Jony Ive's iOS 7 Influence Will Be More Than Skin Deep

[The Deepness]

*SIGH*

Let me back your quote up a few decades, and put it in that context... "Someone at Apple should pick up a Dell computer. I bet they would be surprised its not molded out of a single slab of aircraft quality aluminum. But the damn thing can be opened up and you can put whatever components you want to inside, and it runs Windows and lets you do what you want with it. I'm an apple fanboy at heart, but if Apple continues to lag behind the competition (Dell, Acer, Gateway, HP), I'm going elsewhere with my $. Hats off to Jobs if he can change my mind."

Know what? Jobs didn't give a crap then, and I seriously doubt that Ives does now.

You do realize, don't you, that for decades now PC owners have been saying the same thing about Macs? Too expensive. Too many high-end materials. Too proprietary. Too restrictive and not "open" enough. All of which means that they're "lagging behind the competition"... Look - this is what Apple does. It's what they are. Here's the thing you need to hammer into your skull: They aren't nearly as concerned with "lagging behind" as they are with realizing the products they envision. That's what makes them unique and special.

I doubt that you're really "an apple fanboy at heart". If you were, you'd know that this has always been Apple's MO with all of their products. They control hardware and software for an end-to-end user experience that THEY define according to their own set of values. They design with high quality materials, and spend lots of cash and time on the look and feel itself. They try to make their products optimally usable and productive, without allowing so much user-customization ("letting the damn thing do whatever you want it to") that it degrades performance and stability. The opposite model is what the PC camp (vs the Mac camp) has always stood for. Many disparate manufacturers instead of a proprietary system, cheaper materials and designs for lower cost systems, user customizable to appeal to a larger market, etc..., etc... This is what has always distinguished PCs from Macs. iPods from myriad other MP3 players. Now, iPhones from Android phones. Those other camps are more about prioritizing sales and broader markets over actual products.

Apple doesn't do that. They leave it to the other model - in this case the Android model. Apple is more about the product itself first, and they're willing and prepared to accept a smaller market share in order to guarantee the product they want to produce. Save for when they got off track under John Scully (without Jobs), it's always been that way, and hopefully it always will be. The minute they change, use cheaper materials and designs, stop being proprietary, and let users decide how things work, they become the next Dell and HP. They are trying to preserve the Steve Jobs mantra - "People don't know what they want until we show it to them."

That said, lots of people value having control over their fonts and interfaces over the build-quality, etc... They like the PC/Android model over the Mac/iPhone model. That's fine. They have many products to choose from. They just shouldn't expect Apple to change their foundational model to become like all the rest.

Perfectly said!

 

[IJ Reilly]

It always strikes me as odd when the comments start showing up with the word "hype" in them in relation to Apple products.

The only people hyping up iOS7 are the pundits, the rumour mongers, the whiners and the moaners. In other words, me, you (the dog named "Boo") and pretty much the rest of the worlds tech media.

It seems that people conveniently forget that Apple has said bugger all about what may be coming up at WWDC, apart from there will be something about iOS7 and OS X.
That's it! And it's genius! Why "hype" something yourself when staying silent forces the rest of the world to do it for you?

Everything else that has been said is by those who, either, should know better or know even less!

You gotta love it!

You mean the tech media maybe should start using the dictionaries on their word processors? Or maybe even a thesaurus? Perish the thought. Caring about what words actually mean, let alone expressing concepts accurately, is now a small minority concern, even among journalists. Among the general public, it doesn't even register.

 

[The Deepness]

You mean the tech media maybe should start using the dictionaries on their word processors? Or maybe even a thesaurus? Perish the thought. Caring about what words actually mean, let alone expressing concepts accurately, is now a small minority concern, even among journalists. Among the general public, it doesn't even register.

Frighteningly sad, but true.

 

[theluggage]

The problem with the skeuomorphism is that it works great when you've used the traditional non-electronic forms that are being emulated.

One problem with modern UIs is not skeuomorphism per se but the lack of consistency between applications - when GUIs first appeared, we went from a situation where every application had its own unique system of menus and commands (which some software houses tried to copyright) to a wonderful world in which all the basics - File->Save As..., Edit->Paste etc. suddenly worked much the same on every application from every publishers. I think this transferability of skills had a far greater effect on the ease of use of systems like the early Mac than any tenuous analogy between on-screen folders and trashcans and their real-world counterparts.

Apple, Microsoft etc. used to produce detailed style guides for Mac OS and Windows dictating how user interfaces should work (while libraries and application frameworks ensured that following the rules was the path of least resistance). I'm sure these guides still exist, but the major publishers have long since stopped taking any notice of them, preferring to invent (and sometimes copyright or patent) their own systems of menus, toolbars and palettes). The consistency is gone.

If you look at the two most egregious examples in iOS - Calendar and Contacts - you can see this lack of consistency. In Calendar, I can use gestures to turn pages - not so in Contacts (and if I try I start firing off unwanted actions). Nor is there any on-screen indication in Calendar (such as a turned-up corner) to flag that this gesture is available. At least the 'pages' motif in calendar makes some logical sense - whereas 'Contacts' does not behave in any way remotely resembling any book known to man. To add insult to injury, the 'leather look' has been adopted by OS X, but without any consistency of function.

This has nothing to do with skeuomorphism and everything to do with poor UI design. Hopefully, Ive 'gets' this and knows that it needs more than just stripping off the faux leather to fix.

Meanwhile, what symbols *do* you use when even a floppy disc icon for 'save' is now archaic (not that official iOS apps have a 'save' function) and every device is a slim box with a screen on it? A row of featureless rectangles?

Things like reel-to-reel tapes and movie cameras may just become abstracted icons - today's users may not have seen them, but they will know the symbols. Think of the old-fashioned 'bellows' camera that is used as the speed camera symbol on road signs in many countries - that has never been contemporary, but everybody understands it.

There's something to be said for just using text - but it takes up quite a lot of screen estate which is a problem on mobile devices.

...or you go for minimal on-screen controls, gestures, hot corners etc. The problem is, these present a vertical learning curve, and first impressions count (see: the reaction to the disappearance of the Start menu in Windows 8).

 

[PrometheusGeek]

Apple is, and always has been all about maximizing total profits. In this regard, they are no different from any other company, In this regard, they are just like Monsanto or Exxon.

The means to that end is to produce produce the products that they feel will accomplish that goal. The product that they want to produce is the product that will maximize total profits.

They have chosen a niche that they feel will accomplish that goal. They produce products within that niche.

If they thought that a different sort of product would allow them to produce greater total profits, they would produce other products.

Apple is not some sort of clubhouse for producing the products that they want to produce. They are not some sort of public charity that helps the public by producing certain products.

They are a business. They take money out of the pockets of the public and put that money into the pockets of the Hedge Funds. That is job number one. And job number two. And job number three.

They are not a charitable organization. They exist to maximize total profits.

Well respectfully, I disagree. Obviously they are a business and not a charity. Obviously their buisness model is to make money through profitable revenues. But I maintain that Steve Jobs' unique characteristic as a businessman and CEO was that his first priority was product quality, and that profit came second to that. He was famous for spending exorbitant amounts of money on researching the perfect paint colors, the exact right materials, the perfect process of molding plastics, etc... He was known to spend money that others would certainly have deemed "unnecessary" to make the chips inside a computer line up symmetrically, and to paint and stylize production machinery on the assembly lines. He even had expensive leather chairs installed in customized viewing rooms over his assembly line at NeXt. In doing these kinds of things, he wasn't "maximizing profits." He was spending money that most people thought was wasteful because it detracted from company profits.

But he did it because as much as he cared about profits, he cared about products more.

I believe that spirit lives on at Apple, and that it always must. There are only a few companies where this is true - that profitability is a necessary goal, but not at the expense of product quality. Most companies compromise product quality in order to maximize bottom line profits. Apple will sacrifice market base and bottom line profits in order to maximize quality and guarantee the products they envision. Samsung is the current classic model of the former ethic, Apple is the current champion of the latter.

People who struggle to grasp this will always complain that Apple is becoming obsolete or falling behind. They will always be frustrated by the pace at which Apple innovates. They wil always perceive that the Microsofts, Dells, and Samsungs are "winning" because they fail to realize that in reality, they're playing an entirely different game.

 

[AppleMark]

Did anybody else have the urge to try for a British accent when reading those quotes?

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but there is not really such a thing as a British accent.

Native Britain is classified as being made up of Northern Irish, Scottish, Welsh and English, we can all sound very different. Sometimes to the point where we have no idea what some of us are saying... Even English regionals are very different.

For Jony, try English accent.

That's my 'Anal-qoute-of-the-day' out of the way...

 

[iGrip]

his first priority was product quality, and that profit came second to that.

Bull. His first priority was to return value to the people who owned the company he was hired to run. His method of doing that was to produce high quality products. He did very well with that strategy.

Nobody knew how to turn a buck like Steve Jobs. He was named CEO of the Decade because of his ability to generate profits

In doing these kinds of things, he wasn't "maximizing profits."

Bull. That is exactly what he was doing.

They wil always perceive that the Microsofts, Dells, and Samsungs are "winning" because they fail to realize that in reality, they're playing an entirely different game.

The game that Apple plays is maximizing total profits via the production and sale of products in a certain segment of the market. The only difference between them and the companies you cite are that the other companies aim for different segments of the market, and are less successful in generating total profits.

 

[AppleMark]

another thread where everyone cries that getting rid of skeuomorphism is a bad idea.

those people will be the first to upgrade.

"OMG I DIDN'T THINK I WOULD LIKE IT, BUT THIS IS AMAZING"

True, but then so is the opposite in regards to those who say it is a bad idea to keep skeuomorphism.

It's does not really matter what will be in iOS7 and like you say, almost everybody will be in line to upgrade.

In any case, Apple do not give you a choice if you want to use the next Gen iThing. So if iOS7 is out before the next iThing, you will have to use it, no matter what you think of it.

Whether it is "flat","Forstallised", "Ive-nised", we will all just lap it up regardless.

Why? Because it does not really matter, especially when all the 'shiny hunters' are dazzled and sleeping rough to be the first with a 'new' [*slightly and modestly tweeked] iThing.

 

[IJ Reilly]

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but there is not really such a thing as a British accent.

Native Britain is classified as being made up of Northern Irish, Scottish, Welsh and English, we can all sound very different. Sometimes to the point where we have no idea what some of us are saying... Even English regionals are very different.

For Jony, try English accent.

That's my 'Anal-qoute-of-the-day' out of the way...

Of course, but the same is true for the mythical "American accent" that I am sure many in Britain are convinced is more or less the same nationwide. It can vary quite a lot over the space of a 100 miles. As for Jony Ive, seems he's an Essex boy though it isn't so easy to hear in his voice any longer.

 

[Smartass]

scott forstall was great at this already. skeuomorphism brought out a lot of emotion from iphone users.

only emotions it got out of iphone users is "wait... is that stitched leather? WTF were they thinking?!"

 

[notjustjay]

He was known to spend money that others would certainly have deemed "unnecessary" to make the chips inside a computer line up symmetrically, and to paint and stylize production machinery on the assembly lines. He even had expensive leather chairs installed in customized viewing rooms over his assembly line at NeXt. In doing these kinds of things, he wasn't "maximizing profits." He was spending money that most people thought was wasteful because it detracted from company profits.

But he did it because as much as he cared about profits, he cared about products more.

He cared obsessively, you are right. But he did so because he felt that by selling the "perfect" product he could command a higher price than by selling something that was "just good enough". Apple's gamble has always been "if we make it as perfect as we can, people will want it and people will pay a premium to get it". People also fall in love with the brand and become devotees and evangelists because the product is just that good.

Consider an analogy: I could buy slabs of meat, stick 'em on a grill, and sell them in a cafeteria style restaurant. Or I could dress up the place, have all the staff wear tuxedos, get the perfect fabrics for my tablecloths and the perfect stitched leather bindings for my menus. Now I've created an upscale fine dining steakhouse, and I can charge a much higher price. I will also attract a different type of clientele -- one who is hopefully more affluent and willing to give me more of their money.

All of those picky design decisions still had an end goal in mind, which was to sell product. Sure, Steve had a "we'll change the world" attitude about computing -- but it was always "we'll change the world when people buy OUR products".

 

[griz]

Ive got a good feeling about iOS7.

 

[teknikal90]

He didn't have to.Just listen to their public statements.

so you would know that you fit in a company based on their public statements?
do you choose a spouse based on their facebook status?

 

[Rogifan]

Bull. His first priority was to return value to the people who owned the company he was hired to run. His method of doing that was to produce high quality products. He did very well with that strategy.

Nobody knew how to turn a buck like Steve Jobs. He was named CEO of the Decade because of his ability to generate profits




Bull. That is exactly what he was doing.





The game that Apple plays is maximizing total profits via the production and sale of products in a certain segment of the market. The only difference between them and the companies you cite are that the other companies aim for different segments of the market, and are less successful in generating total profits.

Actually Apple wasn't generating huge profits until the iPhone came out. In FY 2001 Apple had a loss of $25 million. FY 2011 net income was greater than 1998-2009 combined.

 

[rodriguise]

In every photo Ive looks like he's taking a dump.

 

[Rogifan]

All of those picky design decisions still had an end goal in mind, which was to sell product. Sure, Steve had a "we'll change the world" attitude about computing -- but it was always "we'll change the world when people buy OUR products".

Well I would hope the CEO of a company would want people to buy their products.

In Walter Isaacson's book Jony Ive talked about the colored iMacs and said Steve made the decision right away, whereas at another company all sorts of studies would've been done before/if it was approved. Apple spent $250K a pop on machines to perforate a tiny hole in the MacBooks so you would see a green light when the camera was on. There are plenty of things Apple spends money on that another company probably wouldn't. Are they doing it because they are obsessed with generate huge profits? Or are they doing it because they believe it makes for a better product that people are willing to spend more on? I think it's the latter and the consequence of those values are increased profits. But I don't think that's the motivation. All the executives are super rich. If it was just money they cared about they could all retire now.

 

[IJ Reilly]

Well I would hope the CEO of a company would want people to buy their products.

In Walter Isaacson's book Jony Ive talked about the colored iMacs and said Steve made the decision right away, whereas at another company all sorts of studies would've been done before/if it was approved. Apple spent $250K a pop on machines to perforate a tiny hole in the MacBooks so you would see a green light when the camera was on. There are plenty of things Apple spends money on that another company probably wouldn't. Are they doing it because they are obsessed with generate huge profits? Or are they doing it because they believe it makes for a better product that people are willing to spend more on? I think it's the latter and the consequence of those values are increased profits. But I don't think that's the motivation. All the executives are super rich. If it was just money they cared about they could all retire now.

You are right that Apple doesn't do focus groups, but I'm not sure that Apple is spending money where others would not. They certainly don't seem to spend with no obvious rhyme or reason, like Google does. Or to no useful effect, like Microsoft. Apple's approach to R&D is unique to the company's culture in some important respects, but in the end, the method is bottom-line driven. As it should be. At the very least, it's the way corporate success is measured.

As for the super-rich execs, I have yet to hear a single one of them say that they were already rich enough. They equate money with power, and more money with more power. They see this connection at least as well as you and I, and probably a great deal more.

 

[inselstudent]

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but there is not really such a thing as a British accent.

Native Britain is classified as being made up of Northern Irish, Scottish, Welsh and English, we can all sound very different. Sometimes to the point where we have no idea what some of us are saying... Even English regionals are very different.

For Jony, try English accent.

That's my 'Anal-qoute-of-the-day' out of the way...

Yeah...no offence was intended Obviously I meant his particular English accent. I'm not a native English speaker so I classify all sorts of English speakers only quite roughly. I'm very sorry. If u heard a German, a Spaniard or a Frenchman talk, would you know to correctly differentiate their accents?

 

[AppleMark]

Yeah...no offence was intended Obviously I meant his particular English accent. I'm not a native English speaker so I classify all sorts of English speakers only quite roughly. I'm very sorry. If u heard a German, a Spaniard or a Frenchman talk, would you know to correctly differentiate their accents?

I was only playing...., but well if you want to go that route....

It is not about the whether you are a native or not. It is about whether you understand the difference and you clearly do not.

As to understanding the different accent origins you mention, yes I could if they were all speaking English. If you meant in their native language, it would not be relevant as we are only talking about differences in a commonly understood language.

Wales has it's own language, Ireland has it's [old] language and Scotland sounds like it has it's own language [sorry guy's ]... and accents. Are you keeping up?

What you are saying is akin to the world thinking that an American accent is to include Mexicans and French Canadians.

A bit silly....

 

[inselstudent]

I was only playing...., but well if you want to go that route....

It is not about the whether you are a native or not. It is about whether you understand the difference and you clearly do not.

As to understanding the different accent origins you mention, yes I could if they were all speaking English. If you meant in their native language, it would not be relevant as we are only talking about differences in a commonly understood language.

Wales has it's own language, Ireland has it's [old] language and Scotland sounds like it has it's own language [sorry guy's ]... and accents. Are you keeping up?

What you are saying is akin to the world thinking that an American accent is to include Mexicans and French Canadians.

A bit silly....

Duh, I actually was "playing" along. What didn't you understand about "no offence intended" and my smileys. I made a mistake and I know it. Again, I'm very sorry.
Please let's just stop this. It's not even relevant in this topic.

 

[Rogifan]

You are right that Apple doesn't do focus groups, but I'm not sure that Apple is spending money where others would not. They certainly don't seem to spend with no obvious rhyme or reason, like Google does. Or to no useful effect, like Microsoft. Apple's approach to R&D is unique to the company's culture in some important respects, but in the end, the method is bottom-line driven. As it should be. At the very least, it's the way corporate success is measured.

As for the super-rich execs, I have yet to hear a single one of them say that they were already rich enough. They equate money with power, and more money with more power. They see this connection at least as well as you and I, and probably a great deal more.

And I haven't heard one of them say they weren't rich enough either.

 

[WisdomSeed]

Skeumorphisms or not?

I'm glad that iOS is changing, it was getting old. That said, transitions are not always nice or easy. While I didn't care for the leather bound look of Notes or the Calendar, I did kinda like the reel-to-reel of the podcasts app, but now that is gone, I don't really miss it. It was like an Easter Egg, cute but not necessary. I get that.

On the other hand, good UI or GUI is almost like mysticism. You can't really say if one is good or bad unless you use it, and only then can you find the real flaws in a system. Even then, it could be a matter of preferences alone. Based on his designs, I think Jony goes for the smooth, which is pretty cool. I'm sure that while others may be counting the clicks and touches (as poorly as they do with their wiz-bangery, I don't think they have quite to the science that Jony dones.

I don't like the Android OS, I get lost in it, but the iOS is getting really long in tooth and I am looking forward to real updates, not just the beautifcation of them. It would be nice to have a multiple user interface on iOS, I'm hoping they go in that direction. I'm on the fence with widgets, I hardly ever use them on my iMac, but there is data I would like to get at a glance, and it is not Twitter of Facebook.

I want to be able to add some serious customization to my phone, I want to recognize it as mine from across the room, but I don't feel I should have to jailbreak it to do that. If I want to access the weather, I don't feel I should have to login to get it, but I do want my other data to be safe and secure. This is not an easy task, but it is a doable one.

Right now, I've removed all the apps from my home screen, because I was sick of seeing them. Can we work that out? Sure, but the question remains how?

Samsungs file moving is pretty cool, but the set up is not a friendly one. ON the other hand, iOS already has parts in place with Find My Friends, so it would be easy to share with anyone or specificaly designated people in your address book, like with 'Do Not Disturb'. I feel like they are a few serious tweaks away from blowing Samsung and Android out of the water. But I don't know just what those tweaks are.

 

[IJ Reilly]

And I haven't heard one of them say they weren't rich enough either.

But we can always hope, eh?

 

[roninnder]

Can anyone give me an example where skeumorphism improved functionality?

 

[cire]

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but there is not really such a thing as a British accent.

Native Britain is classified as being made up of Northern Irish, Scottish, Welsh and English
...
For Jony, try English accent.

So then you're saying that Jony's English accent is one of several possible British accents. So, Ive's got a British accent.

That's my 'Anal-reply-of-the-day' out of the way...