Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Jonathan Ive on Design and Apple's Focus on Great Products Instead of Profits

The headline made my laugh straight away 😉

I don't think any number of marketing initiatives and quotes of Jonathan's "wisdom" will change public opinion about Apple's profit-focused strategy.
 
Sorry Mr. Ive, but you are not the one who designed the iphone 4/4S. And I think you should be ashamed of yourself to keep taking credit for it. You should make it very clear in every interview that it was a Japanese designer who got inspiration from a Japanese Corporation's design philosophy. And now you have the nerve to say profits don't come first. And we both know the only reason you can even say this is because your die hard blind followers will eat it all up. Truly disgraceful.
 
Rennir said:
One minute we're talking about goals and priorities, and now you switch to "what you do"? And yes, I agree with your statement. Apple is first and foremost a hardware company--that's what they do. But they sell hardware because they want to make a profit.
Click to expand...

I disagree. They make hardware because they want to change the world, and more importantly, because their vision of change is considered to be superior by them. The only time money comes in is to allow them to keep doing this.
 
Zunjine said:
Subtext: I'm angry! I hate the world! I hate you! I need a hug!!!
Click to expand...

Presumably you think Apple want to churn out unicorn droppings and make rainbows of peace and love?...No..Apple absolutely is motivated by $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ !!! Do you get it?
 
DanteMann said:
Sorry Mr. Ive, but you are not the one who designed the iphone 4/4S. And I think you should be ashamed of yourself to keep taking credit for it. You should make it very clear in every interview that it was a Japanese designer who got inspiration from a Japanese Corporation's design philosophy. And now you have the nerve to say profits don't come first. And we both know the only reason you can even say this is because your die hard blind followers will eat it all up. Truly disgraceful.
Click to expand...

Get a clue. That said designer said in his own testimony he didn't know if e designed or influenced the design. The fact is his simply tweaked a pre-existing design to make it look more Sony like by adding Sony style buttons. But keep spreading fase info!
 
Regarding these evil profit margins...couldn't it be said if Apple had smaller margins they'd make it up in volume (i.e sales). In fact I think one could argue their profits would be even more massive if they had higher market share. And lower profit margins would certainly drive that.
 
"...instead of profits"?

That's either the most disingenuous comment in the history of American business or a bald faced lie.
Take your choice.
Does he think people are idiots?
Don't even bother answering that one. 🙄

----------
JohnDoe98 said:
They make hardware because they want to change the world.
Click to expand...

Oh please.

iToys didn't change the world, except to make a group of people even more annoying.
 
People are rather getting themselves tied up in knots about this. Some are arguing that Apple, like all companies, exists first and foremost to make money. This seems like a seductive argument but it's predicated on a very shaky foundation in logic.

Take it form another perspective: I'm a human being. At the most basic level, I am just a load of cells that make organs and this makes a living creature the sole purpose of which, the absolute sole driving force of this entire thing that makes up me, is to be a conveyor of genetic material. Everything else is just to make that happen - that is, of course, if we choose to look at a human being in an entirely reductionist sense. Break it down to the basics and you seem to find a fairly soulless driving force. Necessity and that's all. Even that's basically necessity from a very limited perspective. In the big scheme of things, life is just another phase shift of energy.

The same thing happens when you try to look at companies in an absolutely reductionist way. In fact, if you remove the 'money' aspect and just put in place 'that which it makes', you have something that describes everything. Schools are just factories for churning out exam results. Hospitals? Just garages that fix humans rather than cars.

But we all know that this doesn't really describe life. The little lumps of matter that make up what we are may all just be lumps but that doesn't help you understand the whole - the world is a smorgasbord of complex relationships from which we gain emergent properties like meaning, purpose, emotion, love, joy and logic! You can't understand these things by cutting the world up into infinitely smaller pieces until it all looks the same.

