On Why Apple is Bad For Design
Posted on | April 27, 2007 | 23 Comments
Photo from here.
The Design Observer recently featured a sloppily-written article on why Apple is bad for design. Seeing the post’s title, I eagerly expected a thoughtful critique of that most vaunted of companies — nobody’s perfect, and there must be reasonable things to comment on. Instead, the DO article is an incoherent rambling on issues of form, style, and rounded corners, and ends up as much ado about nothing.
I thought, well, I could do better than that. So here I go.
The main reason why Apple is bad for design is that they’re a highly idiosyncratic organization. As such, it’s nearly impossible to copy them, because no other organization has the elements that allow Apple to product great design. This means that when others do try to copy them, they focus solely on the superficial aspects of the design.
I would argue that the main reason Apple is bad for design is because they’re so secretive about their work. So, while they benefit design because they demonstrate the value and power of design in the marketplace, they prove a detriment to design because they don’t share how they achieve such brilliance.
And because they don’t share, they make it look too easy. If you dig deeper, and listen to the stories of what it took to get iPod (all the iterations on form, as mentioned in Steven Levy’s The Perfect Thing), or iPhone (two and a half years to get it to market), you know that it’s not easy. But that hard work is lost on many, and the seeming simplicity of the end product suggests simplicity in the process. Which leads to people coming to Adaptive Path, and saying, “We want to be the iPod of [product category],” without any understanding of the deep commitment that it takes to get there.
If Apple were to share, we’d understand the tradeoffs that go into the decisions they make; the countless attempts before settling on a solution; the obsessive attention to detail, often at the expense of the bottom line; and doubtless other things that I know nothing about. And other organizations would then appreciate what it really takes in order to be a design-led organization, and, hey, that would be great for design.
(Now, it might not be great for Apple, but that’s not what we’re talking about.)
Apple is bad for design because they contain a brilliance that simply cannot be emulated. And that brilliance allows them to approach design in ways that are harmful for those organizations that aren’t brilliant. Dan, in his book Designing for Interaction, holds up Apple as an example of genius design — design that emerges from the mind of the designer. This is in contrast to user-centered design, systems, design, and activity-centered design, which all incorporate users more directly.
So, this could encourage other companies to practice genius design. The problem is, the people at those companies aren’t geniuses. Steve Jobs is a genius (and has had it proven numerous times throughout his career). And when non-geniuses practice genius design, bad things happen. Instead, what’s good for design in the overwhelming majority of cases is more of a user-centered approach, because this approach is accessible to many more people, and thus could have a much broader impact on design.
Hrm. And now I’m a little stumped. Because, in sum, I do think Apple has been quite good for design. Could it be better? Sure. Have design and designers benefited from Apple’s success? Definitely. I’d love to hear your thoughts on why Apple is bad for design…
Comments
23 Responses to “On Why Apple is Bad For Design”
Leave a Reply
Linkblog
- And the angel said unto him, stop hitting yourself!
March 4, 2010 | 8:34 amFunny.
- A new global visual language for the BBC’s digital services
February 22, 2010 | 2:24 pmTruly impressive work, and an impressive post detailing it!
- Talking Heads in Rome 1980
February 21, 2010 | 8:26 pmA series of 11 videos on YouTube of a 1980 concert. Sweet.
- Hot Pockets Ingredients
February 21, 2010 | 8:22 pmUm. An elegant poster of a disgustingly over-ingrediented “food”.
- The Birth of Cheap Communication (and Junk Mail)
February 21, 2010 | 12:07 pmFun, breezy take on the original “Victorian internet” – the British Postal System.
- Roger Ebert: The Essential Man
February 16, 2010 | 8:06 amHe might have no jaw, but Ebert has been as eloquent as ever of late (and quite the liberal activist!)
- Bing Maps Explore is pretty sweet
February 11, 2010 | 6:21 pmSadly, it requires Silverlight, but the functionality is fly. Check out the “Map Apps” (bottom of the screen). The Streetside Photos app draws geotagged photos from Flickr and applies them into the Street View. Pretty awesome.
- Ravens Coach Brian Billick Tackles Super Bowl XLIV : NPR
February 6, 2010 | 10:03 amAs we approach the Super Bowl, I found this interview about what a coach really does surprisingly informative.
- Henrietta Lacks: A Donor’s Immortal Legacy
February 6, 2010 | 10:02 amThis is utterly fascinating. Henrietta Lacks’ cervical cells are the world’s first immortal cells. I had never heard of HeLa cells before this interview with author Rebecca Skloot. Now I want to read the book.
