Slashdot Mirror
Apple is Really Bad At Design (theoutline.com)
Joshua Topolsky, writing for the Outline: Once upon a time, Apple could do little wrong. As one of the first mainstream computer companies to equally value design and technical simplicity, it upended our expectations about what PCs could be. "Macintosh works the way people work," read one 1992 ad. Rather than requiring downloads and installations and extra memory to get things right (as often required by Windows machines), Apple made it so you could just plug in a mouse or start up a program and it would just... work. Marrying that functionality with the groundbreaking design the company has embodied since the early Macs, it's easy to see how Apple became the darling of designers, artists, and the rest of the creative class. The work was downright elegant; unheard of for an electronics company. [...] But things changed. In 2013 I wrote about the confusing and visually abrasive turn Apple had made with the introduction of iOS 7, the operating system refresh that would set the stage for almost all of Apple's recent design. The product, the first piece of software overseen by Jony Ive, was confusing, amateur, and relatively unfinished upon launch. [...] It's almost as if the company is being buried under the weight of its products. Unable to cut ties with past concepts (for instance, the abomination that is iTunes), unable to choose clear paths forward (USB-C or Lightning guys?), compromising core elements to make room for splashy features, and executing haphazardly to solve long-term issues. [...] Pundits will respond to these arguments by detailing Apple's meteoric and sustained market-value gains. Apple fans will shout justifications for a stylus that must be charged by sticking it into the bottom of an iPad, a "back" button jammed weirdly into the status bar, a system of dongles for connecting oft-used devices, a notch that rudely juts into the display of a $1,000 phone. But the reality is that for all the phones Apple sells and for all the people who buy them, the company is stuck in idea-quicksand, like Microsoft in the early 2000s, or Apple in the 90s.
What's supposed to happen in the comments here, mods? I'll start: Define good.
Sex. Drugs, and Unix.
Smartphones are approaching the same point as laptops a decade ago or screwdrivers a century ago. They are fine and don't need to be changed. There are emerging areas such as VR, voice and machine learning where there are lots of unsolved problems and opportunities for great design. But changing things for the sake of changing things does nobody any good. Apple should stick to their tradition of using technology in meaningful ways when it is ready.
He didn't teach anybody to approach problems the way he did. Apple did poorly when the board kicked him out. That SHOULD have been a warning. Apple's doing poorly again, and this time, unless there is a genuine miracle, Steve ain't coming back.
For all his ability to pitch to the public, Steve Jobs took direct interest in the products his company sold, rather than just focus on managing the company and leaving the decisions to be hashed out by committees developing a consensus several levels below him. The result is what you see now in Apple products - a muddled mess of different ideas that just don't fit together right, and very little actual customer value. The whole "facial recognition as your password" business for example, is certainly not worth the cost to regular consumers, and absolutely not so to people who care about actual security (for several obvious reasons I don't need to remind nerds about).
Like it or not, the world needs Simon Cowell types, who can simply act for the consumer and say "no - not good enough". They may be hard to work for, but without them you get stagnation, as we're seeing here.
I'm typing this on a 2015 MBP, given to me by my employer. It definitely has some things to recommend it, e.g. it's light weight, decent battery life, easy access to *nix tools (via Homebrew), speaker capability and screen brightness. In other respects though, I have to agree with the submitter. Hardware-wise, it's about on par with my 2010 Thinkpad. OS-wise there are a bunch of deficiencies which are not just my opinion about look-and-feel, but actual missing features. I'll just describe one quickly, which I feel is emblematic of Apple's general issues.
On a Mac, you can switch through display elements (windows, dialogs, full screen apps) in two segregated ways. Cmd-tab switches applications, cmd-backtick switches windows within an application. On one level, the segregation is logical, but in practice it leads to some really inelegant behaviors. It's impossible to place one window on top of a fullscreen application, so among other things you can't take notes while watching a fullscreen video. Full screen applications create their own workspaces which are children of the original workspace, and switching back to other workspaces isn't allowed. Actually, you can switch, but it will immediately scroll back to the full screen application.
