Somehow it makes me assured on some level that Ive is looking after both sides of design from now on. IMHO after Panther, but mainly after Tiger the design of Mac OS somewhat moved away from being a high-tech computer OS to sometimes being kind of "cute", which personally I am not too fond of. I dare to say that the first Mac OS X with the Aqua interface was awesome! And till Leopard there were some really awesome new features in the OS. Exposé was simply mind blowing. Don't get me wrong, facebook integration and quick tweets from the notification center are nice touches, but nowhere near the innovation that Jaguar, Panther and Tiger brought. And sadly there were some alterations that hindered productivity. For example I don't like how messed up the "save as" feature is. Some buttons are removed from the Finder, so handling/ejecting disk images are IMHO less user friendly. Exposé is still not the same in 10.8, but not bad. I think with Ive in charge there may be a chance now tho rethink design on software levels too, pointing it to a more advanced direction. And by design I mean the whole HW-SW integration, features and function. I think the absence os Bertrand Serlet is a real loss, he had major role in serious "under the hood" stuff that make the smooth eye candy work at the user level.
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's Design Video for the Twentieth Anniversary Mac
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
This Mac looked great, talk to anyone who actually owned one. It was not a great machine. But your right, it LOOKED great. Thats about it.
And no, we would still have the same products we do today with or without Ive, the vast majority of PCs still follow the Tower/Monitor format, AIOs existed before this one as well.
He makes cool stuff, but he isn't responsible for all the products we have today.
If you wanna give a company that kinda credit, look at IBM. Probably the most innovative and inventive company to ever exist.
Looked good, and yes, it wasn't a top spec machine for its day, but it was still very capable, especially with the TV/FM card and video in card.
The iMac G4, the Cube, the Mini... all owe a debt to the TAM.
i checked your posts and you always just bash apple no matter what product/competitor and roll your eyes .. are you shorting apple stock and which chaebol is paying you??)
Lumia 920 costs $450, has decent OS, no less sleek or sexy than an iPhone, and it's not scuffed as easily.
What new iMac?
I'm also curious how you have such a positive opinion of a product that you likely haven't used?
Previous and current iMac ownership + reviews & benchmarks from the new Mac mini which historically underperforms concurrent iMacs, especially with RAM restrictions (i.e. Mac mini tops out at 16GB iMac at 32GB). Its speculative, but not without precedent.
I'd be happier if they'd opt for Altec Lansing or Harman/Kardon. They both make decent speakers...
Bose, on the other hand, is not that great for the money, and Beats is absolute garbage.
Yes. Pure marketing - 'Ooh, it's Bose so they can utterly change the physics of sound by making some small box sound like a full HIFI! Oooh, Beats, it's like the bassiest thing ever thanks to the power of Dre!'
In the late 90s people were raving about totally flat NXT speakers. They looked cool and sounded okay considering their design but still utter junk compared to a good traditional speaker.
The Nexus 7 you describe does not exist, but youre right a roughly equal Nexus 7 is cheaper than an iPad mini. Of course youre cherry picking specs; you conveniently forget to mention the lack of LTE on the Nexus 7; or the fact it has dramatically worse battery life (like 65% of the iPad mini); a noticeably smaller screen (web browsing in landscape is awful); or the cheap build quality.
Show me some reviews of products that are cheaper than Apple, but have the same build quality. Ive yet to see one, outside of perhaps Lenovo which make some top notch kit.
Oh really? http://www.bestbuy.com/site/Desktop-Computers/All-in-One-Computers/abcat0501005.c?id=abcat0501005
Supply & demand.
iPhone 5 is even worse. It costs $649 off contract at the least and so many of them scuffed out of the box. And Phil stated shamelessly it was normal for an aluminum product to be dented and scuffed (out of the box?)
So many? How many? And what exactly is your point? Should we judge the Nexus 7 on the small number of units that started to fall apart or Googles ridiculous exchange policy (i.e. send us your Nexus well get it back to you in 2 weeks).
The Lumia 920 is a great phone and Windows 8 is a wonderful OS. Im really hoping Nokia/Microsoft succeed with the Lumia series, they both bring something valuable and unique to the mobile phone market, its certainly vastly superior to Android. Simple facts though, when youre desperate to (re)gain market share and you cant markedly outperform the competition you have to compete on price.
True! Apple have worked with H/K though, on various models if I remember correctly, they had H/K speakers (the lamp iMac's blob speakers, and I think some of the G4 Powermacs? Maybe more models).. H/K generally seem to have *much* superior fidelity when compared to BOSE, which sounds muddy to me.
IMO, Bose is on par with beats headphones. At one time Bose made an ok speaker. But now they are ALL name. If u spend money on Bose, u got ripped off.
Personally, My ears like Paradigm.
I think Bose speakers are best in-class, the prices... are too high though.
They get a bad rap from some audiophiles the same way Apple gets a bad rap from spec whores. The fact of the matter is, sound is *very* subjective, and as someone who has invested over $10K in my audio system, based on what I've heard in stores and from a few people's Bose systems, I would say that Bose makes some quality products.
They do charge a bit more than what you can get from comparable systems, but like Apple, they offer integrated systems that are very simple to set up and have retail outlets where you can go to for support.
Regarding headphones, personally, their OE headphones are a bit heavy on bass for my taste so I use AKG reference headphones, but when it comes to earbuds, I've been using their IE2's, and for the price, I've yet to experience anything better; mainly because I can't stand true IE's, no matter how good they sound.
If people are still talking about Bose....
Please keep in mind that Bose makes many different products. When one person says they are great, they may be talking about a completely different product than the next guy who hates them. The bass-heavy issues are really just tuning to appeal to moronic 20yo folks. And it's not even good bass, just extreme boosting in certain ranges. Bose is hardly the only company that does this.
