that camera is so bland! It may have rounded corners, but it looks sanitary and almost lifeless. I'd say one of the most perfect camera designs of late was the Nikon F4s. (I had one so I'm a little biased.) It was perfectly balanced, but weighty. All the controls could be used with your eyes closed, each one of them had a place and a specific "feel" to them. Holding it was pure joy, there was a confidence in how you could wrap your hand and fingers around either the regular or vertical grip. It had a "tough camera" presence, and backed it up with a metal chassis and metal parts. It was elegant in a functional way, that it was beautiful yet did exactly what the photog wanted with less thinking and less fiddling with settings. Nikon could have put an LCD on it, as their other cameras were getting those (such as the 8008 which I also had) but decided to focus on tactile functionality. It's a camera that Ive could never have designed, because his focus is too much on "clean lines" or "streamline" while, IMO, he disregards the human interaction and tactile aspect of objects.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Jony Ive and Marc Newson Discuss Design, Obsession With Perfection in New Interview
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
No Im not confused. I dont know how much more clear can I be. I agree that the skeuomorphic look is absolutely terrible, but Ive's iOS7 is not any better and still looks like crap. Which is a thought carried by many people.
It seems that when it comes to Jony's design vocabulary, you speak a different language.
Some people just don't "get it".
Apple's core activity is creating value for big institutional owners of securities. Mutual funds, pension funds and hedge funds are the owners of the stock, and as such, they ARE Apple. They own it. They own the buildings, they pay the employees and they rightfully expect that their property will be managed for their benefit.
Making products is just a means to this end. Tim's most important job is to maximize the benefits to people like Icahn.
That's the silliest comment I've seen in a while. I was clearly indicating Ive's design looks pretty but is terrible to use. Everyone else seemed to understand what I said.
LOL, I could buy a Leica M9 or 240 several times over if I wanted. But I'm smart enough to not buy what is essentially a boutique overpriced camera with mainly imagined attributes. Even so, they are solidly built with great lenses. It's just that they are overpriced and the target market doesn't take pictures with them that surpass the quality of any other camera.
Can't believe he just said that. There are literally hundreds of great designers out there. Ive- while being among them - is in the very fortunate position to work for a company that really understands the value of design.
He really deserves all of his success - but that doesnt mean that there is a ton of people out there being equally as good as him but have to struggle way more because they work for Microsoft, HP, etc. Not everyone can work for Apple.
I agree with you, other Leicas are designed to be used and some care and thinking whent into how a photographer would use the camera and how the controls should work and where they should be placed. Detailed like when you hold a camera where do your fingers land? In this camera no thinking at at went into how the camera would be used. Notice the dials on the top plate are gone. You've have to take you eye off the subject and look at the menu system to make every change. This a a Leica for collectors who aren't photographers.
Ive just totally messed up the ergonomics in order to simplify the visual design. I guess he did the right thing for a camera that will be looked at but never used.
----------
Many people will agree that the F4 was the best 35mm film camera ever made and it will likely remain so forever. The data display is inside the viewfinder and shows everything needed. One does not have to put the camera down and mess with a menu system to change any setting.
THis is the thing Nikon gets right better than anyone else. It never shows up on a spec sheet, but they mostly have the best user interface.
I think controls must be expensive to make, cheap camera then to have few of them and the pricier ones have more. This Leica is an exception. It has controls and ergonoics even worst then a cell phone camera but priced 4x higher than the F4.
I'm sure his Work for Code Red embarrasses the hell out of you as well?
Or, you have never began a project and gone completely off? Ive does listen. His nature however only allows a certain amount of distraction at a given period in the process. I'm sure this contributes to the hundreds of prototypes.
Each time he receives input on a better way he probably has to start from P.1. His videos on Apple.com are who he is. He is trying to tell you how the design works for him. You then can take it or leave it.
Remember with Ive and Apple it's always about 5 years down the road. As kdarling posted it's probably why he is such a perfect fit at Apple. Plenty of time to get it the way "He" wants it. It's always about the Ecosystem, and where/how the product fits.
Absolutely correct. I realize that I think different about my hardware than most of the Mac Users here. I'd be happy with a well performing motherboard laying on the back of my desk, hooked to a power supply, a few drives, and of course, a good monitor... I have never bought a product bases on "how it looks", how "thin it is" or for any other reasons dealing with the design of the case.
