Slashdot Mirror


Apple Designer Honoured By British Crown

metalcup writes "The vice-president for design at Apple, the man behind the iPod and iMac, has been inducted into the Order of the British Empire as a Commander (a CBE honour)." From the BBC story: "Mr Ive started working for Apple in 1992 but exerted a big influence on its products only in 1997 when Steve Jobs returned to the company he co-founded. Mr Ive's first design for Apple, the iMac, was hugely influential and has been followed by a series of other widely admired gadgets ... Since the launch of the iMac in 1998, Mr Ive has driven the design of almost every piece of Apple hardware. Landmarks include the original iMac, iBook, Power Mac, PowerBook, Mac Mini and iPod."

194 comments

  1. Slashvertisement? by matr0x_x · · Score: 0

    Well, at least it's one of the last ones of the year :P

    --
    LINUX ONLINE POKER: Linux Poker
  2. Replaces... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Apple narrowly edges Elton John as the fruitiest entity to receive an honor from the Order of the British Empire.

    1. Re:Replaces... by dashard · · Score: 1

      Now that's funny.

  3. Hmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    So the Queen is recognizing intelligent design?

    *doh* I can't believe I just said that!

    1. Re:Hmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am my father's daughter. I'm a fan of mac and I make posts in Slashdot regularly...

    2. Re:Hmm... by mortonda · · Score: 1

      the queen? .... /me rereads title...

      OOHHHH! cRown! I read that as cLown the first time... lol.

  4. Durability by Marlor · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Now, if only Jonathan Ive could design products that were as durable as they are beautiful. We have all heard about iPods scratching, but other Apple products are just as bad. The top of my Mac mini was scratched within hours of buying it, due to resting a keyboard on it. It really is amazingly scratch-prone. I have heard that iBooks suffer from the same problem (although not as severely).

    Jonathan Ive is known for being hands-on in selecting the materials which the Apple devices are made from, but the plastics used in Apple products seem amazingly scratch-prone.

    Add that to the hoops that must be jumped through in order to open entry-level Apple products, and you have products that look great out of the box, but are terrible after long-term use.

    1. Re:Durability by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Even if you are right, durability is not the work of the designer, but of the engineers, who have to chose the right materials for the right usage. Obviously if a surface is scratching, it means the plastic coat is not of the correct type.

    2. Re:Durability by mita+bojangles · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yes please, gadget makers: STOP BUILDING GLOSSY SURFACES!!! Yes, they look shiny and swank in your adverts, but the moment a human hand touches them they're gunked up with fingerprints and scratches. No matter how i clean my ipod or my treo 650, they look like ass 2 minutes after USING them. Matt surfaces people....

    3. Re:Durability by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Industrial designers will often be quite involved in specifying the requirements of materials and great industrial designers are quite familiar with the properties of the materials they specify, including durability. The post you replied to even said Ive was hands-on in that respect.

      The idea that "designers" are about "pretty" and are divorced from functionality is a very outdated concept. Back when the American auto industry operated that way, it was losing ground quickly to the imports. The best companies today, like Apple, understand that design and engineering should be integrated activities, not the "draw a sketch and throw it over the wall to Engineering to figure out how to make it" mentality of decades ago.

    4. Re:Durability by dfjunior · · Score: 1

      I use scotchbrite or steel wool on a fair amount of stuff to deal with this very problem. Oh, except on the screen of my new ipod. I haven't even taken the protective plastic off that just yet...

    5. Re:Durability by baryon351 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Even if you are right, durability is not the work of the designer, but of the engineers, who have to chose the right materials for the right usage

      That would be true for an average designer but an industrial designer is as much engineer as they are designer. They're hands on throughout the whole process, working with their team experienced in ergonomics, acoustics, heating, cooling and materials. Jonathan Ive would have as much responsibility for the scratchiness or non scratchiness of anything he'd designed as he does for its shape.

    6. Re:Durability by Basehart · · Score: 1

      "That would be true for an average designer but an industrial designer is as much engineer as they are designer. "

      Strange there was never a Industrial White Band (doh - all of them are).

    7. Re:Durability by evoltap · · Score: 5, Interesting

      From what you're saying, I gather that the issue of surface scratches out-ranks product atributes such as reliability, amiable UI, and the absence of general problems that seem to plague some personal computing systems.......

      Yeah, I guess I could be real upset that my ipod screen is scratched (believe me, it is)....but wait, it dosn't matter! It still works great and I can see the text fine and the battery is f*****g sugary sweet after 1 year+

      I guess what i'm sayin is those surface scratches have nothing to do with what computers are about. Apple has been a very positive force in the tech world, in my opinion.

    8. Re:Durability by Klanglor · · Score: 1

      sadly, i still recall my highschool physics class. the theory of eng. deteririation to push ppl to buy new and nicer stuff faster to ensure a everlasting business cycle. lol.

    9. Re:Durability by pelorus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's a fair point. Apple and other manufacturers should revert to making their products out of the polycarbonate compounds of the past like the iMac.

      Of course, I did meet one person who DROPPED their iMac and complained about how the cracked polycarbonate housing obviously wasn't very durable. I can't think of many 38 lb gadgets that would survive a fall like that, but this iMac did...

      Suffice to say, the Mac mini wasn't designed to be the "shelf upon which you place the detritus of your life". I have a scratch on the top of mine but that comes from a month of shoving it in the same bag as it's power supply and other bits and pieces.

    10. Re:Durability by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I really like that someone has marked this post as a troll. Talk about irrational fanboys.

    11. Re:Durability by droleary · · Score: 5, Insightful

      We have all heard about iPods scratching, but other Apple products are just as bad.

      As bad as what? The only reason people bitch about their Apple pretty getting beat up is because it is pretty. Nobody gives a rat's ass about scratches they get on their crap Dell box or some junk MP3 players. It's not that other products are more durable, it's that nobody cares half as much for those other products as they seem to care about Apple stuff. People who moan about a scratched nano always sound like they'd be shocked by the very concept of keying a car or getting a ding from someone else's door. Certainly a $20,000 product should be more durable than that!

    12. Re:Durability by Millenniumman · · Score: 0

      Doesn't the protective plastic say "Don't steal music" all over it? Isn't it hard to navigate around that?

      --
      Stupidity is like nuclear power, it can be used for good or evil. And you don't want to get any on you.
    13. Re:Durability by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 1

      That is pretty unfortunate. My understanding is that the plastic material is very impact resistant, but amlost minimally scratch resistant. I don't understand Apple's obsession with making good looking products if it is so hard to keep them looking good when actually used.

      I don't like Apple's obsession with hiding or eliminating ports, I think it's stupidly awkward to have to reach around to the back side of a monitor or computer and feel around for a port to make an impromptu plug-in such as a thumb drive. That's why other omputer makers have put ports on the front of their computers. For a computer like the iMac, I'm willing to compromise by putting a couple easy ports on the side so that the front is unblemished, though I think the iMac front is a bit bland. iBooks and Powerbooks have ports on their side, so there's some precedence there.

      Disclosure: I do own a few pieces of Apple hardware. I like many parts of the Mac OS X and their hardware is pretty nice, but I don't like it that the Apple Faithful behave as if the way things are with Apple products is perfect and that there aren't huge grounds for improvement. I do understand many of the reasons for the way something might be, but I think there should be room for disagreement as to whether it is a good idea or not.

    14. Re:Durability by allgood2 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      That's not really a durability issue; that aesthetics, and while I'm in to glossy, shiny things, practically every item I own--plastic, metal, even wood, that have semi to high gloss surfaces, require extra care to keep that aesthetic.

      My shiny black file cabinets, that look so pretty storing items I hate keeping track of, is scratch prone. My high gloss finish desk (which I built) requires annual touch-ups to keep it super shiny, for those times when my desk is actually clear. I polish my Powerbook G4 laptop, and use a scratch filler every so often. Why, I even have to put my glasses away in a case or tissue paper each night so they don't get surface scratches. (the horror)

      The fact is, if you don't want to provide care, your better off with a matte finish or mesh. Almost all my desktop accessories are matte or mesh, because, who want to spend time keep a pencil holder, stapler or a garbage can shiny. On the otherhand, I am willing to toss everything off my desk once a year, and reapply a finish; just as I'm willing to make sure I use a soft cloth and take other precautions with my iPod.

    15. Re:Durability by Kadin2048 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Add that to the hoops that must be jumped through in order to open entry-level Apple products, and you have products that look great out of the box, but are terrible after long-term use.

      I strenuously disagree with this. I've owned quite a few Apple products, and while not perhaps their full product line, enough so that I'm familiar with how they package and pack things. I think that their packaging is some of the best designed, ever. The iPod packaging isn't anything as special, but it's still not bad.

      If anyone bought an original (CRT) iMac, then you remember the packaging that it came in: open box, lift out top foam, grab handle and remove computer, set on desk. Then pull out the mouse and keyboard, plug them in, and go. It was fairly brilliant; IIRC even Consumer Reports was impressed, and this was back when they were really Mac-haters.

      It's been a while since I've bought a new machine from Apple, but I can't imagine that they've gone much downhill. They always seemed to put a lot more effort into the design of their packaging and initial "presentation" of the device to the customer than any other manufacturer I'm familiar with. (Granted they'd better, given what they charge for their gear...)

      --
      "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
    16. Re:Durability by lewp · · Score: 1

      My black nano is scratched beyond belief, while my RAZR, which is both "pretty" and gets pretty much the exact same treatment (lots of riding around in my pocket and sliding around in my car) doesn't have a mark on it.

      iPods scratch easily.

      --
      Game... blouses.
    17. Re:Durability by Dirtside · · Score: 1
      Matt surfaces people...
      Libelous nonsense! I've never surfaced anyone.
      --
      "Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
    18. Re:Durability by Overly+Critical+Guy · · Score: 1

      Now, if only Jonathan Ive could design products that were as durable as they are beautiful.

      Apple does. You can run over a nano with a car and it'll keep running. What you're talking about is external aesthetics which is different. My iBook, though used and scratched on the outside, is incredibly durable and has kept running in harsh conditions.

      --
      "Sufferin' succotash."
    19. Re:Durability by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or ... you could just use one of the two free USB ports on the keyboard for that thumb drive.

    20. Re:Durability by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      After you pull *that* wrapper off, there's still a flat piece stuck to the face (which doesn't have any writing on it)

    21. Re:Durability by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your RAZR isn't all high gloss suface either.

    22. Re:Durability by CWRUisTakingMyMoney · · Score: 2, Informative
      Fair enough, and I agree with you that for computers, function > form. But the thread is about form, and the guy who designed it. From a design standpoint (and especially given the image Apple wishes to present of its hardware), such a scratch-prone product line is a Bad Thing, and I'm actually rather surprised that it hasn't hurt sales as much as it has (if it even has at all).

      FWIW, my eMac doesn't scratch at all, I always keep my iPod in a case so it has no noticeable scratches, and my PowerBook is in fine shape.

      --
      Those who anthropomorphize science and/or nature already believe in an intelligent designer.
    23. Re:Durability by MoneyT · · Score: 1

      I think it's stupidly awkward to have to reach around to the back side of a monitor or computer and feel around for a port to make an impromptu plug-in such as a thumb drive.

      This would be why Apple has USB ports on their keyboards. Something I wish PC manufacturers would start doing.

      --
      T Money
      World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
    24. Re:Durability by Golias · · Score: 1

      Well, in the case of the Mac mini, you're not supposed to set shit on top of it it. Wireless reception and temperature control both rely on the top remaining uncovered, and also i've been told that the media drive can make some spooky grinding noises if it runs with stuff sitting on top of the mini.

      If a design mistake was made, it was in making the top of it flat and level, which makes it seem like a nice place to rest your beer glass if the mini is sitting on a desk or something.

      My mini has been standing on its side for as long as I've had it, so this has not been an issue for me at all.

      As for the "scratch-prone" nano... I think 90% of the really strident pissing and moaning about it is coming from people who don't even own and iPod of any sort.

      --

      Information wants to be anthropomorphized.

    25. Re:Durability by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Keyboard USB ports only variably support memory sticks. From testing, about 50% need to be plugged directly into my Powerbook (this is from about 30 memory sticks, not all mine, over the last 3 years)

    26. Re:Durability by Marlor · · Score: 1

      I guess I could of phrased that better. When I mentioned "opening up" Apple products, I was referring to opening them to perform maintenance. Opening a Mac mini to upgrade the RAM requires a putty knife and some black magic. I got the guys at my local Apple shop to open mine, and they even struggled. Opening an iPod mini to replace the battery is virtually impossible.

      While the iPod could conceivably be considered a "disposable" consumer item to be thrown away when the battery dies, there is no excuse for the Mac mini. Surely Apple could have gone with screws rather than clips in the Mac mini, since the screws would be on the bottom where nobody would ever see them.

    27. Re:Durability by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      If I recall, the USB ports on the keyboard only support USB 1.1, and are therefore unsuitable for plugging in an iPod or other high-speed device.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    28. Re:Durability by Kadin2048 · · Score: 1

      Ah, I understand now. In that case, I agree completely -- Apple has always been bad at upgradability of its "consumer" products. I wasn't aware that the Mac Mini in particular was such a PITA, but it doesn't totally surprise me. As a company they've always seemed fascinated by the concept of the sealed "black box" (or perhaps white box) that the consumer couldn't really touch.

      However their higher-tier products, the Power Macs in particular, don't hold to this. It seems to be a philosophy limited to their entry-level gear, and somewhat unfortunate.

      --
      "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
    29. Re:Durability by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apple stuff doesn't scratch any easier than other stuff, it just stands out more because it looks better to begin with.

    30. Re:Durability by Nataku564 · · Score: 1

      I own one. It rests in one of three places. My desk at home, my shirt pocket, and my desk at work. It is scratched. Trust me when I say that the complaint is not without merit. Cotton scratches these things.

  5. Oh my! by c0l0 · · Score: 0

    I misread the title 3 times or so as "Apple Designer Honoured By British Clown" and was like "Are they sure this is actually meant as a serious award?"... and I'm not even drunk (yet)!

    --
    :%s/Open Source/Free Software/g

    YTARY!
    1. Re:Oh my! by Rosyna · · Score: 1

      In Japan, they're the same thing!

      Although I guess the Queen *kind* of looks like Krusty...

    2. Re:Oh my! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In England, the Queen is a German Clown.

    3. Re:Oh my! by Gordonjcp · · Score: 1

      No, that would be Tony Blair.

    4. Re:Oh my! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Apple Designer Honoured By British Clown" and was like "Are they sure this is actually meant as a serious award?"
      Nope, you read it right, and it is meant as a really serious award.

      Do you really think these types of awards are just exclusive to Microsoft?

      Then again, these days it seems everyone and their dog is being honoured by some clown...

  6. What About John Ball by pjay_dml · · Score: 5, Interesting

    John Ball a math prof at Oxford, and Michael Pepper, professor of physics at Cambridge, also will receive a knighthood. That's also news for geeks.

    There is no entry for John Ball on Wikipedia, anyone who knows more about him, might want to fill this gap.

    Same for Michael Pepper, who is mentioned in the article on the Quantum Hall effect.

    1. Re:What About John Ball by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wouldn't that be Dr. Pepper?

    2. Re:What About John Ball by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, the british have come a way since the good old days when they awarded knighthoods to people who burned down villages and raped women.

  7. Well, so was Gates by sirhan · · Score: 2, Funny

    Bill Gates whas knighted too. Well, the honor in that's gone now...

    --

    It is easier to get forgiveness than permission.

    1. Re:Well, so was Gates by RotateLeftByte · · Score: 4, Informative

      BG was awarded an Honarary Knighthood just like Bob Geldorf and many other FOREIGN citizens. These rank at the same level as Honarary doctorates etc awarded by Universities.

      Real Knighthoods are reserved for British & Commonwealth Citizens.

      They are very different.

      --
      I'd rather be riding my '63 Triumph T120.
    2. Re:Well, so was Gates by PietjeJantje · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The obvious point has to be made again. Royalty is a medieval artifact which in my opinion is evidence of lack of development. It's a Bad Thing (tm). I wish more people who are "honoured" or knighted by royalty would take a stance and say it as it is, as opposed to immediately deteriorating to someone grateful and humble and respectful, to people who are irrelevant except in bloodline, but think they are special. In fact they have done nothing for us but spend our money on bling-bling. Snub their PR and marketing! It is no coincidence that they give these honours to people who are influential. Some would call it a moral bribe.

    3. Re:Well, so was Gates by Bazzalisk · · Score: 3, Interesting
      And so speaks someone who doesn't understand the British governmental system very well. The sepearation of Head of State from Head of Government is important, and the fact that the former is someone who by dint of the hereditariness of the office is utterly un-coruptable and un-swayable by public opinion is a very important element of the way our system works.

      Could it be done with someone other than the Windsors on the throne? hell yes. I'd be perfectly happy if the current head of state was Thomas Cromwell IV or somesuch - but someone needs to take that role for the system to work at all.

      --
      James P. Barrett
    4. Re:Well, so was Gates by PietjeJantje · · Score: 1

      You're entitled to your mideaval opinion, and I applaud you for coming out and saying you actually need the random dame that was born first, but it weakens your points if you start off by saying someone with another opinion has no clue of the system.

    5. Re:Well, so was Gates by vidarh · · Score: 1
      What you are saying makes no sense. The monarch doesn't talk about politics, and doesn't take any decisions. So why does it matter if she's "un-corruptable" etc.? For your information, the honours list for instance is compiled by civil servants, ok'd by the prime ministers office and THEN presented to the queen. It is "hers" in name only.

      It's the same for all of her "powers" - they are in name only.

      Are you saying an elected representative can't manage to be a figurehead with no powers?

    6. Re:Well, so was Gates by CountBrass · · Score: 1
      Well the Queen's representative in Australia (Governor General? Viceroy? Not sure of his title) once stopped the labour government from voting itself an extended term in office. Would a Labour president have done the same thing?

      That said monarchy is an anachronism, the problem is the alternative is something like the US model but look at the Head of State the voted himself into office! I'd take a our Queen over that corrupt dick any day.

      --
      Bad analogies are like waxing a monkey with a rainbow.
    7. Re:Well, so was Gates by Bazzalisk · · Score: 1
      Precisely.

      The Queen does have powers - powers she almost never uses (I think that's the only instance of teh royal veto being used during her reign, but I'm not sure). The fact that they aren't used makes them more important - since the threat of them hangs there.

      --
      James P. Barrett
    8. Re:Well, so was Gates by tobe · · Score: 1

      Although it would be right to think of it as effectively a veto it's actually termed royal assent. The last monarch to refuse assent was Queen Anne in 1707. One of the most recent examples of UK law being directly affected by a monarch was in Victoria's reign when all mention of female/female relationships were struck from a bill outlawing homosexuality because she simply refused to exist such a thing as a lesbian existed.

    9. Re:Well, so was Gates by AlvySinger · · Score: 1

      Two things: firstly, the honours are political for the government (which decides them) not the Queen. Secondly, if we didn't have a monarch here in the UK we'd still need a head of state. I, for one, would prefer the current situation over the possibility of President Blair (*shivers*).

    10. Re:Well, so was Gates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's a rather good quote I heard once. Can't remember the origin, but it's worth repeating:

      "The importance of the Crown lies not in its own powers, but in the powers it denies to others."

    11. Re:Well, so was Gates by pjt33 · · Score: 1
      In fact they have done nothing for us but spend our money on bling-bling.
      Actually I believe the stimulus they give to tourism makes them effectively net contributors to the economy.
    12. Re:Well, so was Gates by PietjeJantje · · Score: 1

      Better hope the queen/king is not a corrupt dick. Or is born with Down Syndrome. Or, less dramatic, is just an idiot with flappy ears and a baste taste in women.

    13. Re:Well, so was Gates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      in what way are they very different?

      since the UK has no written constitution, and the law in this area is mostly based on precedent (no acts were ever passed on what the hell a knighthood does or does not mean) I can quite legally award myself whatever I want and wander around calling myself Lord King Norman Tebbit OBE CBE KBE

      as long as I don't use the name to convince people to give me money (which would probably be fraud) I'm no less legally entitled to my titles than anyone who kneeled before with the queen.

      so there is no difference between my knighthood I just awarded my self, one given to Geldof, or one given to Isaac Newton.

    14. Re:Well, so was Gates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but someone needs to take that role for the system to work at all

      You know, the 18th century may look dangerously libertine, but you may want to consider advancing into it. It does have some perks.

    15. Re:Well, so was Gates by iPaige · · Score: 1

      Guess she hasn't been on the internet lately.

    16. Re:Well, so was Gates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    17. Re:Well, so was Gates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      One of the most recent examples of UK law being directly affected by a monarch was in Victoria's reign when all mention of female/female relationships were struck from a bill outlawing homosexuality because she simply refused to exist such a thing as a lesbian existed.

      Or at least that was the "official" reason.

      Bow-chicka-bow-bow

  8. Times have changed. by Phariom · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That's part of the magic behind Apple's product line. "Back in the day," computers were ugly, huge, clunky, off-white boxes that people generally kept out of sight of guests, perhaps in a spare room somewhere along with their model rockets and comic books--as per a good friend of mine at the time. And this was fine; computers were not mainstream in the individual citizens' world. As computers became more and more integrated in our lives, form became just as important as functionality.

    The average non-l33t users of today consider the computer to be just another piece of furniture or just another appliance in their homes--and in many cases, they are correct. Computers are no longer just toys; they are important tools.

    Apple's decision to make their products just as appealing outside as inside is a major part of why I am one of their many fans. When people see my Mac sitting on my desk they never ask me how fast it is, how big of a hard drive I have, or if I use high-speed or dial-up; they compliment me on a fine looking machine.

    1. Re:Times have changed. by pintomp3 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      that's funny, cuz girls always ask me how big a hard drive i have. they even ask to see it. i'm thinking about letting it just hang out to show off. they don't call me quantum bigfoot for nothing.

    2. Re:Times have changed. by heinousjay · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      They compliment you? But all you did was buy it. That's hardly worthy of praise.

      --
      Slashdot - where whining about luck is the new way to make the world you want.
    3. Re:Times have changed. by Phariom · · Score: 2, Insightful

      People complient each other on their cars all the time and all these individuals did was make a purchase. How is that any different?

    4. Re:Times have changed. by krakelohm · · Score: 1

      okay... this is not 1994 and 4 gigs is not big anymore. Sorry to break it to ya.

      --
      You are all a bunch of idots.
    5. Re:Times have changed. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're complementing his good taste. *nods*

    6. Re:Times have changed. by Weedlekin · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Same here. I have an iMac G5 sitting among various other computers, and nobody ever notices the others at all: they are invariably intrigued by the Mac's looks, screen, generally quiet operation, and how it has "a much nicer Windows" than the one that came with their own PCs.

      --
      I'm not going to change your sheets again, Mr. Hastings.
    7. Re:Times have changed. by ettlz · · Score: 1
      "Back in the day," computers were ugly, huge, clunky, off-white boxes that people generally kept out of sight of guests...

      Now if your average citizen could afford an SGI workstation, that would've been different. Where's the knightnood — nay, the acknowledgement — for the person who designed the beautiful O2?

    8. Re:Times have changed. by eshefer · · Score: 1

      The o2 was NOT butifull. It was ugly.

      It was better looking them most of the computers of it's age, but that didn't change the fact that it looks like a stubby troll.

      and the O2 had very little influence and success. see where silico.. SGI.. no! silicon graphics are now.

      and there is that little thing about Ive being a brit.

    9. Re:Times have changed. by PhotoGuy · · Score: 1

      Well put.

      I've often seen computeres as fairly utilitarian. But Macs still have stirred me in their design (inside and out). I guess it's a bit like vehicles; we could all be driving around in utilitarian army jeeps, which would serve the purpose. But the vast majority of car buyers prefer to have some style with their car purchase.

      Given the amount of time people are spending with their computers these days, both work and play (far more than most spend with their cars), having a pleasing style associated with it makes a great deal of sense.

      --
      Love many, trust a few, do harm to none.
    10. Re:Times have changed. by Phariom · · Score: 1

      "Given the amount of time people are spending with their computers these days, both work and play (far more than most spend with their cars), having a pleasing style associated with it makes a great deal of sense." Not to mention that anyone who has ever typed on an Apple's keyboard knows that they just feel...right. I don't know how to explain it any better than that.

    11. Re:Times have changed. by Halfbaked+Plan · · Score: 4, Funny

      When people see my Mac sitting on my desk they never ask me how fast it is, how big of a hard drive I have, or if I use high-speed or dial-up; they compliment me on a fine looking machine.

      Translation: "Their eyes glaze over, and they say 'ooooh, shiny!'"

      --
      resigned
    12. Re:Times have changed. by nathanh · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That's part of the magic behind Apple's product line. "Back in the day," computers were ugly, huge, clunky, off-white boxes that people generally kept out of sight of guests, perhaps in a spare room somewhere along with their model rockets and comic books--as per a good friend of mine at the time. And this was fine; computers were not mainstream in the individual citizens' world. As computers became more and more integrated in our lives, form became just as important as functionality.

      Revisionist bullshit. Computers were not all ugly off-white boxes "back in the day", and Apple has made some damn ugly hardware over the years.

      To the first point, computers have always been an assorted bag of good looking equipment and ugly beige boxes. The IBM PC was infamous for being an ugly beige box but it was the exception rather than the rule. Most companies competed for attention by producing eye-catching hardware. Commodore was famous for their attractive designs - chunky styling and rounded edges with colours that were fashionable (in the 70s). I still find the C64 to be one of the most stylish personal computers ever made.

      Here's another gorgeous design from "back in the day", the Sinclair ZX81. The slim case meant it slipped easily into the television cabinet and the jet-black casing was revolutionary for the time. Remember that back when this computer was released most TVs still had wooden (actually veneer) cabinets and hi-fi stereos were rarely connected to the television. This computer was positively space-aged looking by comparison. It was exceptionally attractive and many houses had this proudly seated under the TV.

      Outside the PC world, mainframe companies used impressive designs to showcase their hardware. Cray had achieved legendary status for the bench seat inspired Cray-1. That particular design is still recognized today as one of the most distinctive mainframes ever built. However Cray was never content to stay still and they outdid themselves with the Cray-2 which had waterfall cooling towers. There's still nothing in the PC world that can even begin to compete with Cray for distinctive and attractive form.

      Apple's decision to make their products just as appealing outside as inside is a major part of why I am one of their many fans.

      Apple has produced some awfully ugly crap over the years as well. Take a look at the horrendous beige box that was the Mac II. It was by far the ugliest PC on the market at the time; even the IBM PC at that time wasn't as cringe worthy as the Mac II. How about the uninspiring Performa 575 which was also an unreliable piece of crap. Or take a look at the ugliest computer that Apple ever made... the PowerPC 4400 (argh, my eyes, the goggles do nothing).

      Recently Apple has started making their computers attractive - the trend seems to have started with the iMac - but so what, the rest of the industry is doing the same thing. Everybody is making attractive cases these days; the only difference is that in the x86 world it's a choice and if you don't want to pay the premium for style then you don't have to.

      So to your original points - it is not true that "back in the day" all computers were ugly off-white boxes, and it's not true that Apple has some sort of "magic" in their product line. Apple is like the rest of the companies; they've made ugly hardware to cut costs, and now like most PC manufacturers they're producing more attractive hardware to

    13. Re:Times have changed. by vague+disclaimer · · Score: 2, Funny

      My God! You've cracked it. Apple's new slogan: "OSX, featuring Much Nicer Windows(tm)".

    14. Re:Times have changed. by User+956 · · Score: 1

      That's part of the magic behind Apple's product line. "Back in the day," computers were ugly, huge, clunky, off-white boxes that people generally kept out of sight of guests, perhaps in a spare room somewhere along with their model rockets and comic books

      That's a complete load of crap. Lian-li has been making uniquely-styled cases since 1997. Apple's first colorful computer, the iMac, didn't come out until 1998. SGI was making fancy boxes even earlier than that.

      Lian-li pioneered the brushed-aluminum look that Apple stole with the new G5. Apple's product line has nothing to do with magic. It has everything to do with marketing.

      --
      The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
    15. Re:Times have changed. by thatguywhoiam · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Though in my not so humble opinion they still can't hold a candle to that beautiful C64.