Some may think they're being all 'realpolitik' by applying a mindlessly reductionist approach to analysing how entities work but all that leads to is nihilistic ignorance. Nothing means anything. We're all just atoms arranged in different ways, meaningless and without purpose. Who knows, maybe that's true - but it's hardly helpful. It doesn't give us anything we can use in reality. It's just a way for some people to feel smugly superior to the 'gullible fanbois!" and the "sheeple" who get drawn in by all this "BS". Which is fine - feel that way if it makes you happy. But, ask yourself, does it really make you happy?
 
spiderman0616 said:
This. Google's goal on the other hand is quite different. Let's get Android in front of as many people as we can so we can make more money on ads and drive them to more Google services. God--if Apple switched to that strategy, I'd switch back to all MS products.
Click to expand...

Wow, how ill-informed you are!

I mean really? Really? You compare Apple to Google, and state that Google is the company that is driven by profit, not Apple?

Google is a million times more philanthropic (although that's mathematically incorrect, because if you multiply Apple's zero by a million you still get a zero...), supports open-source initiatives, start-ups, educational projects etc. etc.

And Apple? They're the ones who try to increase their profit margins everywhere.

I mean, dude, this: "let's get Android in front of as many people as we can so we can make more money on ads and drive them to more Google services" is just hilarious. Cause Apple doesn't want to have monopoly at all... no no no! (sarcasm)

It's just so funny how the opposite of what you said is true.
 
of course Apple isn't in it for the profits. You can tell by their cheap accessories: only $29 for a usb power adapter and $19 for the usb cable.
 
markcres said:
Presumably you think Apple want to churn out unicorn droppings and make rainbows of peace and love?...No..Apple absolutely is motivated by $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ !!! Do you get it?
Click to expand...

I feel sorry for you.
 
MacRumors said:
Jonathan Ive on Design and Apple's Focus on Great Products Instead of Profits[/url]
Click to expand...

If their goal is making great products only and not just make money. How come they constantly create pads and phones and completely neglect their dektop line (or I would go as far as saying directly pissing on their own Mac Pro line) ...sorry for the whining, couldn´t help it.
 
Zunjine said:
People are rather getting themselves tied up in knots about this. Some are arguing that Apple, like all companies, exists first and foremost to make money. This seems like a seductive argument but it's predicated on a very shaky foundation in logic.

Take it form another perspective: I'm a human being. At the most basic level, I am just a load of cells that make organs and this makes a living creature the sole purpose of which, the absolute sole driving force of this entire thing that makes up me, is to be a conveyor of genetic material. Everything else is just to make that happen - that is, of course, if we choose to look at a human being in an entirely reductionist sense. Break it down to the basics and you seem to find a fairly soulless driving force. Necessity and that's all. Even that's basically necessity from a very limited perspective. In the big scheme of things, life is just another phase shift of energy.

The same thing happens when you try to look at companies in an absolutely reductionist way. In fact, if you remove the 'money' aspect and just put in place 'that which it makes', you have something that describes everything. Schools are just factories for churning out exam results. Hospitals? Just garages that fix humans rather than cars.

But we all know that this doesn't really describe life. The little lumps of matter that make up what we are may all just be lumps but that doesn't help you understand the whole - the world is a smorgasbord of complex relationships from which we gain emergent properties like meaning, purpose, emotion, love, joy and logic! You can't understand these things by cutting the world up into infinitely smaller pieces until it all looks the same.

Some may think they're being all 'realpolitik' by applying a mindlessly reductionist approach to analysing how entities work but all that leads to is nihilistic ignorance. Nothing means anything. We're all just atoms arranged in different ways, meaningless and without purpose. Who knows, maybe that's true - but it's hardly helpful. It doesn't give us anything we can use in reality. It's just a way for some people to feel smugly superior to the 'gullible fanbois!" and the "sheeple" who get drawn in by all this "BS". Which is fine - feel that way if it makes you happy. But, ask yourself, does it really make you happy?
Click to expand...

Or, a more realistic explanation: Apple has more than one goal.
 
Zunjine said:
Yes, there are different ways to express something. I don't see what your point is.

