Filed under: Analysis / Opinion, Apple
The Apple effect on design
Robert Brunner over at Design Matters brings up an interesting question with his latest entry: Has Apple's definition of good design skewed consumer perception?
Brunner, who admits right off the bat that he is a loyal Apple fan, makes a very good observation about design in the Apple-inspired world:
Here's the gist: Apple has been so successful in design, that to many people if something does not resemble an iPhone, iPod, MacBook, etc., it is not "good design." If it is not an uber-simple, highly-rationalized, single-buttoned, machined-from-a-solid-block-of aluminum thing, it can't be good, right? It's become a pretty common undertone in articles, reviews, blogs, and user commentary. Sometimes subtle, sometimes overt. But the overall message is there: If you don't do it like Apple, you are not practicing "good design."And Brunner does have a point. Thanks to the design standards at Apple, there are now a lot of companies that are trying to emulate it in their products and coming up short, as seen in the pair of Samsung home theater systems from early 2008 pictured above (note: these are no longer available), which Brunner originally posted on his blog. It's definitely not easy to create a design; the folks in Cupertino will be the first to admit to that. In April 2008, BusinessWeek did an article covering a presentation at SXSW where Apple engineers discussed the design process.
The risk of Apple innovation can also lead to oversaturation as well. After the iMac came out, suddenly things weren't cool if the product name didn't have a lower-case "i" in it, and the word "pod" after the iPod became popular. What started out as very clever now just makes me roll my eyes when other companies try to incorporate those terms into its products.
Has Apple's products changed your perception of good design? Do you think it's led to oversaturation?
Many thanks to @ohmgee on Twitter for the article link!
![TUAW [Cafepress]](http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.tuaw.com/media/tuaw-cafepress-promo.png)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
leo said 5:14PM on 6-09-2009
yes, over saturated, no doubt. different is better. one quote i have always lived by and will continue to live by is: "Variety is the spice of life."
Reply
kc! said 5:16PM on 6-09-2009
Apple has definitely helped the mass market recognize the role that design plays in our everyday life. But I think they get style and design mixed up. Everything manufactured is designed, not everything has Apple's style.
Unfortunately, people are mixing these two up and instead of designing products to be the best they can be (engineering, materials, manufacturing, etc), they are just slapping an Apple-esque style on it to sell units. But the problem with this is that Apple's design style looks really good on Apple products, but does not always translate to other products.
I deeply believe that form follows function. And thus, when designing or styling a product, companies should look to the product itself rather than whatever is in fashion at a particular time to what the style should be.
Reply
Ryan Trevisol said 5:18PM on 6-09-2009
Those speakers look more like a Palm Pre to me. ;-)
Reply
macserv said 11:42PM on 6-09-2009
...which also has quite good design. The masses really haven't had many stand-out examples of good, clean designs until Apple's became so ubiquitous. It's in people's nature to gravitate toward Apple design as their baseline for what's "good", and it's also in their nature to not desire hamburger when they can have steak. :D
Anyone coming out with a new device has to come close to that baseline set by Apple — met by several others — if they're going to pass muster, and I think there have been some shining examples of companies doing just that in recent months. A few more Prēs, Spinns, and VAIO Ps, and people will have a lot more to go on.
gib said 5:20PM on 6-09-2009
Good hardware design is part of the Apple Tax I am completely willing to pay for. For example, compare the new ZuneHD to a iPod touch. While it is similar size and shape, it looks like a cinder block.
Don't forget software design by Apple is the standard all else tries to play catchup. OS X was copied by Vista, iPhone by too many touchscreens to name, etc.
Reply
dastranger said 5:26PM on 6-09-2009
A clear example of the article going over the head on someone.
You totally missed the point of the article.
gib said 5:51PM on 6-09-2009
@ dastranger
No, I understand that Apple's design (for good or ill) has become a standard to which consumers demand from other companies. If you would actually read the article mentioned, Brunner points out that companies "are trying to be Apple when they are not. It takes a special culture and commitment to pull that off. Not everyone can do it, nor should they do it." If M$ or anyone else wants to create something unique, I am all for that... but most of it is an imitation of Apple. The examples I gave illustrated that point.
Do I think this culture of imitation is a bad thing? Absolutely. Do I blame Apple for making good products? No.
Andrew said 11:47PM on 6-09-2009
I agree with gib. You can't blame Apple for the crappy imitations flooding the market.
If these companies weren't copying Apple they would be copying someone else or they would be coming out with those beige boxes we had in the 80s.