      (sigh. Just goes to show you, its all about tone on slashdot.)

      I read your post. I think you are projecting some of your personal preferences onto the memories of these old computers and end up with surprising results.

      For instance - and as we are talking subjectives here it can't go far - I simply cannot understand how you decide a C64 is 'better designed', aesthetically, than a Mac II? They use practically the same school of thought, that Star Trek II man-ridges and swiss lines sort of thing that was big in the early 80s. I mean, I can understand a slight preference for one over the other (in my case definitely the Mac) but saying they are worlds apart is baffling.

      Ditto the Amiga - I had 5 of those suckers and I would say their meager efforts went no fruther than the token swoop that Dell puts on their cases. Again, I would compare an Amiga 3000 to the supposedly hideous Mac II and say, you see a difference?

      The Sinclair was beautiful I'll give you that. But the rest, I think you are basking in the warm glow of Amiga memories or the bitter reverie of changing a video card in the Mac II. But design wise, they are not far apart at all, not even remotely so. Put a Mac Classic case design versus, oh, any of them. The Smithsonian agrees with me.

      --
      If Jesus wants me it knows where to find me.
    16. Re:Times have changed. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think the O2 looks really nice. Along with just about every other SGI box I've seen.

    17. Re:Times have changed. by nathanh · · Score: 0, Flamebait
      Though in my not so humble opinion they still can't hold a candle to that beautiful C64.

      I read your post. I think you are projecting some of your personal preferences onto the memories of these old computers and end up with surprising results.

      No shit sherlock. I did say that the beauty of the C64 was in my not so humble opinion.

      However that doesn't attract from the non-subjective examples I gave to demolish the claim that computers "back in the day" were ugly off-white boxes. I gave several examples of personal computers that were not ugly, not off-white and not boxes. They were innovative designs that were both attractive and functional. Disagreeing with my opinion is pointless; my opinion wasn't the meat of my comment.

      For instance - and as we are talking subjectives here it can't go far - I simply cannot understand how you decide a C64 is 'better designed', aesthetically, than a Mac II? They use practically the same school of thought, that Star Trek II man-ridges and swiss lines sort of thing that was big in the early 80s. I mean, I can understand a slight preference for one over the other (in my case definitely the Mac) but saying they are worlds apart is baffling.

      Huh? Do you even know what a Mac II looks like? It's an ugly off-white box. It's a horrible looking computer. It's got nothing on the sleek all-in-one design of the C64 with its sloped keyboard, rounded edges and chunky appearance. The C64 looked like something that belonged in the Star Wars universe. The Mac II looked like something you used in the construction of buildings.

      The Sinclair was beautiful I'll give you that. But the rest, I think you are basking in the warm glow of Amiga memories

      Man, I didn't use the word Amiga even once in my earlier comment. Who the fuck are you replying to, because it's obviously not me.

      The Smithsonian agrees with me.

      Yeah, because we all know that the Smithsonian is renowned for their opinions on fashion and aesthetics. Though even disregarding that nonsensical justification - the Smithsonian? - I agree that the Mac Classic was an awesome design. Easily the best PC design from the 80s.

      (sigh. Just goes to show you, its all about tone on slashdot.)

      By the way, I really despise it when people use words like "sigh" in their posts, as if somehow they were dictacting to the computer and it was capturing their every grunt and exhalation. Do you write "umm" and "burp" as well? If not, then don't be a pompous ass and write "sigh" as if somehow that conveys your exasperation with the world that lies beneath you.

      PS: How was that for tone?

    18. Re:Times have changed. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What a jackass. I doubt he even knows where the Smithsonian is, or what it has on display, not to mention its collection that isn't on display.

      And in this case, the "sigh" refers to the author's frustration with pompous asses like you and does convey the "exasperation of the world" as you see it in your self-righteous reflection. Happy New Year...now you know at least one of the resolutions you might want to make...

    19. Re:Times have changed. by Millenniumman · · Score: 0

      Name a computer currently in production that looks better than any of Apple's made by a major manufacturer. A monitor? As for what you're saying about old Macs, some of them weren't great looking, but the first Mac (and others designed like it) was. Certainly a lot nicer than the older computers you linked to. To be honest, most of the PCs that are supposed to look good are worse looking than the old beige boxes. Of course, this is my opinion.

      --
      Stupidity is like nuclear power, it can be used for good or evil. And you don't want to get any on you.
    20. Re:Times have changed. by Simon+Brooke · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Revisionist bullshit. Computers were not all ugly off-white boxes "back in the day", and Apple has made some damn ugly hardware over the years.

      First, I am not an Apple fan and most especially I am not a Steve Jobs fan. Not only did I program for the original Mac back in the early eighties, I had the deep joy of administering some NeXT boxes in the nineties. They were always, at least from a software point of view, a triumph of surface gloss over good engineering. I've never spent my own money on an Apple box, and I've never advised a customer to do so.

      But.

      OK, it's true that there have been very occasional ugly Apples. OK, it's true that there have been very occasional attractive case designs by other makers (I particularly like some of the mid 90s Silicon Graphics case designs, and, of course, the NeXT cubes were fantastically good to look at). But - and I say this with a very expensive designer PC case sitting under my desk - I've never seen a PC case design that didn't look awful, whereas by contrast some of the Apple case designs (Lisa; PowerMac G4 and G4 cube; Mac Mini) have been really excellent.

      So no. Steve Jobs has excellent visual taste, has a history of employing good industrial designers, and generally of producing better looking products (and often better physically engineered products) than anyone else in the consumer computer industry.

      It's just a shame about the software engineering.

      --
      I'm old enough to remember when discussions on Slashdot were well informed.
    21. Re:Times have changed. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right-click (or control-click) in text area. Spelling > Check Spelling as You Type.

    22. Re:Times have changed. by Denis+Lemire · · Score: 1

      With Apple's track record of designing beautifull and functional hardware, I for one can't understand what happened when they designed their current keyboard and mouse.

      I'm fortunate enough to use a PowerMac G5 at work daily. I tried to use the mouse, I really tried... After a few days of use I finally got sick of it and hucked it in favor of a good logitech. Sorry, one button? No scroll wheel (note: I haven't tried their new "Mighty Mouse").

      As for the keyboard, its not bad to type on, but its damned ugly (my opinion) I just plain don't like it.

      My biggest beef though is I want an ergonomic keyboard damnit! I want an ergonomic keyboard designed for Apple gear with all the volume/eject/etc function keys. One more requirement, put the damn 6 key on the left side of the split where it belongs... The only ergonomic keyboard I've found for Apple put the 6 on the right of the split, that is just plain wrong.

    23. Re:Times have changed. by Weedlekin · · Score: 1

      And thus do I secure myself at least an MBE in the 2006 New Year Honours List...

      --
      I'm not going to change your sheets again, Mr. Hastings.
    24. Re:Times have changed. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's funny -- I figured that given the girls you screw, they'd call you "Quantum Fireballs."

    25. Re:Times have changed. by AgNO3 · · Score: 1

      Its good that you have your opinoins on what is good design. I personally think that the Mac II is a hell of a lot cooler design for that era then the C64 was for its era. Look at all the designs from 1987. When I see a 1987 monte carlo I want to throw up but some people think its a great car. So again it wonderful that you have your opinion but your opinion does not make you right. It makes it your opinion. I look at the lear-siegler ADM-3A on the http://old-computers.com/ site and I see ugly but in 1973 it was probably a pretty cool design.

      --
      OMG Ponies!!! with Glitter!!!! I miss Pink :-(
    26. Re:Times have changed. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      > Now if your average citizen could afford an SGI workstation, that would've been different. Where's the knightnood -- nay, the acknowledgement -- for the person who designed the beautiful O2

      He was honored - but once the Queen took a gander at it, rather than having his shoulder tapped by the sword, he was decapitated.

    27. Re:Times have changed. by Overly+Critical+Guy · · Score: 1

      A recent interview with Ive revealed that Apple spent months perfecting the balance of the iMac so that when it was bumped, it would immediately stabilize. It was actually something that held up the product until it was done, because Ive wanted it to be perfect. Competing products will continue to wobble. It's this attention to design and willingness to use research money to solve those kinds of problems that makes the Apple products so good.

      --
      "Sufferin' succotash."
    28. Re:Times have changed. by Overly+Critical+Guy · · Score: 1

      Talk about a load of revisionist crap. Apple didn't "steal" squat from Lian-li's hideous cases. Apple pioneered the brushed-aluminum look before Lian-li had anything to do with it. You're just one of those bitter Apple haters who ignores the quality of their products and blindly assumes it's "everything to do with marketing." Well, have fun with your beige PC boxes.

      P.S. Don't forget to thank Steve Jobs for making USB the standard connection port after making the iMacs USB-only, thereby forcing hardware manufacturers to embrace the standard. Same with Firewire.

      --
      "Sufferin' succotash."
    29. Re:Times have changed. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep, the hockeypuck mouse is the best mouse ever! And the hockeypuck long, clearer, & shinny edition one is just as good!

    30. Re:Times have changed. by Weedlekin · · Score: 1

      It's actually amazing how stable and solid that foot under the iMac is. The great big slab perched on what looks like a base that's far too small for it gives the impression that it would topple if you breathed on it hard, yet it's actually rather more stable than some monitors I have that are on what appear to be much more substantial stands. It's quite an impressive bit of engineering.

