Former iOS Chief Scott Forstall is Now a Broadway Producer

[Rogifan]

That dark theme is MUCH nicer looking that the awful white ones below it. I just think Apple went so far downhill in terms of aesthetics after forstall was outed.

Really? You can't be serious.

As I've said previously I think Apple went too far (too much white) with iOS 7 but to me iOS 6 design was so stale, so outdated. To me the podcasts app was proof Forstall's designers were out of control with the skeuomorphism and had hit a wall creatively. To me those IBM apps look really clean and fresh not tired and dated. That said I hope Apple brings a dark theme to iOS. I get the sense Ive is a fan of OLED screens and would like to bring a dark theme to iPhone when it can sort of blend seamlessly with the display. This is what he said in that New Yorker interview:

Under normal circumstances, the screen will then show one of nine watch faces, each customizable. One will show the time alongside a brightly lit flower, butterfly, or jellyfish; these will be in motion, against a black background. This imagery had dominated the launch, and Ive now explained his enthusiasm for it. He picked up his iPhone 6 and pressed the home button. “The whole of the display comes on,” he said. “That, to me, feels very, very old.” (The iPhone 6 reached stores two weeks later.) He went on to explain that an Apple Watch uses a new display technology whose blacks are blacker than those in an iPhone’s L.E.D. display. This makes it easier to mask the point where, beneath a glass surface, a display ends and its frame begins. An Apple Watch jellyfish swims in deep space, and becomes, Ive said, as much an attribute of the watch as an image. On a current iPhone screen, a jellyfish would be pinned against dark gray, and framed in black, and, Ive said, have “much less magic.”

 

[spinedoc77]

Really? You can't be serious.

As I've said previously I think Apple went too far (too much white) with iOS 7 but to me iOS 6 design was so stale, so outdated. To me the podcasts app was proof Forstall's designers were out of control with the skeuomorphism and had hit a wall creatively. To me those IBM apps look really clean and fresh not tired and dated. That said I hope Apple brings a dark theme to iOS. I get the sense Ive is a fan of OLED screens and would like to bring a dark theme to iPhone when it can sort of blend seamlessly with the display. This is what he said in that New Yorker interview:

I'm VERY serious. Just simplifying your icons and making everything white doesn't mean it's more modern and clean, if anything it makes the OS look overly simplistic and moronic. No I wasn't in love with Forstalls themes, but they were infinitely better than what's there now.

The simple solution is to just offer customizability, offer the ability to change themes, change icons, etc. For all of Apple's "think differently" motifs they really just want everyone to look and walk the same like a bunch of lemmings. Taking all the flavor out of iOS like they did just solidifies that Lemmings feeling. What's next? Monochrome vector based icons?

As for a dark screen/theme, I don't know if I'd give Ive enough credit for him to do that. It boggles my mind that none of them use their phones in the dark or grasp the BASIC concept that a white on off white theme is freaking bright when the lights are low. This is endemic to everyone now, Android and even WP is doing this. I can't wait for the white on off white fad to die out and we can be more realistic instead of putting fashion over functionality. Not only is this new theme direction ugly, but it's also LESS functional.

 

[MacFather]

Deleted.

 

[markpkessinger]

It's only a step downwards if . . .

How the mighty have fallen...

. . . if one's cultural horizon doesn't extend beyond the edges of the tech world. This show is one of the most widely critically acclaimed musicals to arrive on Broadway in decades, and the buzz is that it may well be headed for one or more Tony awards. Forstall took a significant risk in co-producing a show that, while wildly well-received in its off-Broadway production, was very uncertain to be successful on Broadway, given the show's highly unconventional story line (there has never been a Broadway show, let alone musical, with a lesbian protaganists coming to terms with her closeted gay father's suicide), where shows must appeal to a much wider audience. Kudos to Forstall for seeing this show's potential, and for being willing to take the gamble on it.

 

[Jon-Erich]

Can any of you excusers of Ive's flat look iOS & OSX come up with any defense other than skeuomoprphic 'looked dated'? Seriously, who gives a rat fart about 'looks dated'?? It WORED better, which is all that should matter. If it works better, then of course it will be around for awhile and of course it will start to look familiar and consistent and that is a good thing. This notion of change because something 'looks dated' is nonsense that has no place in the world of product design and is just a sign that you have no practical creativity left. If 'hasn't aged well' and 'looks cheesy' are your design selection criteria, then stick to designing women's clothing or something else where practical usability is not considered a virtue.

Dated is very much a relevant term. If a logo or icon becomes dated, then that means that it doesn't stand the test of time and needs to be changed. Great design is something that can transcend trends, style changes and generations of consumers. Forstall's sense of design was very much from the 1990's and early 2000's when making everything pop out at you was the 'in' thing because technology finally allowed it. It was cool at first and everybody was doing it. Most of everyone just as quickly abandoned it when it started to look ridiculous after a while. The problem is when you're dealing with detailed graphics, that's something that changes and evolves all the time which is why a lot of skeuomoprphic design doesn't stick around for long. It's been proven by history that simpler, flatter designs tend to age better and last longer. Want proof? Look at the Coca-Cola logo. They've used the same logo since 1887 and it still works today. Look at the IBM logo. They've kept the same logo since 1972 because it works and doesn't need to be changed. Could you imagine any of Forstall's designs lasting 40 years or over 100 years? I'm not saying Ive's designs will last that long. After all, neither Forstall nor Ive can hold a candle to Paul Rand but I still stand by that idea that even if Forstall was still at Apple, his design style would have eventually bitten the dust because it can't stand the test of time like IBM or Coca-Cola.

