benoir
fire starter
*
Posts: 1,318
|
Post by benoir on Nov 15, 2023 3:55:55 GMT -8
It's me again. Its 10:45pm... fell asleep in front of the telly. But I've yet again got work to do, so I'll be brief. A nice bit of green yesterday. Unfortunately for me the Aussie also saw a nice bit of green and consequently wiped out any gain. c'est la vie... More green in the pre market. and green again for the AUD. So no party for me. Came across an article about Apple loosing its design edge and how Apple is a bit top heavy with bean counters (apologies accountants, but you can't design). But when Iooking for said article, the same publisher has written that same story year after year, so more click bait than substance I suspect. Still Apple must remain a design lead company. Over and Out EDIT: Found that article. Apple is no longer a design-led company
|
|
CdnPhoto
Moderator
Posts: 1,523
Member is Online
|
Post by CdnPhoto on Nov 15, 2023 4:15:32 GMT -8
AAPL is currently trading at $188.46 +1.02 (+0.54%) RSI is 68.48
|
|
4aapl
Moderator
Posts: 3,649
|
Post by 4aapl on Nov 15, 2023 6:19:25 GMT -8
Still Apple must remain a design lead company. Design is important, but should it be more important than function? Form over function, instead of function over form? I think the 2 have to commingle, but my preference if one had to lead would be for function to lead. That doesn't mean you drop design out the window, going back to beige boxes. Now that would be a look. Imagine the AirPod Max, but in the Apple II or Mac 128k look, as a boxy beige chunk on the ear not too dissimilar from the Apple mouse of that era. Yep, design is important too.
|
|
|
Post by zebrum on Nov 15, 2023 6:45:59 GMT -8
An Apple refurb 14" M2 Macbook Pro arrived heavily discounted after launch of M3. Surprisingly had some skin/dandruff/hairs in the keyboard but that anomaly aside it was far too heavy for me so sticking with M1 Air for a while longer with no real good reason for upgrading - its blindingly fast, an extra few GB above 16GB would be the only improvement needed, but the 24GB M2 Air is way overpriced. An 18GB M3 Air would be the sweet spot (which knowing Apple, will never happen 😉).
|
|
mark
fire starter
Posts: 1,555
|
Post by mark on Nov 15, 2023 6:47:16 GMT -8
Form and function are part of design. There is physical design, the mechanical aspects of a device, the shape of a device, the physical parts of the device that the user interacts with, etc. But there is also functional design, the user interface, the controls, the non-physical parts of the device that the user interacts with, and even the things on other devices that are used to support the device (for example, back in the day, iTunes).
And there are also new amorphous things that are necessary to make a device pleasing in the eyes of the users. For example, the cloud, so many of today's devices depend on the functionality of the cloud, so that now becomes a critical aspect of how users relate to a device.
And that brings me back to a comment that I was about to add to yesterday's thread, but I will put it here instead. Regarding AI and whether or not Apple is "behind". I think in the past, Apple has almost always regretted bring products* to market before they were complete enough ("complete" in the sense of the 3 major aspects I mentioned above - physical design, non-physical design, and external support system design). So, while we all know that Apple is indeed working on "AI" just like all the other big tech companies are, they (Apple) is very likely reticent to put out a product to customers before it is really "complete".
* There are probably a few (only a small few) examples of this, but the one that comes to mind right now is the Apple home control/assistant systems. Those are not considered to be much of a success in typical Apple standards of success.
|
|
|
Post by BillH on Nov 15, 2023 7:48:22 GMT -8
Still Apple must remain a design lead company. Design is important, but should it be more important than function? Form over function, instead of function over form? I think the 2 have to commingle, but my preference if one had to lead would be for function to lead. The two shouldn't/can't be disassociated from each other. As Louis Sullivan so famously said. "Form follows Function". Pretty sure Dieter Rams said much the same thing with different wording. Jonny Ive was a strict advocate of that point of view but that doesn't mean he was interested in 'solving' the same problem we were interested in having solved.