I know many here disagree and droll over "Jony's designs" and that's fine. But I'd rather have a modern, full featured, and well performing kit than a computer that is "thin, gorgeous, sexy, elegant, or beautiful"... Giving Ives any authority over an OS way a major mistake IMO - iOS 7 looks like it was designed for 10 years old.....
For the rest of you, I have a whole basement full of old, broken, and outdated Macs.. Come and get them and set them up throughout your home and spend days drolling over "Jony's elegant" designs...
I think the key is finding a happy balance between the two. If the aesthetic design is part of superior build quality, then I'll take it. The unibody Mac laptops and the iPhone designs are a good example -- they are beautiful AND the look contributes to the extra strong, lightweight frame. Strong and lightweight are good features for a laptop or phone, so everybody wins.
I could see justifying form over function IF doing so provides other technical advantages, like the above example. Many people would probably be willing to trade having no optical drive for the sake of a stronger, lighter laptop frame. Taking away the removable battery has an aesthetically pleasing effect of removing visible seam lines but a practical effect of allowing bigger batteries and longer running time.
But taking away features JUST to make it look pretty? No, Ive. Don't go there.
Exactly. Sort of like Coleman hiring Paul Teutul Jr to redesign their camping stove. A Leica rangefinder is not a point and shoot, and shouldn't be stripped of its time proven functions. This is simply two companies cashing in on name recognition, but for charity. Only a fool would buy that camera as a photographic tool.
I mostly agree, but this camera doesn't strip the original camera of its functions (except maybe the hotshoe.) This camera's problem is that it reduces usability by removing the dials on the top plate.
Apple needs to look at their declining Mac sales along with the decline in features that Ives freak-show styling has wrought. Macs are more powerful today (Thanks Intel/NVIDIA) but less functional and flexible than just a few years ago.
You can always sell a few goofy looking products like Bang Olufson audio equipment but not to a lot of people.
You can always sell a few goofy looking products like Bang Olufson audio equipment but not to a lot of people.
Weak intro, I'll refer you to my last sentence: get over yourselves, the number of disappointed peeps is so insignificant. You say you're not whining but that first paragraph says otherwise compared to the people that upgraded, like the change, added functionality and progress.
Oh vocal minority.
----------
"The old interface did nothing for Apple".
I'm choking.
Careful, you may die with no significant impact like the old interface did.
Weak intro? What are you, 10? What does that have to do with anything?
Your comment that the "number of disappointed peeps is insignificant" perpetuates the stereotype that Apple fans are "sheep". Thank you for that. The reality is, it doesn't matter at all to me how many people love (or hate) the new UI. I don't like it, and that's that. My opinions are not influenced by "sales".
I was not whining: I was pointing out the reasons why people may have issues with the interface. There are clearly enough people here to show that I'm not alone: long-time Apple fans who are not happy with the UI's direction.
The iPhone is a personal device. The whole "get over yourselves, suck it up, embrace change (whether you like it or not)" mentality is what is weak here.
Sorta Kinda not
I like iOS 7 and find it no less usable than previous versions. Where I am supposed to tap to do certain things (which is about all of the operational impact that the 'look' of the interface has) is as clear as it ever was, and they've found ways to increase content real estate by reducing UI real estate. But it isn't perfect... I find some of the designs oversimplified (buttons in Safari, for example) to the point of ugliness, and the Skittles-esque rainbow of different colors isn't really my thing.
But I still think it's an improvement, while maybe an over-reaction against felt and stitched leather, and it is my hope that the iOS UI will settle somewhere in the middle over the next few years.
That being said, I'm a big fan of the 'form-follows-function' design philosophy made famous (though not invented) by Frank Lloyd Wright. The problem with this camera is that form does not follow function. As has been pointed out, over-emphasis on flatness and minimalised contour have degraded the camera's functionality.
A good camera is one which you can operate while your eye is at the viewfinder, and while it could be argued that given enough time, operating the IveLeica would become second nature, I agree with the consensus that 'enough time' in that case would be far more than with a camera designed for how it feels as opposed to how it looks.