      NB: the Apple attention to detail seems to rub off on Mac peripheral manufacturers too. They seem to be better thought out and are often built to a higher standard the equivalent stuff for PCs, which all too frequently seem to come in incredibly ugly plastic or folded sheet metal cases with extremely cheap and nasty connectors. Of course, this often means that a Mac peripheral costs more, but they are often so much nicer that I've started buying them for my Windows PCs as well as the iMac (most third party Mac peripherals come with drivers for Windows -- Macs on the other hand don't seem to need specialist drivers that often).

      --
      I'm not going to change your sheets again, Mr. Hastings.
    31. Re:Times have changed. by User+956 · · Score: 1

      Ok. Here's a Lian-Li case review from November, 2000. OS X didn't even *exist* then. It didn't come out with the "brushed metal" look until March 24, 2001. Apple was still making flimsy plastic cases for another two years, until they released the G5 (with the ripped-off brushed-metal motif) in 2003.

      So, again. Apple doesn't pioneer shit. And there's certainly no "magic" to it. They pick the best ideas from the PC world, then market them to the point where idiots like you think they came first.

      --
      The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
    32. Re:Times have changed. by pintomp3 · · Score: 1

      LOL, nice.

    33. Re:Times have changed. by thatguywhoiam · · Score: 1
      No shit sherlock. I did say that the beauty of the C64 was in my not so humble opinion.

      Yeah, you say a lot of things.

      However that doesn't attract from the non-subjective examples I gave to demolish the claim that computers "back in the day" were ugly off-white boxes. I gave several examples of personal computers that were not ugly, not off-white and not boxes. They were innovative designs that were both attractive and functional. Disagreeing with my opinion is pointless; my opinion wasn't the meat of my comment.

      The opinion was plainly the bulk of your comment. You named one worthy design, the ZX81; the other example was a Cray?! What planet do you live on where that is considered a desktop? (Oh, "outside the PC world." Nevermind then.) You comment is barely anything more than a breathless rant. You'd think you'd know better, with a low user ID like that. So grab a beverage, grandpa, because I am about to educate you.

      If you could see past the rage-filled miasma clouding your vision you could have read that I had no high praise for the Mac II; I only said it was marginally better than a C64, which had no philisophy about it whatsoever. A C64 was not some award-winning bit of industrial design; it was a fat kayboard, with a huge external power brick, and a multicoloured logo. That's it. The Mac II was the first mac that didn't have a built-in display (ala Mac Classic) and was supposed to be modular. You know, like a square. So they went with a swiss type of design, which employs a grid over your entire shape and is big on, yes, squares and straight lines. Because form follows functionality. The C64, in its first incarnation, was an oblong shape rounded at the front and taller at the back. The keyboard was totally nonstandard, even for the time. It was no big deal at all. But neither was the Mac II, I just said it had a lot more thought put into it than a C64. You forget that at the time the Mac had other industrial innovations, like external keyboards (with award-winning keycaps, I kid you not) and was attempting to mimic some of the PC world's expandibility options. Like I said, it was no big deal, but a big difference from the Commodore.

      Huh? Do you even know what a Mac II looks like? It's an ugly off-white box. It's a horrible looking computer. It's got nothing on the sleek all-in-one design of the C64 with its sloped keyboard, rounded edges and chunky appearance. The C64 looked like something that belonged in the Star Wars universe. The Mac II looked like something you used in the construction of buildings.

      Really. Star Wars, huh. Well, I know where you are coming from then: Clueless, USA. Where the fuck do you get exposed engines, blaster shielding, rivets, carbon scoring etc from a C64? Amazing. Find me something in all of Star Wars that even remotely looks like a C64. You won't, 'cause you can't, 'cause you are emoting from your anus.

      (I apologize terribly if my contraction of because has offended your delicate sensibilities.)

      Man, I didn't use the word Amiga even once in my earlier comment. Who the fuck are you replying to, because it's obviously not me.

      I used the word Amiga, as an example of other desktops at the time that attempted a modicum of design. Go check, I'll wait.

      By the way, I really despise it when people use words like "sigh" in their posts, as if somehow they were dictacting to the computer and it was capturing their every grunt and exhalation. Do you write "umm" and "burp" as well? If not, then don't be a pompous ass and write "sigh" as if somehow that conveys your exasperation with the world that lies beneath you. PS: How was that for tone?

      Outstanding. Hopefully I have conveyed the fullness of my imagined sigh more effectively to you, in a manner you can fully comprehend, without disappointing you with such shortcuts.

      --
      If Jesus wants me it knows where to find me.
    34. Re:Times have changed. by Overly+Critical+Guy · · Score: 1

      Okay, so you found an ugly-ass aluminum Lian-Li case, suddenly decided Apple's brushed metal PowerMacs were stolen from that design, and now all the sudden Apple "doesn't pioneer shit?" Hell, where do you think that Recycle Bin/Trash can you're using came from? How about those icons and pulldown menus? They weren't from Xerox.

      And now I'm an "idiot," too? Can't argue with that kind of research. Clearly, you're just pissed off that I pointed out that Apple didn't steal anything from Lian-Li, and you responded as a typical anti-social, raving Slashdotter.

      Amusing...next.

      --
      "Sufferin' succotash."
  9. Oh My GOD !!!!!!! by markiv34 · · Score: 2, Funny

    The British honoring the French, what has happened. The sky is falling, now if the british could honor Joan of Arc. Just a stupid joke. Happy New Year people, Johnathan Ive totally deserves it.

    --
    No Black or White only shades of Gray
    1. Re:Oh My GOD !!!!!!! by Gogo+Dodo · · Score: 2, Informative

      Ive is British.

  10. Honoring Knights by oztiks · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It still amazes me that the British Empire uses the technique of honoring bravery of their Knights and Lords in todays society to honor people who now run multimillion dallor industry and come up with ideas like the iPod.

    What does this mean to us? Nerds are as cool and as handsome as ye'old days knights in shinning armor ....

    1. Re:Honoring Knights by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      It still amazes me that the British Empire uses the technique of honoring bravery of their Knights and Lords

      It was never about bravery. It was about extraordinary service to the Empire. Of all the people who have been knighted throughout the ages, only a small percentage were ever soldiers of any variety.

    2. Re:Honoring Knights by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and give-a-shit'o'meter is registering 0%

    3. Re:Honoring Knights by BarryNorton · · Score: 1

      Touch off-topic - he hasn't been knighted (yet - cf. TBL) and he's certainly not a peer.

    4. Re:Honoring Knights by anzev · · Score: 1

      Er, rtfa? They did not honour him because he invented the iPOD, they honoured him because he designed how it looks. And admitedly, it's iconic! And everybody knows the click-wheel based square that plays music. Personally, I think he deserved it.

      Happy new year everybody!

    5. Re:Honoring Knights by drsquare · · Score: 2, Informative

      Don't get too excited, these things are decided by unaccountable, pen-pushing civil servants behind closed doors, and every flavour of the week pop star or sportsman gets one these days.

    6. Re:Honoring Knights by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It still amazes me that the British Empire ...

      There hasn't been anything called the British Empire or even the British Commonwealth for a long time.

    7. Re:Honoring Knights by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What does this mean to us?

      It means a bunch of inbred people with big ears and bad teeth are desperately clinging to the trappings of a badly-outdated way of life.

      Unless it comes with a cheque (note: British spelling) or a free dinner (not sure how you spell that in British), I wouldn't get too excited about it.

    8. Re:Honoring Knights by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      In the last few years the honours process has been made a lot more transparent. Some people have said that this hasn't necessarily been a change for the better. Different, yes. Better, maybe not.

      In the years Before Blair, the vast majority of honours went to Establishment people and civil servants. Since the reforms, there has been an increasing number of honours given to entertainers, sports people and other flavours of the minute, and while there are undeniably more honours given to those people who work quietly and conscientiously for the public good, this category is still minuscule.

      My father was offered an OBE last year for 'Services to the Community', after many years of voluntary work for local charities. He turned it down for exactly this reason. I think he said in his letter of refusal, 'I don't consider myself to be as worthy as Elton John', or something like that.

    9. Re:Honoring Knights by VJ42 · · Score: 1

      Hey, we still own the Falkland Islands...

      --
      If I have nothing to hide, you have no reason to search me
  11. 1705-2005 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Exactly three hundred years after the man who got bonked in the head by an apple.

  12. The man is a genius by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    http://www.sharpened.net/images/reviews/Apple_iPod _3G.jpg

    A non-descript white rectangle with chamfered edges, representative of many of his designs. To repeat myself: pure genius. Where does he get his inspiration?!

    1. Re:The man is a genius by iDrifter · · Score: 1

      From the map of the province of Saskatchewan

      --
      This message was done on 100% recycled electrons.
  13. Golden ratio.... by electrosoccertux · · Score: 5, Interesting

    So HE is the clever guy designing all the sexy gadgets. I swear, between their computadora cases, laptops, and most definately the Ipod (Gen 4), Apple's got the best looking set of hardware. Why so sexy? I think its simply the golden ratio. Its why bodies look good. 1:1.6 is everywhere. The best looking body has 1:1.6 ratio in forarm to arm, waste to shoulders, thighs to calfs, calf and knee girth to ankle girth. Plus, for a side profile (on women) breast to waist width, and (on all, a side profile still) buttocks to thigh width.

    So it only makes sense to put this ratio in every product: it makes it inherently more attractive, just because. And thats what this guy did. Width to height, scroll wheel width to Ipod width, etc. Ingenious, really. Its also the reason why I expect the video Ipod and the Nano to not sell nearly as well as their previous incarnations (Gen 4 and Ipod Mini). The Nano and Ipod Video are lacking in the 1:1.6 ratio department.

