaper than iBooks, they buy them because they are more durable.The abuse that a computer takes in a school setting is enough to make me cringe.
Still, I like the idea of having a LCD iMac. It would be cool for me, I'm just not sure that it will work in the education market. (Yeah, I know. Maine bought 38,600 iBooks recently. Still, most schools buy iMacs.)
Despite that,are we facing an Apple come back?
Think about what they've done in the past couple years:
- Nice hardware, growing in leaps and bounds as the market for those things matures (pc133, yes it was late, and yes, it's slower than DDR, but hey, better than pc100), nice processors, removing all relic hardware as necessary (USB instead of ADB, etc). Apple has always done this.
- Making the powerbook g4 was the next step, making a laptop just slightly less powerful than a desktop, *AND* has a battery life to speak of.
- Nice software: OS X. BSD core. No need for them to figure out how to reinvent the wheel with their crappy old OS's--Simply change a few widgets, and call it Darwin, then add a GUI, and Voila! instant OS. With a *LOT* of software available, not to mention the 20 billion BSD hackers, the people that'll keep the Darwin OS up to snuff.
- Totally reengineered interface--Finally a command line that doesn't suck! And for that matter, a GUI that doesn't suck! And multitasking! And all sorts of neat widgets that make techies and non-techies alike scream out "I WANT ONE!"
- Giving computers to schools, making great leaps in hardware, standardizing their video system. I see this as a incredibly brilliant move for Jobs.
All in all, more power to them... They may live, they may struggle, or they may die. They are pushing the user's into a whole new realm; DVD-
R's in affordable systems, laptops that don't suck, and keeping up with technology a lot better than they used to.
They did. It's called the Cube. Did you miss it?
I've ordered an iMac mainly because it's not much larger than the Pismo PowerBook I used to put on my desk, compared now with the Blue & White G3 I have (which takes up a lot more space). Then you have the G4 under the dome, with SuperDrive, and 60GB of space and it looks like a good computer.
I don't use my computer for gaming so much, anyway. That's what my PS2 is for. And, I'm more interested in using my computer for organizing media (pictures, mp3s, movies) and using it as my MP3 playback server using iHam on iRye. The iMac will serve this purpose very well.
Besides, it looks great.
An analogy could be made to the automotive market. That sporty little Boxter there can probably go twice as fast as my minivan, but it's constrained by the same speed limit as the rest of us, and is probably stuck in the same backup to the toll booth that I am.
I've bought the latest and greatest a couple times in my life. It's a wonderful feeling, tapping on the keys of the fastest and most powerful computer available. (Power. Power! Raw, brute, merciless POWER!!! Muahahahaha!)
Then two weeks later Intel or AMD releases an even faster and less expensive chip, and inside of a month you overhear some snot-nosed kid boasting about his new TurboUltraMegaBox which has twice the CPU, memory, and storage of yours.
That way lies madness. At least fashion fads stick around for a couple years. They even come back around in a couple decades. iMac Lisa, anyone?
That simply is not true. We are obsessed with quantification, as Ive points out. You trust doctors to explain and cure illnesses, and you don't know the science behind it. You probably believe that the colors of your dwelling can have an effect on your emotional disposition
.. sometimes you must carry them, or tilt them, or upgrade them, etc) of tools have an effect on their interaction with them is one of the best illustrations of the complete lack of faith that North Americans exhibit in the importance of design. You may not be able to count your 'happy points', but to suggest that the look of your computer has absolutely no effect on you is rediculous. Just because you can't point the 'HowMuchMoneyDidItMakeMe-o-meter' or the 'HowHappyAmI-o-meter' at the box doesn't mean that the asthetics of a tool do not effect your efficiency, levels of stress, or usage endurance. To listen to designers and architechs proudly explain how the design of a physical environment or tool affected the behaviour of the users and dewellers of their creations is to understand that the less you think about design, and simply place your faith in 'the experts', the more successful it tends to be.