 

[C DM]

Dated is very much a relevant term. If a logo or icon becomes dated, then that means that it doesn't stand the test of time and needs to be changed. Great design is something that can transcend trends, style changes and generations of consumers. Forstall's sense of design was very much from the 1990's and early 2000's when making everything pop out at you was the 'in' thing because technology finally allowed it. It was cool at first and everybody was doing it. Most of everyone just as quickly abandoned it when it started to look ridiculous after a while. The problem is when you're dealing with detailed graphics, that's something that changes and evolves all the time which is why a lot of skeuomoprphic design doesn't stick around for long. It's been proven by history that simpler, flatter designs tend to age better and last longer. Want proof? Look at the Coca-Cola logo. They've used the same logo since 1887 and it still works today. Look at the IBM logo. They've kept the same logo since 1972 because it works and doesn't need to be changed. Could you imagine any of Forstall's designs lasting 40 years or over 100 years? I'm not saying Ive's designs will last that long. After all, neither Forstall nor Ive can hold a candle to Paul Rand but I still stand by that idea that even if Forstall was still at Apple, his design style would have eventually bitten the dust because it can't stand the test of time like IBM or Coca-Cola.

How long designs can last is a very subjective thing that is different for different people. There are plenty of people out there who likely have some dislike of Coca Cola logo or anything like that, so to then there's nothing good about it and to them it doesn't work.

 

[Rodster]

Dated is very much a relevant term. If a logo or icon becomes dated, then that means that it doesn't stand the test of time and needs to be changed. Great design is something that can transcend trends, style changes and generations of consumers. Forstall's sense of design was very much from the 1990's and early 2000's when making everything pop out at you was the 'in' thing because technology finally allowed it. It was cool at first and everybody was doing it. Most of everyone just as quickly abandoned it when it started to look ridiculous after a while. The problem is when you're dealing with detailed graphics, that's something that changes and evolves all the time which is why a lot of skeuomoprphic design doesn't stick around for long. It's been proven by history that simpler, flatter designs tend to age better and last longer. Want proof? Look at the Coca-Cola logo. They've used the same logo since 1887 and it still works today. Look at the IBM logo. They've kept the same logo since 1972 because it works and doesn't need to be changed. Could you imagine any of Forstall's designs lasting 40 years or over 100 years? I'm not saying Ive's designs will last that long. After all, neither Forstall nor Ive can hold a candle to Paul Rand but I still stand by that idea that even if Forstall was still at Apple, his design style would have eventually bitten the dust because it can't stand the test of time like IBM or Coca-Cola.

The Coca Cola and IBM examples go much deeper than just a flat design. Once a company is known for it's iconic logos they typically don't change things even if there is a better choice and have to spend millions to get it's customers comfortable with it's new logo.

Take Tropicana for example. They changed their logo and labeling for a flat look a few years ago and paid the price by declining sales. After spending several hundred million on a new packaging design they had to revert back to their original graphic design labeling. So for them flat did not work and they paid the price, literally !

I would rather replace the word dated with conditioned as that's what happens with any design. When iOS 7 first made it's appearance many thought it was horrible. After awhile people were conditioned to accept the design and now they hate anything to do with pre-iOS 7.

I use both and still prefer the look of iOS 5 and i've gotten use to iOS 7. So for me iOS 5 still looks just as good as it did 3 years ago whereas iOS 7 is an average looking mobile OS that copied others.

 

[Jon-Erich]

How long designs can last is a very subjective thing that is different for different people. There are plenty of people out there who likely have some dislike of Coca Cola logo or anything like that, so to then there's nothing good about it and to them it doesn't work.

Yes, different people have different tastes but at the same time, a lot of people tend to agree when something either looks bad or feels like it's from a distinct era and should be left there. I think that's where Coke succeeded. Yes, their logo looks like something from another era but it works because instead of doing what Pepsi did and try to make themselves look like everyone else, they stuck with their identity and it's an identity that transcends trends and generations. Pepsi on the other hand just decided to be trendy. Because of this, people don't see coke as a drink that's been around for almost 130 years. They just see it as Coke.

The Coca Cola and IBM examples go much deeper than just a flat design. Once a company is known for it's iconic logos they typically don't change things even if there is a better choice and have to spend millions to get it's customers comfortable with it's new logo.

Take Tropicana for example. They changed their logo and labeling for a flat look a few years ago and paid the price by declining sales. After spending several hundred million on a new packaging design they had to revert back to their original graphic design labeling. So for them flat did not work and they paid the price, literally !

I would rather replace the word dated with conditioned as that's what happens with any design. When iOS 7 first made it's appearance many thought it was horrible. After awhile people were conditioned to accept the design and now they hate anything to do with pre-iOS 7.

I use both and still prefer the look of iOS 5 and i've gotten use to iOS 7. So for me iOS 5 still looks just as good as it did 3 years ago whereas iOS 7 is an average looking mobile OS that copied others.

This is what people don't understand. It's not just an issue of flat being good or bad. I think a good designer is able to make things that don't need to be changed or only need minor changes. Paul Rand succeeded really well in this. Look at the ABC and UPS logos. The only thing that really changed over the years with those logos were the colors. Paul's basic design is still there. The problem with a lot of modern design is that there's very little originality and designers and marketers only seem to be following trends other than creating them.

As far as conditioning is concerned, trends will come and go. The simpler designs always seem to never truly go away or always seem to come back. With the design trends that were popular in the the late 90's and the early years of Mac OS X though....I don't see that making a comeback. As far as taste is concerned, I like a lot of the aesthetics of the new iOS's, but I prefer the colors used in the older ones.