Apple design chief Jony Ive knighted - but not by the Queen Apple's VP of Industrial Design Jonathan Ive was knighted today by the Princess Royal at Buckingham Palace. Ive was dubbed a knight for his services to design and enterprise. Ive – born in Chingford, Essex – was plucked out of a comparatively lowly job at Apple by Steve Jobs himself, who spotted Ives' potential when he …
This post has been deleted by its author
"Oh, and if you think minimalist design is easy, then you clearly don't know much about design."
And say what you like about Apple products (and I know you will), the quality of their design (that's design not manufacture (or pricing or closed ecosystem or business practices or labour welfare or charitable giving or IP strategy etc etc etc)) is beyond question, shurely?
and, no, I'm not a fanboi - all I have is a crappy iPod.
'if you think minimalist design is easy, then you clearly don't know much about design'
Only hipster designers think minimalist is hard and cutting edge.
Take a table for example. draw some legs whatever type you like, circular, cubed etc and put them in the right place. Put a board on top of whatever shape you like, smooth off the edges, choose a colour and job done.
Complex design, I want it to have eagle feet on the legs, dragons climbing the legs and a scene from a historical battle carved into the top. A good designer will make that look good, highlighting the best areas, not make it too cluttered so you can see everything and make it look classy.
A bad designer will make it look an unholy mess with no clear idea of what was intended and it will look really cheap and tacky.
Minimalist is just another name for take everything away apart from the functional bits and charge more for it. Just having the functional bits is a lack of design.
Making a laptop with a completely smooth flat surface but with all the connectors, lights, switches etc of a regular laptop is trickier.
Adding 'design' to a laptop by just putting bits of chrome plated plastic on the corners and having LEDs stick out of the case at random angles depending how the solder worked is easy.
>Just having the functional bits is a lack of design.
No it isn't. To take your example of a table:
>Take a table for example. draw some legs whatever type you like, circular, cubed etc and put them in the right place.
STOP
What is the 'right place'? Who is using this table - are they primary school children, or adults? That dictates the height of it, along with what sort if seating the user be sat on (stool, or office chair?). What will they be doing on the table? (You don't use seating in chemistry labs, for example, in case you spill something noxious on your lap and get a write-up in the Darwin Awards). Does the table have to fit into a space dictated by modular standards (kitchen, some offices)? What loads will the table have to support in use?
Basically, there are a lot of questions that need to be answered before you know 'what the right place' is, and answering them is the process called 'design'. It might not require genius, but certainly requires care. If not done carefully, you might end up with a table that is awkward to use, irritating, and possibly bad for someone's back (and no one will buy it and you won't get any money). And that's just looking at the considerations of table leg placement / height...
Design isn't about hipsters, it can be about making life slightly easier for the people who use the end product (well actually, it can also about making money for the company, but that takes just as much thought and consideration)
It sounds like your tastes are more baroque. That's no bad thing, beauty takes many forms. Reminds me of that picture of Steve Jobs in his house, bare of furnishings and furniture save for a hi-fi and a beautiful floor-standing Tiffany lamp. Echoing the adages of William Morris and Oscar Wilde.
"Steve Jobs in his house, bare of furnishings and furniture save for a hi-fi and a beautiful floor-standing Tiffany lamp. Echoing the adages of William Morris and Oscar Wilde."
Next time you get burgled, before you start bitching, stand back and just examine the scene for a few moments - maybe the thieves did you a favour and gave you a new tasteful, beautiful interior!
Pay close attention to the obligatory turd they often left behind - if its carefully placed in such a position that it's highlighted by the glow of one or more of your remaining light fittings then you know these guys know their installation work! You may find being robbed adds value to your home rather than detracting from it! Imagine Banksy coming round to nick your Playstation - you'd be the envy of the neighbourhood!
Bravo..
Such a masterful deflection..
STRUCTURAL MECHANICAL, FUNCTIONAL design.. is not the same as AESTHETIC design. Which is what is actually being discussed. That the table has to be fit for purpose is a given. So nobody is suggesting a coffee table be used in a lab setting. Nice sermon though. Shame it's irrelevant.
A table with 4 legs is a brief synopsis of a functional minimum. A perfectly valid illustration.
And a good metaphor for the extent of Apple's "immaculate industrial design".. A bare minimum of effort.
A metal hoop between two sheets of glass. Not exactly incredible industrial design. More minimum effort.
iProducts are dull and repetitive. If you can't handle that information.. Tough.
And echoing PT Barnum.. You are obviously the one.
So you think that good industrial design aesthetics merely show more effort? Well. Done. You are exactly the person Barnum was on about , numb nuts! Embellishment for the sake of embellishment. Your post belies how little you actually know about design and manufacture.