Windows, on the other hand, simply has alt-tab (or win-tab), which cycles through all display elements without regard for parent application. It naturally allows windows to be displayed above fullscreen applications, and for fullscreen applications to be left in fullscreen mode when switching away or minimizing. It's more simplistic, but also more functional. Again, that's not an opinion, it's a missing feature: on a Windows PC one can take notes on a fullscreen video, and on a Mac one cannot.
It's a basic design choice that seems logical and elegant, but ends up handicapping the window system down the line. Another similar example is the total lack of a hotkey to restore minimized windows. There is Hide (cmd-H), but it only works on entire applications at a time.
.:Semper Absurda:.
First, that form follows function. They've been putting form first, and it shows.
Next, that they're not making post-modern art: they're supposed to be making devices that serve a practical purpose.
Apple has no real competition. Samsung got closest, but lacks the software talent to compete without Google ... and Google sells it's customers. Microsoft is a shipwreck and the lack of vertical integration which they are stuck in for historical reasons was fine for when computers were more expert devices, but has become too big a handicap now.
Best hardware, best security, best privacy, best longevity of support, best ease of maintenance for idiots ... a few niggles in UI and I/O and outrageous prices can't harm them when all their "competitors" fail to get close on most of those.
PS. wish they didn't exist though.
With iTunes, for instance, they have been unable to fix the most mind-boggling problem with its core functionality - playing music - that on occasion it stops playing music in the middle of a track and skips to the next one.
Maybe iTunes just doesn't like your taste in music and it's looking for something better. Wait until iTunes merges with Skynet.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
But it does reflect something I've noticed with recent generations of Mac OS, the design is quite beautiful but the usability can be terrible.
There's two main areas of trouble I find. First, Apple has a very specific idea for how you're going to use the system, and they simplify as much as possible by removing things unrelated to the tasks they had in mind. But then the moment you do something slightly different you're pretty much out of luck.
Second, they seem to have a thing for buttons or menu options that don't have any feedback or help available. I've had a number of instances where I've clicked/selected something had absolutely zero feedback for 30 seconds. It's not that the system was lagged or anything, it's just that they apparently thought feedback wouldn't be pretty enough.
It's honestly given me some good lessons about what not to do when I'm designing my own applications.
I stole this Sig
Apple has not changed a damn thing about the way they identify, develop, advertise, and ship new products, in about 15 years. They have, however, moved on to different targets (no more "I'm a mac" ads required these days) and increased in scale massively.
For example, they are now shipping FOUR distinct OSes (macOS, iOS, tvOS, watchOS) each with its own set of development tools and growing legacy of hardware, running entire suites of applications that intercommunicate very deeply with each other across each platform and the internet. The fact that very few pundits even acknowledge this quadrupling of their output is telling. Instead, they get all sarcastic about notches on phones that haven't shipped yet, as though they are now masters of design, and make the usual fashionable declarations about how Apple isn't the same Apple it was three years ago, or five, or eight, or when Big Steve was around, or in the 80's, or whatever.
Some people say Apple is successful only because of their fashionable marketing. You know what's fashionable marketing -- what never gets old? Loudly declaring that Apple is finally on the decline, or has been for years despite absolutely sky-high profits. And letting the ad impressions and the comments roll in, because hey, maybe THIS time, maybe we'll be right. And maybe THIS time congress will repeal Obamacare. And maybe THIS time, when we toss the poodle out the window, it'll fly.
It's the epitome of a first world problem, of course, but to me, it's similar to the hump on the back of the last iPhone case. That is, I'm wondering why someone near the top didn't take a look at that and say "Damn, that's kind of ugly. Apple isn't supposed to release ugly products - especially not flagship products. Let's back up and figure out something else here." Apple has always been known for a company that, whatever else they do, has always been known for its strong sense of aesthetics. It's just surprising to see that slipping a bit, at least in my view.
Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
Dutch Gun observed:
It's the epitome of a first world problem, of course, but to me, it's similar to the hump on the back of the last iPhone case. That is, I'm wondering why someone near the top didn't take a look at that and say "Damn, that's kind of ugly. Apple isn't supposed to release ugly products - especially not flagship products. Let's back up and figure out something else here." Apple has always been known for a company that, whatever else they do, has always been known for its strong sense of aesthetics. It's just surprising to see that slipping a bit, at least in my view.
