Core77

[enigma]

Of course, J/K. So, what was the topic?

[zippyflounder]

Zippy: The more I read your posts the more curious I am how you work. I haven't heard many designers with your viewpoint. Keep sharing!

Fashion and the iPod: I don't think the iPod responded to any fashion trend. I remember noticing that my dad felt metal products were more robust and of higher quality back in high school (at least four years before iPod). I'm sure I'm not alone in noticing that feeling in people. I didn't do any focus groups at the time though. Had I run a focus group, I probably wouldn't have asked anyone if they wanted a metal walkman. Nor would it have been likely anyone would have said that. More likely they would have talked about making it smaller or whatever. As Jobs quotes Ford in that article, "If I had asked my customers what they wanted, they would have said a faster horse".

I think that noticing people's desire for metal being used on an enclosure was not rocket science, in fact, I'm sure many designers proposed the same thing before. The intelligent move by Apple was acting on their observation (or personal preference).

Now, I only talked about the chrome back of the iPod, but there is more. The impenetrableness of the enclosure. This should be a no brainer too. Anything that has parts that come off will break, or have loose parts, ie be perceived to be lacking quality. The shininess of the all the enclosure pieces is a natural attraction as seen with jewelry.

The only part of the design that would have been hard to predict is the simplicity of the form. Having said that, Apple always had a certain modernism in their design, so it was a natural fit.

Jobs on hiring:

They have to be really smart. But the real issue for me is, Are they going to fall in love with Apple? Because if they fall in love with Apple, everything else will take care of itself. They'll want to do what's best for Apple, not what's best for them, what's best for Steve, or anybody else.

I think every company has intelligent people. I have to say, I haven't worked with many real idiots in product development. What companies like Apple, Virgin and others have is a management where people say what they think but listen to each other. I've found that to be very rare.

In passing, I've been reading Peter Drucker's "Concept of a Corporation". He outlines the same characteristic in the post-war boom GM.

In good companies people are hired for not only their perspective but their intergrity. If they have intergrity then even when their views run counter to the herd it will carry weight and be considerd. The Ipod, simple case of bauhause form function and the use of white, its a univerisly accepted color.

[rkuchinsky]

The Ipod, simple case of bauhause form function and the use of white, its a univerisly accepted color.

simple in retrospect sure. but given the general direction of consumer electronics at the time, it was a huge leap. competitors products were silver, spacey, had more functions than ever, glowing dials, etc. i cant even think of a single white consumer electronics product before the ipod, as most were black, silver, etc.

R

[enigma]

Somehow I can't equate the IPOD with the Bauhaus style. I just can't. The original Audi TT, yes.

IPOD is more about interaction design than industrial design per se. It's basically a box with a screen interaction technology.

[zippyflounder]

The Ipod, simple case of bauhause form function and the use of white, its a univerisly accepted color.

simple in retrospect sure. but given the general direction of consumer electronics at the time, it was a huge leap. competitors products were silver, spacey, had more functions than ever, glowing dials, etc. i cant even think of a single white consumer electronics product before the ipod, as most were black, silver, etc.

R

just as bauhause shook the design world of its time (remember curliecues and shit). Simplicty is the hardest thing to achive in design/engineering....any fool can just slather on more fins and chrome.

[Traveler9]

[ML]

I know it is a bit late to chime in now, but I have been having this same discussion over the past few months with the younglings and oldlings within my circle as well.

The reason that I believe apple can create their products in a vacuum is due in part to three idyllic circumstances that co-exist with the brand.

1. Apple is, was, and most likely always be a "cult following" product. What I mean by this is that no mater what the buying public thinks there will always be a strong cult of apple loalist, and they will love anything apple...the one button puck mouse for instance.

2. Steve Jobs and the rest of apples willingness and desire to take risks, to the point of pushing manufacturing tollerences to the limit and making them prove something can be done. For example the "candy" mac's clear cases with no shrink marks. I still but heads with engineers who hold strong that large PC parts can not be cast in such a way...ask them if they have seen the IMacs and they have some long explanation as to why normal companies could never assume the scrap rate of such a process.

3. Tried and true minimimalist design, executed by designers who have a pulse on the trends and the antitrends.

[Mr-914]

ML: I think you left one thing out, something that Jobs mentions in the interview. That's the willingness to fail. Jobs declared the Apple TV to be a failure. The Newton was a flop, there were quite a few Mac generations that never grew their market share. In spite of this, they keep pushing on to the next product.

I've found most clients don't want to hit a home run, they want to just get to first or second. When you play that conservative, you never will hit a home run and you probably will still strike out just as much. We probably remember the Apple bombs only because the home runs were so memorable.