"A metal hoop between two sheets of glass. Not exactly incredible industrial design. More minimum effort." The level of design effort it takes to make something look so simple is incredibly high. but still, you're an IT expert, so you clearly know about everything.
"iProducts are dull and repetitive. If you can't handle that information.. Tough." Objectively, much like every other consumer device out there. Fanboi of another brand is still a fanboi.
I don't.
But she still has lots of power:
"The Royal Prerogative includes the powers to appoint and dismiss ministers, regulate the civil service, issue passports, declare war, make peace, direct the actions of the military, and negotiate and ratify treaties, alliances, and international agreements."
Its disgusting.
>"The Royal Prerogative includes the powers to appoint and dismiss ministers, regulate the civil service, issue passports, declare war, make peace, direct the actions of the military, and negotiate and ratify treaties, alliances, and international agreements."
Whilst she has those powers but doesn't exercise them, no one else can easily assume those powers by means of a coup or otherwise. In your republican dream, we would then have an elected head of state, to whom those inclined would show the deference they currently show towards the Queen: President Blair, anyone?
And the elected officials you're so keen on have done so very well, haven't they? We're in another recession caused by two competing ideologies; the Socialists spend more than they bring in, the Tories try to cut the Public Sector down to "us, the Army and the Royals".
Remind me again how many Empires were forged by committee? The only one I can think of is the EU and that's falling apart because of it.
Actually, how many government departments could ever hope to turn a profit if left up to the Market? The Royal Household does, and that includes all of the government cash they get.
You want me to list successful countries that are not run by a monarchy, is that a joke ?
The royal household makes a profit ? What are you talking about, it inherited half of england and is subsidized by the tax payer.
But that's irrelevant it is morally reprehensible that society values someone above someone else based on their lineage.
So you think it is just,fair and ethical that some people are afforded great riches and opportunity based on who their parents were ? Wow.
When did I say I was the national arbiter ? Do I have to prefix everything with "imho" ? I am speaking for myself, I think it is morally reprehensible.
The UK is so conformist.
I'd rather have Queenie and Philip - if only for the comedy value than any of the pond scum we call politicians. Just to wind you up a bit further Im pro House of Lord too for the same reasons.
And as for throwing over the inheritance laws - good luck with that. Most of the UK would lynch you.
" know I am in the minority it makes me so sad and makes me want to leave the country."
Dont let us hold you up.
What still here?
Maybe a foreign trip would do you good - or at least educate you that there are many worse places to live.
What harm is the Royal Family doing? What was the last thing they did that would be seen as morally reprehensible and affected the country?
What about the fact that we're in a recession, everyone is kinda down in the dulldrums yet 10,000 street parties are planned to celebrate the Jubilee. That great republic, the USA, has one of the highest viewerships of our Royal events...
You think they are subsidised but there's plenty of figures to show they actually pay the government more than they receive as their 'income' is collected for the government directly, with them receiving a 'grant'.
I just don't see any need to change anything with them...
@localzuk what harm, its using tax payers money, its exploting land it inherited. It is supporting very questionable dicatrships and regimes in foregin countries, and it reinforces the outlook that class based society is correct and entitlement is ok.
Plenty of figures ? it gets 40 million from the government, and owns massive amounts of land. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finances_of_the_British_Royal_Family
And @gordon that sort of aggressive childish response just confirms my view to be honest.
Yes, the queen receives £40m a year from the civil list (well, the Royal Family does). However, the queen entertains 50k people a year with that money, for the government.
The Crown Estate earns a profit of £230.9m a year (2011 figure) - that money goes directly to the treasury.
The Queen generates her personal income from Sandringham and Balmoral estates, which are mostly open to the public as museums, whilst also selling goods from the grounds.
Most of what you're saying is factually wrong. The Royal Family does not 'own' most of the land - the Crown does, and by extension this means that it is owned by the government itself, and is held by the Royal Family for them. This is why the profit from it all goes to the treasury.
Before you argue against something, it may be worth brushing up on facts.
The queen entertains 50k people a year, of course of course. She must be tired. I could do it cheaper, and the bash I would put up woudl be fun. Would be decent tunes playing at least.
Right, so you have now read wikipedia and how do you get that the royal family makes a profit
"The Royal Family does not 'own' most of the land - the Crown does"
OK, so the royal family are not generating that 230million then ? and just taking the civil list money ? Thats not a profit, thats minus 40million.
You do realise the Royal Family go to events every day? ie. opening buildings, meetings around the world, greeting diplomats - entertaining?
And with this, they need to spend money to do so? The queen on her own does not take £40m and spend it on biscuits. There is an army of staff in place to support the events.
If you can't understand this, and think that £40m is a lot of money for what is done, then you need to sit down and do some proper research about how much entertaining dignitaries costs.
and @localzuk you seem really hung up on the figures. And suggested i research them. But you have only provided the 230 million figure from the crown estate (not the royal family as you pointed out) and the 40million civil list.
Show me the other figures where you think the queen makes a profit ?
Hell, sending the Obama or Bush overseas costs 40 million pounds just for the retinue of security, protocol, aides and who-knows-who-else that goes along with him. It's like half of Washington decamped and decided to go to Madrid or Tokyo or something.
On the plus side the Secret Service staff do make a wonderful impression on underpriveledged local sex workers though!!
But I am getting away from the what is important. I would be against the royal family on principle, even if it were turning a profit.
It reinforces the outlook that you are born into your place in society, there is less freedom. it is simply plain wrong that heritage and lineage determine your life chances and opportunity. This view should not be encouraged.
A complete reworking of uk inheritance law is not immenient, I am not saying it is. But that doesn't mean I have to support a monarchy.
"What harm is the Royal Family doing?"
You mean apart from perpetuating the idea that some people are just "better" than the great unwashed purely based on what their ancestors did?
Sure, being born into money can be a huge advantage even without titles but it shouldn't imply that you are innately superior to someone born into a different family which is exactly what royalty does.
Again - it's nothing personal against the current Queen, she does seem like a nice hard-working person. It's the whole idea of inherited superiority that's the problem.
This post has been deleted by its author
I totally agree...so many people are innately superior to others, which often comes from the families they were born into...so often NOT the rich, famous, or celebrated.
They are the lucky ones. I cannot imagine attending day after day of public, reported-upon events.
What I can imagine is prancing about my estate cooking biscuits and swishing my silks. I do that everyday...anonymously.
Living well is not only the best revenge, it's the best, period. It doesn't take a lot of money - it takes taste. And I don't have money, nor did I marry it. I just like things to be copacetic. Cheers darling!
Have to agree with SB here. It's irrelevant how "nice" she seems or how crappy the elected government are - at least their crappiness is partly our fault for voting them in.
The idea that an hereditary position is automatically somehow assumed to be better than all the people from the UK (the term 'Subjects' may not have been used since the 80s but it still describes the situation pretty damn well) is so archaic it's amazing it can still exist in this day & age.
Then again I did grow up in a republic, so maybe I've been spoiled in thinking the lack of inherited titles is a good thing.
You're in a minority country-wide... Polls put support for the monarchy at 80%+, some as high as 90%.
Me? I'm intelligent, and I support it. Reason being is that we know how the royals work. We know roughly how much they cost, and what they can do. Compare that to that great republic - France. Where their president buys $300m jets with baguette ovens and a raised seat because of his shortness...
The cost of the royal family is relatively small in comparison to nearly every republic head of state.
Plus, the Queen appears to be a genuinely nice lady!
I know I am in the minority it makes me so sad and makes me want to leave the country.
So you actually want the queen to have more power, wow, thats a new one. Most people argue that she has no real power and just brings in the tourists. (baloney btw)
I am genuinely a real nice guy, but because my daddy was workign class I have to get a job and do proper work. I'd much rather ponce around on my estate cooking biscuits or go to meet evil dictarors (king of bharain most recently), or facilate dodgy arms deals with saudis.
@SB - the Queen does a hell of a lot of work, she's what, 86 years old and still running around the world flying the flag for the UK? Most other public servants want to retire in their 50's and live the quiet life on taxpayer money.
She also brings in a lot of money, you want to impress the royal family of Saudi to sell some "top of the line" Tornadoes? Send in out royal family, much more impressive than sending in Hillary Clinton......
Want to clinch a major deal to bring in billions? Send in the royal family. Want to try for better relations with a major power like China? Invite them to stay at Buckingham Palace with a formal dinner presented by the Queen. It makes foreign dignitaries feel special, much more special than meeting an average run of the mill civil servant called Bob who is looking forward to his retirement in 2 years time and a weekend away in a caravan.
Heck, sending in the Queen is better than sending in the PM, anyone can meet the PM but the Queen....
So many seemingly inteligent and rational people seem to advocate spending millions to decide how to appoint someone else to do the job of a figurehead, and then spend millions more every few years appointing a new person to do it.
Waste, Waste, Waste, waste, waste. How about we spend those millions we'd spend deciding how to elect a president on something that will actually result in a greater impact to the unemployment figures? Maybe a nice new railroad? A new school? A Hospital? A National Broadband Network?
This post has been deleted by its author
and my granny spends most of her time in a wooden box in the ground, no interest in tech, but no real interest in breathing either, or, well, doing anything much of anything really.
Can't have different people of similar demographics having differing views and opinions now can we....
lol. The country makes a profit out of the royals, how on earth do you think this is possible ?
From the land they inherited ? From the tourists they bring in - the tourists would come anyway, we could use the palaces etc much more efficiently.
