MacDailyNews - Where Mac news comes first

I really don't get this lauding of Dyson as a designer, I suppose the principal of his vaccuum cleaners is good, but in terms of their visual design they're awful. Not that everything should be as streamlined and simple as Apple stuff, but they're just a mess. There's hoses all over the place, you have to turn things upside down, handles in stupid places. The advert for his new ball cleaner is stupid as well, it's all very well being able to make sweeping curves around your house, but my house is full of straight lines and right angles, if I just went in curves i'd miss half the carpet.

"'We don't do focus groups,' he said firmly, explaining that they resulted in bland products designed not to offend anyone."

Sounds like the US Congress to me: Pick the lowest common denominator in any issue, satisfy that element, and call it a day.

Thank Gawd Apple doesn't think that way.

Fascinating comment about focus groups. My experience of these backs that up totally. It has always been said that Apple produces products that people don't yet know they want, you won't get that by relying on focus groups, you will simply get a camel when you set out to design a horse.

Jul 01, 09 - 09:24 am Comment from: Jamie

Cellan-Jones is the epitome of what's wrong with most people's thinking:

"I want money, money, money, shareholders, money"

More often than not with great designers, money is simply a coincidental side-effect of their genius, ie; they aren't striving to just 'be rich' or 'get money', they just do their jobs very very well.

Ive was insistent that the key to Apple's success was that it was not driven by money ... but by a complete focus on delivering just a few desirable and useful products

I think Johnathan Ives is either a completely fooled artist or just justifying his $1,000,000 a year salary in this tough economy.

Apple produces a lot of products, this notion of Apple being "the little guy" is no longer applicable.

Apple is a huge company now, with stores all over the world, they need to mature from this "little products" mentality to a full range of computing products to serve nearly all the market.

The shear weight of their ever increasing market share base will soon dictate their new course into the whole computing market instead of a tiny rich niche.

"Sounds like the US Congress to me: Pick the lowest common denominator in any issue, satisfy that element, and call it a day.

Thank Gawd Apple doesn't think that way."

Dur. You just threw DEMOCRACY under the bus. Thank God Apple isn't a country?

Cool?

@Judy - and that is the greatest risk facing Apple. Once a company's focus is on money - name your company here - they no longer make great products. There is a great deal in common among focus groups, investors, and Wall St. And this article is the perfect counter point to the Hardvard hit piece.

Jul 01, 09 - 10:00 am Comment from: marko

Under Job's guidance, Apple has always sought quality... Quality hardware, Quality software, Quality end user experience.

This is the culture of excellence. Nothing less.

Jul 01, 09 - 10:10 am Comment from: ron

Dyson - Tyson. They both look a mess.

Jul 01, 09 - 10:19 am Comment from: m159

Gates and Ballmer and Dell repeatedly say they look to their customers for ideas of what they want, a sure plan for mediocrity, and an admission that their world is run by unimaginative parasites. Customers did not know in advance they wanted a GUI, or an iMac, or OS X, or Pixar movies, or an iPod, or an iPhone. But the instant they touched those things, then they knew. The cutting edge of technology is not a democratic consensus, it is specifically a place for breakthrough genius.

Jul 01, 09 - 10:24 am Comment from: Predrag

I can't believe there are still readers here who consider the other article of yesterday a "Harvard hit piece"... That writer was in awe ob Jobs's genius. He kept piling epithets describing his genius. What part of the article could possibly have been construed as "hit piece"...???

As for Apple's quest for insanely great products, there is absolutely NO reason for them to drop the "little guy" mentality. Apple is still very clearly focused. They do have a large portfolio of products (Mac hardware, Mac software, which is quite a sizable offering, mobile hardware, online services), but each segment is clearly focused with the minimum numbers necessary to completely cover the largest possible addressable market. With only 4 distinct models of Mac (Mini, Notebook, iMac, Pro) and very few variants within each model, they can cover pretty much the whole market they're willing to address (choosing to ignore netbook market for the moment), while avoiding successfully the "Paradox of Choice" situation, where a consumer, presented with abundant choice, can't choose, out of fear of making a wrong choice.

Apple is one of the top 20 companies in the world by market capitalisation. It is among the top tech companies by revenue and profit. Clearly, there is absolutely no need to make any strategic changes in approaching the market. Jobs (and Cook, and Schiller, and other top guys there) know this.

I want some hints from Ive about the upcoming tablet/mactouch super device.........NOW!!!

What have Jonathan Ive done these years while he's at Apple Inc, nothing I guess. If you look at their products over these years nothing have changed. Doesn't matter they have done a transition from plastic to cheap aluminum. They don't learn do they great products comes with a price not from cheap material and lack of design.


http://www.bing.com When it comes to decisions that matter, Bing & Decide

Jul 01, 09 - 11:15 am Comment from: _Bill_

Just curious: What do they use if they don't have focus groups? DO they just make great products that they, themselves would like to use?

Jul 01, 09 - 11:17 am Comment from: _Bill_

@I'm a PC - "When it comes to decisions that matter, Bing & Decide"

He's right; Bing helps you Google better...
http://www.collegehumor.com/video:1915736

Jul 01, 09 - 11:25 am Comment from: neomonkey

"Sounds like the US Congress to me: Pick the lowest common denominator in any issue, satisfy that element, and call it a day.

Thank Gawd Apple doesn't think that way."

Dur. You just threw DEMOCRACY under the bus. Thank God Apple isn't a country?

mike, you identified the biggest problem with democracy, its "popular opinion" orientation, which only occasionally leads to good leadership, no better than other forms of society, and even worse, a perpetual us vs. them mentality.

A public informed in the issues is vital for a democracy.

"Popular opinion" without any knowledge of the issues is the problem. The next time a talking head complains about elitism, see if what they really mean is "I'm too lazy to do any homework, so I'm trying to make you feel guilty instead".

Jul 01, 09 - 11:39 am Comment from: flappo

i agree that dyson make rubbish hoovers
i had one , it looked very nice ( aped the imac ) but had some pathetic design faults - like a piece of plastic that actually blocked the hole in the internals that needed unblocking every 10 minutes of hoovering , in frustration i eventually took a hammer to the thing and smashed it to pieces

total and utter garbage , so i bought a miele - now that's a lot more apple like

Jul 01, 09 - 11:40 am Comment from: BC Kelly

Yea, this is a nice follow up to yesterday's Steve Harvard Biz School Story


And may we see a show of hands ?

How many out there will work for what Apple pays Steve each year ?



Uh huh, what we thought

So stfu and go bing yourself





BC

I don't know what Randian and Jamie are insinuating here. Are you not for democracy and capitalism?

Apparently, Jobs doesn't run his company on consensus and maximizing profits. I remember seven, eight years ago people were bashing him for the same philosophy that made Apple ultimately successful.

Democracy and capitalism work, just look around you. We have the best lobbyists fighting for special interests while indirectly also fighting for free speech. And we have deregulation in banking, energy, etc. leading to the best period of growth up to the end of 2007. And if we just let the market solve our environmental problems, we will all end up in a better place, (as long a we practice abstinence and protect the unborn) closer to God.

@ Predrag: "I can't believe there are still readers here who consider the other article of yesterday a "Harvard hit piece""

Let it go. You are the only one here who does not find that piece a "hit piece". Read it again and tell us how the writer got to those conclusions. What EVIDENCE did he present to back up his assertions about Steve.
And lastly, why is emulating a great leader considered a bad thing. If you are going to claim that Jobs is a ruthless asshole, please provide evidence (and not some 10yr old rumor from some biased magazine). Job is surrounded by the most talented people on earth. He hired them. Empower/ed them. Thrust them. And provide them with a vision they all support. Aren’t leadership and management about that?

Dyson really irritates me. They're doing nothing but marketing vacuums with design language. Vacuums are simple things and this brand has done nothing that solves any real problems. The claims of their machines don't loose suction is ludicrous. If it fills up, it will loose suction. Oh, and try to empty one without making a mess. A ball? If it's such a breakthrough, why is only on one machine? There, I feel better now.

Jul 01, 09 - 12:29 pm Comment from: BlackWolf

'We don't do focus groups,' he said firmly, explaining that they resulted in bland products designed not to offend anyone."

That sounds like the PC(Politically Correct&Personal;Computer) way of thinking. Both are vile and evil.