That people do not believe that the asthetics (nevermind that the physical representation, ie, design of a computer does not exist in a vacuum
The speed at which you dismiss design vs. function suggests to me that you've never really given thought or faith to design, and thus never really experienced the benifits of proper industrial design. There is no clear line between function and asthetic, as you put it; a painting is a tool to stimulate parts of your brain that you want to stimulate, where as a tool is no good unless you can stand to look at it, use it, and spend time with it. Given the increase in stress of the average office worker, and the number of hours he or she spends with the tool known as the computer, it is a shame that people seem so quick to dismiss evironmental factors as having an effect on their emotional disposition.
To take it a step furthur, your bedroom is nothing but a tool to get some sleep in, so why not paint it completely black?
"Old man yells at systemd"
The PC is no different. The personal computer is simply going through the same cycle automobiles went through. Cars started out as gadgets for the rick, then ford found a way to mass produce it and sell it at an affordable price. Later on, style became more important because everyone had figured out to build cars.
The PC industry is also reaching the same point and has to evolve. Now that processors speed is sufficient for 90% of the typical user's needs, raw power is not an important factor. Just as most people buy Honda's because of reliability and style, people will begin to change their buying habits to reflect the change. Now that most people have atleast 1 computer in their house, the difference will be which one blends in their their furniture, color scheme and life style.
The change is inevitable. There will always be people who buy trucks because it is the most functional, just as the tower is the most flexible. But for most people, a car is a status symbol just as the computer will be in 20 years.
Oh come on, I understand arguing performance-vs-costs issues regarding macs vs pcs, yes you can argue that you get more performance for less out of a PC.
But please, please... don't just say you can go and install Linux or *BSD on your Dell machine and boom there you go. That just oozes complete ignorance. Linux/*BSD is not a consumer desktop OS. You know why I like MacOSX? Because with it, I can boot my pc, run Internet Explorer while running Photoshop (the GIMP does not compare, and only geeks that never do any real production work would say it does,) edit my perl code, and then check out my work on my apache server, which includes photos imported from my camera and stills captured from my Digital Video camera. Oh, and then I can edit and save (sucessfully I might add) that word or excel document attachment sent to me by a friend in Office.
Now let's see Linux do that, and better yet... Do it OUT OF THE BOX.
Oh and I don't think Linux has a WM (or more likely X Server) that produces vector-based images for it's windowing architecture.
So NO... you CAN'T JUST install Linux on your dell (which costs pretty much the same, if not only about $100-$200 less)
512M memory?: IMacs come with 256M, upgradable to 1G ... and memory is cheap.
Radeon AIW card?: NVIDIA GeoForce2, combined with Velocity Engine in the CPU.
CD-RW, DVD?: The high-end iMac has this built in, including DVD-write ability.
RAID array of 4 hard drives?: That's the kind of thing IEEE 1394 ports are for.
Beside's which, it's a consumer computer. The functionality it's already got is bordering on overkill.
Surely any rabid sentiment is a useless way of showing what a cool computer user you are. The best way to show how cool you are is to create something, rather than degrade something else, be it Microsoft, Apple or Linux.
You are quoting a Microsoft software designer on software design. Wow, that has to redefine either "guts" or "insanity".
Every machine is the creation of a human. Some of those creations have a beauty and functionality surpassing that of others. Part of that can be unquanitifiable, and it is that that is a machine's "soul" - the very essence of what makes it different that cannot be summed up in numbers. Not every human has a mystical bent, but the vast majority do, even in this cynical time. This is why most people buy tables, instead of putting plywood on a bunch of cinderblocks.
Obviously, because you've never used either, and from this and your other comments have no idea what constitutes worth.
Cocoa, meaning the frameworks and objective C language in this case, is the best object oriented programming environment I've ever seen. Perhaps the problem is that it is not difficult enough for you to use? Perhaps you couldn't get enough "cool points" by accomplishing something easily, when there is a harder way to do it?
And "not where the money is"??? OK, it's true you can make more money if you use VB than if you program in Cocoa. I'm not aware of any decent programs written in VB, or any decent programmers who use VB, but whatever floats your boat, I guess.
