This sentiment, posted every time Apple does something post-Steve Jobs, is essentially American declinism [1] but for Apple. Substitute Apple for America in this Robert Kagan article [2].
>But how real is it? Much of the commentary on American decline these days rests on rather loose analysis, on impressions that the United States has lost its way, that it has abandoned the virtues that made it successful in the past, that it lacks the will to address the problems it faces. Americans look at other nations whose economies are now in better shape than their own, and seem to have the dynamism that America once had, and they lament, as in the title of Thomas Friedman’s latest book, that “that used to be us.”
I don't think it's a good idea to compare a country made of 300+million people and many more millions of entities, with a single entity driven by the decisions of 1 person.
While you may be right that people are reacting incorrectly, it's significantly easier for a single corporation headed by 1 person to actually decline than it would be for an entire democratic nation.
I made no claim about Apple being in decline. Just that Apple has been spending more time naval gazing than usual. This book is a prime example. Their September keynote, which spent more time talking about their past than showing how the new MacBook's are the future, is another.
From 25:45 to 30:39 (5 minutes), discussing the Mac's past.
From 30:39 to 35:00 (4 minutes), introducing the new MacBook Pro.
From 35:00 to 36:07 (2 minutes), discussing the history of the function keys (on an IBM terminal, not discussing Apple's history).
From 36:07 to 73:21 (37 minutes), discussing the new MacBook Pro.
From 73:21 to 74:21 (1 minute), showing the new MacBook Pro next to a PowerBook 100.
From 74:21 to 79:37 (5 minutes), discussing the new MacBook Pro.
Generously, they spent 8 minutes total referencing the past (3 minutes of that was for framing the new product) and 46 minutes exclusively talking about the new product.
> (for better or worse the most novel hardware change to a laptop in a decade)
not by a long shot. I see this kind of statement all the time from apple fans about apples oh-so-unique innovations, and it's rarely something that hasnt been done before
I could give several examples of more novel features in the last decade, but that's subjective, and this isnt: the touch bar concept has been done before [0] (and better imo)
It is explicitly a showpiece, as well as an aspirational good aimed squarely at those who feel owning Apple products reflects positively on them. (Note the locations where it's on sale.)
It's clearly created for companies, design agencies etc.
They'll buy few of these and put them in their cafes, waiting spaces, bookshelves and it will make them look more credible/serious in front of potential customers.
Pretty good deal for them but for average consumers not so much.
I would hope, given the price, that it's printed using some super-high-quality techniques on incredibly wonderful paper and bound in such a way that it will resist a thousand years of idle browsing.
The time period covered by the book (1998-2015) is significant. This is Ive telegraphing the end of the Jobs roadmap. "from 1998’s iMac to 2015’s Apple Pencil" which is very much in line with the following Jobs quote of pre-iPhone prototypes. "I had an idea of a multitouch display that you could type on. About six months later they called me in and showed me this prototype display. This was in the early 2000s"
Random aside: the IKEA mail catalogs are actually very well designed and nicely printed. They're one of the few catalogs I actually keep. They don't feel consumeristic and actually have a lot of neat furnishing ideas, even if you don't want to buy anything from them.
I am pleasantly surprised by their non-consumeristic advertising. It's sexy functionalism.
I think he means to say "beautiful" in a sense that it's not JUST about showing a picture and a price, but that they are first "interesting pictures" first and "ads" second.
Ah yes, the "selling a lifestyle" model of advertising. It's still about selling a product so 'non-consumerist' is patently the wrong way to describe it. Non-consumerist would be the rejection of a disposable, non-repairable, 'you should buy this because you'll feel better about yourself' attitude towards the selling/purchasing of goods.
The early days of Apple were interesting, but to suggest that the development of the iMac, iPhone, Macbook, the iTunes store, etc is "not interesting" is quite an unusual position to take.
It's certainly not the most interesting period. The development of the Snow White language and the multiple prototypes that never went out hint at what Apple would do in those 20 years. The iMac, iPhone are interesting, but are interesting for the details - the "friendliness" of the first iMacs, the psychedelic ones (the Blue Dalmatian and Flower Power), the sleekness of the iPhone's interface are all details. The pioneering work had already been done and those roads were somewhat explored, some saved for the time we'd have the technologies for it.
The iPhone's interface might be details, but the iPhone itself certainly wasn't. It singlehandedly brought smartphones (and the screen-only form factor) to dominance. Of course you can argue it was timing and someone was bound to do it, but others didn't do it.
The iPad "created" (again, technically just brought to prominence) the tablet form factor. The iPod fundamentally changed music forever, the shitty Apple earbuds are iconic in and of themselves, and barely anyone even purchases those.
Furthermore, I contend that Apple changed design as a whole forever. It takes high end boutique design and without fail sets a new bar across every industry they set foot in. Great design has become a prerequisite for consumer products. On the one hand this trivializes design in that few of the people demanding Apple-tier design understand the amount of work it takes, but on the other hand it means companies can look at Apple's astronomical margins and perhaps justify stronger investment in design.
The entire history of Apple is pretty fascinating, but from a design perspective alone (i.e. not necessarily a technical perspective) I think the last 15 years or so contain the highest density of notable strides forward.
> The iPhone's interface might be details, but the iPhone itself certainly wasn't. It singlehandedly brought smartphones (and the screen-only form factor) to dominance.
A good couple years before the iPhone appeared, I used a Sony Ericsson P-800. Most of the time, I used it without the cover and used the screen or voice to dial. It was mostly a screen, not unlike a Palm before it.
What the iPhone brought was the sleek and fluid interface and the solid build and the multi-touch gestures (which, TBH, were not possible with the tech available in 2002, when the P-800 was launched). It's remarkable, of course, because it was obvious when we saw it, but not before.
The iPad applied the same "first that doesn't suck" logic to the tablet format. It wasn't the first tablet, not by a light-year. BTW, on its own, the Newton's OS is very interesting. The iPad was simply the one built after the tech allowed it not to suck.
Apple has achieved great things in design, but visit any museum with a decent industrial design collection and you'll discover the universe didn't start with the Second Coming of Steve Jobs.
The point is that post-Apple, you don't need to find a decent industrial design collection in order to find incredible industrial design. You can just ask the person next to you to see their phone/laptop/etc.
I agree That thanks to Apple now we expect beautiful electronics, and even the most oblivious to Apple person benefits from it. It took a very very long time for the industry to take note and pick up the pace. Now that it kind of did, I think people disregard Apple as the originator. But worse than that is seeing Apple blowing its own horn, not with this book which is kind of cool to buy (even if strange coming from them) but from their recent marketing and celebratory moves.
> thanks to Apple now we expect beautiful electronics
I expect that since I was a kid. I blame my mom, who got us a beautiful, now classic, Braun Atelier TV set (adapted to PAL-M) through a friend in the German consulate (importing stuff was problematic in Brazil by the late 70's).
Why go out of your way to comment to say that you aren't interested in a particular book? If this book doesn't interest you why did you click the link? Such negativity and casual dismissal of things other people may be interested in.
I find it interesting to read everyone's reactions here, both positive and negative. As long as it's not trolling, or being rude to others, why shouldn't one feel free to leave their thoughts?
In fact I checked out the comments for this article specifically because the book doesn't appeal to me either, and I was curious if I was the only one who felt that way.
Because hinting the last 20 years were the pinnacle of achievement, or particularly special, seems unfair to the pioneers who were there before, opening the paths their successors walked.
