i-aPPLE

[David Lawrence]

[Joseph Owens] “The Globe & Mail (Toronto/National Canadian newspaper) says the Apple we used to know no longer exists.”

It’s true. But I still think they make interesting hardware. Even if it’s not the most powerful technology on the market, I still think it’s well designed and a pleasure to use.

Apple software is another story.

This is a company that used to employ Don Norman as VP of Research and head of their Advanced Technology Group.

Now they make software with Rich Corinthian Leather and fake wood. FCPX’s annoying chrome and animations come from the same design philosophy that chooses visual glitz over usability.

My inside sources say there’s a big internal fight at Apple over the design direction of software. This recent article in Fast Company agrees:

https://www.fastcodesign.com/1670760/will-apples-tacky-software-design-philosophy-cause-a-revolt

_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl

[Kevin Patrick]

[Jeremy Garchow] “it also made clear that the days of “revolutionary” Apple devices – those that create entire new product categories and come with massive risk for the company, as the original iPhone did – are over“

Note, the quote above is text from the article, not something Jeremy wrote.

I think I might understand what that person in the article might be trying to say, but I don’t think you can (or should) say that Apple’s revolutionary days are over. Or any other companies.

I think you can say that revolutionary products are very rare. Products that change or create entire industries.

The first mobile phone created an industry. A huge industry. There were a few products that came along to change that industry. Such as RAZR, which drove thin products in not only the mobile phone industry, but other industries as well. (iPod Nano)

The iPhone changed the industry again. The smart phone category existed, but Apple’s approach was very unique. People loved it, competitors followed.

The iPod changed the mobile music industry. So much so, that competitors didn’t follow, they ceased to exist.

The iPad changed the tablet industry. So much so that it really didn’t become much of an industry until Apple showed up.

Is Apple done creating revolutionary, industry changing products? Well, with Jobs gone, maybe. I think it will certainly be harder for them to do so. But are they done? I’d argue no. And neither is anyone else. Apple, or someone, will come along with another revolutionary product. They are rare, so it may be a while. But it will happen.

[Bret Williams]

It was all pretty acceptable until iCal. I think that pushed it over the edge. Books still reside on bookshelves and they still look like books. Mail still comes in an envelope to everyones house. A camera still looks like a camera. Icons and images are used everywhere everyday to help us understand the point of something before we read it. Heck, that’s the difference between TV and radio. Sure someone could tell us or describe something, but we grasp quicker through a combination of sound and visual.

But iCal threw it over the edge I think when they added the leather. It’s a throwback to something many never used nor has any identification with. And in month view, clicking from month to month, I have to wait for the calendar page to turn. That’s just bad. It’s one thing if I want to physically turn it on my iPad instead of clicking the arrow, but if I click and arrow for the next page, by golly I think we have the technology to make that faster. They’ve actually slowed the user experience there. Ditto with week view. I have to wait for a week to scroll over to the next.

All that said, I think it looks kinda cool. Especially on my iPad, which is actually encased in a leather bound case resembling an old calendar/address book. The iPad is at least a physical device you interact with in ways that are similar to real books, with swipes and rotating, and such. I think they just did it (to a lesser extent) on the desktop version of iCal to be somewhat consistent. But if consistency was the goal, they shouldn’t have used it on either and let the form follow function.

It’s the same all over. Android is as inconsistent as it gets from app to app and phone to phone.

[Bret Williams]

[John Davidson] “It seems like tech is going the wrong direction these days.”

Yup. Pontiac totally dropped the ball there.

[Brian Mulligan]

Apple has been revolutionary… FCPX.

See how well that worked?

Brian Mulligan
Senior Editor – Autodesk Smoke
WTHR-TV Indianapolis,IN, USA
Twitter: @bkmeditor

[Shawn Miller]

[Oliver Peters] “A sobering note for all of us here is that by definition, the majority of iDevice users are Windows/PC owners and NOT Mac owners.”

Sure, if you’re talking about desktop devices that are internet capable, Microsoft will probably own that market for decades to come (this shouldn’t be news to anyone). But the mobile device market really belongs to Google… taking a play from Microsoft’s playbook, licensing the OS and owning the business that it generates (analytics, infrastucture, services, etc). I know it may sound bizarre to some here, but Apple’s real competitor in mobile computing isn’t Samsung, it’s the company that’s dividing the mobile device market amongst a slew of hardware and services vendors. Between Samsung, Google and Amazon, it will be interesting to see what the tablet PC landscape looks like in the second quarter of FY13.