-- Two men say they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong. - Dire Straits
EVERYTHING in the computer community (Mac or store-bought PC) is proprietary. Most people assume that "proprietary" in terms of Macintosh means "closed box" or "non-PC," and this isn't the case.
PCs, in their ultimate basic designs, are supposed to work identically--to be a clone. A hand-built PC (like the Athlon box I just built to play what few good games which come out that aren't available for Macs, such as Age of Sail 2 [rocks] or Half Life) is great, but unless EVERYONE used the exact same motherboard and parts from the same manufacturers, they aren't strictly clones. Technically, your home-built is unique and closed to others--proprietary, because only YOU know what's inside it.
And look at store-bought PCs, which are supposed to be clones, but each manufacturer adds a widget or two here and there to add market appeal over other competitors PCs, which also do the same. If you haven't tried to install Windows on a Compaq without using Compaq's own CDs, you have never experienced the true meaning and heartbreak of "proprietary."
And Macs aren't even "closed box" anymore. As far as the iMac goes, Apple doesn't expect you to crack open your iMac anymore than Toastmaster expects you to crack open their toasters. It's for a logical reason (the same reason why you pay a bit more for a Macintosh): Everything you need is already there, from the laptops to the desktops (extra RAM and maybe drive space included). Thinking a Mac is proprietary is like thinking that your Porsche needs a V8 and one of those Calvin-pissing-on-a-BMW logos.
With the exception of the logic board (motherboard), open a Power Mac desktop and you'll find the same Matrox IDE drives, the same nVidia video, the same SDRAM, and similar expandability. The only difference (OS aside) is that the computer is integrated with finer quality than that $50 ATX motherboard we grabbed from "Chips-R-Us." That's what we pay for.
If you use Linux (and I know most of us do), we experience the sheer hell of PC propriety every time we try to install an OS on a store-bought system that's been modified to work with Microsoft Windows and not for any other OS, period.
Remember the old days where every computer maker made a PC and their own OS? Only Apple does that now for mere mortals (Sun, SGI, and other unique non-Windows PCs excluded but acknowledged). Makes me still wish someone would make a PC designed only for the ultimate Geek--the Unix family user, to end this argument.
/.
Vos teneo officium eram periculosus ut vos recipero is.
Man, i wish people woudl stop using "function over form"! The *POINT* of Apple's designs are simple: The FUNCTION of the computer (you know, people actually using it) requires a certain FORM to make it easier to use.
/. crowd are among them. However, most people who say the iMac/Apple products are "form over function" are actually completely missing the point: USING a computer is the function, and if you make it easier to use, you are increasing its function, not destroying it.
Form Follows Function.
That is the Louis Sullivan mantra, and I believe in it (and you should too). What this idea means is that the beige boxes we have setting under our desks are actually LESS functional than, say, an iMac (new or old) because it is harder to use; you have to fiddle with openin the case a lot, you have a lot of cables, the calbes are hiden behind your desk so you have to get underneath to do anything...
Yes, there are some people for whom "function" means "fiddling," and i assume that many of the
So yeah, nerds SHOULD stress function over form... they should demand better designs like teh iMac, but expandable. They should demand the ugly beige box be replaced by something more elegant, more beautiful, easier to use, and just generally better.
Get it right, people.
Why this lavish devotion to "upgradability"? The average computer user really doesn't need that much beyond what the iMac has. Memory plus all the ports you need pretty much takes care of it.
I've got a Dell Inspiron that I've used for three years without upgrading and I'm a good deal more geeky than the average computer user. I simply haven't needed to upgrade, not even memory. Laptops are probably a better base of comparison for the new iMac. I don't see anyone complaining about not being able to "upgrade" laptops, really, and they're arguably more integrated than Apple computers.
If you're at all concerned about being able to "upgrade" your computer, the iMac simply isn't for you. The average computer user doesn't need, nor wants to do, to upgrade their computer any more than they would want/need to upgrade their car. Does anyone here *get* that?
I might get the new iMac. It's the first Apple product I've seriously considered buying. Get the high end model, max out the memory... I'll probably be set for another 3-4 years.