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! 
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.
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…
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. ]]>
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.
]]>