Here's a few thoughts from a crazed (but poor) audiophile that has listened to many Bose products. When I bought my 3rd stereo system at 18yo (2nd I paid for), I went out with the purpose of buying Bose satellite/sub speakers, because of the marketing and what other people thought of them. I listened to them and other sub/sats and couldn't understand why they didn't sound as good. I ended up listening to far more speakers than I had planned to, which is now the advice I would give to anyone shopping for speakers. I bought something else.
I lost track, whomever said Paradigm...I concur. Excellent sound.
Please keep in mind that Bose makes many different products. When one person says they are great, they may be talking about a completely different product than the next guy who hates them. The bass-heavy issues are really just tuning to appeal to moronic 20yo folks. And it's not even good bass, just extreme boosting in certain ranges. Bose is hardly the only company that does this.
Here's a few thoughts from a crazed (but poor) audiophile that has listened to many Bose products. When I bought my 3rd stereo system at 18yo (2nd I paid for), I went out with the purpose of buying Bose satellite/sub speakers, because of the marketing and what other people thought of them. I listened to them and other sub/sats and couldn't understand why they didn't sound as good. I ended up listening to far more speakers than I had planned to, which is now the advice I would give to anyone shopping for speakers. I bought something else.
- "No highs, no lows, must be Bose" dates back to the Bose 901 speakers, I believe. A 9-driver speaker that gave a unique sound. However, every driver was a midrange, about 3", IIRC. Hence the no highs no lows. They had some good characteristics, but overall did not have adequate range to satisfy picky listeners.
- Their other "regular" speakers have been up and down, but are not too bad for quality or price. Someone mentioned some 301s and generally their 300-800 series were decent and an ok price compared to others in the market. Everybody likes different speakers, these were fine.
- Their headphones are pretty good, and they were one of the first to put out a decent noise-cancelling model. I kinda hate to say it, considering my next point, but they did a great job pioneering these in the market.
- Their Acoustimass cube systems are overpriced junk. That is the nicest thing I can say about them. For all their blathering about R&D and whatever, they have not updated these speakers since the early 90s. Measuring them is a joke, as the speakers miss major frequency ranges completely, to the tune of -24db or more. The drivers themselves are the cheapest things they can possibly manufacture. There is zero nice to say.
- The Wave tabletop systems do some funky sound shaping to get a fairly broad sound out of minimal drivers. They sound ok, but are pricey since most aren't looking for spiffy sound in an alarm clock.
- Both the Acoustimass and Wave were designed to shape to what Bose thinks people want to hear. The AMs esp are "good enough", but they really aren't. The problem is, what people think they want to hear and what they really want/need are different things. The best speaker system is one that perfectly plays back whatever sound you send it, with no coloration and equal ability (flat response, anechoic) in all audible frequencies. If you want to color it for some reason, do that in processing, not in the speaker design. Bose does not make such speakers. Maybe their headphones.
- The one thing I really haven't listened to, surprisingly, is their iPod dock speakers. I think, like the Wave stuff, they are expensive but decent in the genre.
I lost track, whomever said Paradigm...I concur. Excellent sound.
Unlike you, I am a Apple fan and I don't mind to admit if they do something off, or silly, or wrong.
I'm assuming you're from the British Isles yourself. Yes Ive is English, and so's his accent, but that's not terminology that's used in North America - had he been from Aberdeen even they'd still have described it as a British accent. I also am from the England, and I've just spent 5 months in the US and Canada. Nobody remarked on my English accent. They remarked on my British accent, presumably because that way they were covering more bases (to use a baseball analogy
). You may object to the terminology, because it's not as precise as yours, but it's not wrong, and it's what they use in North America, in much the same way as you are likely to describe Dolly Parton for instance as having an American accent. Some Americans might object and say that no, her accent is quite clearly Southern - Appalachian hills even if you want to be really precise. But that doesn't mean that you're wrong to describe it as American - you're simply being more generic. In the UK we don't tend to discriminate between the different variants of American accent, partly because we can't. Likewise, in the Americas they talk about British accents, without further qualification. I don't see why you consider that wrong - it's not....And this is horrendously off-topic. Sorry. Erm, if it helps the topic, I'm a musician, and I agree Bose speakers tend to be poor on the whole...
I agree with you. But I didn't say AIO's would not exist without Ive. I more meant the AIO's would be not as well designed today as they are in general without Ive. And IBM has had a few pretty innovative people too. I'd say more in other areas then how pretty computers can look. They to in their own right have done their own things.
The nexus 7 is being sold at cost (or possibly lower) and makes foolish people think that computer hardware is worth peanuts.
http://www.engadget.com/2012/07/09/nexus-7-component-costs/
Speaking of that, this Engadget article discussed the very same issue. http://www.engadget.com/2012/11/03/editorial-amazon-and-google-are-undermining-mobile-pricing/
Then the commenting crowd really brought out their pitch forks, accusing the Engadget writer trying to "excuse" the iPad mini's rip off pricing.
That reaction was interesting in that it seems when Microsoft blamed the OEMs for not making sufficiently interesting products, the same commenting crowd agreed with Microsoft, and decided it was the fault of OEMs such as Dell, HP, Acer, and Asus for not making good hardware.
But why would those companies make such crappy commoditized hardware? It's precisely because the hardware game became a race to the bottom with small margin, which culminated when the Netbooks ruled the roost. Yet the same people who think they should stop making commoditized low margin products, think high margin products are nothing but rip off and the race to the bottom is acceptable.
It's precisely because the hardware game became a race to the bottom with small margin, which culminated when the Netbooks ruled the roost. Yet the same people who think they should stop making commoditized low margin products, think high margin products are nothing but rip off and the race to the bottom is acceptable.
Well Put! Clearly the Egg came first!