Slashdot Mirror
Jonathan Ive - Apple's Design Magician
conq writes "BusinessWeek takes an in-depth look at the man behind the Apple magic. The article features a slideshow with all his designs (including one before he was with Apple)." From the article: "During an internship with design consultancy Roberts Weaver Group, he created a pen that had a ball and clip mechanism on top, for no purpose other than to give the owner something to fiddle with. 'It immediately became the owner's prize possession, something you always wanted to play with,' recalls Grinyer, a Roberts Weaver staffer at the time. 'We began to call it having Jony-ness, an extra something that would tap into the product's underlying emotion.'"
You have to admit, the guy must have some creative genious in him. Looking at all those projects there isn't one that I didn't like. The only one that had me scratching my head a little bit about was the vertical fax. Of course, perhaps there was a reason to the madness of that. Regardless, the designs implemented by the groups he has worked with are great.
Justin - Don't be afraid of my blog, it won't bite.
Whats the deal with mentioning the amazing pen and not showing a pic of it?
C'mon guys, get it together. Now I have to go do a search on it...
_________________________________________
http://hatchedeggs.blogspot.com/
Justin - Don't be afraid of my blog, it won't bite.
"During an internship with design consultancy Roberts Weaver Group, he created a pen that had a ball and clip mechanism on top, for no purpose other than to give the owner something to fiddle with."
Sometimes I fiddle with my balls too, does that mean I have the same sort of creative energy?
--
The importance of balls in vancouver realestate
-
By tucking the electronic guts of the Mac right behind the LCD display, Ive's team essentially made the PC disappear. Can someone explain why this won't be the future of PC design for anyone other than gamers--or why the rest of the industry hasn't followed suit yet?
Because that's called a laptop without a battery and is fuckin' pointless. Sure, it looks cool but once its outdated you throw it away. People don't like that with laptops but they put up with it because its portable. This aint, so why put up with it?
How we know is more important than what we know.
But where is it due. How many designers actually take credit for these things? If you dig around and see how many people claim to have had something to do with these designs, it becomes clear that a good chunk of this stuff is outsourced. And I'm not talking the nitty gritty stuff, I'm talking the conceptualizations as well. Don't get me wrong, the man's a genuis, but he isn't responsible for half this stuff.
They have a slide saying that Jonathan Ive designed the Newton MessagePad 110. However, the picture they show is not the MessagePad 110 - it is a picture of the original MessagePad or the MessagePad 100 (which had the same case).
Also, I KNOW that Jonathan Ive designed the eMate 300 which they don't show. I was not aware that he did design the 110 - which may not in fact be true. Possibly they are crediting him with the design of the wrong device. In any case, they look like idiots with a slide of the Newton 110 and a picture of the OMP (Original MessagePad).
I would have emailed them to point out the problem, but was unable to find an email address in their "contact us" section.
Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
>Give me an inexpensive beige box with Gnome or KDE any day.
Gnome or KDE wouldn't actually be much use without an operating system on which to run them...
Besides, Apple has made significant improvements in pricing, especially towards the higher end; to the point where, in equivalently specced high end workstations from Apple and Dell, Apple is $90 cheaper (both with displays) and $581 cheaper (without displays) (source).
What's purple and commutes? An Abelian grape.
I don't know, I would say that using the description "Post-Industrial Elegance" is a kind of faggotry in it's own right.
Don't get me wrong, the man's a genuis, but he isn't responsible for half this stuff.
I'm not sure what you're saying here. Ive leads a team of designers, so of course every rounded corner or concealed latch isn't his doing. But he is responsible for ensuring that when the hardware ships, the design is top notch. His work is as much about deciding what contributions to refuse as much as it is deciding which to accept. So ultimately he is responsible for all of it.
I'm also unclear on what you mean by "outsourced" in this context. Do you mean that someone in India designed the iMac? Or do you you mean that someone outside of Apple's design team did a lot of the work?
As for conceptualizations being designed by someone else, I'm unclear on that as well. I understand that Jobs always provides input into hardware designs, and that the iPod scroll wheel didn't come from Apple. Beyond that, where are the legions of people whose fame Ive is hijacking?
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
...I do however, find it funny that the G4 iMac calls it's competitors silly for just stuffing the computer behind an LCD whenever that is exactly what the G5/Intel iMac did. Emphasis mine: and today's "PC-less" models, which seem to be nothing more than slightly overweight displays. I do think that all in one PC's are a "good thing" some the average user doesn't upgrade their computers insides that much anyways. The LCD screen will be seen as obsolete, small, low resolution, whatever whenever the rest of the computer in the iMac is. If you build one of those to spec and buy it, there shouldn't be much upgrading needed after that unless you want to apply a few incremental processor upgrades. I'd rather save my money and buy a whole new system than slowly tack on to an old one like I used to do.
