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
Personally, I think the decision to leave out the sub was a good one. A subwoofer can be placed under a desk or in another inconspicuous place, and Apple took that into account when designing the iMac. An integrated subwoofer would signifigantly increase the footprint of the iMac and take up valuable desk space.
Plus, not all users are avid music listeners. The speakers that come with the iMac can adequately handle the dings and whistles from normal PC use. Not all users need a subwoofer in the first place, and including one would add to the cost of the unit.
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
...toward having computers that you don't notice anymore. I would love to have a computer that wasn't subject any manifestation of 'beige box syndrome'. Unforunately, what I think of as beige box syndrome includes connecting cables from mouse (keyboard, monitor, scanner, network hub, etc) to computer, not just visual astetics. One look behind my desk at home (or the office) shows just what I worry about. Sure, you can bundle the cables together, but even then they make an auful mess.
My dream computer is one that stands out while I activly interact with it, but when I'm not using it seamlessly blends right into the background. Kindof the way the computer works on Star Trek. While we're still years away from having this concept being actively sold to the consumer (though all the pieces seem to be falling into place), in the past few years I have considered Macs ever more seriously when thinking about new computers (and know that now, with WinXP, if&when I succumb to the lure of a laptop, it will be an iBook- unless Linux has become the dominant x86 OS in the interim).
Do you like Japanese imports?
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?
...or Slashdot for that matter.
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon? :P)
(If you can't figure out how to E-Mail me, Don't.
OK, so I borrowed the 'Lump - Stick - Rectangle' from somewhere else. :-)
:-)
I don't understand how people can be so critical of this. It is truly innovative, with a 700-800MHz G4 packed into the small package (as well as 128MB of RAM and a GeForce2 card.) The only things I don't like are the price, and the screen size. Still, it's a marvelous piece of engineering and design. If you need something else to like about it, take a gander at all the ports in the back. Definitely impressive.
Don't like it? don't buy it. But at least acknowledge the craftsmanship and vision.
(No, I am not affected by the reality distortion field... otherwise I would have put down the money and bought one, and not seen any shortcomings.
fair.org counterpunch.com truthout.com indymedia.org salon.com
eff.org guerrilla.net debian.org gentoo.org
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.
Re: the guy that had the sketches of a similar iMac last summer.
If he even remotely claims Apple 'stole' his ideas, he should be laughed off the face of the planet.
Consider the incredible number of conceptual drawings and sketches about possible new iMac designs that have made the rounds in the last two years. Combine that with the fact that every computer needs a spot for ports, a display, and something to contain the cpu/drives/ram/etc. Now, combine that with the industrial design directions Apple set by announcing the death of the CRT [last may @ WWDC, I believe] and the icebook/tibook look and feel.
All told, it is no surprise that *one* of the myriad concept sketches that appeared on the net look similar! As innovative as Apple is, they have yet to be able to entirely break the bonds of reality (i.e. say, a completely detached floating display).
As well, the guy *sent* his concept sketches to Apple-- including to Steve Jobs. Apple's policy on such matters is quite clear; anything submitted becomes the property of Apple and they can do whatever they bloody well please with it-- including giving it to a competitor, if they saw fit to do so.
Somehow Jobs' remarks always seem to jumpstart my brain, if nothing else. Of the first iMac he said "It looks like it's from another planet". And oddly enough my first reaction to the new iMac after reading the article was "Hey, its a skutter holding an LCD!". That makes alot more sense if you've ever seen Red Dwarf.
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
i think the point is that truly well designed functionality has intrinsic aesthetic appeal.
i mean, there are often many solutions to a problem - but the one that has the most thought and work applied to it is usually the most elegant.
A: None. The Universe spins the bulb, and the Zen master merely stays out of the way.
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
I think because the digital hub is not yet fit to be the home stereo, and I don't think that it will be for awhile.
Audio playback on a computer, at it's best, is still pretty bad. Even if you have an iSub Woofer and some fancy Altec Lansing speakers, the CD drive isn't a very good audio CD player. The sound card isn't a very good preamp or amplifier.