- The Incredible San Fancisco Artists’ Soapbox Derby, 1975
February 4, 2010 | 8:00 am24 minute film about a truly delightful community endeavor. I don’t think SF has this kind of artist mojo any longer, but I’d love to see something like this Oakland, careening down Joaquin Miller Road.
- Paywalls, Blogs, Comments, Editing and Magazines: A Conversation with Paul Ford, Web Editor of Harper’s Magazine | The Awl
February 4, 2010 | 7:37 amIf you’ve followed ftrain for the past 10+ years, you already know that Paul Ford is among the smartest people on the internet. This conversation with The Awl about pay models for publishing and his experience at Harpers is a little precious at times, but worth a read.
- Interview with Bloom County creator Berkeley Breathed
February 2, 2010 | 8:12 amBloom County was among those key influences informing my sense of humor, including Monty Python, Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, and Edward Gorey. This interview looks back to its creation.
- Axe Cop
January 31, 2010 | 9:52 pmSo awesome. And funny. The best comic ever written by a 5-year-old and drawn by his 29-year-old brother. I wanna Avocado Soldier t-shirt.
- Lost Landscapes of San Francisco 3 and 4
January 31, 2010 | 7:28 pmRick Prelinger collects archival, industrial, and found footage of San Francisco, and presents them as clips in front of live audiences. Delightful look at the city’s past.
- Roger Ebert’s best films of the decade
January 31, 2010 | 7:23 pmI’m a little late on linking to this. Historically, I’ve found Ebert to be far too forgiving a critic (he just loves movies too much and gives poor ones a pass), so I was surprised at how close his list is to mine (if I bothered to make one). Synecdoche, Me And You and Everyone We Know, even Juno.
- Taking Directions from Slime Mold
January 25, 2010 | 7:54 pmIf my colleague Kate Rutter were to have a spirit organism, it would be slime mold. Slime mold are bizarre, neither plant nor animal nor fungi, and they’ve become the poster species for self-organizing systems. Anyway, they can also design subway systems. Scroll down to listen to the piece about them.
- Where has all the popcorn gone?
January 24, 2010 | 4:20 pmThe folks on Chowhound have the same question I did the last time I went to the supermarket. Popcorn could become the next artisanal fetish.
- S.F.s Market Street changes as city evolves
January 23, 2010 | 8:07 amCarl Nolte does it again with an exploration of Market Street’s multiple personalities. The stretch between 6th and 9th is among the most depressing urban blights in the US.
- Online Dating: The 4 Big Myths of Profile Pictures
January 21, 2010 | 8:13 pmOKCupid.com is a dating site. OkTrends is where the people behind the site reveal insights discovered through statistical analysis of site behavior. It’s awesome.
- How to be a superstar bartender
January 18, 2010 | 8:39 pmExcellent set of explicit instructions for the basics of mixing drinks (measuring, shaking, stirring, twists, etc.)
-
Archive for Linkblog »
April 27th, 2007 @ 12:11 pm
imho, Apple’s bad for design because they make it look like child’s play and it isn’t because they hide the 99% perspiration part. Jobs is not only a genius, he’s a showman. A design impresario. He presents each of his pieces with a flourish and bow. He plays to the audience, he’s part of the Apple brand mystique.
heh
April 27th, 2007 @ 1:31 pm
Apple’s design is simply supurb. Nothing extra.
April 27th, 2007 @ 2:27 pm
Hmm. I think you are right in that most people don’t realize the financial commitment to being a design centric company. And, as an aside, I’m really tired of the “really rich CEO is a genius” point of view. This is said of every rich CEO (except Martha Stewart, how interesting is that?) IMHO these people aren’t “geniuses” they are smart business people. Einstein was a genius, Jobs isn’t. OK, so that has nothing to do with design.
April 27th, 2007 @ 2:54 pm
No, Jobs is a genius. He has been directly and intimately involved with two computer revolutions:
– making the GUI widespread through Macintosh
– changing the face of portable media through iPod
and he also had the savvy/awareness to understand the potential of Pixar.
No other business person (that I’m familiar with) has been involved in three distinct revolutions that have so deeply and fundamentally affected business and society.
That’s genius, to me.
April 27th, 2007 @ 6:04 pm
There is sometimes a misconception that throwing usability or designers at a problem will always add value. Form a UCD Team, build a lab, hire a designer … it seems to me that its much, much more than that.
IMHO : Its a customer culture that translates into design. Its the ability for everyone in the company – CEO to Systems Architect to Customer Support to think about the User Experience. Apple seem to embody this in their designs. Yes, not perfect, but brilliant!
Culture is critical to both innovation, risk taking and great design.
April 27th, 2007 @ 9:52 pm
you forget he was also a part of the movement to put a PC on every desk and in every home
April 28th, 2007 @ 8:22 am
For 10 points, who is the bigger genius, Jobs or Gates? And why?
April 29th, 2007 @ 9:23 am
The organization is key. Just as design is often treated as something that can be “sprayed on” after the fact, a design-centric organization is not one that can created with an additional layer of “design thinking”. To do what Apple does, it has to be design-focused at the, ahem, core.
But as you say, the Apple model doesn’t scale well, and to try to turn just about any other large company into an Apple is a) probably not a good idea, and b) probably not feasible. Apple is a fluke, not a model.
April 30th, 2007 @ 6:21 am
This is so much more succinct and relevant than the Design Observer article I was disappointed by a few weeks ago. Thanks.
April 30th, 2007 @ 6:44 am
I think Apple is good for design and designers. They have, with their tools, put the design world on the map. I benefit from Apple every day.
On the other hand, do I like Apple? Let’s say compared to a person, Apple would be likened to a show-off genius. They are perfect and great at everything they do, never let anyone see their ‘human’ side and pretend that it was ‘easy’. In the meantime, Jobs is a notoriously difficult and arrogant person and as Peter points out, a lot of sweat goes into developing the groundbreaking products that Apple makes.
So, to answer my own question – no I don’t ‘like’ Apple as much as I would if they would be more human-like and approachable.
It would be so much more beneficial to design if they didn’t have such a pristine, repelling persona and opened up to share their lessons and their exceptional design vision so others could learn from them.
April 30th, 2007 @ 1:12 pm
Forget about genius (a wildly overused term in silicon valley) — Steve Jobs is a micromanaging egomaniac. I mean that in the nicest possible way. That’s the only kind of personality that can drive an organization as large as Apple to create such a focused, consistent product line.
But his personality / management style got him kicked out of Apple (when it had become a liability) and got him invited back (when it had become the last resort).
I agree that Jobs has been right about several major trends in technology, but don’t forget he’s been spectacularly wrong at times too (Lisa, NeXT, “no need for expansion ports”). Sooner or later, he will be wrong again.
May 1st, 2007 @ 7:50 am
I don’t really understand the article of The Design Observer. I neither get your point.
Loads of people are devoted to Apple / Jobs. Whatever Apple produces or Jobs says, its fans will like it. Take the iPhone which is not on the market yet. Everyone wants one, but nobody has actually seen one.
Apple sold a dream and are still working hard to make things work. By the time it sees the market, there will be several other phones with similar functionalities. I don’t say the iPhone will be a bad phone, but please be realistic and objective.
I’ve got an iPod myself and I must say I like the design and I like the interface as well. The sound quality is excellent. But, it’s far from the best product. I spend days configuring and re-installing the firmware, it has lots of constraints (works only with iTunes, not able to copy music,…). Besides that iPods break. Right now I’m waiting for my third replacement. The last one I had exactly one week and it gave up playing.
Summarized. Apple produces great products, but they’re not the best and Jobs is not God.
May 2nd, 2007 @ 2:05 pm
[...] Adaptive Path’s Peter Merholz says that isn’t good enough, and that Apple is bad for design because they make it look easy but don’t talk about what’s hard. Everyone tries to copy them, but they’re just not smart enough to pull it off: “Apple is bad for design because they contain a brilliance that simply cannot be emulated. And that brilliance allows them to approach design in ways that are harmful for those organizations that aren’t brilliant. Dan, in his book Designing for Interaction, holds up Apple as an example of genius design — design that emerges from the mind of the designer. This is in contrast to user-centered design, systems, design, and activity-centered design, which all incorporate users more directly. [...]
May 4th, 2007 @ 2:53 am
Apple is, in my mind, bad for design for two reasons, of which you outlined one, but I’ll elaborate on my stance a little.