I like iOS 7 and find it no less usable than previous versions. Where I am supposed to tap to do certain things (which is about all of the operational impact that the 'look' of the interface has) is as clear as it ever was, and they've found ways to increase content real estate by reducing UI real estate. But it isn't perfect... I find some of the designs oversimplified (buttons in Safari, for example) to the point of ugliness, and the Skittles-esque rainbow of different colors isn't really my thing.
But I still think it's an improvement, while maybe an over-reaction against felt and stitched leather, and it is my hope that the iOS UI will settle somewhere in the middle over the next few years.
That being said, I'm a big fan of the 'form-follows-function' design philosophy made famous (though not invented) by Frank Lloyd Wright. The problem with this camera is that form does not follow function. As has been pointed out, over-emphasis on flatness and minimalised contour have degraded the camera's functionality.
A good camera is one which you can operate while your eye is at the viewfinder, and while it could be argued that given enough time, operating the IveLeica would become second nature, I agree with the consensus that 'enough time' in that case would be far more than with a camera designed for how it feels as opposed to how it looks.
Man do I ever regret selling my M8 and 4 leica primes! I had the chrome versions of those super-primes (expect the black only 28-Cron) and they have more than doubled since I recklessly sold them!
Leica had a Porsche designed M9 in very limited editions. Some of the elements of this limited edition have made it into the current M model, notably the optional loop grip. This is one of the reasons Leica always does this, super limited special editions, inviting designers and personalities to have free reign on the design. Some of the ideas will drip down to production models, eventually.
After seeing Ive's form over function aluminum grid version, it's interesting to look at that Titanium special edition, which was done by automobile designer Walter de Silva, the man responsible for the modern styles of Alfa Romeo, Audi, and Volkswagen.
Some high points of the Leica press release for his design:
"The LEICA M9 ‘Titanium’ is constructed exclusively with premium quality materials. All visible metal elements of the camera body are made from solid titanium, a particularly light but extremely strong and durable metal that can only be manufactured with special tools. "
"Walter de’Silva has given the Leica M camera an ergonomic, precise, logical and stringent look and feel without changing the intrinsic character of the rangefinder camera. Thus, the compact construction and technical features of the LEICA M9 ‘Titanium’ retain the distinctive style of a true Leica M camera.
"Walter de’Silva addressed not only the design of the camera, but also focused on its handling and technical features. These features include the completely new LED illumination of the bright-line frames in the viewfinder, thus removing the necessity for the standard illuminating window and making the frontal aspect of the camera more balanced.
"Entirely new in the history of camera technology is the camera’s carrying concept. In place of the traditional strap lugs of standard cameras, Walter de’Silva and Leica engineers developed an innovative camera carrying concept that is reduced to only one single mounting point on the camera body. The metal finger loop covered with fine Nappa leather ensures a secure, steady and ergonomic grip when shooting or carrying the camera with only one hand. Furthermore, the new specially designed, stylish shoulder holster holds and safely protects the camera and lens in transport and keeps it ready to shoot at a moment’s notice.
"The camera’s trim, which uses leather typically reserved for the interiors of Audi’s premium automobiles, fits perfectly with the body’s titanium surface and provides outstanding grip. The grip characteristics are further enhanced by a specially designed and embossed diamond structure.
"In addition, the exposed surfaces are treated with a hard coating applied by a specialized company in Switzerland. Scratch-resistant, sapphire-crystal glass is employed as a protective cover for the camera monitor and further enhances the exclusive and rugged character of the camera. The Leica logo has been restyled and is elaborately hand-engraved in pure resin, inlaid with white enamel and subsequently sealed with a clear varnish and polished."
What de'Silva did was both high class and actually increased functionality.
Sounds great. How would you rate the usability of the Leica designed by Ive & Co. in comparison. Oh wait... you can't really compare either because you.. don't know either.
The person who buys that camera is probably never going to use it anyways. It will sit in some display box and serve as a conversation piece, nothing more. Nobody is going to spend that much on a camera, only to bring it out into the field and risk theft or damage.
Note that the Ive/Newson Leica is based on the new M (Type 240). Here's a picture of its back:
The designers haven't moved the Menu button, it's there on the regular camera as well.
But they did indeed replace the thumbwheel with 2 buttons, which makes it slower to use. The new thumbwheel also allowed to rest the thumb somewhere, making it easier to hold the camera steady (there were third party "thumbies" for the previous cameras which the new M made obsolete).
Overall, it's form over function. Nothing new regarding Jony Ive.