If Apple were to begin adding all the hardware that would be required to make an iMac good at audio, the thing would be as big as your desk.
As cool as iTunes and the iPod are MP3 is a lossy format, even at the highest sampling rate, it tosses out some information (=sound) from the ripped CD.
More fundamentally, CD audio itself is "lossy" because even its sampling rate misses too much information from the original analog sound recording (most records are still originally recorded in the analog domain, then digitized).
Until the widespread adoption of audio DVD (which stores much more information and allows for a much higher sampling rate) digital audio playback will remain inferior to analog.
New from Apple and Harmon Kardon, the iTurntable!
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.
Need to look that one up? Me too. The Anglepoise table lamp, modeled on the muscles and bones of human limbs, was invented by George Carwardine in 1933. You know your standard adjustable desk lamp? That's an Anglepoise-derived design.
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
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.
... the monitor had to be put on some way, right? It can be taken off and replaced the same way. You'll just have to take it to someone who can do it, just like getting your TV fixed.
I can see your concerns, but
I know this means less control over our own systems, but the Mac crowd is used to getting their whole system in one package - this isn't new AT ALL. It's the PC-clone people that like that aspect, and in terms of Apple's target market, that's a small percentage.
This is why I don't see this post as "interesting", because it's the same "PC's are better because we have more control" argument. Some people don't want control - they want a box (or dome) that sits beautifully on their desk and behaves nicely. This is the Mac market. This will always be the Mac market.
For crying out loud, PC users, GET USED TO IT.
</rant>
----- rL
This isn't flamebait, but isn't this the situation with all laptop vendors? LCDs drop pixels, and on an all-in-one computer (desktop or laptop) you are stuck with it. Did you post this about the netVista or Thinkpad? =)
"You know why you do not see me styling wit my homies? Because I have no homies!!" -Mojo Jojo
Apple's... (err who ever manufactures the LCD panels) ... LCD's are some of the best in the industry. I've owned 4 different PowerBooks and none of them have ever had a dead pixel. I've never actually seen a dead pixel on a quality Laptop from _any_ company.
Including the 4 PowerBooks, I've owned 7 different Macs (9600, B&W G3, original (rev A) iMac, PB 5300, PB 3400, "WallStreet" G3, "Pismo" G3). None of them have ever had any sort of hardware failure. None. My little sister has been using that Rev A iMac since it was introduced nearly 4 years ago.
I'd say that purchasing Apple equipment is a pretty safe bet.
Of course, there are some people who have problems, but given my experience with Apple hardware, I'd say it's some of the highest quality stuff on the market.
STEVE JOBS ON DESIGN
Fortune Magazine: What has always distinguished the products of the
companies you've led is the design aesthetic. Is your obsession with
design an inborn instinct or what?
Steve Jobs: We don't have good language to talk about this kind of thing.
In most people's vocabularies, design means veneer. It's interior
decorating. It's the fabric of the curtains and the sofa. But to me,
nothing could be further from the meaning of design. Design is the
fundamental soul of a man-made creation that ends up expressing itself in
successive outer layers of the product or service. The iMac is not just
the colour or translucence or the shape of the shell. The essence of the
iMac is to be the finest possible consumer computer in which each element
plays together.
On our latest iMac, I was adamant that we get rid of the fan, because it
is much more pleasant to work on a computer that doesn't drone all the
time. That was not just "Steve's decision" to pull out the fan; it
required an enormous engineering effort to figure out how to manage power
better and do a better job of thermal conduction through the machine. That
is the furthest thing from veneer. It was at the core of the product the
day we started.
This is what customers pay us for--to sweat all these details so it's easy
and pleasant for them to use our computers. We're supposed to be really
good at this. That doesn't mean we don't listen to customers, but it's
hard for them to tell you what they want when they've never seen anything
remotely like it.
http://www.fortune.com/fortune/2000/01/24/app6.