Shawn

[David Lawrence]

[Bret Williams] “It was all pretty acceptable until iCal. I think that pushed it over the edge. Books still reside on bookshelves and they still look like books. Mail still comes in an envelope to everyones house. A camera still looks like a camera. Icons and images are used everywhere everyday to help us understand the point of something before we read it. Heck, that’s the difference between TV and radio. Sure someone could tell us or describe something, but we grasp quicker through a combination of sound and visual. “

Agree that iCal was where Apple jumped the shark with skeuomorphism. I don’t think the problem is the use of icons and imagery as much as the OCD emphasis on literalism. On a touch-based system, there’s a certain rational for it but as it starts bleeding into the design of desktop software, I think it’s problematic.

In terms of design, it’s also remarkably conservative for a company as innovative as Apple.

Weirdly enough, Microsoft seems to be leading design innovation in software these days. On a mobile device, the Metro UI is beautiful, functional, and wholly innovative. Have you tried Photosynth for iOS? It’s amazing. I guess being the new underdog is making them try harder.

In many ways, Apple has become the Disney of technology companies — massively popular, massively successful, extremely high quality, but very conservative in conceptual design of their mass market software products.

_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl

[Jeremy Garchow]

[Oliver Peters] “The more interesting read is the third link I posted from Business Insider. “

“Good or bad, the iPhone will define Apple’s financial performance and reputation for at least the next couple of years.
If the iPhone 5 blows people away, Apple will be set up to clock another year of astounding revenue and earnings growth, at rates of growth never before seen for a company of this size. And the halo of magic and genius that still surrounds Apple and Apple products will allow the company to continue to command premium prices from consumers and a premium stock multiple.

If the iPhone 5 disappoints, meanwhile, analysts may have to cut their earnings projections for Apple. Worse, Apple will clearly have lost the lead in a market it created, one in which it used to be a full year ahead of any competition. If that happens, the magic halo will go “poof,” and Apple will be perceived as just another company, rendered mortal and ordinary by the death of Steve Jobs.”

Again, it’s so sensational. Is the worry that Wall Street won’t make shed loads of money on Apple one day?

The magic halo goes “poof”?

This guy gives Apple exactly one year before Apple becomes “ordinary”? What does that even mean?

Apple did not create the smartphone market. It helped move it along.

The 4 is now given away for free (via subsidy) with a 2 year contract, and the 4s for cheaper than the 5. They are still selling (and making money from) the new ‘old’ phones.

Why does the iPhone 5 have to blow people away? Can’t it just be pretty decently good? What other device blows people away? Does Wall Street determine that? While there is a lot riding on it for “investors” in Apple stock who do nothing to add to the innovation but watch the ticker tape, are the company executives simply going to keep releasing the iPhone and stop ‘innovation’ else where?

Is the “phone” form factor going to be relevant in 5 years? 10 years? and do we think that Apple will really not try and come up with something new in that time?

Or is it really ‘over’?

I don’t know, this piece seems like a bat signal to investors who have nothing at all to contribute to Apple, to dump their stock in the near future as there’s a decent chance that what goes up must come down. It’s a cold world out there in business land.

[Michael Gissing]

It is important that Apple remain underdogs. Like any group that wants to maintain their quasi religious status amongst devotees they need to make the case that firstly they are different (style) and secondly that they are under a level of persecution. A lot of the recent patent warring has been about fostering that perception and trying to maintain a difference.

Probably the biggest difference is that Apple make more by selling less. And Bill is right that once in their system it is comfortable to stay in that system. Personally I am not swayed by that. My wife is, so I advised her to go iPad whilst I bought a Nexus.

Apart from developing a style and system, I don’t see Apple as being particularly innovative. Sony, under Morita, brought us the revolution of the portable music device. Apple just made a stylish non tape version of the Walkman. Phones with screens and internet access were around before the iPhone. Apple just made it look good. Making hardware that looks good and software that reinforced difference and a simple but closed system is how I see Apple. Hardly innovative. Compared to how Sony changed the consumer world, Apple isn’t yet in that league.

[David Lawrence]

[Michael Gissing] “Apple just made a stylish non tape version of the Walkman. Phones with screens and internet access were around before the iPhone. Apple just made it look good. Making hardware that looks good and software that reinforced difference and a simple but closed system is how I see Apple. Hardly innovative.”

Have to disagree with you Michael. Apple did far more than make good looking hardware and simple to use software. They mainstreamed interactive digital media and technology in a way that no other company ever had before. Until Apple, MP3 players and smartphones were niche toys for technophiles. Apple single handedly created new digital consumer markets thru excellence in experience design.

I don’t like the lock-in of their closed systems either, but I think their design innovation and ability to create markets has been profound. Whether that continues now that they’re gone from underdog to the biggest company on planet earth, remains to be seen.

_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl