Jobs compares Apple’s design process to other companies. “You know how you see a show car,” Jobs says, “and it’s really cool, and then four years later you see the production car, and it sucks? And you go, What happened? They had it! They had it in the palm of their hands! They grabbed defeat from the jaws of victory! What happened was, the designers came up with this really great idea. Then they take it to the engineers, and the engineers go, ‘Nah, we can’t do that. That’s impossible.’ And so it gets a lot worse. Then they take it to the manufacturing people, and they go, ‘We can’t build that!’ And it gets a lot worse.”

My comment: I always complain about this and haven't attended NAIAS in a few years now, as I don't see much point because of the truths stated above.

Full article about the article below:













The October 24th edition of Time magazine features a cover story on Apple and how the company is different from others when it comes to designing new products. While Apple CEO Steve Jobs is featured on the cover holding the new fifth-generation iPod, most of the article is devoted to analyzing the design process at Apple. The cover story contains some choice quotes from a number of Apple executives, including Jobs, Jonathan Ive and Tony Fadell. A paid subscription is required to read the full article.

Time’s Lev Grossman says that there are two things going on inside Apple—collaboration and control. When it comes to a new product, it’s a joint effort—the company does not pass a product down the line, from team to team. “There aren’t discrete, sequential development stages,” explains Grossman. “Instead, it’s simultaneous and organic. Products get worked on in parallel by all departments at once—design, hardware, software—in endless rounds of interdisciplinary design reviews.”

Jobs compares Apple’s design process to other companies. “You know how you see a show car,” Jobs says, “and it’s really cool, and then four years later you see the production car, and it sucks? And you go, What happened? They had it! They had it in the palm of their hands! They grabbed defeat from the jaws of victory! What happened was, the designers came up with this really great idea. Then they take it to the engineers, and the engineers go, ‘Nah, we can’t do that. That’s impossible.’ And so it gets a lot worse. Then they take it to the manufacturing people, and they go, ‘We can’t build that!’ And it gets a lot worse.”

Time’s Grossman describes the “control” of Jobs: “Sure, Jobs is perfectly pleasant to be around. And he pays attention to what you’re saying, but if he disagrees with it… he’ll come storming back and hammer at you until you change your mind or at least shut up… In other words, Jobs is into control. In itself, that is of no real importance, except that in a lot of ways, Apple is an expression of Jobs’ personal ethos.”

Finally, Jobs talks of the new iPod’s potential. “There is no market today for portable video,” he says. “We’re going to sell millions of these to people who want to play their music, and video is going to come along for the ride. Anyone who wants to put out video content will put it out for this. And we’ll find out what happens.”

 

This can only mean one thing... iCar in 2007. I'll be damned if it has that same easy to scratch white finish that's on my iPod and iBook though.

 

That's a really one sided and, for lack of a better word, un-educated comment..although I've come to expect no less from the 'black turtleneck sweater brigade.

One one hand I agree with him that it's frustrating to see a concept car watered down for production, but there are a whole slew for factors that has happened between show car and production. This isn't just cars, but industrial designers in general aren't very good at designing for production and then whining how engineers ruined everything (just for reference, I'm an industrial designer, I work around these issues all the time).

-From concept to production you have to take into production costs AND prodution capabilities or realities (in not uncommon for a designer to photo- realistically 'design' something and it's not close to being able to be produced). I have a design engineer friend who tells me this on a bi-weekly basis. The stories are not funny anymore.

-depending on the market you've got to decide how big a market you want to capture, thus you have to please more people and thus you get a little closer to vanilla.

-ergonomics (until the next beig step in human evolution, things can only be put in a certain place...and if you've seen the original iMac's mouse, Steve Jobs could use a lesson in ergonomics or at least give more than lip service to 'form follows function').

Cars and computers are completely different beasts. Nice to see Jobs hasn't lost his 'artist's ego'.....

 

Whoa now. Steve makes computers, not cars. Take a poll of Mac users and PC users and see who makes better looking, better operating systems. Mac does what it does well.

He wasn't criticizing the car industry, just making a comparison to how they design and build things as a team working together, with all the different design and production concerns being evaluated as they go along as a team.

Truthfully, the auto industry could probably use some of this approach.

When I was a tech at a Chrysler dealer, I had a PT Cruiser convertible that had a melted down convertible top motor. This is when they first came out. I called Chrysler, since we didn't even have a manual and couldn't order parts yet. They sent 4 engineers to my dealership to inspect and test the car. I had guys that could point at a part and say, "I designed that". When I asked how you removed it, they didn't know. I asked, didn't you design it? They said, yes, but we don't know how it attaches. These guys were very smart, but as far as taking a car apart, no clue.

On a side note, that original imac mouse has helped two people I know get over carpal tunnel, by using it instead of a traditionally shaped mouse. I know you'll say, "How many did it cause carpal tunnel for?" I have no idea.

 

Better looking? Mac.

Better operating? If speed is one of your criteria, PC's will crush any Mac in existence, particularly in the area of high-end graphics. Why? Games... games are the big technology pressure in home computing right now, and the PC's OWN the game market.

 

Games?

If I want to play games, I have a PS2. I was under the impression that the computer gaming was down, now that PS2 and XBox are so powerful and have online capability.

The dual processor G5's are pretty powerful.

"I don't do .INI, .BAT, or .SYS files. I don't assign apps to files. I don't configure peripherals or networks before using them. I have a computer to do all that. I have a Macintosh, not a hobby."

My imac serves all my needs, looks great and has NEVER failed me in 4 years of use.

 

Better operating also means reliability and interoperability. In both cases, the Mac takes the lead.

Mac's processors were really good at 3D graphics, such as OpenGL, for a loooong time. They were ahead of PCs by a couple of years always, until recently.

Of course, Mac will now be using Intel CPUs, and it will be interesting to see how different things will be.

 

I believe that now in 2005, the difference is really more about the operating system, than the hardware.

Macs operating system is AWESOME right out of the box. Windows can't touch it.

The way imovie, iphoto, idvd, itunes all work together is amazing. Plus, a Mac comes with everything loaded on it that most people will probably ever need. No other software to buy ever.

The Safari browser is great.

I love my Mac's and my ipods.

 

The current imacs are very capable, and look great. They have the whole computer and screen in an enclosure that is barely bigger than many monitors, that you then have to put some ugly tower somewhere for.

Looks count.

 

Sounded like critisism to me, or at least some self back patting at the expense of the auto industry. I'll get off my high horse.

Don't get me wrong, I do give Jobs tons of credit for turning Aplly around in the 90's with the iMac (which except for that stupid mouse which neither gave me nor cured me of carpel tunnel..and is the only mouse I've seen with a cover attachment), not only it's looks but it's '2 plugs and you're up and running' set up. And the new iMac is really cool, a graphic designer in the office has one. But I'll be a PC person until I can run Pro-E or Solidworks on one.

I agree 100% that design needs more power in the auto industry, and I think we've seen that take place in the last 6 years. Will it ever return to it's heyday of Harley Earl and Bill Mitchell? I doubt it, but hopefully it won't be put in the dark corner it was in the '70s and '80s.

 

lol like his company really has good designs. all he did was take a rectangle and put a smaller one and a circle inside it. (ipod) hasnt changed that since it came out, save for the shuffle where he simply took out the screen.

At least the auto industry can make products that work for longer than a year. im on my 3rd ipod mini since i got it in june 04. luckily i got a 3 yr warranty.

 

Well....your impression was wrong. PS2 and the XBOX dont have anything on PCs as far as gaming.

I dont like how concepts get watered down either.

 

It's a hard fact, but in games Macs get crushed. PC's are faster, period.

ID basically has to have it's arm twisted to port games to Macs for a reason.

I see Job's Mac and raise him two PCI-X Nvidia 7800's running in SLI.

 

You just repeated what you said already, i simply added another component to the discussion. Games are not a [significant] factor when purchasing a Mac.

I am and always have been a PC user. My immediate plans do not include a Mac. But I do give credit where it's due.

 

The xbox did have a more advanced GPU then current gen PC's when it was released. Its technologically obsolete now, the same as if you bought a high end gaming PC at the same time XBOX debuted. Xbox 360 will again put it beyond current gen PC's.