One, Apple does not share its processes. Even interviews with Jon Ive show little to no depth: he just says what he likes about what he does, and how other people have made great products with him. As shows in design (art significantly less so) education, it’s a split in importance between concept, process and final product. Evidently, the consumer only cares about the product (“yay, it’s easy to use and looks nice!”), the company only cares about the process (“yay, our employees know how to cater to people; we should pay him stuff!”) and the person who sprouted the concept only cares about the concept (“yay, I made up something cool again!”). Okay, so it’s not that simple, and we all care about at _least_ one of those steps—I know I like all three of them. The crux is in the fact that, when all we see is an iPod, we see nothing of Ive’s concepts—no, I don’t buy the PR speak: give me honesty, damnit—and certainly nothing about the design process—how many people have worked on the iPod? Sharing is caring, right?
Two, people take the Apple approach for granted. I’m not talking of just the guys who copy the Apple.com navigation tabs. It’s on a bigger scale, and people are trying to copy the design aesthetic that Apple has been working on for so long now. I’m not accusing anyone of ripping off Apple, because anyone can create simplicity—simple isn’t easy, but it’s possible—but no-one should think it will just work out if you copy the white-glossy-plastic look and make the menu actually easy to use. This ties in closely, evidently, with the sharing of the process: if Apple would do that, I suppose more people would appreciate the backgrounds instead of taking over just the product.
Apple is good for design in that people now realise that it would be nice if people got to use stuff that’s actually usable. That’s worth something.
May 4th, 2007 @ 3:02 pm
[...] And speaking of Apple, Peter tells why Apple is Bad for Design [...]
May 4th, 2007 @ 10:44 pm
[...] Not that design is at all easy either, mind you – as noted in an article about Apple’s design work (also via Haddock), “hard work is lost on many, and the seeming simplicity of the end product suggests simplicity in the process.” It’s harder, not easier, to do a good, simple design. [...]
May 5th, 2007 @ 9:28 am
[...] On Why Apple is Bad For Design, from peterme.com [...]
May 5th, 2007 @ 7:09 pm
Apple has done another thing against design: They focus too much on making the product “feel” good and solid an not so much on making it actually solid. They make such a good work that most people agree that apple’s products have the best possible technology. But when entire years of production have known failures you must stop and think about it for a second. When you read iPods’ support main keywords: “Reset. Retry. Restart. Reinstall. Restore.” your eyebrows should raise at least for a few seconds. They spend a lot of time designing they’re products but they still fail. MacBooks have been shipped with poor brightness, a plastic that gets the color of your hands and batteries that die (at least they are not catching fire anymore) a few weeks after you buy them.
They excel in making their product desirable but forget about great design in engineering. And these products need so. Even OS X has weird issues. The other day my computer couldnt start up because the spotlight database got corrupted. i know files can get corrupted, you can only do as much to avoid that. But there’s no good reason why the whole operative system should block for that. Thats not good error handling. And i’ve seen lots of apple’s apps get slower and slower for poorly optimized logging and database files. I think design should be a global word meaning a product not only behaves and feels good but actually has solid technology inside empowering it.
May 7th, 2007 @ 2:05 pm
Apple’s BAD For Design Because……
PUH-LEEZE! Peter Merholz, who I’ve read and followed avidly for about five months now plays right into the snark pit. Oh, the shame of it.
It wouldn’t be so bad if he hadn’t claimed, “Apple’s bad for design because they do…
May 7th, 2007 @ 8:08 pm
Really? Why must genius -if we agree that it is in fact genius- be punished and told it is bad? It’s a very sad day when companies cannot understand what deep commitment is needed to produce quality products whether it be pure genius or a user centered approach.
It sounds like Apple is bad for design because most projects won’t commit to that level of excellence so it makes everyone else look bad.
That sounds like Apple raises the curve.
I think raising the curve is a good thing and thus Apple is NOT bad for design.
May 9th, 2007 @ 9:17 am
Peter… A very timely article serves as a fine rebuttal to your presumption of “Apple is Bad for Design”.
http://www.technologyreview.com/Biztech/18621/
Apple’s close-lipped nature isn’t to further or hamper design. They VALUE design so much it’s THEIR differentiator. Why give that up, of all things, as an Open Sourcing of the creative process!?
I’ve taken the mantle upon myself to get you to issue a retraction if you hadn’t noticed. All in good natured discussion. You’re still a genius too you know!
April 4th, 2008 @ 1:53 am
[...] A rare glimpse into Apple’s design process Peterme wrote a thoughtful piece a while back on “why Apple is bad for design” because they make it look so easy and they are so secretive about how they do it. Well one of Apple’s engineering managers allowed a rare glimpse into the Apple design process at a talk last month. His points are summarized in this BusinessWeek article. [...]
May 4th, 2009 @ 4:39 am
hai dis isvery useful………………………