Sig: I stole this sig.
Some people have jumped on the guy who posted this thread a bit... and some of that is understandable.
However, I think that as everything continues more "Average" users will gravitate towards power users position. Not so much asbe completely entralled by every last detail of a computer, but enough so that perhaps updating hardware without purchasing a whole new system will be a bit more common place.
So yeah, that design does work well for quite a few people right now. Later on in the future though when nearly everybody has grown up in a generation of computing being the de facto standard... then it might be a different story. Thats not so far away either.
__________________________________________
http://hatchedeggs.blogspot.com/
Justin - Don't be afraid of my blog, it won't bite.
They have a slide that talks about the Apple Remote but they don't actually show a picture of it.
They also don't mention the best part about the design: the fact that it magnetically sticks to the side of an iMac. It's always there when you want it and easily transforms the iMac from a computer to media center.
I don't know what is more worrying. That the parent equates translucent plastic with homosexuality or that he thought Steve Jobs personally designed all of Apple's computers.
The Splintered Mind - Overcoming
Looks like they have a picture of an earlier screen, and not the current design they alluded to in the article?
"The anodized aluminum material from which it's made has the added advantage of light weight, so it can be tilted with little more than a nudge.
yet the image shows the plastic, 3 footed version...
just curious.
Partly because it isn't a sequential process, partly because it shows up in many different guises, and partly because it just is plain hard! The hardest part is making the design just disappear, so that the program, device or object "just works". Some references are "Design for the real world" by Victor Papanek, and "Critical Path" by Buckminster Fuller.
Getting something to the point of "just working" takes time. The article mentions where a lot of the historical basis of the design elements come in. As an example, the Bauhaus school, which has rectilinear, minimialist lines, could not be confused with the Art Deco period, which has sweeping, organic lines modeled on natural plants. And either would not be confused with the organic shapes in a science fiction show, like Lexx. A designer knows the cultural associations, and cannily manipulates those to frame his message.
Further, they are semi-conscious to the observer. The art of design consists of either fading into the woodwork so that the elements are almost not noticed (save for a feeling of "rightness") or having one element out of place so as to attract attention, but avoiding the over the top kitch. Once these associations are made, they become part of the cultural backdrop, and therefore more grist for the mill. Such is the magic of postmodernism.
As an available example, the book is a cultural artifact; it is 2000 or more years old, and has a standard form that has been finessed for all those years. The design principles of typography are still a fertile area for exploration. O'Reilly has a colophon, how each book was made. For utilitatian subjects, they sure do put a lot of thought into presentation. A reference to typography is "Design Principles for Desktop Publishers" by Tom Lichty. He has a number of cited references inside that are worth checking out. Another one is "Desktop Publishing for Dummies". Your bookshelf has a number of other examples... ...
And that is just one artifact. When you add electronics
What I am impressed with is the obsession to detail that carries over not just from the look of the piece, but the ability to manufacture it easily as well. I guess that is what separates stellar performers from hack wanna-be's. But that implies that not only does Apple have great industrial designers, but they have a culture that seems to avoid the "fling it over the cube" mentality.
But the real interest comes in knowing how to make this cultural leap, the business design principles. Rest assured, the design principles that can get you a stellar organization are closely guarded strategic secrets. However, is it just me, but have they not been in the open all along? And perhaps lost in the corporatist instrumentalist model so lovingly rendered in Machiavelli's "the Prince" and "the Discourses"?
This is progress?
Seriously. Many of his products seem to engender a love-hate relationship - either you really HATE the design, or you think it's amazingly cool. With such extremes, debate and dialogue is natural - and talking about a product is corporate PR nirvana, is it not? And here I'm going to do just that.
With the exception of the original iMac, I haven't been that wowed by Jonathan's minimalist approach - sometimes, because it seems he's shooting for minimal controls but not for minimal real estate. For example, consider the PowerBook 17" waste of keyboard space - why not tack on a numeric keypad and shift the speakers to left and right of the trackpad? Because it disturbs some sense of symmetry? I dunno....
Then the new iMac... ugh. That huge white space below the monitor (speakers???? anything???), and because of side placement of CD/DVD, inability of the unit to be placed within narrow enclosures... am I out-of-step here with the general design sensibilities of society? Do people genuinely love the iMac's design? If so - honestly, why?
sloth jr
Is this the guy that designed the hockey puck mouse? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Apple_iMac_USB_ mouse.png
I guess it didn't make it into the portfolio.