Jul 01, 09 - 12:35 pm Comment from: KingMel

Ives' point being that if Apple wanted to make more money in the near term, they would push out a larger number of cheaper and less functional products. Apple is clearly not a non-profit. But Apple's profit seems to be put to better use than in most other companies.

Jul 01, 09 - 12:42 pm Comment from: tom

Jonathan Ive sounds like he doesn't know how to do focus groups properly. I've heard people often mischaracterize how to run a focus group -- if you're using the focus group to get your customers to tell you how to do the design, and you follow their instructions to the letter, then you'll have the failed result he complains about.

However, a well-designed focus group session is not about asking your customers to do the design work for you. It's about learning about your customers: what their problems are, what their values are, and how they think about the problem. That's incredibly valuable, and every focus group I've ever run has given great insights that helped us produce a much better design. Designing without understanding the customers is always more bland, less exciting, less richly-informed.

No question that Apple makes great products, and I wonder what techniques they really are using to learn about their customers. Regardless, focus groups ought to be done correctly, not maligned and avoided.

Mr. Ive's comments remind me of a quote by Julia Cameron, author of "The Artist's Way":

What we really want to do is what we are really meant to do. When we do what we are meant to do, money comes to us, doors open for us, we feel useful, and the work we do feels like play to us.

GM needs to hire Ive. There's more focus groups at GM than employees.

We don't have a democracy; we have a republic and insofar as unknowing people buy into the Marxist notion of a "democracy" which is really just majority rule, you see the mediocrity that kind of mentality produces. Lowest common denominator. Wake up America; you're being pulled under by the worst possible influences.

There is ABSOLUTELY NO REASON why Apple needs to change; they're doing exactly what they want to and making a very handsome profit doing so.

Tim Cook said it perfectly: "It isn't our goal to gain the biggest marketshare; our goal is to make the best phone in the world." That sums up the mindset at Apple; build cool stuff that WE like; then figure out how to make money at it. This is what Ives was saying and it works wonders at Apple which is why no other company seems to be able to create like they do. And why they're getting the results no one else is getting; even in a down economy.

Other companies are focused on money, marketshare, profits, exactly the kind of thinking that "judy (judge)" illustrated in his/her post. Without thinking like other companies, Apple is outdoing all of them. Why on earth would they want to change that? They're doing fine and I think they know it.

GM needs to go out of business.

I don't think any sane person will ever buy from them unless forced too at gunpoint.

The UAW killed GM with $75 hour pay when the same workers in South Carolina were getting $45 tops.

Heck with this economy, I'd take $25 hour.

Jul 01, 09 - 04:10 pm Comment from: raginghard

@ Judy

too right! How dare the ordinary workers backed by their unions demand a comparatively miniscule pay increase when their CEOs give themselves double or triple digit percentage pay increases. How outrageous!

Jul 01, 09 - 04:21 pm Comment from: Arnold Ziffel

I dare say GM has had a stream of troubles over the decades - early diesels made from slapped together gasoline engine parts, Chevy Vega, Cadillac V8-6-4 (is there a single one still running?), Chevy Chevette, Pontiac Aztek, just to name a few.

I doubt the UAW was involved in the designs of these turkeys.

@Judy

How nice of you to repeat a FoxNews talking point. Do you say that auto workers get paid $75/hr and acknowledge that half of that "salary" goes to pay other people's pensions? No? What a surprise. GM executives lump in all costs in with labor, so they can stir up resentment from idiots who never think to question the "facts" they are fed by right-wing media. You are embarrassing yourself by advertising your ignorance of what's really going on at GM - the guys at the top are consumed with greed and doing everything they can to screw over their workforce for that big, fat bonus they get at the end of each quarter. But I'm sure you'd rather believe Bill O'Riley or Rush when it comes to inconvenient things... like facts.

Jul 02, 09 - 02:25 am Comment from: SKY LARK

@Mr Numbers
I suggest that you stick to reading Mr Men books if can not fathom out and parse the basics of the Harvard article.

It's not feck'n rocket surgery!

I keep reading dense people on this site lately, they're everywhere.

@ SKY LARK

No need to throw insults, go read readers comments on the original article. Almost everyone there thinks the piece was poor in many ways. You disagree, tell us why. And evidence please.