    1. Re:Golden ratio.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      You mean the Golden Delicious ratio.

    2. Re:Golden ratio.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If he is so smart how come he made it so that you lose the little black cloth thing on your ipod earbuds the first day you use them? Come to think of it how come he didn't design the earbuds so they don't fall out so easily?

    3. Re:Golden ratio.... by m50d · · Score: 1
      Why so sexy? I think its simply the golden ratio. Its why bodies look good. 1:1.6 is everywhere. The best looking body has 1:1.6 ratio in forarm to arm, waste to shoulders, thighs to calfs, calf and knee girth to ankle girth. Plus, for a side profile (on women) breast to waist width, and (on all, a side profile still) buttocks to thigh width.

      Nonsense. You can find pretty much any number you like all over people, and since beauty is so subjective you can claim anything is the perfect shape. The "golden rectangle" looks too long if you try and use it for a painting or similar.

      --
      I am trolling
    4. Re:Golden ratio.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you are totally right. I can't believe this "golden ratio" nonsence is modded such highly on slashdot. It's pseudo-science superstition.

    5. Re:Golden ratio.... by ralinx · · Score: 1

      the golden ratio stuff is interesting, but don't think the Nano isn't gonna sell well because of a different ratio... they're actually shipping 100,000 of these each day

      see this: http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=1422/

    6. Re:Golden ratio.... by chris_eineke · · Score: 1
      The best looking body has 1:1.6 ratio in forarm to arm, waste to shoulders,
      If your waste is one third as big as your forearm, modern medicine considers you a healthy young man!
      --
      "All you have to do is be fragile and grateful. So stay the underdog." Chuck Palahniuk, Choke
    7. Re:Golden ratio.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you serious? I can believe it -- this is Slashdot.

    8. Re:Golden ratio.... by catmistake · · Score: 1

      I didn't really know this actually existed... and if it did then it was probably that 2001 ratio, the first 3 squares, 1x4x9...
      But I was wrong... and it turns out you are not entirely correct... it is not exactly 1:1.6, because the golden ratio is an irrational number, 1.618 033 988 749 894 848, etc.
      I hate this site, but see [wikipedia.org]

    9. Re:Golden ratio.... by proxima · · Score: 1

      The "golden rectangle" looks too long if you try and use it for a painting or similar.

      That's not true. I own a painting that is (IIRC) 4x2.5ft (exactly 1.6:1). True, it's not quite the 1.618... that is the true ratio, but that's about a third of an inch shorter. At least at that size, it covers the wall it is hanging in quite well, and seems very proportional to the room.

      Basically, painting dimensions can look good at many ratios depending on the subject and where it will be displayed. We had our painting done by this guy, from a picture taken by a Chilean amateur astrophotographer. You can see my picture as the 8th picture listed on that site (orion.jpg), though the true colors are hard to capture.

      --
      "The universe seems neither benign nor hostile, merely indifferent." --Carl Sagan
    10. Re:Golden ratio.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why does someone with a uid of 814000 hate Wikipedia?

    11. Re:Golden ratio.... by m50d · · Score: 1
      Basically, painting dimensions can look good at many ratios depending on the subject and where it will be displayed.

      Absolutely. And the "golden ratio" is no better than any other.

      You can see my picture as the 8th picture listed on that site (orion.jpg), though the true colors are hard to capture.

      To me that proves my point. It looks great, but I'd prefer a shorter rectangle, closer to 1.4 or so.

      --
      I am trolling
    12. Re:Golden ratio.... by ElephanTS · · Score: 1

      Jeez I was designed using sqrt(2). No wonder girls don't like me.

      --
      spoonerize "magic trackpad"
  14. Jonathan Ive by BarryNorton · · Score: 5, Informative

    Since the summary doesn't even give the chap's full name, let alone any kind of non-technical biographical information, the following might be of interest: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Ive

    Jonathan Ive was apparently "born in London and studied art and design at Newcastle Polytechnic before setting up his own design house, Tangerine, where he designed everything from hair combs and ceramics, to power tools and televisions. Apple was one of his clients, and was so impressed with his work for them that in 1992 they offered him a job in their Cupertino headquarters to turn around their ailing design division."

    1. Re:Jonathan Ive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Score:4, Informative - for a link to wikipedia (cor like no one would ever think of looking there) and then a quote from the page.
      No, that was my point - I had to go to one article to find out his first name to locate him in Wikipedia to find out where in UK he was from.

      Whilst I agree it shouldn't be necessary to post this kind of vacuous reply to a story (especially as it looks like karma whoring, which I've no need to do), until we have some editors that notice missing information that's the way it is...

  15. The Queen has never been on a computer by Inda · · Score: 1
    20. The Queen has never been on a computer, she told Bill Gates as she awarded him an honorary knighthood.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4566526.stm

    An interesting quote (and an interested page in general).

    --
    This post contains benzene, nitrosamines, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide.
    1. Re:The Queen has never been on a computer by ettlz · · Score: 3, Funny
      The Queen has never been on a computer

      Yeah, except for that JPEG with the— nevermind, it's probably high treason or something...

    2. Re:The Queen has never been on a computer by Darkman,+Walkin+Dude · · Score: 1

      Better string me up, then!

      Our apologies to all of our viewers, those responsible have been sacked...

  16. Jonathan "iVe" shall we say by layer3switch · · Score: 0

    Cheerio, chap! Cheerio~ hup hup hup

    --
    "Don't let fools fool you. They are the clever ones."
  17. That's right, beeeyotches... by commodoresloat · · Score: 1, Funny

    From now on, it's Sir Mac Fanboy to you!!

  18. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 0

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  19. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 0

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  20. First Design at Apple was iMac? by wackymacs · · Score: 2, Informative

    I think the story is wrong in stating that Ive's first design for Apple was the iMac, because before that he designed the Twentieth Anniversary Macintosh (TAM) in 1997 , the eMate 300 (1997) and the Newton back in 1993.

    1. Re:First Design at Apple was iMac? by soft_guy · · Score: 1

      I was not aware that he designed the other Newton models besides the eMate 300 (which is a Newton). Are you sure that he designed the other ones? All of them? (OMP, 110, 120, 130, 2000, 2100?)

      One could argue that's only 3 designs sincethe 110, 120, and 130 are basically the same and the 2000 and 2100 are basically the same.

      --
      Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
  21. The Queen does own an iPod by nezzle · · Score: 1

    I believe the Queen was given an iPod this year, though gets her courtiers to put songs on it for her. Perhaps this is why Mr Ive is being honoured!

    1. Re:The Queen does own an iPod by zaphod_es · · Score: 1

      Queen: What is this iPod thingy?

      Courtier: It is a device that allows you to hear your favorite music whenver you want.

      Queen: You mean something like a military band?

  22. He's not vice-president by Darvin · · Score: 1

    He's Senior vice-president.

  23. Not Kiwis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think we've dropped that colonial shite for NZ awards, haven't we?

  24. Re:2006 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    amen to that!
    pass another beer in NZ!

  25. It means that it's bollocks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    These awards (as demonstrated by Gates and Geldof) are simply a means of the British Government of the day saddling up to its rich, trendy mates. Very occasionally a deserving person (someone whose work hasn't been properly renumerated) gets something.

  26. Shouldn't geeks use terminology precisely? by pjt33 · · Score: 1

    Actually he will receive the honour from the Queen, not the Order. And the summary's use of "inducted" cries out "I was written by an American". It's not a Hall of Fame.

  27. Typo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    Unfortunately, there is a typo in the article. The correct spelling of the man's name is iVe.

  28. So what? by sunwolf · · Score: 1

    OH...that says "crown," not "clown."

    1. Re:So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >>OH...that says "crown," not "clown."

      Whats the difference? hehheh

      (I read it that way at first too)

  29. The beauty is there but can he design these by Wallstreetfighter.co · · Score: 1

    1. Earbuds that actually stay in my ear 2. A nano that wont scratch 3. An ipod control wheel I can use with mittens 4. A powerbook where the hinges don't wear. 5. A laptop that the apple symbol can't be covered over with a sticker on every TV show. 6. A mini-shuffle that I just put the whole damn thing in my ear. 7. A HD DVR so I can get rid of the stupid Tivo 8. A new Newton so I can get rid of my Blackberry 9. A time maching to go back and buy some apple stock 10. And last but not least can he design the Imeat that the kid just got into something that might sell 1 million units. From the humor of http://wallstreetfighter.com/

  30. Story error? by thatguywhoiam · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Mr Ive's first design for Apple, the iMac

    I thought Ives first design was the eMate?

    Still a wicked design, IMHO.

    --
    If Jesus wants me it knows where to find me.
    1. Re:Story error? by eshefer · · Score: 1

      Ive's first design at apple was the second generation newton. the 110, IIRC. I'm not sure if he designed the emate at all (though at arround the time that the emate was brought to market he became the head of the ID dept at apple).

    2. Re:Story error? by worldboy · · Score: 1

      Wasn't he also responsible for the Wallstreet/Mainstreet PowerBooks with the "Armani Suit" shell? A ground-breaking design at the time, but 2 years later the hinges also broke. I believe this was fixed in the following Lombard and Pismo models.

      I agree with other posters that there is a pattern at Apple of releasing revolutionary first or second generation designs which though stunning, leave one or two physical wear and tear problems to be rectified in later generations. The iMac G5 is another example.

  31. Answer to number 3 by lampiaio · · Score: 0

    Use your nose.

    --
    My other account has mod points.
  32. What do you expect? by tentimestwenty · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You were resting your keyboard on your Mini? Why? I don't understand. You don't mistreat beautiful things. Do you wash your new car with an old dirty rag? Would you prefer that the mini or ipod was made out the standard beige durable plastic? Hell, even if it was made of steel you'd still dent it and scrape it. Don't blame Apple because you're expecting a gorgeous under $500 consumer product to be impervious to wear.

    1. Re:What do you expect? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't worry about the parent's comment.

      He probably has his ugly beige linux box's UI done-up to look like Windows 3.1, and hasn't shaved/bathed in a week.

    2. Re:What do you expect? by blincoln · · Score: 1

      You don't mistreat beautiful things.

      It is perfectly possible to make artfully-designed products that are also durable. Anyone who thinks otherwise should take a lesson from the music equipment industry.

      --
      "...always new atoms but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday." -Richard Feynman
    3. Re:What do you expect? by Overly+Critical+Guy · · Score: 1

      Apple products ARE durable. You can run over an iPod nano with a car and it'll still work.

      Oh, you were talking about external aesthetics like little scratches, which has little to do with durability. Well, I've had my Mac mini since they came out, and it has not a single scratch on it. That's because I don't set shit on the shiny surface--seems like a pretty obvious thing not to do unless you want to scratch it.

      --
      "Sufferin' succotash."
    4. Re:What do you expect? by MoneyT · · Score: 1

      Geeks should take a lesson from the music industry as well. Watch a serious musician when they're done with their instrument. The carefuly disassable it, clean it, polish it, and put it into a protective case. Compare this to the average geek who when they're done with their latest toy, thows it in a back pack or kicks it under the desk. If you don't want your high gloss product to be scratched, you have to take care of it like the musicians take care of their instruments.

      --
      T Money
      World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
    5. Re:What do you expect? by Marlor · · Score: 1

      You were resting your keyboard on your Mini? Why? I don't understand.

      It was playing up with my LCD monitor when using "expose" (causing green lines all over the screen), so I moved it to a different desk to try it with a different brand monitor. I plugged a USB keyboard into the back of the Mac mini, and since there was not enough room on the desk, I rested the keyboard on the Mac mini. I didn't think that this would cause noticeable scratches, but it did. I was absolutely amazed that the top surface was so scratch prone.

      I have since got more scratches on the top, from carrying the Mac mini to and from work, which is to be expected, but I am still amazed that it was scratched by simply resting a keyboard on top for a few seconds.

    6. Re:What do you expect? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't worry about the parent's comment.

      He probably has his fruity pink fishbowl iMac box's UI set to super extra shiny --yet still compleatly usless, and hasn't gotten a cock up his ass for a week.

  33. iBooks are not a problem.. by YesIAmAScript · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I've scratched iPods, I believe you about the iMac mini. But I've had 2 iBooks over 4 years, and I can tell you scratching is not a problem. iBooks are the most durable laptops I've ever had. They might scratch, I dunno. But due to the milky color, you can't tell. Unless you pull out a loupe, they look near to brand-new for years.

    This is in stark contrast to the Powerbooks, which dent quite easily.

    I do have to agree with the other posters, if Apple's stuff didn't look so cool, you wouldn't care about the scratches. My two PC towers next to me have various scars and labels on them, and I don't really notice because they weren't something great to look at even when I got them. And they're both Antec Sonata cases, which are considered quite good-looking as far as cases go.

    --
    http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
    1. Re:iBooks are not a problem.. by mrchaotica · · Score: 1
      They might scratch, I dunno. But due to the milky color, you can't tell.
      That's exactly it. My two-year-old iBook looks perfect until you reflect light off it. Then you can see many, many fine scratches. I have a feeling that, if I cared, some of that polish stuff they sell would take care of it just fine, though.
      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

  34. What British empire was that? by Flying+pig · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Disclaimer: I'm English, and definitely NOT British. Brits are those horrible people you see reeling around drunk and throwing up in the street in foreign countries.

    After WW2, we very sensibly got rid of almost all the British Empire, except for a few bits of other people's countries (Gibraltar, Northern Ireland). I can't help wondering if the whole thing is some kind of convoluted official joke - sorry, you're not worth a "proper" honour, how would you like to be a Commander of a few dodgy tax havens and a place terrorised by gangsters?

    We already have proper honours - the OM for the arts, the Royal Society for scientists, the Royal Academy for artists (tricky ground there though) - and I really do not know why we cannot simply have properly designated recognition for charity workers,business people and designers. Of course, the work of trawling through all those OBEs, CBEs etc. and deciding what recognition they should now be given would need a whole commission of well paid ex civil servants, so you would think they at least would support such a scheme.

    --
    Pining for the fjords
  35. Ive Has Done Great Work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Perhaps he should design some voting machines or pacifying game machines for project iRaq?

  36. Quit whining by snowwrestler · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Every piece of plastic I've ever owned has gotten scratched. My Sony Walkman had scratches on it. My Sony Discman had scratches on it. My cell phone has scratches on it. My damn swiss army knife and my sunglasses have scratches on them. Heck my VCR and TV have scratches on their cases just from being moved a couple of times.

    Plastic scratches easily--get over it. I've had 4 laptops over the past 6 years and every one of them has developed scratches on the lid and bottom. But they were not noticed by most people because a) the plastic was matte not polished, and b) the plastic was grey or black.

    I now own an iBook and 2 iPods. They don't scratch any more or less easily than my Kyocera cell phone or my swiss army knife or my other laptops. But more people seem to notice the scratches, because more people want to look closely at my iBook and iPod than at my cell phone. Apple products are seen as objects of "high design" and so people look more closely and maybe have higher expectations.

    The whole idea of caring so deeply about a few scratches is kind of pathetic I think. If you want your possessions to be flawless things for you to admire, buy them and put them into a case. I want mine to do stuff, and I'll take precautions to protect their function but not their looks (I protect the screens but not the cases). I was brought up to view "babying" products as effete and pointless. Things should be useful first and if they're pretty that's a nice bonus...but keeping them flawlessly pristine is for collectors and people who don't do anything.

    --
    Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
  37. Re:Reply to Item 5 by allgood2 · · Score: 1

    Isn't that irritating. It typically makes me notice it even more; and what's more irritating is that sometime on the same show, a different actor will have a PC, and the brand is rarely hidden. I think I've seen the Dell brand hidden once or twice; but I can recognize a Dell Latitude D600 almost as quickly as I can recognize a 15" Powerbook.

    And, I hate the patches they use, typically some plain white thing stuck on matte silver (ugly as hell). I'm like come on, if your going to cover up the logo, just place a sleeve or cover over the entire back, or do a nice custom paint job or something. Maybe even take the time to find a sticker with a nice image to use.

  38. And spanked the one with the Intel-move idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I hope. Choosing to abandon the PowerPC and then choosing crappy Intel over AMD will be the death of Apple's computer business. All for a laptop chip. How sad.

    1. Re:And spanked the one with the Intel-move idea by aristotle-dude · · Score: 1

      You are absolutely right. They should have instead gone from IBM to AMD. That way they could have continued supply problems and be without a fast mobile chip.

      --
      Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
  39. Also designed... by eMartin · · Score: 1, Troll

    He also designed the iMac's hockey puck mouse, the Powerbook G4's loose battery latch, weak display hinges, and wireless-blocking titanium enclosure, the original iPod's very useful but easily damaged scrollwheel and the 3rd generation iPod's silly touch sensitive interface (for a pocket gadget?!?), the cracking enclosure for the cube, the very scratchable transparent surface on the first white iBooks, and later, the iPod nanos, the uncomfortable no-button mouse and the long awaited multi-button mouse that doesn't right click properly, and the list probably goes on...

    These were all flaws easily spotted right after the products came out, and fixed in later revisions (except maybe the right click problem with the new mouse). Granted the fixes were often well executed, but they should not have been needed.

    Good design is not just about aesthetics. It's about making sure everything works, and works well.

    I think this guy is way overrated. He has had many good ideas and has a good sense of aesthetics and trends, but he lets a lot of mistakes slip by, and it's that lack of attention to detail that keeps him from beeing a great designer (IMHO, of course).

    1. Re:Also designed... by jrockway · · Score: 1

      Is it really the designer's job to deal with engineering problems? The battery latch is in the realm of engineering. Knowing that titanium attenuates 802.11 signals is in the realm of engineering. Good design is about making the thing look pretty -- the engineers are there to make things work. I think that's the problem with Apple. Their products revolve around one guy's "vision"... and if he misses something, the customers be damned.

      --
      My other car is first.
    2. Re:Also designed... by 2nd+Post! · · Score: 1

      The problem with design is that you really can't anticipate everything. There are too many variables to consider!

      Consider this:
      The iMac had the hockey puck mouse, but it also had the handle, the clear polycarbonate shell, the gumdrop shape, the silent fanless design, and the color. Five positives to one negative.
      The PowerBook G4 had the loose battery latch (I have that), the weak hinges, and the wireless-blocking enclosure, but it also had the widescreen display, the carbon-fiber magnesium case, the thin design, the light weight, the magnetic latch, the built in wireless network antenna and card, and the magnetic port cover. Seven positives to three negatives.
      The original iPod had the scroll wheel, but it also had the high speed interface, the simple one handed UI, the small form factor, the ID3 based interface, the super-fast UI, and the long battery life. Six positives to one negative.
      The third gen iPod had the silly touch sensitive buttons, but it also had on top of that the touchpad scroll wheel (fixed in the second gen iPod), the thinner design, and a lower price point. Three additional advantages over the original iPod, plus one new negative.
      The Cube had it's cracking enclosure, but it also had a brilliant sense of aesthetics, fanless operation, and tiny design. That's three positives for one negative in the Cube's design.