The time of CPU-intensive processing the geek fills with sex.
Yes, all of it.
And here, I'm trying to find a single item on Apple's web site that's made of translucent plastic. Having trouble.
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
Don't complain to me. I didn't make the "See-Through Faggotry" comment. He's obviously referring to the old iMacs, but this being slashdot, perhaps he's referring to open source homosexuality?
The Splintered Mind - Overcoming
Since when do recurring trolls get modded up?
You just got troll'd!
By using your stuff you've made me notice how bad other things are designed! I deal with a few hardware companies and when I point out flaws in their products they brush it aside. Like Seth Godin says: If I think it's broken, It's broken!
This always comes up, and its really not true.
I've got three machines. One is a PC running Ubuntu/GNOME. The other two are a PowerMac and a MacBook. In the year or so that I've used Macs as my primary machines*, I've discovered that Apple pays a tremendous amount of attention to substance.
Let's use the Macbook as an example. On the outside, it's got a white polycarbonate shell. Sure, it looks pretty, but its also extremely durable. You can abuse it, and trust it not to crack, fracture, etc. You can grab it by a corner, and not feel any flexing of the material. You can put it in your bag, and not worry that the flexing of the top-half is going to damage the LCD. It's also remarkable in how clean the exterior is. There is nothing sticking out, just a few ports on one side. This means that you can just throw it in your bag, without worrying about anything catching. You can just plug devices in, without opening little rubber covers that inevitably fall off. The screen hinge is large and robust, not the silly little plastic ones you often see on laptops.
On the inside, the Macbook is covered in a tactile rubber, which feels a whole lot nicer than the hard plastic I've encountered in any other notebook. The whole thing is designed to be very easy to clean. There are no crevices or recessed lines on either the inside or outside. You can clean the keyboard just by wiping a paper towel across it. All the buttons are designed to resist crumbs getting in-between or underneath. Adequate clearance is left between the keyboard and the LCD, so unlike my old Dell, you don't get the keyboard scuffing the LCD. The trackpad is huge, so you can reach it from anywhere on the keyboard. There is no latch to break off, just a magnetic closure. And of course, don't forget MagSafe.
The Macbook replaced a Dell laptop I used to own. That machine always felt to me like it was designed by someone who'd never actually dragged a laptop around an airport. The MacBook felt like it was designed by someone who'd dragged my Dell around airports, encountered all the problems I'd encountered with it, and built a laptop that didn't have those problems.
Once you move out of the realm of hardware into software, you realize that OS X is about way more than being pretty. Its about doing things efficiently, and with minimal cognitive load. I used KDE for several years, and the interface was literally tiring to use. The layout was just too cluttered, and the design had no coherence. What I've noticed of good Apple software (though they do produce some duds, ie: the Finder), is that it always feels like there is a proper design to the software. That its not just a collection of features mashed together into a UI, but that somebody actually layed out basic principles of what the software should do, and built around those. The resulting software is predictable, it has patterns that can be anticipated, and its easy and efficient to use. OS X software works with me, KDE always felt like it was fighting me. GNOME is considerably better in this regard. It's not as pretty as OS X, but it gets a lot of the core principles correct. However, the breadth of good, HIG compliant GNOME software is considerably less than the breadth of good, HIG-compliant OS X software. For example, I use an SVN client called ZigVersion that I like quite a bit. There is no equivalent piece of software on Linux. There are SVN clients that have roughly the same features, sure, but nothing that behaves like a properly HIG compliant GNOME app.
*) For decidedly un-frou-frou tasks like coding and running Matlab...
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
The one Ives design I really like is the stalk iMac. Putting the display on a stalk allows the user to optimize its place — good ergonomics, minimized footprint, yada yada. Except it now seems obvious that the stalk iMac, like all of Ives creations, was about branding. All iMac models are identifiable by the fact that they're a single unit. In the early iMacs they just crammed the system hardware into the monitor box. In the recent iMacs, the system hardware has gotten small enough so they just have to make the panel a little thicker. But in between, there was a time when they wanted to do an LCD iMac, but the system hardware was still to big for a "where's the computer" model. Solution: two boxes, but connect them with a stalk.
I see that in all the IVE designs. They're cool looking and they create a strong identity. Good branding. Nothing wrong with that — except there's more to good products than good branding. At least that's what I think. The industry obviously Thinks Different.