|
|
4aapl
Moderator
Posts: 3,649
|
Post by 4aapl on Nov 15, 2023 8:43:19 GMT -8
Apple's iPhone 14 users get another year of free satellite SOS accessThis is very helpful to our family, being in a place where the cell coverage isn't great in town, and gets spotty sometimes going just into the forest. The other day I hiked just under 1 mile from our house and the SOS feature icon showed, after losing cell coverage. Interestingly I lost GPS too, but that might have been a glitch since 2 GPS apps were running, and it worked again later in the same location. This feature is huge. We've already seen many stories about people being saved. For our local trail building groups, this gives a way to communicate an emergency if needed. In the past we've always needed special higher powered radios that bounce off different repeaters. It works, but it is an extra layer of tools and training, along with an extra battery to remember to charge. And this SOS feature isn't known by everyone. We talked about it and fall monitoring, on the Watch or iPhone, and it was new news to a bunch of the older crowd in the trail organizations. Now a smartphone can do so much, even when at times there isn't cell coverage.
|
|
|
Post by duckpins on Nov 15, 2023 11:42:20 GMT -8
"02:07 PM EST, 11/15/2023 (MT Newswires) -- Apple (AAPL) was asked by a US House of Representatives committee on Wednesday to shed light on the reported cancellation of the Apple TV+ show "The Problem With Jon Stewart" amid "creative differences" with the host about content related to China."
Twitter refused to allow discussion of the origin of the virus. Now this. Clearly China's market influences free speech. Maybe Cook can add Cricket to all the Soccer matches? I have to say Joh Stewart was funny on the Daily show, it sucks now. But as a documentarian, didn't work for me. Don't like Colbert as a wannabe Carsen either.
|
|
benoir
fire starter
*
Posts: 1,318
|
Post by benoir on Nov 15, 2023 14:12:39 GMT -8
Still Apple must remain a design lead company. Design is important, but should it be more important than function? Form over function, instead of function over form? I think the 2 have to commingle, but my preference if one had to lead would be for function to lead. That doesn't mean you drop design out the window, going back to beige boxes. Now that would be a look. Imagine the AirPod Max, but in the Apple II or Mac 128k look, as a boxy beige chunk on the ear not too dissimilar from the Apple mouse of that era. Yep, design is important too. Okay, so as a designer (primarily an architect... buildings etc)... I will have to take issue with this . Design is paramount and at the heart of (good) design is functionality. Things with poor functionality are simply bad design. A design heuristic is loosely as follows: - identify a problem - identify constraints and opportunities - identify values, functions, context and technologies - iterate to validate the inputs to establish the best fit solution (not the first fit solution). So design is all encompassing and not simply the purview of aesthetics or form alone. Having said that aesthetics are equally important, but just another aspect of design outcomes - like functionality/utility. Aesthetics are important for socio/cultural reasons. There is also aesthetic value in good functional/spatial layout. The internals of any Apple product are testament to this - elegantly laid out circuit boards and compact efficient arrangement of components look great. So, good design is a blend of values - functionality, utility, sustainability.... and aesthetics. Designers are also very good problem solvers as they are trained to find best fit solutions. Think of it like a child's peg board game - the one where the correct shape has to fit an opening. The hexagonal peg may well go through the circular hole if bashed by a hammer, but the circular peg will elegantly slide through the circular hole. The former is first fit and the second is best fit. So, at Apple, to deal with the enormity and complexity of the 'problem' which is any Apple service/product, designers must be at the heart of decision making to ensure the constraints and opportunities are balanced to navigate towards the best fit solution. The designer is not the sole arbiter of product/thing outcomes - a vast range of inputs are required from an array of stakeholders - end users, engineers, accountants, regulators, etc, etc. But again, the designer is equiped to take all those inputs and organise them to facilitate refined, purposeful outcomes. Most of us in our professional lives deal with design at some level. Even an accountant, deals with problems, constraints and opportunities to identify solutions. This is effectively design. The only difference is the accountant has no formal design education and as such does not start out with the skills to produce truly best fit solutions. It takes time to learn good design. And the same goes for me. I have my own practice and I have no formal business training, I was hopeless at the start, but somhow I have survived and after 25 years, now thriving. Designers are not perfect and do make mistakes from time to time. But, as the saying goes, if you're not making mistakes, you're not trying hard enough. But at Apple the expectations are so high and the challenges are so complex that design must be at the heart. My totally biased opinion...
|
|
4aapl
Moderator
Posts: 3,649
|
Post by 4aapl on Nov 15, 2023 14:41:48 GMT -8
Design is important, but should it be more important than function? Form over function, instead of function over form? I think the 2 have to commingle, but my preference if one had to lead would be for function to lead. That doesn't mean you drop design out the window, going back to beige boxes. Now that would be a look. Imagine the AirPod Max, but in the Apple II or Mac 128k look, as a boxy beige chunk on the ear not too dissimilar from the Apple mouse of that era. Yep, design is important too. Okay, so as a designer (primarily an architect... buildings etc)... I will have to take issue with this . Design is paramount and at the heart of (good) design is functionality. Things with poor functionality are simply bad design. A design heuristic is loosely as follows: - identify a problem - identify constraints and opportunities - identify values, functions, context and technologies - iterate to validate the inputs to establish the best fit solution (not the first fit solution). So design is all encompassing and not simply the purview of aesthetics or form alone. Having said that aesthetics are equally important, but just another aspect of design outcomes - like functionality/utility. Aesthetics are important for socio/cultural reasons. There is also aesthetic value in good functional/spatial layout. The internals of any Apple product are testament to this - elegantly laid out circuit boards and compact efficient arrangement of components look great. So, good design is a blend of values - functionality, utility, sustainability.... and aesthetics. Designers are also very good problem solvers as they are trained to find best fit solutions. Think of it like a child's peg board game - the one where the correct shape has to fit an opening. The hexagonal peg may well go through the circular hole if bashed by a hammer, but the circular peg will elegantly slide through the circular hole. The former is first fit and the second is best fit. So, at Apple, to deal with the enormity and complexity of the 'problem' which is any Apple service/product, designers must be at the heart of decision making to ensure the constraints and opportunities are balanced to navigate towards the best fit solution. The designer is not the sole arbiter of product/thing outcomes - a vast range of inputs are required from an array of stakeholders - end users, engineers, accountants, regulators, etc, etc. But again, the designer is equiped to take all those inputs and organise them to facilitate refined, purposeful outcomes. Most of us in our professional lives deal with design at some level. Even an accountant, deals with problems, constraints and opportunities to identify solutions. This is effectively design. The only difference is the accountant has no formal design education and as such does not start out with the skills to produce truly best fit solutions. It takes time to learn good design. And the same goes for me. I have my own practice and I have no formal business training, I was hopeless at the start, but somhow I have survived and after 25 years, now thriving. Designers are not perfect and do make mistakes from time to time. But, as the saying goes, if you're not making mistakes, you're not trying hard enough. But at Apple the expectations are so high and the challenges are so complex that design must be at the heart. My totally biased opinion... You're right, it depends on how you define design. With form vs function, it's the functionality vs aesthetics. But there's still other factors, like UI. My issue is when aesthetics get put before function, in a function based product. Luckily that doesn't happen too often as a whole at Apple, but we've heard of obsessions of the thickness of an iMac (on a portable this might be functional, but on a desktop unit it really isn't in most situations). Or the trade off of having fewer cords, or having no visible screws, even on the underside of a desktop unit. Even if the final design works, there was a very real cost in getting there, which is passed on to the users, while also causing problems when servicing or upgrading the unit. But what's in a name. Whether they are called designers or engineers, or if there is a product manager thrown in between the designers and engineers, what really matters is the final product. And that is not just how it looks or how it functions, but the whole combination of everything. And while it didn't let me read the whole article on Fast Company from June, Apple does tend to bring it all together more than other companies.
|
|
benoir
fire starter
*
Posts: 1,318
|
Post by benoir on Nov 15, 2023 14:53:21 GMT -8
Okay, so as a designer (primarily an architect... buildings etc)... I will have to take issue with this . Design is paramount and at the heart of (good) design is functionality. Things with poor functionality are simply bad design. A design heuristic is loosely as follows: - identify a problem - identify constraints and opportunities - identify values, functions, context and technologies - iterate to validate the inputs to establish the best fit solution (not the first fit solution). So design is all encompassing and not simply the purview of aesthetics or form alone. Having said that aesthetics are equally important, but just another aspect of design outcomes - like functionality/utility. Aesthetics are important for socio/cultural reasons. There is also aesthetic value in good functional/spatial layout. The internals of any Apple product are testament to this - elegantly laid out circuit boards and compact efficient arrangement of components look great. So, good design is a blend of values - functionality, utility, sustainability.... and aesthetics. Designers are also very good problem solvers as they are trained to find best fit solutions. Think of it like a child's peg board game - the one where the correct shape has to fit an opening. The hexagonal peg may well go through the circular hole if bashed by a hammer, but the circular peg will elegantly slide through the circular hole. The former is first fit and the second is best fit. So, at Apple, to deal with the enormity and complexity of the 'problem' which is any Apple service/product, designers must be at the heart of decision making to ensure the constraints and opportunities are balanced to navigate towards the best fit solution. The designer is not the sole arbiter of product/thing outcomes - a vast range of inputs are required from an array of stakeholders - end users, engineers, accountants, regulators, etc, etc. But again, the designer is equiped to take all those inputs and organise them to facilitate refined, purposeful outcomes. Most of us in our professional lives deal with design at some level. Even an accountant, deals with problems, constraints and opportunities to identify solutions. This is effectively design. The only difference is the accountant has no formal design education and as such does not start out with the skills to produce truly best fit solutions. It takes time to learn good design. And the same goes for me. I have my own practice and I have no formal business training, I was hopeless at the start, but somhow I have survived and after 25 years, now thriving. Designers are not perfect and do make mistakes from time to time. But, as the saying goes, if you're not making mistakes, you're not trying hard enough. But at Apple the expectations are so high and the challenges are so complex that design must be at the heart. My totally biased opinion... You're right, it depends on how you define design. With form vs function, it's the functionality vs aesthetics. But there's still other factors, like UI. My issue is when aesthetics get put before function, in a function based product. Luckily that doesn't happen too often as a whole at Apple, but we've heard of obsessions of the thickness of an iMac (on a portable this might be functional, but on a desktop unit it really isn't in most situations). Or the trade off of having fewer cords, or having no visible screws, even on the underside of a desktop unit. Even if the final design works, there was a very real cost in getting there, which is passed on to the users, while also causing problems when servicing or upgrading the unit. But what's in a name. Whether they are called designers or engineers, or if there is a product manager thrown in between the designers and engineers, what really matters is the final product. And that is not just how it looks or how it functions, but the whole combination of everything. And while it didn't let me read the whole article on Fast Company from June, Apple does tend to bring it all together more than other companies. I think the classic example of where the balance between aesthetics and functionality wasn't right was the Apple Pencil 1. An undoubtedly beautify object, lovely to look at and hold. But when you put it down is would simply roll away. Charging this devices was also clunky.
|
|
4aapl
Moderator
Posts: 3,649
|
Post by 4aapl on Nov 15, 2023 20:59:36 GMT -8
I think the classic example of where the balance between aesthetics and functionality wasn't right was the Apple Pencil 1. An undoubtedly beautify object, lovely to look at and hold. But when you put it down is would simply roll away. Charging this devices was also clunky. And sometimes what bugs one person doesn't bug someone else. For me the easy example is any home renovation, where you know the slight imperfections, but most other people don't notice them...until you point them out to them. We have an Apple Pencil 1, since it was needed for the version of iPad we had. I haven't used it much so didn't really have any negatives, and asking my wife about it she didn't have problems with it. That little charging nub is tiny, and it's a wonder we haven't lost it or the cats haven't taken off with it. But there is a slot in our iPad cover for the Pencil, so maybe that is why the "rolling off the table" just hasn't been a problem. I found a bug in the Server component that I was testing, that only happened when you worked through the settings in a certain way. But MWSF was a couple days later, before the bug could be fixed, and sure enough it was tough to miss it since I was used to passing through the settings in the standard way. I switched over to iWeb at one point, where they were trying to put a WYSIWYG interface on HTML, which was still sort of a pain. But without a desktop publishing background, I didn't tend to see the bugs that were only off by one or two pixels. Though in the same timeframe, I'd notice the left turn lane signal that would go every time on the side street, even when no one was there. The first decade that I worked in QA, I had a hard time understanding the point of the job, and why it was even needed. These weren't tough things to see, I thought. It took a long time for me to see that not everyone has that attention to detail, just as I also didn't notice everything. But maybe that is part of the problem, of understanding that just because something seems obvious to me doesn't mean that it is obvious, or important, to everyone else. Today I hiked over a trail going to the next town over, part that followed the power lines, part that followed a gas line, and part that followed old logging paths. Because of this, there are many good sections of the trail, but also some that aren't go great for a human powered trail user. It got the job done, going from point A to point B. But it isn't ideal, especially if it eventually becomes a world renown trail like some that we have. But even with that goal, there are a lot of trade offs between views, distance, build ability, and vertical gain, along with land owners, water and terrain crossings, fire trail overlap, difficulty, and connectivity. There's no one correct answer, but slowly one decides on prioritizing those elements, and comes up with a solution that is a good fit, even if others may question why a choice was made since they might prioritize something else.
|
|
benoir
fire starter
*
Posts: 1,318
|
Post by benoir on Nov 16, 2023 16:36:59 GMT -8
I think the classic example of where the balance between aesthetics and functionality wasn't right was the Apple Pencil 1. An undoubtedly beautify object, lovely to look at and hold. But when you put it down is would simply roll away. Charging this devices was also clunky. And sometimes what bugs one person doesn't bug someone else. For me the easy example is any home renovation, where you know the slight imperfections, but most other people don't notice them...until you point them out to them. We have an Apple Pencil 1, since it was needed for the version of iPad we had. I haven't used it much so didn't really have any negatives, and asking my wife about it she didn't have problems with it. That little charging nub is tiny, and it's a wonder we haven't lost it or the cats haven't taken off with it. But there is a slot in our iPad cover for the Pencil, so maybe that is why the "rolling off the table" just hasn't been a problem. I found a bug in the Server component that I was testing, that only happened when you worked through the settings in a certain way. But MWSF was a couple days later, before the bug could be fixed, and sure enough it was tough to miss it since I was used to passing through the settings in the standard way. I switched over to iWeb at one point, where they were trying to put a WYSIWYG interface on HTML, which was still sort of a pain. But without a desktop publishing background, I didn't tend to see the bugs that were only off by one or two pixels. Though in the same timeframe, I'd notice the left turn lane signal that would go every time on the side street, even when no one was there. The first decade that I worked in QA, I had a hard time understanding the point of the job, and why it was even needed. These weren't tough things to see, I thought. It took a long time for me to see that not everyone has that attention to detail, just as I also didn't notice everything. But maybe that is part of the problem, of understanding that just because something seems obvious to me doesn't mean that it is obvious, or important, to everyone else. Today I hiked over a trail going to the next town over, part that followed the power lines, part that followed a gas line, and part that followed old logging paths. Because of this, there are many good sections of the trail, but also some that aren't go great for a human powered trail user. It got the job done, going from point A to point B. But it isn't ideal, especially if it eventually becomes a world renown trail like some that we have. But even with that goal, there are a lot of trade offs between views, distance, build ability, and vertical gain, along with land owners, water and terrain crossings, fire trail overlap, difficulty, and connectivity. There's no one correct answer, but slowly one decides on prioritizing those elements, and comes up with a solution that is a good fit, even if others may question why a choice was made since they might prioritize something else. I like your home renovation analogy. On occasion I have had that one levelled at me before when being overly critical and I accept this is somewhat the reality for one-off design. Architecture is essentially prototyping - a one-off design. Every time a building is built, it has never been done before with each project's unique set of; site conditions, consultant team, client, market factors, trade contractors, building materials and technologies. So it is really hard to iron out all the imperfections and get it right the first time. With product design the imperative is to iron out all/as many of the imperfections the first time it hits the shelves. And often, the luxury, say, industrial designers have is the opportunity to iterate through prototyping - they can identify the imperfections in the prototypes and iterate them out. Software developers also have this opportunity (to an extent) where they can validate the program through testing. With a building, the first time it's built is the product you get. So to some regards I suspect people accept some imperfections when it come to the architecture we inhabit. You worked on server! I really liked having that. In the 10-12 years we ran OSX Server it never once crashed - a testament to good QA! I am currently working on a suite of Keynote presentations that would total 1000 slides and it doest matter how many time I go through them I pick up mistakes on every run through. So large projects are hard. And getting slides to 'pixel' align is my bug bear! Our 3D lead calls it 'beep bop' as you flick through slides and you see pixel misalignment. And here's where I think quality control, is really important. The 'beep bop' doesn't kill the job or stop us from being paid but it does subtly distract the viewer, like death by a thousand cuts, to add a little hyperbole. I read somewhere that BMW has a department that analysing the sound the door makes when it closes, to ensure it imparts a sense of quality, with a pleasing 'clunk'. These are really minor aspects by every half preventer adds up. Your trail analogy, I really like. Architecture and product design is hard. Truly great products/buildings are almost unicorns. It takes great leadership, inspired vision, stakeholders that are all willing to head down the same 'trail' in the same direction....and to make sure the trail is in the best fit path. I can honestly say I have never produced anything on par with Apple Pencil 1. It is an outstanding product. But the bar for Apple has been set extraordinarily high and in some ways it is easy to pick the flaws when the rest of the product is the gold standard.
|
|
Dave
Member
"It's tough to make predictions, especially about the future." Yogi Berra
Posts: 4,113
|
Post by Dave on Nov 17, 2023 3:19:39 GMT -8
Sometimes being able to recognize “good enough” when you see it is the hardest part. Good enough for its intended purpose.
|
|