      So yes, there are problems that were fixed later, but there are also positives that were part of the design in the first place. I don't think there's a lack of attention to detail, so much as so many details are looked at, with only a few details get missed.

    3. Re:Also designed... by Overly+Critical+Guy · · Score: 1

      For every "flop" you cite, I can name three incredible successes from Ive. One of the things they preach over at Apple is to learn from your mistakes, and quickly.

      Actually, most of the things you cite are minor flaws. The Mighty Mouse right-clicks just fine, by the way. I wish every mouse had its scroll ball, as it's the most comfortable scrolling mechanism I've ever used.

      --
      "Sufferin' succotash."
    4. Re:Also designed... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Come off it, the scroll ball is shit. It's worse than a scroll balls underneath the mouse, clogging up with dirt and grime but in a non-user serviceable place. How many ball mice do you find where you cannot clean the ball enclosure? Quite ... and some fool thought it was a GOOD idea to re-use it.

    5. Re:Also designed... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is he the one who is responsible for the iPod non-user replaceable(without voiding the warrantee and probably fucking up your $200+ mp3 player) batteries?

      If that is so, then he rocks! I love having to ship to and pay them $66.00 to replace my battery! To think that before things were designed so that I could just buy my own, replace them in a day, and do that on my own for free(not including battery cost)!

      And thanks to planned obsolescence I will probably be best off buying the newest released version when it comes the time to replace my current one's battery. Apple always has the insight to release updated versions with minuscule feature additions & tweaks around the time this happens!

    6. Re:Also designed... by eMartin · · Score: 1

      "Good design is about making the thing look pretty"

      Take any design course, and the first thing they'll tell you is that that is wrong.

      "Is it really the designer's job to deal with engineering problems?"

      Of course it is. Do you think Mr. Ive just scribbled an Powerbook G4 on a napkin, and then the engineers went on to make the final product?

      Every part started as a concept, and through testing and feedback from engineers, certain ideas should have been improved, replaced, or scrapped by the designer or the team led by the designer. I'll even go as far as to say that a great designer would be able to anticipate problems with his concepts before even suggesting them in the first place.

      When a building has a serious flaw, who do we blame? The architect. The one who designed it. Not the engineers that worked for him.

    7. Re:Also designed... by eMartin · · Score: 1

      I disagree.

      At some point, Mr. Ive and his team sat down to design a mouse for the iMac. They probably spent weeks thinking about how to make it new and interesting and attractive and usable, and constantly modified and revised the shape and appearance and wiring and moving parts.

      During that time, someone (maybe Ive himself) suggested making it round.

      After that, someone either realized that would be a problem but was ignored or nobody even thought about it. In either case, I would blame the designer or design team for a bad decision, and no amount of other great features would balace that out. Bad design is bad design.

      Good design is paying attention to details like that, and not letting them slip by.

      Good designers don't make arbitrary choices just to make something look cool. They think about the consequences, and if there's a flaw, they go back to the drawing board.

    8. Re:Also designed... by 2nd+Post! · · Score: 1

      What? You disagree?

      "The problem with design is that you really can't anticipate everything. There are too many variables to consider!"

      You think when you design something that you can anticipate everything?

      "I don't think there's a lack of attention to detail, so much as so many details are looked at, with only a few details get missed."

      You think there is a lack of attention to detail?

      So let's take the hockey puck mouse. I think, from the problems you note, not that it suffered from lack of attention to detail, but that there was a lack of user feedback; they didn't adequately test the mouse to note that there was inherent problems due to it's round shape. No amount of "attention to detail" would discover this until someone not familiar with the mouse picked it up to use it for extended periods of time. A design flaw can result from lack of attention to detail, but this looks more like a design flaw because of a lack of understanding user requirements.

      You need only look at the Pro Mouse to see the additional design requirements were factored in. The same basic elemental shape is involved, but instead of confusingly symmetric design, they elongate the mouse so there is a definite orientation by feel. They also added height cues, making the rear higher than the front, so you can tell by feel that you have the right side of the mouse under your hand.

      If you want to call that "paying attention to details", you run into the problem that your speech is unclear because you mix up two different concepts: Lack of attention to detail means not exploring the design requirements thoroughly enough, and not collecting the appropriate requirements means designing a solution to an inaccurate or incomplete problem.

      The mouse, per attention to detail, worked correctly as a mouse. It fit in the hand, it moved the cursor on the monitor, it plugged into the USB port, it matched the iMac design aesthetic, and it didn't leave the user confused as to what the device was.

      Where it failed (I don't disagree that it had problems, after all), was that it wasn't designed to be immediately obvious what direction the mouse and the cursor moved because it was radially symmetric.

  40. Parsing Error by sd_diamond · · Score: 1

    I first read this headline as "Apple Designer Hounded By British Clown".

  41. Powerbooks are bombproof ... by jstockdale · · Score: 3, Insightful
    This is in stark contrast to the Powerbooks, which dent quite easily

    As a current AlBook owner, I'll agree with you that Powerbooks will dent, and scratch up a bit. Sure they might get beat up, but they also take a hell of a beating before they fail. I've personally dropped my AlBook 4ft. off of a lab bench onto a *concrete* floor. I have a couple dents, and my CD/DVD bay is bent a degree or two off of level ... but everything works. No cracks on the motherboard, no problems with the LCD, NOTHING.

    That's fucking amazing. When I heard the *crash* behind me I expected to turn around to at least a broken LCD ... and yet my laptop had traded the lab bench for the floor and was happily turned on and functioning like nothing happened.

    I'll take a dented laptop that keeps working perfectly ... over many other manufactures (Dell/HP/Crapaq) plastic construction that breaks apart from that kind of height.

    -S ...
    --
    **AA: a bunch of mindless jerks who'll be the first against the wall when the revolution comes
  42. *Bits* of other people's countries? by snowwrestler · · Score: 1

    The English still totally control two entire nations, and half of a third. And they violently put down resistance from the locals. Sure the empire is not as big as it used to be, but let's not pretend it's just "bits."

    --
    Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
    1. Re:*Bits* of other people's countries? by Damer+Face · · Score: 1

      Seeing as you're running in tetrapyloctomy mode:

      Scotland and England agreed to be a United Kingdom several hundred years back, Wales asked to be ruled by England over a 1000 years ago due to viking invasions and Northern Ireland is substantially less than half of Ireland (so "bit" would be appropriate), and a slight majority of people there consider themselves to be loyal subjects of the crown.

      "Totally control" ignores the ever-increasing devolution of power from Westminster, although it could certainly happen at a much faster rate for my tastes. Although the locals are wont to vote against the nationalist parties in the countries you mention.

      And by "the English", I think you mean Westminster, because most people I know have no control over their own local council, let alone three other nations. Perhaps when we all voted for Labour the devolution of power issue was the one we were voting for.

      As for "they violently put down resistance from the locals", governments do that to locals as a general rule, whether those locals have agreed to be ruled by that government or not.

  43. Loewy vs. Ives by Chief+Typist · · Score: 1

    Jonathan Ive is doing for computers what Raymond Loewy did for transportation.

    His influence, like Loewy's, will be felt for a long time to come.

    -ch

  44. car designs by zogger · · Score: 1

    I actually like two of the more utilitarian car designs of the past, the jeep you mentioned and the VW beetle. Mass produced, nothing fancy at all, basic transportation, both now collectables. And still nice rides if you have one in decent shape for that matter. Whereas a lot of newer cars now leave me going "look, another four door white whocaresmobile!" they all look the same "wind tunnel rules" same to me kinda sorta, very little distinguishing pazazz to them. I can't see 40 years from now very many of them being collectable or holding their value. Granted, quite a lot of tech advances and modern creature comforts in newer cars, just talking about designs now in the "normal" price range of things, not high end.

  45. Oh, dear God, no... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is the last thing that Jonathan Ive needs. The man is already absolutely full of himself, and this can only make things worse. Heck, he already has an entourage that follows him around campus and to Cafe Macs (Apple's cafeteria) for lunch, complete with matching shaved heads and black t-shirts. An ENTOURAGE, for cripes sakes. It was all I could do to keep from laughing whenever I saw them walk by.

    If you can find it, there's a G3 Introduction Video (the kind they show about new hardware at Macworld keynotes) that shows Jonathan Ive with geeky glasses and rumpled red hair. A geek like the rest of us. Looks like J Allard isn't the original celebrity designer makeover story.

    When you praise Jonathan Ive for his recent designs, please don't forget that he's responsible for a lot of the scars on our hands, given to us by beige, metal Power Mac boxes that were nearly impossible to open. He didn't bust out the organic teal designs until the eMate (that's right... it was Amelio, not Jobs who told Ive to go nuts), and even then, there were latches, hinges, and various mechanisms in those shiny new designs that worked poorly, or failed over time.

    Without a doubt, Apple ID is great, and the iPod is an amazing example. But if I'm going to praise design at Apple, it's going to be its software visual designers. The Aqua interface was beautiful at launch, and has evolved into a new standard for system look-and-feel. Every OS and window manager strives to look as good as Mac OS X, and the credit goes to some very talented people who tend to get very little credit. Bas Ording and Imran Chaudhri pretty much invented Aqua, and kicked the ass of the Platinum look. Other designers like Brian Rose and Brian Frick have given so many of Apple's applications their beautiful icons and widgets.

    I know for a fact that Steve Jobs values his teams of designers and engineers more than any one person at Apple. We should do the same. Congratulations, to all of Apple's designers and egineers. You make beautiful stuff that kicks ass, against all odds.