As for "utility", you seem to be trying to redefine value. And, riddle me this, how do you define 'superior'? What's superior to you may not be so to others. You're suffering from a very narrow framework.
Click to expand...

That they are not the same things. What a company does vs. their first priority or goal is not the same thing.

No, utility is actually the term for "value" used in economics. Superiority in the context of two tech products, is defined as having more utility based upon the product's functions, features, and capabilities from the point of view of the preferences/needs of the majority if people.


JohnDoe98 said:
I disagree. They make hardware because they want to change the world, and more importantly, because their vision of change is considered to be superior by them. The only time money comes in is to allow them to keep doing this.
Click to expand...

Change the world in what way?
 
JohnDoe98 said:
I disagree. They make hardware because they want to change the world, and more importantly, because their vision of change is considered to be superior by them. The only time money comes in is to allow them to keep doing this.
Click to expand...
Do you really believe in this marketing nonsense?
 
Rennir said:
That they are not the same things. What a company does vs. their first priority or goal is not the same thing.

No, utility is actually the term for "value" used in economics. Superiority in the context of two tech products, is defined as having more utility based upon the product's functions, features, and capabilities from the point of view of the preferences/needs of the majority if people.


Change the world in what way?
Click to expand...

And, being a student of economics, you'll know that you can't tell people what is of "utility" to them - only they can say that. And if they consider the cache of owning an Apple product to be worth the price they will pay for it. So that which sells for more money is, by definition, of higher utility.
 
Reach9 said:
what an incorrect statement. Every competitive company's goal is to maximize profits. Their goal is to make money.
Jonny is trying to make it look like Apple is different than any other company, when in it's definition it's the same as Samsung, RIM, Google etc, ... their goal is to make money.
Apple makes great products to get money, but money is still the main driving force.

Also, if a two-toned iPhone is their 'best work yet'.. then i'm unpleasantly surprised.
Click to expand...

Agree!
 
JohnDoe98 said:
I disagree. They make hardware because they want to change the world, and more importantly, because their vision of change is considered to be superior by them. The only time money comes in is to allow them to keep doing this.
Click to expand...

Some of these types of comments are pure comedy. Just last year Apple deliberately locked up the supply of screens for tablets forcing its competitors to wait for additional supply. Oh yes, changing the world one $ at a time.

----------
linuxcooldude said:
You are talking accessories, not the actual product.
Click to expand...

No, I'm talking Apple.
 
Reach9 said:
what an incorrect statement. Every competitive company's goal is to maximize profits. Their goal is to make money.
Jonny is trying to make it look like Apple is different than any other company, when in it's definition it's the same as Samsung, RIM, Google etc, ... their goal is to make money.
Apple makes great products to get money, but money is still the main driving force.

Also, if a two-toned iPhone is their 'best work yet'.. then i'm unpleasantly surprised.
Click to expand...

I don't think you're quite right.
Every company has to bring in money to continue to exist.
That doesn't mean it has to be their primary focus in product development. He is saying Apple focuses on making great products rather than focusing on making products that will make money. It works out just fine from a business perspective because if you hand competent marketing, sales, production, and fulfillment groups a great product, they'll have no trouble making the money. All he's saying is the approach is different.

Also, he didn't mention those other companies--you did. You're trying to draw the conclusion that he is trying to make Apple seem different than those other companies, but that's coming out of your own head.

BTW, I'm almost 100% sure Apple has a different approach than RIM. You say making profits is the goal of every company and then say Apple is the same as RIM... I think you might be having some disorganized thoughts on this subject.

You say, "Apple makes great products to get money, but money is still the main driving force," but I don't think that squares with reality.

In his last years SJ had all the money he could possibly use or want. He also knew he was facing the end. Yet he still kept working at Apple to make great products.
* He could not benefit from more profits in any way.
* He knew it.
So: He had no possible profit motive but kept working to make great products anyway. Clearly profit was not the main driving force for him.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back