--
Henry Ford said the same thing about the first car. Basically it was a Tractor high-bread that will allow people to drive the store in the same vehicle after plowing the fields.
I happen to appreciate the elegance of something like OSX. It's out of my face so I can get the work I need done, done quicker.
The rumors about it being slow or buggy are just plain fud. They have fixed almost all of the anoying problems after version 10.1 and it's just getting better.
I find that I am actually able to do the things using the tools I am used to (Unix/GNU tools that I am used to such as VIM, wget, Lynx, php/apache, etc.) I can also play games (Wolfenstein) that I love, and co-habitate with my co-workers that are a MS Office establishment.
I don't know how you can say that interface improvments are regressive. The UNIX/Linux world would still be using TWM if we all kept that mentality.
I thought a more squarish (dare I say cube-shaped) base would have allowed for built in stereo speakers. And I think it would have looked a lot cooler than the lump base.
The Independent interview with Ive finally explained it for me:
Well if lump is the most functional form for the base, then lump it is. As Ive mentions in the interview, you don't really appreciate all the subtle decisions that go into an industrial design until you start to understand all the constraints.
I like the G4 iMac more now.
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.
What non-standard components are you talking about?
Everything in the iMac except the screen, the OS, and the motherboard, is a conventional, PC useable component.
GPL Deconstructed
Having unfortunately dealt with Compaq, I wholeheartedly agree with your assesment on Compaq. I also now own a PowerMac G4 (I'm a UNIX-head who caught the MacOS X bug).
There luckilly is a big difference between the Compaq's you speak of and the Apple's of today. The biggest difference is that you don't *see* the wackiness. Since
Apple both does the BIOS, and the OS, no nasty hack like hidden partitions or weird NT drivers to get things to work properly.
Unlike the Compaq of the past, Apple doesn't try to make every peice of the pie either. Apple doesn't try to do stuff like make video cards, NIC's, or FUBAR SmartRAID cards. They leave that to other folks. My G4 has a Broadcom Gigabit Ethernet chipset, a normal Geforce2MX, and some outsourced sound chipset. It takes normal PC133 DIMM's, etc. They've learned to outsource & standardize a lot more since Jobs has come aboard. Sun does now too more, but they still manage some of the items on their own (Sun GigE 2.0).
Apple just makes sure that everything works together nicely. From the case, to the chipset, to the BIOS, and to the OS level. They do a beautiful job at it too.
P.S.: I've got a Compaq Proliant 4xPPRO 200 at home. Guess what it's used for? A TV stand (it's covered by a black sheet). I hate those machines with a passion.
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"
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)
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
Personally I keep slipping into the thought that it's a first person recounting, what with all the things like "Ive designed it as small as possible to maximise the distance from screen to CPU" and "Ive anonymously paced the show floor, watching people's reactions". Betcha the writer had to turn off the Auto Correct in his word processor to keep it from adding an apostrophe in the name, too.
You do realize that you're an idiot, don't you? Cocoa is not Java for anything. Cocoa is an API for Mac OS. You can program for the API in two languages: Objective-C and Java.
I have a website. It's about Macs.
Thank you for presenting a clear, logic arguement, rather than foaming and reciting "macs suck" nonsense.
I use a mac because they suit my purpose. They are fast enough for me, run graphical apps fine, allow me to use the CLI in OS X while photoshop running next to it.
The perception is that most mac users go for style over substance...nah. We're pretty savvy, and while looks are important, they're not the most important thing.
Then again, there was the cool linux chick who sat next to me in the computer cafe, and commented on how sexy the Titanium Powerbook G4 was....
Funny you should mention that. Actually, as you'll discover if you ever install Linux on a Mac, there are several "hidden partitions". These include:
Those are what I've discovered on a single Macintosh (Blue & White G3 model) which had been running Mac OS 9 and onto which I'd installed Debian. I'm sure there are even more on a modern system with Mac OS X. And no, the Mac doesn't use the PC partition format with its "primary" vs. "logical" limitations.
Thing is, you're mostly right ... in Mac OS
itself, you never have to worry about these things.