Zippy:

any fool can just slather on more fins and chrome.

I know I'm taking your quote out of context, but are these easy designs?





I think it's easier to make simplicity look good than complexity.

[zippyflounder]

ML: I think you left one thing out, something that Jobs mentions in the interview. That's the willingness to fail. Jobs declared the Apple TV to be a failure. The Newton was a flop, there were quite a few Mac generations that never grew their market share. In spite of this, they keep pushing on to the next product.

I've found most clients don't want to hit a home run, they want to just get to first or second. When you play that conservative, you never will hit a home run and you probably will still strike out just as much. We probably remember the Apple bombs only because the home runs were so memorable.

Zippy:

any fool can just slather on more fins and chrome.

I know I'm taking your quote out of context, but are these easy designs?





I think it's easier to make simplicity look good than complexity.

easy no, good....ummm one is art the other is not..sorry not a fan of mega fin caddies.

[Mr-914]

Why is one art and not the other. I think Walter Gropius would have despised either design. Maybe Raymond Loewy would have said the Caddy is art and the church is just tacky. What does zippy think?

[carton]

both of these things may be tacky now, but our value systems have changed quite a bit since then, true? The caddy is an icon, like it or not. do you have to like something for it to be "good design", like the discussions about the eames lounge

[yo]

both of these things may be tacky now, but our value systems have changed quite a bit since then, true? The caddy is an icon, like it or not. do you have to like something for it to be "good design", like the discussions about the eames lounge

And this is why fashion IS important. When you go to a natural history museum you see displays of how people lived, the objects they used, the rooms they lived in and the clothes they wore. It tell the viewer a lot about their lives, what was important to them, what they aspired to, what the moral and values of the moment were.

If a person decides to "not make a statement" with their clothes, we then, that in itself is a statement to their personal value system. You can not avoid it. It is hardwired into our animal DNA. I saw an interesting documentary on wolves and how they communicate with their body language..... fashion is just the bipedal version of tales wagging, and fur standing up.

Zippy, you may not understand it, but it doesn't mean you don't do it. It has little to do with logic, more to do with instinct. I'm not here to convince you though, you think shoes come in too many colors, I think they don't come in enough. By that logic should there be one watch (they all just tell time), one phone (all you have to do is call people), one toaster (how hard could that be).

Ideally their would be infinite array of options. One suited for each individual's needs and wants for that particular moment. Products from cars to shoes sell less per sku, but sku's have multiplied. This is what people want. Maybe with 3d printing advances we will approach the infinite.

[zippyflounder]

both of these things may be tacky now, but our value systems have changed quite a bit since then, true? The caddy is an icon, like it or not. do you have to like something for it to be "good design", like the discussions about the eames lounge

And this is why fashion IS important. When you go to a natural history museum you see displays of how people lived, the objects they used, the rooms they lived in and the clothes they wore. It tell the viewer a lot about their lives, what was important to them, what they aspired to, what the moral and values of the moment were.

If a person decides to "not make a statement" with their clothes, we then, that in itself is a statement to their personal value system. You can not avoid it. It is hardwired into our animal DNA. I saw an interesting documentary on wolves and how they communicate with their body language..... fashion is just the bipedal version of tales wagging, and fur standing up.

Zippy, you may not understand it, but it doesn't mean you don't do it. It has little to do with logic, more to do with instinct. I'm not here to convince you though, you think shoes come in too many colors, I think they don't come in enough. By that logic should there be one watch (they all just tell time), one phone (all you have to do is call people), one toaster (how hard could that be).

Ideally their would be infinite array of options. One suited for each individual's needs and wants for that particular moment. Products from cars to shoes sell less per sku, but sku's have multiplied. This is what people want. Maybe with 3d printing advances we will approach the infinite.

in a world of unlimited resources that would be grand.

[zippyflounder]

Why is one art and not the other. I think Walter Gropius would have despised either design. Maybe Raymond Loewy would have said the Caddy is art and the church is just tacky. What does zippy think?

Religious art was used as a method of conveying a story to a group whom for the large part could not read. The caddy on the other hand is just over styled.

[yo]

kind of like the Akira bike? Just because it is not your taste doesn't mean you can't respect the impact it had from a design standpoint. Personally I'd rather have a Porsche from the era, but I'd also rather have a Da Vinci sketch.

While the chapel ceiling was a tribute and communication piece about the dominant beliefs, aspirations, hopes, values in the region, so was the Caddy. One was dedicated to Christianity, the other to the Jet age.