They dont have to copy Apple design, they could take their chances with something dramatically different, but thats too much of a risk for most companies that are made up of middle managers and bean counters.
Louis said 5:21PM on 6-09-2009
I see the point, but I think blaming Apple is incorrect in this case. Think of what happens in Hollywood: someone makes an awesome movie called "Space Ninjas" (for example). Then other studios try to copy "Space Ninjas" because it's the hot thing. But then those fall flat because usually they end up crappy. Do you blame the makers of the original "Space Ninjas" for all the subsequent crappiness from others they have no control over? They set the bar too high, so to speak?
Besides, it's not like Apple hasn't failed before design-wise (see also: iPod Hi-Fi, the 3rd gen "junior fatty" nano, removing Firewire from the first aluminum MacBooks).
Reply
-ssy. said 5:23PM on 6-09-2009
Apple's products have not not changed my perception of good design, they are just among the very few tech products who actually live up to them. As long as you disregard their history of horrible mice.
Reply
Andy S. said 5:24PM on 6-09-2009
Apple's products haven't changed my perception of good design. Apple's products simple are (generally) excellent examples of good design.
And as for Apple's effect on other companies' products? I'd much rather see companies attempting to mimic good design (regardless of whether or not they're successful) rather than attempting to mimic bad design or eschewing design altogether. Certainly, it would be preferable to have them producing good design that is also innovative, but failing that, mimicry of good design is absolutely the least of the evils.
Reply
wbcreddragon said 5:24PM on 6-09-2009
yes, over saturated, no doubt. different is better. one quote i have always lived by and will continue to live by is: "Variety is the spice of life."
Reply
SpinThis! said 5:26PM on 6-09-2009
Apple is obviously a leader in design, but you know, does it really matter? Good design is not all obviously "Apple-esque" and all others are not. There's definitely shades of grey here and as commenters above pointed out, not everything Apple has produced has been instant success stories.
And there's also a flip side—plenty of people simply don't care about design, quality, or how it works and want products cheap, fast, and/or over/under engineered. In this respect, Apple hasn't made one iota of difference to these folks. Consider this the Wal-mart effect.
Reply
culsoh said 5:41PM on 6-09-2009
it's true.
Reply
godDLL said 5:43PM on 6-09-2009
Design is "how it works as a whole", not "how it looks". And that's over the whole lifetime of a product, including disposal/recycling.
Industrial design is "how it fits with your other stuff, and the manufacturing process" in addition to that.
Apple does many things right. But people as a herd are sheep, many won't catch the light off the crystal, many are shallow – "I know this, it's X! If it don't behave like X, I'll just ignore that part and treat it like X."
The original author poses his question incorrectly, and you follow his lead.
Reply
David said 5:45PM on 6-09-2009
The great thing about Apple's design is that just about every aspect of it is there for a reason. Form follows function so perfectly on Apple products, as someone above mentioned. Not one element of the design is unnecessary.
Where style comes in is material choice, color, logo placement, and a few other things that are "optional," like rounded corners. But if you look at each of those things on a particular product, you start to see how they almost can't be another way and still be an Apple product. Rounded corners are a way of either using fewer materials or using more without making them look like more. Material choice is usually the perfect combination of price, weight, feel, and property of the material (like durability, heat dissipation, etc.). So even the "optional" stuff is so intrinsic to the utility of the design.
I think the original article seems to be about vendors who make products that are trying to LOOK LIKE Apple products without understanding that Apple products look the way they do for a reason. If they extrapolate that reason to the function of their own products, they could probably get something that looks different from Apple but is technically designed just as well.
Reply
trayser said 6:22PM on 6-09-2009
Well said :-)
I was about to write something similar.
The external look of apple products is a 'result' of its clever internal design (a design that must have gone through lot of design-analysis cycles). Those who try to simply copy the external look miss the point.
Ethan said 5:46PM on 6-09-2009
I love apple, but I don't think so. Occasionally I want a device that initially will be complicated, such as a high-end camera, but with a little learning becomes far slicker in use than any one-button device.
The trend has been, generally speaking, a very 'loud' simplicity, which Apple does not do. How intrusive do those speakers look? Compare to the Apple Hi-Fi, which despite it's heft, is not something which would distract when you're not using it.
Reply
skube said 5:46PM on 6-09-2009
Hasn't Apple simply copied German industrial designer Dieter Rams's work?
Reply
nickux said 5:52PM on 6-09-2009
Isn't the guy who made the film "Helvetica" coming out with a movie about design? It looked very exciting especially since his previous film was so good.
Reply