Interview With iMac designer, Jonathan Ive 556
rleyton writes "The Independent has an interesting interview with Jonathan Ive, the designer of the new imac (and the iBook, the iPod and original iMac...)" It's actually a pretty interesting
even if you think the new iMac is repulsive. Personally I dig it.
Kudos on keeping it secret! (Score:4, Insightful)
Not just pretty on the outside... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:new iMAC (Score:5, Insightful)
Go read Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance (Score:5, Insightful)
This interview touches on a few concepts that I think today's geeks (and many of yesterday's geeks too) are no longer in touch with.
Quality. Art. The "soul" of a machine.
There is something to be said for the amount of sheer human effort put in to designing a product like this. A Quality product shines in it's attention to human-machine interaction, but is a result of "inner beauty". For those of you who haven't programmed using Cocoa or haven't messed around much with OS X or actually seen and used a recent iMac in person, there's no substitute for the tangible results of Apple's years of dedication.
When I use Mac OS X, I can *feel* that somewhere in Cupertino there's an English major who was losing sleep at nights trying to make the text in the dialog boxes as clear and understandable as possible. When was the last time you felt that way about the latest d/l off of sourceforge?
The subject/object duality is something that premeates the "geek world" - I beg of the programmers and techs out there try to move beyond it. Apple's certainly tried to.
(I'd post more, but I haven't had my coffee yet... )
Does a nice job.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Personally I dont like the new Imac, BUT that really dosent mean SQUAT since Im not a prospective customer. Ill stick with the UltraSparcs.
What matters is Mac people do, and they liked the original, and the I book, I have used both and I can say I came closer than EVER to buying a Apple for the Wife, Part of that was the integrated packaging, part of it "ease of use" etc.
If they almost had me hooked after my last Apple experience (I bought a Lisa when they were new
Im sure they wont have a problem hooking people in.
Does it remind anyone else of their home-ec project gone awary , a slunk of dough , then sticking a pencil in it with a sign, (insert team name here) RULE ! ??? No wonder I failed HomeEc....
Like Macs or not, this is a great quote: (Score:5, Insightful)
Personally, I like the new iMac. Not enough to abandon my 6 month old PC and switch back to Macs, but I think it's a pretty cool computer. No matter what your opinion of Macintosh or their employees is, you have to like what the designer said. So many times in this industry (think about all Microsoft products) people forget that it's easy to make new and different things, the hard part is making reliable, efficient products that truly are "better." I say score one for Macintosh with this new computer, and even if it doesn't sell like hotcakes, they are in good shape if they all think like this guy does.
The Computer for your Parents? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why am I never in a target market? (Score:2, Insightful)
Personally I'd just like some more variety in the choices available to me, especially if that means machines that fit in seamlessly with my existing home electronics.
with all the new iMac hub-bub (Score:1, Insightful)
I work selling TVs at sears, and the number one reason people don't buy tv-vcr combo units, or tv-dvd combos, is because their afraid the internal unit will break, thus rendering it useless.
What I'd ask (Score:4, Insightful)
Frankly, this is the dumbest design decision ever. If you're trying to make a "simple" computer, why use a dongle that consumers will most certainly forget or lose? What could be more simple than the same connector used on 99% of the world's personal computers?
This is extra stupid, since there is plenty of space to put a standard VGA-out connector on both systems. Additionally, making a custom port and dongle adds to the cost of an already expensive computer.
I'm all for design improvements, but there is no point being proprietary just for the sake of being different.
Re:new iMAC (Score:5, Insightful)
1) Macs would become more expensive, by the cost of VPC+Win??? - and which version of Windows should they include?
2) every user who chooses Apple to avoid paying MS money would be unable to do so
All in all, this would shrink, not expand, their market share.
Re:with all the new iMac hub-bub (Score:3, Insightful)
Ever hear of a warranty? Apple has years of experience of selling and repairing LCD screens. They have the best in the market. Just take a gander at the Cinema Display [apple.com].
Also by your argument regarding tv/dvd combos then no one would buy a notebook computer. Think of the new iMac as a non-mobile notebook computer.
Re:Go read Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenan (Score:4, Insightful)
When I use Mac OS X, I can *feel* that somewhere in Cupertino there's an English major who was losing sleep at nights trying to make the text in the dialog boxes as clear and understandable as possible. When was the last time you felt that way about the latest d/l off of sourceforge?
While I agree about SourceForge, OSX is a step down from OS9 in dialog box text (and help in general).
For example, I just love the error "No file services are available at the URL . Try again later or try another URL (server returned error 1)" OSX returns this when it can't connect to an SMB share no matter what the actual reason. Wrong password? Invalid user? No such share? Everything gets the same error.
Worse, the MacOSX Help files are nicely written, but there are so few of them that help is very close to useless. It will tell you how to copy a file, but for anything more complex you're basically SOL.
Still, compared to the average Open Source app, they're amazing.
Eric
rabid anti-mac sentiment (Score:5, Insightful)
However, since the introduction of the PPC, mac hardware has generally been respected by the geek community. Now that macs run OS X, the geeks like it even more.
However, there's always going to be somebody who has to bash the mac for whatever reason. But lets face it, in the year 2002 you can't show how cool of a computer user you are by simply bashing Apple.
Now Microsoft on the other hand....
Re:Go read Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenan (Score:5, Insightful)
Mostly Mac geeks, since many of us are graphic designers. It's no coincidence ;)
The last company that tried to be "better" (Score:2, Insightful)
This actually started me thinking about Compaq. Not today's company, but the company 5 or 10 years ago. They used to be a huge amount of thought into their computers, trying to make them the best they could be. You know what happened?
I freaking despised them.
Yes, they were well built. Yes, they managed to typically squeeze another 5-10% performance over their competitors. But to do all that, very often they used non-standard components. They had wacky partitions on the hard drives that for extra management functions. I believe they even had special "Compaq memory" (I could be misremembering the latter).
It was a total pain in the ass, and for many components there was only one place to go: Compaq, and the parts were very expensive.
I'm all in favor of better, but when it comes to computers, I think I would rather have better AND standard AND reasonably priced. The thing about Apple is that they don't make computers for "the rest of us", they make computers for the 3% of the population who like shopping at boutiques.
Re:with all the new iMac hub-bub (Score:3, Insightful)
The thing is - most computer users NEVER open their cases. If they do, it's to add ram or a card (things they can still do on the new iMac), not to disassemble them and reuse parts.
Mac users, especially, have no reason to cannibalise their old machines since every Mac comes with all the components - Apple doesn't sell "bare bones" systems.
It's a whole different arena than the PC market. True, replacements ARE expensive, but I believe Apple does have a good warranty program.
LCD iMacs & Apple (Score:4, Insightful)
Still, I like the idea of having a LCD iMac. It would be cool for me, I'm just not sure that it will work in the education market. (Yeah, I know. Maine bought 38,600 iBooks recently. Still, most schools buy iMacs.)
Despite that,are we facing an Apple come back?
Think about what they've done in the past couple years:
- Nice hardware, growing in leaps and bounds as the market for those things matures (pc133, yes it was late, and yes, it's slower than DDR, but hey, better than pc100), nice processors, removing all relic hardware as necessary (USB instead of ADB, etc). Apple has always done this.
- Making the powerbook g4 was the next step, making a laptop just slightly less powerful than a desktop, *AND* has a battery life to speak of.
- Nice software: OS X. BSD core. No need for them to figure out how to reinvent the wheel with their crappy old OS's--Simply change a few widgets, and call it Darwin, then add a GUI, and Voila! instant OS. With a *LOT* of software available, not to mention the 20 billion BSD hackers, the people that'll keep the Darwin OS up to snuff.
- Totally reengineered interface--Finally a command line that doesn't suck! And for that matter, a GUI that doesn't suck! And multitasking! And all sorts of neat widgets that make techies and non-techies alike scream out "I WANT ONE!"
- Giving computers to schools, making great leaps in hardware, standardizing their video system. I see this as a incredibly brilliant move for Jobs.
All in all, more power to them... They may live, they may struggle, or they may die. They are pushing the user's into a whole new realm; DVD-
R's in affordable systems, laptops that don't suck, and keeping up with technology a lot better than they used to.
Re:with all the new iMac hub-bub (Score:4, Insightful)
I can see your concerns, but
I know this means less control over our own systems, but the Mac crowd is used to getting their whole system in one package - this isn't new AT ALL. It's the PC-clone people that like that aspect, and in terms of Apple's target market, that's a small percentage.
This is why I don't see this post as "interesting", because it's the same "PC's are better because we have more control" argument. Some people don't want control - they want a box (or dome) that sits beautifully on their desk and behaves nicely. This is the Mac market. This will always be the Mac market.
For crying out loud, PC users, GET USED TO IT.
</rant>
Re:with all the new iMac hub-bub (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:when will they ditch the screen? (Score:2, Insightful)
Main reason I ordered one... (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't use my computer for gaming so much, anyway. That's what my PS2 is for. And, I'm more interested in using my computer for organizing media (pictures, mp3s, movies) and using it as my MP3 playback server using iHam on iRye. The iMac will serve this purpose very well.
Besides, it looks great.
Re:The last company that tried to be "better" (Score:3, Insightful)
... and people who don't need to update their hardware every year, which is almost everyone that DOESN'T read this web site.
Geez, don't you guys have relatives with 5 year old computers they've never upgraded because "they don't have to"? This is the AVERAGE PC user. This is the "big" market. Not the geek market. The geek market can keep using big, clunky grey boxes for all Apple cares. The truth is that the geek market is too damn fast for Apple, and that's fine for both parties.
As for everyone else, Apples make great computers. Their design may make them boutiquish, but if you take a closer look you'll see a computer that is truly designed with the mass market in mind.
It's too bad the geeks are still advising their relatives to get ugly grey boxes when they could be getting a much more user-friendly experience.
Sometimes a geek has to put himself in computer-ignorant shoes!
Re:Even taking into account PR ratings, it's slow. (Score:3, Insightful)
An analogy could be made to the automotive market. That sporty little Boxter there can probably go twice as fast as my minivan, but it's constrained by the same speed limit as the rest of us, and is probably stuck in the same backup to the toll booth that I am.
I've bought the latest and greatest a couple times in my life. It's a wonderful feeling, tapping on the keys of the fastest and most powerful computer available. (Power. Power! Raw, brute, merciless POWER!!! Muahahahaha!)
Then two weeks later Intel or AMD releases an even faster and less expensive chip, and inside of a month you overhear some snot-nosed kid boasting about his new TurboUltraMegaBox which has twice the CPU, memory, and storage of yours.
That way lies madness. At least fashion fads stick around for a couple years. They even come back around in a couple decades. iMac Lisa, anyone?
Re:The last company that tried to be "better" (Score:5, Insightful)
There luckilly is a big difference between the Compaq's you speak of and the Apple's of today. The biggest difference is that you don't *see* the wackiness. Since
Apple both does the BIOS, and the OS, no nasty hack like hidden partitions or weird NT drivers to get things to work properly.
Unlike the Compaq of the past, Apple doesn't try to make every peice of the pie either. Apple doesn't try to do stuff like make video cards, NIC's, or FUBAR SmartRAID cards. They leave that to other folks. My G4 has a Broadcom Gigabit Ethernet chipset, a normal Geforce2MX, and some outsourced sound chipset. It takes normal PC133 DIMM's, etc. They've learned to outsource & standardize a lot more since Jobs has come aboard. Sun does now too more, but they still manage some of the items on their own (Sun GigE 2.0).
Apple just makes sure that everything works together nicely. From the case, to the chipset, to the BIOS, and to the OS level. They do a beautiful job at it too.
P.S.: I've got a Compaq Proliant 4xPPRO 200 at home. Guess what it's used for? A TV stand (it's covered by a black sheet). I hate those machines with a passion.
Re:Computers don't have souls. I like mine fast. (Score:5, Insightful)
That people do not believe that the asthetics (nevermind that the physical representation, ie, design of a computer does not exist in a vacuum
The speed at which you dismiss design vs. function suggests to me that you've never really given thought or faith to design, and thus never really experienced the benifits of proper industrial design. There is no clear line between function and asthetic, as you put it; a painting is a tool to stimulate parts of your brain that you want to stimulate, where as a tool is no good unless you can stand to look at it, use it, and spend time with it. Given the increase in stress of the average office worker, and the number of hours he or she spends with the tool known as the computer, it is a shame that people seem so quick to dismiss evironmental factors as having an effect on their emotional disposition.
To take it a step furthur, your bedroom is nothing but a tool to get some sleep in, so why not paint it completely black?
The history of the automobile (Score:2, Insightful)
The PC is no different. The personal computer is simply going through the same cycle automobiles went through. Cars started out as gadgets for the rick, then ford found a way to mass produce it and sell it at an affordable price. Later on, style became more important because everyone had figured out to build cars.
The PC industry is also reaching the same point and has to evolve. Now that processors speed is sufficient for 90% of the typical user's needs, raw power is not an important factor. Just as most people buy Honda's because of reliability and style, people will begin to change their buying habits to reflect the change. Now that most people have atleast 1 computer in their house, the difference will be which one blends in their their furniture, color scheme and life style.
The change is inevitable. There will always be people who buy trucks because it is the most functional, just as the tower is the most flexible. But for most people, a car is a status symbol just as the computer will be in 20 years.
Re:It's the software.... (Score:4, Insightful)
But please, please... don't just say you can go and install Linux or *BSD on your Dell machine and boom there you go. That just oozes complete ignorance. Linux/*BSD is not a consumer desktop OS. You know why I like MacOSX? Because with it, I can boot my pc, run Internet Explorer while running Photoshop (the GIMP does not compare, and only geeks that never do any real production work would say it does,) edit my perl code, and then check out my work on my apache server, which includes photos imported from my camera and stills captured from my Digital Video camera. Oh, and then I can edit and save (sucessfully I might add) that word or excel document attachment sent to me by a friend in Office.
Now let's see Linux do that, and better yet... Do it OUT OF THE BOX.
Oh and I don't think Linux has a WM (or more likely X Server) that produces vector-based images for it's windowing architecture.
So NO... you CAN'T JUST install Linux on your dell (which costs pretty much the same, if not only about $100-$200 less)
Re:The Computer for your Parents? (Score:3, Insightful)
I personally chalk it up to evolution; some people are born to walk against the current to test and try new things, and some people, like this guy, are born to keep trying to turn them around again
This is what Apple represents best; the notion that thinking different, that deviating from the norm, still leaves plenty of room to find the optimum solutions and innovations. Some people see the popular vote as the vindicaton of righteousness
Here's some function (Score:3, Insightful)
512M memory?: IMacs come with 256M, upgradable to 1G ... and memory is cheap.
Radeon AIW card?: NVIDIA GeoForce2, combined with Velocity Engine in the CPU.
CD-RW, DVD?: The high-end iMac has this built in, including DVD-write ability.
RAID array of 4 hard drives?: That's the kind of thing IEEE 1394 ports are for.
Beside's which, it's a consumer computer. The functionality it's already got is bordering on overkill.
Re:What I'd ask (Score:2, Insightful)
No. This is a VGA connector, NOT a DVI connector. Apple ONLY sells a dongle that plugs into STANDARD displays. There is NO iMac Dongle that allows the iMac to plug into Apple displays.
Looking at it another way, Apple does not sell a display that is capable of being plugged into an iMac, so they are not doing this for any reason except to save space on the iMac.
Those connectors, incidentally, are relatively expensive as connectors go. I'm working with a portable computer now that has a number of compact, rare connectors on it. I doubt Apple makes much on their dongles...
Re:rabid anything sentiment (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:What I'd ask (Score:2, Insightful)
Frankly, this is the dumbest design decision ever. If you're trying to make a "simple" computer, why use a dongle that consumers will most certainly forget or lose? What could be more simple than the same connector used on 99% of the world's personal computers?
This is extra stupid, since there is plenty of space to put a standard VGA-out connector on both systems. Additionally, making a custom port and dongle adds to the cost of an already expensive computer.
Space. I can't speak to the new iMac; however, if you look at the side of my new iBook, you'll see there is no way a standard VGA connector would fit there. Neither in width nor height. (remember you have to have some sort of mounting behind the socket, which is generally bigger than the socket itself) The largest port on my iBook is the ethernet socket, and if you pop off the keyboard, you can see there is very little space between the top of the ethernet port and the bottom of the recess for the keyboard. Can you get a VGA socket and mounting to within the height restrictions of an ethernet port? Honestly, I'm quite glad they went with the new connecter. I rarely use an external monitor, so it's not worth it to me to sacrifice some of the elegance of my iBook just to stick in some clunky old-style port I'm hardly ever going to use. While dongles are a PITA, a VGA port would be more-so.
I'm all for design improvements, but there is no point being proprietary just for the sake of being different.
If you were saying this 5 or 8 years ago, I might concur; however, given the shift from the proprietary that Apple has made recently, I would argue that the new port is different because it works better with the current design of the iBook.
Re:Go read Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenan (Score:5, Insightful)
You are quoting a Microsoft software designer on software design. Wow, that has to redefine either "guts" or "insanity".
Every machine is the creation of a human. Some of those creations have a beauty and functionality surpassing that of others. Part of that can be unquanitifiable, and it is that that is a machine's "soul" - the very essence of what makes it different that cannot be summed up in numbers. Not every human has a mystical bent, but the vast majority do, even in this cynical time. This is why most people buy tables, instead of putting plywood on a bunch of cinderblocks.
Obviously, because you've never used either, and from this and your other comments have no idea what constitutes worth.
Cocoa, meaning the frameworks and objective C language in this case, is the best object oriented programming environment I've ever seen. Perhaps the problem is that it is not difficult enough for you to use? Perhaps you couldn't get enough "cool points" by accomplishing something easily, when there is a harder way to do it?
And "not where the money is"??? OK, it's true you can make more money if you use VB than if you program in Cocoa. I'm not aware of any decent programs written in VB, or any decent programmers who use VB, but whatever floats your boat, I guess.
Can the "Proprietary" Bit. (Score:3, Insightful)
PCs, in their ultimate basic designs, are supposed to work identically--to be a clone. A hand-built PC (like the Athlon box I just built to play what few good games which come out that aren't available for Macs, such as Age of Sail 2 [rocks] or Half Life) is great, but unless EVERYONE used the exact same motherboard and parts from the same manufacturers, they aren't strictly clones. Technically, your home-built is unique and closed to others--proprietary, because only YOU know what's inside it.
And look at store-bought PCs, which are supposed to be clones, but each manufacturer adds a widget or two here and there to add market appeal over other competitors PCs, which also do the same. If you haven't tried to install Windows on a Compaq without using Compaq's own CDs, you have never experienced the true meaning and heartbreak of "proprietary."
And Macs aren't even "closed box" anymore. As far as the iMac goes, Apple doesn't expect you to crack open your iMac anymore than Toastmaster expects you to crack open their toasters. It's for a logical reason (the same reason why you pay a bit more for a Macintosh): Everything you need is already there, from the laptops to the desktops (extra RAM and maybe drive space included). Thinking a Mac is proprietary is like thinking that your Porsche needs a V8 and one of those Calvin-pissing-on-a-BMW logos.
With the exception of the logic board (motherboard), open a Power Mac desktop and you'll find the same Matrox IDE drives, the same nVidia video, the same SDRAM, and similar expandability. The only difference (OS aside) is that the computer is integrated with finer quality than that $50 ATX motherboard we grabbed from "Chips-R-Us." That's what we pay for.
If you use Linux (and I know most of us do), we experience the sheer hell of PC propriety every time we try to install an OS on a store-bought system that's been modified to work with Microsoft Windows and not for any other OS, period.
Remember the old days where every computer maker made a PC and their own OS? Only Apple does that now for mere mortals (Sun, SGI, and other unique non-Windows PCs excluded but acknowledged). Makes me still wish someone would make a PC designed only for the ultimate Geek--the Unix family user, to end this argument.
/.
Re:You people are scaring me (Score:2, Insightful)
Form Follows Function.
That is the Louis Sullivan mantra, and I believe in it (and you should too). What this idea means is that the beige boxes we have setting under our desks are actually LESS functional than, say, an iMac (new or old) because it is harder to use; you have to fiddle with openin the case a lot, you have a lot of cables, the calbes are hiden behind your desk so you have to get underneath to do anything...
Yes, there are some people for whom "function" means "fiddling," and i assume that many of the
So yeah, nerds SHOULD stress function over form... they should demand better designs like teh iMac, but expandable. They should demand the ugly beige box be replaced by something more elegant, more beautiful, easier to use, and just generally better.
Get it right, people.
Expandability schmandability (Score:2, Insightful)
I've got a Dell Inspiron that I've used for three years without upgrading and I'm a good deal more geeky than the average computer user. I simply haven't needed to upgrade, not even memory. Laptops are probably a better base of comparison for the new iMac. I don't see anyone complaining about not being able to "upgrade" laptops, really, and they're arguably more integrated than Apple computers.
If you're at all concerned about being able to "upgrade" your computer, the iMac simply isn't for you. The average computer user doesn't need, nor wants to do, to upgrade their computer any more than they would want/need to upgrade their car. Does anyone here *get* that?
I might get the new iMac. It's the first Apple product I've seriously considered buying. Get the high end model, max out the memory... I'll probably be set for another 3-4 years.