Mildly amusing.

And predictable.




Excuse the typos -sent from my mobile



-------- Original message --------
Subject: Why the article Is Apple bad for design is bad, in all dimensions.
From: Don Norman <[log in to unmask]>
To: "[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]>
CC:


As an ex Apple VP and knowledgeable about the company and the players, that
is a really stupid article. It is guilty of all the excesses it blames
Apple for.  No, this is not a defense of Apple: it is an attack on silly,
stupid, fact-distorting talks.

On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 6:45 PM, Ricardo Sosa <[log in to unmask]>wrote:

> I know this may upset a few, naturally it is meant as a provocation and
> hopefully may spark some thinking:
>
> 10 reasons why Apple is bad for design
> http://www.slideshare.net/rsm/10-reasons-why-apple-is-bad-for-design
>
> 1. Design attributions.
Jony Ive is extremely reserved and modest. he has never made any claims.
Yes, he said he was highly influenced by Dieter Rams, although this is
obvious top anyone who knows their design history (put reference to
previous discussion here).

Jony was doing brilliant work when i was at Apple, but he had trouble
getting them into the product chain. Jobs's brilliance was in
first recognizing the quality of Ive's work and forcing Apple execs to
execute them.

Apple's marketing is brilliant. Don't confuse that with design. As for the
media hype -- don't confuse that with design. That's the result
of brilliant marketing. (Other companies are envious.)

2. The inevitability illusion. Complete nonsense. Apple has had many
failures and they are well chronicled. See Wikipedia.Searching Google for
"apple's failures" yields 1 million hits.  I have written about many of
them. Many were self-inflicted (Newton, Apple TV, the Mac Cube). Some were
premature productization (digital camera.). Some were just stupid (their
game machine -- can't remember the name.) Some were killed by internal
in-fighting (their school computer -- can't remember the name).

I have argued that if you aren't producing failures it means you aren't
pushing the boundaries. So having some failures is a mark of BRILLIANT
design, product strategy, etc.

Does Apple borrow and copy? Sure. Multi touch was in the labs for twenty
years before Apple productized it. They bought the company that made the
first affordable multi-touch displays. That is brilliance.

Apple used to have an innovate Advanced technology Group (I was its head
for a while). They killed that. So today they simply watch what the
universities and startups are doing and buy the ones that they can use.
That is actually a very sensible and sound business strategy. (Cisco
pioneered it.)

3. Double Standards.  Apple did not "borrow" ideas from Xerox: the bought
them. Xerox got a big hunk of Apple stock -- which was extremely profitable
for them. Apple hired some key people from Xerox (e.g., Larry Tesler), but
with Xerox's permission.  Xerox, you remember, failed to productize
ethernet and postscript (the inventors left Xerox and started their own
companies, 3COM and Adobe). They failed with the laser printer, which they
had invented (the inventor, Gary Starckweather, left and went to Apple --
and then to Microsoft).  They failed to productize the GUI interface (the
Xerox Star). Apple failed with its first GUI (The Apple Lisa). The Apple
Mac almost failed, but was saved byAdobe + Canon's inexpensive laser
printer which brought in desktop publishing.)

Everyone in this business borrows.  Patent suites? Yes, deplorable. But
even Edison and Westinghouse did the same thing. And Edison and Bell.

etc and etc.

The author confuses marketing with design and engineering. It is a really
stupid piece. He is simply jealous of success.

--

No single item makes a product successful. It takes a system of ideas and
designers and engineering and supply chain and manufacturing and marketing.
And getting the market timing right.

As for innovative ideas:
For incremental innovation (the most common and most important to most
companies). Yes, ask the users and customers. Watch them. Human-centered
design is good at this.

For radical innovation. Don't ask or study anyone. Just go with it. Use new
technologies. use your instincts. Most of the time you will be wrong, but
when you win, you will win big. That is how ALL innovation comes about --
by just doing it. Telephone, telegraph, phonograph, automobile, airplane,
home computer, and yes, the iPod and iPhone and iPad.

See my paper with Verganti. (Soon to be published in Design Issues).
http://www.jnd.org/dn.mss/incremental_and_radi.html

+++
Grrrrr.

Now, time to get back to rewriting Design of Everyday Things.   I am my
third draft. Maybe this will be the final one, but probably not.

Don



The above message may contain confidential and/or proprietary information that is exempt from disclosure under applicable law and is intended for receipt and use solely by the addressee(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message, or any attachment, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please inform the sender immediately by reply e-mail or telephone, reversing the charge if necessary. Please delete the message thereafter. Thank you.