I recently bought an iAudio U2. Ugly little thing, but I like it a lot better than the 5 or so other MP3 players I've owned over the years. It just comes closer to my ideal feature set than any competing product. If products were more about good, easy-to-use features and less about "branding" and "style", I'd spend a lot more money on them. But I guess I'm just not a typical consumer.
There is a handy use for the blank space on the iMac: Perfect for post-it notes. Works well for me...
He's obviously referring to the old iMacs, but this being slashdot, perhaps he's referring to open source homosexuality?
The old iMacs, iBooks, B&W G3s & G4s.
Computers in colors like "Blueberry, Lime and Tangerine". It matters little that Apple has stopped that nonsense, I've already lost interest.
That's what I'm referring to.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Downloading pr0n is not CPU intensive, it's network intensive.
The troll here is the grandparent: djrogers (153854) parent of this post makes a solid case against our friend djrogers..
Censorship is obscene. Patriotism is bigotry. Faith is a vice. Slashdot 2.0 sucks.
The only difference between this article and any other Apple article is that it's not Steve Jobs whose being handed all the credit.
Click on the Apple section and read another article. From the comments, you'd think Steve Jobs writes every single line of code in iTunes and OS X, and hand-solders every circuit on the motherboard of every Mac.
The interesting thing is, in the early days, it really was one guy (woz) doing most of the heavy lifting.
The US free market: two halves of a government-granted duopoly are free to set the market price.
I don't know what's scarier: Someone who's so homophobic he's afraid of colors, lest he be considered "one of those", or someone who's so inflexible that he won't consider modern designs because, once upon a time, the same company made a design he was afraid of.
I find the choice of headline for this article a bit curious. Rather than call Ive a "design wizard," he's called a "design magician."
A wizard is one who bends mysterious forces to his will. A magician is someone who creates illusions of this through the art of distraction.
Is this title secretly alleging that Ive's design portfolio consists more of triumphs of form than of function?
Your mind is clear / The things that you fear / Will fade with how much you / Believe what you hear
Ooh, magnets+computers. Good thing they don't use floppy drives anymore.
You've a whole lot of fear happening in your post.
I am afraid of nothing. I HATED those changes. I loved Apple the way it was; that's gone now and I'm fine with it. I have moved on.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Looking at the rest: the fact machine is sad; the Newton is clunky; the cinema display is okay (just okay); the Cube was boring; the iPod is Raphaelite in its straight lines and its ugliness; the TiBook is merely not unattractive; the demi-basketball iMac is an insult to the eyes and a burden to the soul; the Mac Mini is as cold and unappealing as Kubrick's monolith, without the visual interest of apes beating one another to death at its base; the '05 iMac is visually unbalanced with its foul white Rectangle o' Doom; the Nano is yet another spartan combination of line and circle; the remote is not pictured, so I was spared its sight; the MacBooks are just...laptops; and the woofer is still one more boring line-and-circle montage.
Dear God in Heaven, send Jonathan Ives to Versailles or somewhere in Italy. Show him that Baroque & Rococo are rich and wonderful. Teach him how to use colour again. Hell, if he's ready for it, re-introduce curves.
Ives is a better designer than I am, that's for certain. But, as good as he is, his work for Apple is sadly bereft of taste. He's the van der Rohe or La Corbusier of computing.
I agree totally with the poster and I'd add that when I'm using a Mac, the machine (sw and hw) doesn't get in the way of what you're doing, it becomes more transparent if you like. One thing's a fact, since I switched to Macs about 5 years ago, I no longer scream at my laptop "WTF are you doing???" (when it hangs, pauses, bluescreens, etc, etc) and feel the barely repressable urge to throw it out of the window in frustration. And it's pretty: y'know it looks *nice* - and that's never a bad thing when you spend hours using something.
They also don't mention the best part about the design: the fact that it magnetically sticks to the side of an iMac. It's always there when you want it and easily transforms the iMac from a computer to media center.
... I now enjoy having my remote always in reach :-)
Actually, Apple does not even publicize this properly. When I was playing with Front Row in the Apple store before I purchased my machine, the sales guy never mentioned it. Hell, in the store they even had the remote attached to the machine with stick on velcro.
The simple fact of the matter is that if the user does not know about a feature then it might as well not even exist.
Thank you Psykechan
OS X, Linux, Tivo, Amiga, my fascination with cult-like technologies would intrigue any psychiatrist.
Apple haters are the ultimate triumph of irrational dislike over reason, like the blind man feeling the tail of an elephant and declaring it a snake. You and others like you see only one facet of Apple products, the design, and assume there is no depth because so many other things in your life have no depth. You cannot see the whole because of a consuming hatred for a part.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley