The design Crazy book. Check attached screenshot
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.
Scott Forstall to Discuss Creation of iPhone at Computer History Museum Next Week
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The design Crazy book. Check attached screenshot
I guess we'd all appreciate his secondary activities as long as the principle things were taken care of...
Ok, but that doesn't mean that we would get something like iOS 7 design. I do agree that at that time iOS design looked kinda stale. But if I compare it with the current design I would take the old one with open hands. What Steve probably felt at that point was that iOS needed some refreshment, not a total redesign. They were working on the original UI for years and spent tons and tons of testing and refining. And then Jony Ive came out with his idea and they introduced it in 9 month or so. It was rushed out.
A lot of Macrumors users really amuse me - mostly in their blind hatred of Tim Cook and their revisionist history and faulty memory. Before Forstall was ousted, the visual direction of iOS (and to a lesser extent OS X) was universally derided.
The concept of skeuomorphism on iOS (and again, to a lesser extent on OS X) which initially started as a way to make something very abstract feel more familiar and real. However, by iOS 6, and really starting with iOS 4 and the iPad, skeuomorphism went from an actual usability tool to a usability nightmare. Maybe many don't remember, but when changing the month on the Calendar app on the iPad you first had to wait for a fake page flipping animation - cute at first, nerve-racking not too longer after; the Contacts app was actively crippled by skeuomorphism, forcing you to only see two "pages" at any given time - either a list of groups, and then a list of contacts in each group, or a list of the contacts and then their details. When you want to switch b/w the two pages, again you had to wait for a page flip. The entire visual concept of the iOS home screen was beginning to lose cohesion - when opening a folder, the entire home screen "opened" up to view the contents of the folder with the familiar gray cross-hatch pattern, as if that gray cross-hatch pattern lived "behind" the grid of icons. On the flip side, however, when using notification center, the center would pull over the home screen, with the same cross-hatch pattern. While I doubt most were bugged by (or even noticed) this inconsistency, to me it exemplified a design that simply didn't know what it wanted to be. I even remember a jailbreak tweak at the time that changed the visual of the notification center, so it appeared to push the home screen down - as if the notification center was behind the home screen the whole time, just like the folders.
It was abundantly clear that iOS needed a visual overhaul - and Forstall, being the intense champion of skeuomorphism, was simply not the man for the job. While the visual change from iOS 6 to 7 was a bit jarring for many, the design language made sense. Your home screen was your base layer, everything else appeared on top of it - folder, control center, notification center/today view. Not only that, but some of the concepts we hold dear now, such as Control Center and Today View widgets, did not exist until after Forstall left, being introduced in iOS 7.
With that being said, I can definitely understand why some people don't like the look of iOS 7 onwards (and Yosemite onwards) - the overall look, especially of the icons, has become more abstract. From a usability stand point, this does cause issues - certain items that should be obvious, simply aren't any more (navigation buttons being a big one - instead of being a button it's text with a < or >). The look is cleaner, but the usability is less. However, a lot of these initial major design shifts introduced in iOS 7 have been refined to remain clean, but make more visual sense.
In addition, Forstall was never being groomed for CEO, at least not anytime soon. Tim Cook was always going to be the man, in fact Steve Jobs literally hand picked Tim Cook, outright telling the board to promote him to full CEO when it was obvious he would not be returning to Apple in a full time capacity.
And to continue, the hate for Jonny Ive on this thread (and countless others) makes me hit myself in the forehead and shake my head. Up until fairly recently, Jonny Ive was held up like a deity for his design prowess. Most of the famous and beloved Apple computers were designed by Ive - including the awesome lamp shade iMac (still the best designed iMac as far as I'm concerned), the utilitarian but incredibly functional PowerMac G5 and Mac Pro. The original unibody MacBook Pro was a Jonny Ive design - which I remember him talking about during it's introduction, of building a machine that's not only beautiful on the outside, but the inside as well - and the inside of the unibody MacBook Pro is absolutely gorgeous (as are the current MacBooks and Pros). It became clear after iOS 7 that perhaps Ive was not as well suited for software design as hardware design, which is why his role as a software designer is much more limited.
And finally, let's talk about "Jobs would never do this or that" and apologies. Everyone claims that Steve Jobs would never apologize for anything, and that made him "strong," and thus Tim Cook is "weak" for doing the opposite. Funny thing is, Jobs apologized on more than one occasion. First when MobileMe came out, and it's disastrous initial role out - he publicly apologized for the mess and vowed to fix it - which he ultimately did by morphing it into iCloud. When the "Antenna Gate" fiasco occurred, Jobs not only publicly apologized, he had Apple give out free cases to "fix" the issue (an issue that was beyond overblown). Going even farther back, when the first G4 Powermac came out (I believe it was the G4...), it was released in a number of models, with a 500MHz option available later in the year. Well, that 500MHz model was not released that year, due entirely to PowerPC yield issues, but that didn't stop Jobs for apologizing for the delay and making a big deal out of it when 500MHz chips became available.
To sum up - you all need to take off your rose colored glasses of all things Apple past, especially prior to Tim Cook taking over as CEO, and thinking Apple was perfect and could do no wrong. Apple made a number of mistakes and had a number of issues under Jobs; and they will continue to make mistakes under whoever succeeds Cook; no company is perfect, so you call all get off your high horse and start looking at Apple and judging Apple rationally again.
And one final aside, I can't help but think the biggest hatred toward Tim Cook is that he is politically tactive, and his politics don't line up with yours - Cook could be the greatest CEO Apple has ever seen, but your hatred will still remain because you seem him as nothing more than a SJW. To that I say, get over yourselves!
The concept of skeuomorphism on iOS (and again, to a lesser extent on OS X) which initially started as a way to make something very abstract feel more familiar and real. However, by iOS 6, and really starting with iOS 4 and the iPad, skeuomorphism went from an actual usability tool to a usability nightmare. Maybe many don't remember, but when changing the month on the Calendar app on the iPad you first had to wait for a fake page flipping animation - cute at first, nerve-racking not too longer after; the Contacts app was actively crippled by skeuomorphism, forcing you to only see two "pages" at any given time - either a list of groups, and then a list of contacts in each group, or a list of the contacts and then their details. When you want to switch b/w the two pages, again you had to wait for a page flip. The entire visual concept of the iOS home screen was beginning to lose cohesion - when opening a folder, the entire home screen "opened" up to view the contents of the folder with the familiar gray cross-hatch pattern, as if that gray cross-hatch pattern lived "behind" the grid of icons. On the flip side, however, when using notification center, the center would pull over the home screen, with the same cross-hatch pattern. While I doubt most were bugged by (or even noticed) this inconsistency, to me it exemplified a design that simply didn't know what it wanted to be. I even remember a jailbreak tweak at the time that changed the visual of the notification center, so it appeared to push the home screen down - as if the notification center was behind the home screen the whole time, just like the folders.
It was abundantly clear that iOS needed a visual overhaul - and Forstall, being the intense champion of skeuomorphism, was simply not the man for the job. While the visual change from iOS 6 to 7 was a bit jarring for many, the design language made sense. Your home screen was your base layer, everything else appeared on top of it - folder, control center, notification center/today view. Not only that, but some of the concepts we hold dear now, such as Control Center and Today View widgets, did not exist until after Forstall left, being introduced in iOS 7.
With that being said, I can definitely understand why some people don't like the look of iOS 7 onwards (and Yosemite onwards) - the overall look, especially of the icons, has become more abstract. From a usability stand point, this does cause issues - certain items that should be obvious, simply aren't any more (navigation buttons being a big one - instead of being a button it's text with a < or >). The look is cleaner, but the usability is less. However, a lot of these initial major design shifts introduced in iOS 7 have been refined to remain clean, but make more visual sense.
In addition, Forstall was never being groomed for CEO, at least not anytime soon. Tim Cook was always going to be the man, in fact Steve Jobs literally hand picked Tim Cook, outright telling the board to promote him to full CEO when it was obvious he would not be returning to Apple in a full time capacity.
And to continue, the hate for Jonny Ive on this thread (and countless others) makes me hit myself in the forehead and shake my head. Up until fairly recently, Jonny Ive was held up like a deity for his design prowess. Most of the famous and beloved Apple computers were designed by Ive - including the awesome lamp shade iMac (still the best designed iMac as far as I'm concerned), the utilitarian but incredibly functional PowerMac G5 and Mac Pro. The original unibody MacBook Pro was a Jonny Ive design - which I remember him talking about during it's introduction, of building a machine that's not only beautiful on the outside, but the inside as well - and the inside of the unibody MacBook Pro is absolutely gorgeous (as are the current MacBooks and Pros). It became clear after iOS 7 that perhaps Ive was not as well suited for software design as hardware design, which is why his role as a software designer is much more limited.
And finally, let's talk about "Jobs would never do this or that" and apologies. Everyone claims that Steve Jobs would never apologize for anything, and that made him "strong," and thus Tim Cook is "weak" for doing the opposite. Funny thing is, Jobs apologized on more than one occasion. First when MobileMe came out, and it's disastrous initial role out - he publicly apologized for the mess and vowed to fix it - which he ultimately did by morphing it into iCloud. When the "Antenna Gate" fiasco occurred, Jobs not only publicly apologized, he had Apple give out free cases to "fix" the issue (an issue that was beyond overblown). Going even farther back, when the first G4 Powermac came out (I believe it was the G4...), it was released in a number of models, with a 500MHz option available later in the year. Well, that 500MHz model was not released that year, due entirely to PowerPC yield issues, but that didn't stop Jobs for apologizing for the delay and making a big deal out of it when 500MHz chips became available.
To sum up - you all need to take off your rose colored glasses of all things Apple past, especially prior to Tim Cook taking over as CEO, and thinking Apple was perfect and could do no wrong. Apple made a number of mistakes and had a number of issues under Jobs; and they will continue to make mistakes under whoever succeeds Cook; no company is perfect, so you call all get off your high horse and start looking at Apple and judging Apple rationally again.
And one final aside, I can't help but think the biggest hatred toward Tim Cook is that he is politically tactive, and his politics don't line up with yours - Cook could be the greatest CEO Apple has ever seen, but your hatred will still remain because you seem him as nothing more than a SJW. To that I say, get over yourselves!
Yup. The guys Steve brought in from NeXT really messed up some UX features which were vital to what made Macs advanced. But on the whole, OS X was a step forward, particularly in developing apps and kexts.
Apple users have drunk the koolaid. We take feature and design decisions personally. There's no judging Apple rationally, whether pro or con.
You're incorrect on this one. Sure, some fanbois would be irate over Cook's activism (even though it's mild compared to Hollywood's standards), just like many moviegoers hate to see Hollywood celebrities get into politics. They try to keep everyone boxed into particular roles, even though it's the right of every citizen to speak freely on the issues that are dear to them. And even on a few which aren't.
But the majority of the Apple userbase is more concerned with the direction of product development in the company. If hardware refreshes and OS upgrades were more aligned to users' expectations, Cook's activism would be at most a mild annoyance. At most. However, when it looks like the ship is being steered in the wrong direction and the boss has his eye on other "distractions", passengers start to clamor. So the dog-pile on Tim due to activism looks to be more shrill than it actually is.
First of all, I love your post. Very articulate and everything you said it's true and I agree with you on everything.
My main issue with the topic is that even though iOS had its issues and flaws, it worked very well. But as you said, since iOS 7 it fails in usability and intuitivity. The flaws that are there now are so obvious that even regular people notice them. With every major version of iOS people are like, why is it like that when the previous solution was better and so on.. For example, they've changed the font three times since iOS 7 and I can't help it, but it gives me an impression, that they have no clue what's right and they're trying what will people like better. The same thing with control center. It was one of those things that they did right with iOS 7 and they crippled it in iOS 10 and changed it again in iOS 11.
I agree that people are way too hard on Tim. He's definitely one of the best CEOs around. I admire that he has values. It's important for the company too. If he'd be doing bad job Apple wouldn't be that successful. I think that people are angry because the products has flaws, which could be easily adressed, but it takes them too long to get it right. Steve cared mainly about products, so people weren't as upset as they are now when they're investing energy into other things than products.
Not universally. You need to be omniscient before you make a statement like that.
There are plenty of people here who were upset with the change to the lighter interface, and a significant amount of them still gripe today. I'm not one of them. Despite being mistrustful of anything post-Steve back then, after a few minutes of use I actually liked the switch and I still can't understand why people were upset. Then again, I'm one of those goofs who was (and still is) upset with the loss of swipe-to-open, so what do I know?
Agreed, but I wouldn't call it a "usability nightmare". I think thats just histrionics. For something initially welcomed or at least accepted, but then later derided as an impediment, I would think thats just the user base evolving/adapting. Just like my 2012 iMac seems perfectly adequate and even snappy, until I go into an Apple Store and try out the 2017 machines.
My iMac isn't a usability nightmare, but now my perceptions and expectations have changed as I move past what the technology was capable of. My Ti PowerBook seemed like an actual supercomputer compared to my G3/233. Likewise, iOS in its early iterations seemed useful and even adorable, due to the skeuomorphism that pervaded. Later on, people wanted the cute out of the way. The device was no less useful, but it was like the people who were former fans of the Matrix who now pull out the DVD just to watch the fights - "yeah, yeah, we're all batteries for machines, lets get to the butt-kicking". Kids grow up, and no longer want to see childlike wonder, they want cool. Eventually, those kids reach adulthood and they want simple transparency to things. Work but stay out of my way. Neither iOS nor Android is there yet. Will they ever be? Or will a third party realize this and jump ahead of them?I think you're the one pushing revisionism here, and not in a good sense. Forstall wasn't the intense champion, he was the one blamed for it. Big difference. Before you trot out the video of him showing off the skeuomorphism of his last iOS drop, keep in mind that he was the front end for the team as well as its foundation, and he was expected to trumpet its many-fold blessings like it was his lifeblood. See also, Phil and the current Mac Pro, Steve and iCards, Tim and whatever they come up with now.
No on the first, yes on the second. Sounds like a dichotomy but its true. See my above post on that, but in summary - Scott was/is the potential "next Steve", but Tim is the only guy who could have led the post-Steve transition. He trusted both. It sorted itself out, and no matter how I look at it I still come up with the scenario I listed above: Scott will be CEO, but he couldn't at the time due to personal limitations; Tim is the CEO, but he can't do what Scott will eventually be coming back to do.
Ive is the man, as far as I'm concerned. His influence on design is washing over the world in waves. You only have to look at the latest stuff from Microsoft among other to realize that. Eventually he'll be right up there with Buckminster Fuller and Dieter Rams. I was really looking forward to seeing what kind of car he'd come up with, but that'll have to wait.
There is right and wrong there. No one can know what he would be doing now, we just know what he did in the past. For those who say "he wouldn't possibly do that!" I can only say, but what about bigger phones, smaller tablets, expandable machines, cloud services (when he said netbooks were useless even though his entire day was set up in a prototype cloud, back in 1998)? The best you can say is we have some parameters for his mindset, like his core beliefs, but his vision was malleable and accepted input from what was available vs what was possible vs what was needed. Most of what you're objecting to is from people who don't understand those basic "tenets of Steve".
Yeah, maybe that last one was targeted at me, because I was the one who used "SJW" in a sentence - even though I didn't say it about him, I said it about people who will give him a pass because he pushes their social issues, without regard to the company or its proper mission. I really hope you're not doing that with what you wrote, because that would mean you're making some pretty broad brushstrokes there, and its a lazy way to think and interact with people.
Seriously, I don't hate him. How could anyone hate him? He's a pleasant person if you have the chance to meet him, and honestly very gentle, very mannerly. If you're given the choice to sit next to him on an airplane or just about anyone else from the tech world, pick Cook. I'd rather talk to someone like Cook, who actually will wait his turn to speak and think about what he says, rather than those others who interrupt everything you say because they think they're faster than you and know what you're going to say.
But I disagree with Tim Cook on quite a few things. You (I'm speaking the plural 'you' to the group at large, and not to you as an individual) have to give up that assumption that people who disagree with others -especially on socio-political issues - actually hate them. Maybe thats the way it is on the left side of the paradigm, but living far outside of that paradigm as I do, those broad judgements seem to be a serious limitation to the progress of society as a whole. I think its a horrible failure of debate and persuasion to eagerly seek to put a person into a box and label them so you don't have to discuss anything with them or give a foundation for your own beliefs. Thats not debate; thats the real "hate", and probably the basis of it all.
Part of my respect for Steve Jobs lay in that he and I had very similar opinions of government, in that it was at best an obstacle, at worst a negative force. He put up with it, but spent no small amount of energy going around it, both to build Apple and to increase the lot in life of his customers. He was all about the individual, not the collective. And as I mentioned before, Steve's lobbying budget was ridiculously small. Actions speak louder than words, and his actions yelled across the parking lot.
Cook is almost 180 degrees out of phase with his former mentor and boss. He quickly created lobbyist positions inside and outside the company, increased the lobbying budget enormously, and did things to ensure that government had a say in Apple's existence. He took Apple into social issues and politics, where it shouldn't be. Given that a large part of the populace is either neutral or against such policies, he's risking shareholder wrath (doubtful because such causes are so fashionable now, but it could still happen) or customer wrath (likely because people who will get pissed off enough at a user interface to switch are much more likely to switch over politics).
I'm fine with him being CFO and COO and maybe even Chairman. He's not right for CEO, now that the transition is done with. The tech press and user opinion has firmly left behind "oh no, Steve is gone, who will keep this mammoth boat off the rocks in this weather?", and moved on to "Calm seas ahead - but where are we going?"
So, Scott Forstall for Captain.
Last edited:
It really wasn't that long ago, I don't remember IOS as being derided, there was a debate/discussion about whether or not people liked the skeuomorphism or not, and since Microsoft went full retard with the flat monocolour look, apparently everybody had to follow that. Forstall was also in charge of the inner and outer workings of IOS, not just icons.
And before You get into too much Forstall bashing, remember his area ended up being handled by 3 different SVPs at Apple. I know one of those people is as useless as they come, but anyway.
Also... this revisionist history seems to be a disease of anyone who had too much Apple in their life, just look at the idiots hunting Phil Schiller because he dared to ask the one question any sane person would ask 10 years ago: Shouldn't a device like that have a ****ing keyboard!?!
It's like people want to live in the bubble of "Apple is ALWAYS doing it right" and "NOBODY from Apple makes mistakes", even though there has been plenty of proof on the contrary.
Those kind of antics are/where still there in IOS after Forstall... waiting for the shredder in Wallet, waiting for what ever the hell Siri is doing before being able to listen, transformations between locked and open, flipping the camera, etc.
Also notice that skeuomorphism was as much (if not motsly) a Steve Jobs thing, it is in large part "revisionism" to lay that one on Scott Forstall. And again, the world was different 10 years ago - we just accustomed to just touching glass, your hated skeuomorphism helped bring millions of users to the iPhone and helped people feel at home on a Mac.
I think that Jony Ive is one af the best designers out there (apart from Dieter Rams), but there is no denying that he is detached from the daily workings of Apple, and the result is a headless quest for thinness that seems to be standing in the way of any real progress (it is literally the only thing Apple seems able to do). When the keyboard on the current generations of laptops is so frail that it randomly malfunctions because of heat, it is the fault of the designer, as is the Apple TV remote being impossible to turn the right way or a mouse that can only be charged when placed on the side.
It would love if Ive would be more involved in what is going on inside Apple again, but I sincerely think he is done... unfortunately.
I don't like Tim Cook as the CEO of Apple, it has nothing to do with him as a person, he seems like one of the nicest people you can find out there - but he does not have a clue about what direction Apple needs to take. Several well known pieces of software has taken massive regressive steps during his reign and he still keeps buffoons like Eddy Cue and Jimmy Iovine hanging about, the latter he even went to great lengths to acquire. So I wholeheartedly agree with the sentiment further above... Scott Forstall for Captain!
It does. The user “mdriftmeyer” with inside connections at Apple is pretty obviously the person linked. Twitter accounts etc. are easily found too. If that link isn’t taking you to the page screenshotted below, you have an issue on your end.
You may have read it but it’s now clear you never understood it.
Let me do your thinking for you: -
Several page agos smacrumon responded to a post from mdriftmeyer saying he knew Scott Forstall, among other things
I searched and responded to smacrumon, saying: -
This is a medium page for a “NeXT/Apple Alumni“ called Marc J Driftmeyer.
Is this quite clear to you now? Where is it you imagine I claimed to, or even tried to “shed any light on Forstall’s time at Apple”?
It was just a question. From your post it sounded like you knew more about it personally. No trouble.
[doublepost=1497877328][/doublepost]
Yes, I got that page. But specifically what it was you were trying to highlight was unclear.
From my POV, it looked like he was saying Duck Duck Go was suggesting Driftmeyer for CEO.
Thanks for enlightening the rest of us. Clearly, only you understand the "entirety of all human beings using technology", and only your interpretation is correct.
No, I just pay attention to how average people function with technology more than the average tech person does, as well as agreeing with the decades of user interface research and study that backs up every complaint about iOS 7's redesign.
No, there's no reason to go to that extent. I just didn't want to endorse one part of your post, despite wanting to endorse the rest. Simple as that.
FWIW, it wasn't meant as a pejorative, it was meant strictly as what it was: an acronym. I get tired of spelling the whole phrase out. Maybe I could just set a macro, but then the obvious key letters would be "SJW", and I might get in trouble for that.
Thank you for explaining your intent. The interpretation I made had to do with the way you referenced kale chips in the context of SJW persons. It came off as mockery to my eyes.
Morally mandated? I don't like that word, "moral". Especially because of the way "morals" are mandated by the religious entities who've hijacked that word for themselves (much like how nationalists have hijacked the word "patriot" and its various forms).
I prefer to use the term "ethics" and its other forms. Ethics is when we say that all people should be treated equitably, without the exclusions or fantasy-driven specifics that religion throws into the pot when they proclaim "morality".
But to address your issue with Cook, I would ask exactly how he's using shareholder money when he's addressing things outside the purview of Apple business? A lot of the company's business is directly related to the issues he takes a public stance on. Employee safety and health out in the world leads to those employees doing better work at their jobs, for example.
I think Cook is in the wrong on at least one thing in this area: corporate responsibility to their home country. Apple does very little to actually change the status quo of American industry and he is on the wrong side with the tax loophole stuff. I think these are ethical and social issues.
It's been pointed out by others, but your sweeping generalization is absolutely incorrect. I'm one of the people who did not deride the visual design of iOS. I praised it. Some elements weren't to my aesthetic preferences but they did not interfere with functionality as the iOS 7 design does.
There were a lot of highly skilled and experienced professionals who blasted iOS 7 for changing the ease of use and readability of the OS; they weren't deriding anything prior to iOS 7.
But hey, people don't like experts and the informed anymore. It's easier to just call them names to shelter our egoes, rather than either catch up with their specialist knowledge or trust their expertise is valid and valuable.
This complaint is about the speed, not the existence of the animation. It's a useful cognitive hint to many people. What Apple did wasn't just eliminate the page animation but also the pages entirely. This leads to cognitive overload for many users who prefer to limit visual exposure to information down to the most relevant module or segment: a day, a week, a month.
I can't address this one since I haven't compared the two designs in this app and I didn't experience a memorable disconnect between what I wanted to do and what I was able to do. I do dislike the painful white space though, which is demonstrated to be a problem for many more people than just myself.
Indeed, I noticed no disconnect. The containers worked and the decoration was subtle but eloquent to my eyes. The thing is, none of these mechanics changed. Only the design changed. The actual change to functionality is in eliminating clear meaning and distinction of controls and between controls and static objects, as well as reducing readability with thin fonts and low contrast color schemes (except for when ridiculously bright colors pop in to blow the low contrast into an awkward combo of low contrast and high contrast).
The media made him the champion. He was the presenter and leader of the project. At no point have we ever been told by any official source that he was the intense champion of skeumorphism. At best, he was against some competing all-or-nothing mindset, which we see won in the end.
None of the mechanics changed. Only the aesthetics changed, removing the clear understanding of those mechanics. Also, don't underestimate the impact of that jarring experience for users who aren't inculcated into tech geek culture.
I don't know the timeline of development and leadership changes. It's possible these functional additions were under development under Forstall. Either way, this point of your argument is irrelevant because there's nothing to say that he would've been against these added mechanics. Frankly, the control center (well, the current one, not the new impending mess) is the only change I like between iOS 6 and 7. It's actually useful. The design is poor, but I understand the difference between visual design and functional design.
And these are vital issues.
I'm not seeing these refinements. Perhaps they're just too subtle for them to carry any weight of notice for me in the context (compared to) the overall design change from iOS 6. I see some increase in text weight, subtle outlines (too subtle and devoid of meaning), and added highlights via color (pail bright blue isn't a good choice on top of pale greys and bright whites).
And then he took his brilliance in one area and tried to apply it to another area where it cannot possibly be relevant. He destroyed elegance and usability in a myopic quest for some very proprietary aesthetic. He put print-based marketing people on the GUI design process explicitly locking out the GUI team that Apple had been famous for for decades.
Jony Ive burned his respect. This is a self-inflicted injury.
No argument.
Unfortunately, Apple's corporate arrogance doesn't allow them to undo the damage in one fell swoop.
Another wild sweeping generalization that is absolutely incorrect. But there is a marked difference between Jobs' Apple and every other CEO's Apple.
Mostly agreed. See earlier comments of mine about Cook's social ethics. It's the only thing I like about him right now, but he's not onboard with things like home nation employment loyalty and taxes.
Jony Ive has been around since the 20TH Century Mac - yes He designed that! There is a specific Apple video of it (he's full head of hair and before the physical buff).
The inside of the Alu_Unibody MacBook and MacBook Pro's (get it right
) had nothing to do with Jony ... he spoke about it as the introduction BUT it was Bob Mansfield that specifically spoke about the process ... that part of the design and the battery technologies was HIS genius not Jony's!Mansfield took up where Rubinstein left off.
PM G5 was a design genius beautiful just like OSX Panther that launched with it. I miss Apple's gusto here ... the efforts of NeXT bloomed to fruition at this time with XServe and XServe Raid.
PS: off topic does anyone know if Apple has updated the Unix kernel or are they using BSD/MACH from 10yrs ago?!