When Steve Jobs was in charge, he WAS Apple's "strong sense of aesthetics". He was an abusive asshole, but he was an asshole with vision, and he had the power to ensure that no Apple product was released until he, personally, was satisfied with its design. So he did. And, despite his tantrums and vicious criticism of their work, the people he hired to turn his ideas into products that met his standards worshipped the guy - because, in the end, he drove them to craft things that were both functional and beautiful ... and that, in a number of cases, actually introduced and created markets for whole new categories of high-tech products. (Think iPod and iPhone here.)
The guy who's in charge now is a supply-chain manager - basically a glorified bean counter. He has all the vision and sense of aesthetics you'd expect from an accountant, but he was at least self-aware enough to recognize his own shortcomings in that regard, and hand the product design task over to Jony Ivie, who's an actual design professional.
In business there's a thing called a "key man problem". Apple had it in spades. Now that key man is gone, and Jony Ivie, for all his undeniable talent, is neither aesthetic visionary enough, nor implacable tyrant enough to replace him ...
Check out my novel.
Apple has hit the problem that Windows hit no later than XP: the "good enough" problem. About 10 years ago, their products were "good enough". Their great selling point was the "just works" bit. No Windows-y fiddling with drivers, no futzing around with runtime components that should cooperate but oddly don't in this configuration (and let's not even start about "what kernel module to include" Linux). Plug in and go. Apple had it first (or rather, had it working all the time first).
Problem is: What now? It's as good as it gets and people are satisfied, so where to go from here if you still want to sell something down the line?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
It's not just Apple, it's Microsoft and even enterprise system vendors who have been relentlessly tweaking interfaces for the worse. Apple may actually have been one of the least worse offenders in comparison, although I think the intensity of irritation varies quite a bit depending on individual usage patterns.
Microsoft had a highly usable, if boring, user interface in Windows 2000. Windows XP kept it mostly the same, but implemented needless changes in the start menu and with great emphasis on shiny colors. Windows 7 was nearly just an improvement on XP but also brought forth some of its own changes. Windows 8 was an abomination, a total abandonment of its desktop UI standards for a fantasy of a touch screen environment, something almost no one wanted on a desktop computer. Windows 10 was just an attempt to salvage the mess of Windows 8 along with a fairly draconian new level of perpetual control by Microsoft.
Completely bizarrely, Microsoft has been folding in these UI changes to their server OS, too, resulting in a confusing mess that serves no purpose in that environment. Tasks are often split between management applications that remain unchanged since Windows 2000/2003 but were reasonably feature complete and new applications that are not feature complete and require their byzantine command line interface to make comprehensive changes. Which really is another topic -- why didn't Microsoft simply implement a well-known shell and syntax from Unix? Why ignore a broadly understood, tried and tested shell and syntax for a new model, one that lacks some of the basic features and capabilities of the Unix shell?
An example from the enterprise software market. VMware had a very straightforward and useful management application for their hypervisor platform. While it has its technical flaws, it's very usable and straightforward. VMware, and mostly for good reason, wanted to move this to a web client to end a dependency on Windows. But rather than merely port their UI to HTLM5, they changed it dramatically, making it a slow and confusing maze of related screens and requiring browser plugins. They changed it again in 6.5 (obsoleting the Windows application), making it HTML5 driven and somewhat more responsive, but still not nearly as straightforward to use.
Frankly, I think in the last 5 years the entire computer industry has run out of meaningful ideas. UI changes are made to keep development staff busy and generate justifications for increasingly expensive required updates, meanwhile nothing really new is being provided (and in many cases, less is being left to the user's discretion). We've reached a kind of treadmill of technology, pointless iterations to generate incompatibilities and sales.
most people don't care about upgrading single components. To them, a computer is as much a monolithic black box as a stove, microwave or TV.
As a simple metaphor : how many people will upgrade the magnetron on a microwave ? /.
Sure there's going to be a few people proudly screaming "me!" on
But in your family ? Normal people around you ?
The most probable answer is going to be "What a magnetron ?"
There is absolutely nothing wrong with that approach (well, provided you don't mind the trash), most people don't care about upgrading single components.
But some region of the world are going more conscious about all the electronic waste.
European countries have putting effort to bring the "Repair instead of throw away" idea into the public radar.
Upgrading RAM and SSD is a good way to insuflate a few more years into a laptop and avoid the whole thing going to a landfill.
So even if grandma has the slightest idea what an "SSD" is and thinks that "RAM" is a male sheep, it's still good for the environment if her old laptop can be upgraded/refurbished instead of thrown to trash.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
o Mac pros prior to the trashcan: (more than) good enough.
o Mac pros since the trashcan: (not even) good enough.
And they know it, too. The question is, will they go back to what actually worked best, or will they continue to screw up?
Apple's problem, IMHO, is that in their quest to think different, they have thought so differently that the systems they are selling are breaking paradigms that the entire market for all PCs has validated as good in favor of paradigms that are outright poorly functional.
The trashcan is the peak expression of this - its flexibility and upgradability are compromised. Its desktop footprint when expanded includes security problems and desk warts. It's not easy to rack efficiently. Even they can't upgrade it because the "too clever" design is thermally limited. Basically, compared to almost any reasonable tower design that preceded it, it's an outright fail.
Ive's "contribution" to OS design took a lovely 3d sensibility that included actual visual hints as to WTF things did, and turned it flat as a nun's imagination, ugly, and bereft of the cues that had made operating a complex device just a bit easier. (Even more sadly, other manufacturers copied this, and now my Android phone looks just as bad as my SO's iPhone. Goddammit.)
Pulling the headphone jack from the iPhone rudely obsoleted most people's listening hardware, raised the price for audio with every subsequent USB-c dongle the user had to buy / replace, broke the device's ability to charge while actually doing what the user wanted, and was just generally a profoundly stupid move.
It's not too late in terms of customer base for Apple to come back from all this. And at least with the Mac Pro, there's an indication they know they have screwed up. But Apple strikes me as a proud company. Admitting that they've been engaging in "think dull" in a parody of trying to "think different" instead of "think of the customer" isn't something I really expect from them, even though it seems broadly obvious to me.
There are opportunities aplenty for them to come roaring back: the sadly downgraded Mini. The trashcan. Even the iMac, really the staple of their computer line, could use some serious love in terms of I/O and upgradability. A gaping hole in the product line remains where a midline, reasonably priced tower does not exist. Certainly the OS could use a good bit of attention that wasn't aimed at making it look bad. The iPhone could really be improved with the restoration of the headphone jack, the ability to slap a memory card in there, a user-replacable / upgradable battery, additional sensors and ports, etc. The minimalist approach has left them far behind others in terms of feature count and usability across a wider spectrum of tasks, so they could, if they were minded to, take advantage of that.
Someone also needs to tell them "okay, okay, thin enough."
My home used to be an Apple stronghold. But I now own an S7 phone, and there's a brand new Windows PC in my office next to my 2009-vintage Mac Pro. Our last mini was retired a year ago in favor of far more powerful small machines from other market sectors; the new minis are too anemic to bother. My SO is outright jealous of my S7, and she swears (often) that her iPhone is going to be replaced with an Android phone next time around. We're almost certainly outliers, because we're high end users and developers with more needs than just being notified of the next twaddle or faceberk post. So we're probably not an indication of a current trend. OTOH, we're definitely not the only ones. The question is, do we matter to Apple? It appears that we do not. The replacement Mac Pro design will tell the most important part of the tale for me, anyway.
The elephant in the room is Apple's continuing profitability. That particular carrot is likely to continue to lead them to continue on their stampede towards dysfunctional blah for quite some time yet. Fortunately, Windows has come a long way. That's the path that beckons outside of Apple's domain.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
For not having any competition they've still managed to have only a small fraction of the smartphone market. Android dominates with over 80% market share.
Samsung alone sells more phones than Apple.
As for the rest "Best Hardware" hasn't been true of any Apple device is over a decade, "best privacy" wow... someone's been drinking the kool-aid (I'm not saying that the competition is any better, but if you really believe Apple isn't just as bad you're delusional) "best longevity of support, best ease of maintenance for idiots" unless you do something silly like have someone replace your screen and have Apple brick your phone for you to take revenge on you for not using their repair service at exorbitant rates. Longevity is questionable too. It's long been suspected that the main reason that Apple pushes it's newest updates to it's oldest phones is specifically to make them too slow to use so as to cause people to upgrade. That's not really "support".
It's what poor people think rich people design look like.