Oh from the arms they sell, the tornado jets and missiles, well I hear they are pretty good anyway without the royal seal of approval.
and @localzuk you seem really hung up on the figures.
But you have only provided the 230 million figure from the crown estate (not the royal family as you correctly pointed out) and the 40million civil list. So its simply minus 40million by your accounting.
Show me the other figures where you think the queen makes a profit ... ? Otherwise I will just assume you don;t know the figures and are acting like a good proletariat by being conformist and wanting to maintain the existing status quo.
The crown estate will still generate revenue if we were to become a republic. The ex-royal family couldn't siphon of the profit to their offshore account. The crown estate is owned by the people, revenue goes to the treasury.
Its not a their job to host,its their right. They did not have to interview for the position, their references certainly were not checked and employment law does nto apply. They are literally above the law.
If you think that hereditary office is a bad thing, what is your opinion of hereditary wealth? Some people might argue that hereditary wealth passes power from generation to generation of the same family just as much as hereditary office does. In fact hereditary wealth is less accountable as offices bring with them responsibilities. The queen would quickly discover where real power lies if she did not perform her duties.
So if you want to abolish hereditary office, do you think hereditary wealth is any better?
If you think both are wrong then you are a communist and I defer to your moral superiority but would suggest humbly that we've yet to find a form of communism that actually works.
You might fancy a trip to Cuba or Venezuela, but you probably wouldn't want to live there ...
http://hurryupharry.org/2012/05/19/mad-max-conditions-in-venezuelas-prisons/
http://hurryupharry.org/2012/05/12/pro-chavez-tv-host-loses-his-mind-on-the-air/
http://www.desdecuba.com/generationy/?p=2874
Always appropriate is Churchill's quote - "democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others that have been tried". By what standard is Cuba, or Venezuela, or ANY communist country, better than the UK? Living standards? Environmental care? Justice? Personal freedom? Disposable income? No, nope, nyet, nein.
And if you think France is communist, you have a very limited understanding of France, communism or both.
On the other hand the French let their dogs shit all over the streets of Paris - which is not the epitome of civilised society in my opinion.
I believe part of their rail service success is a resolute indifference to local complaints when deciding where to lay the track, which does sound communist though I don't think they are - they are just plain arrogant in a gallic way on some matters,
He's designed more than the iPhone. And I don't think that he's ever said that he is original or made any secret of his debt to Braun's Dieter Rams. He has just chosen to follow the Ram's philosophy and create good products, rather than to use design as an outlet of self-expression, a la Starck. A 'Cheese-grater' MacPro doesn't have a stupid 'decorative' moulded plastic fascia that just serves to make USB keys harder to insert.
Strewth, English lad done well but the majority of comments have been negative or trolling - or a somewhat irrelevant discussion about Monarchy (Guess what- republics honour their own citizens too!)
Is that a monarchy looks good.
Yes there are some very democratic countries that have existed for centuries without heriditary figureheads. eg Switzerland - a rocking place if ever there was, but you wouldn't throng the streets to see their president and his(her?) calvacade.
For real crowd-pleasing spectacle a monarchy does it so much better.
Yes, the US has "Hail to the chief" and smartly dressed soldiers with white gloves on, and a something-in-the-eye as the Old Glory flutters in the breeze. But if it wasn't for the nuclear arsenal, immense navy and financial clout would the rest of the world give a monkey's?
But come to Britain and (on high days) the Queen is balancing the wealth of a small nation on her head, with a troop of red-uniformed soldiers with impossibly huge hairy headgear. History impresses and the British monarchy is history and heritage personified.
But if it wasn't for the nuclear arsenal, immense navy and financial clout would the rest of the world give a monkey's?
So if Lithuania declares itself a monarcy again and finds some relitive of King Mindaugas II, they will get all the attention and respect of the british? I think you'll find that much of pristige of the british monarchy dates back to when the british empire was one of the world's superpowers, and her full force was under the command of the reigning monarch. Not that someone happens to call themselves by a noble title.
insofar as the Americans go, maybe you'd be happier by just recognising His Imperial Majesty Emperor Norton I, of the United States, and Protector of Mexico?
"I think you'll find that much of pristige of the british monarchy dates back to when the british empire was one of the world's superpowers, and her full force was under the command of the reigning monarch"
Isn't that what I said in the last line about "history impresses"?
Some monarchies are expressions of a heritage going back to when they were regional super-powers. Eg Sweden ruled Scadinavia but is now more associated with ABBA and the Vikings rather than "Lion of the North" Gustav Adolphus. of others (Spain)
SB said: "I'd much rather ponce around on my estate cooking biscuits...
I very much enjoy the way in which you've shown your true colours here. Seems as though it's "morally reprehensible" that some people are _considerably richer than yow_... but then perhaps it is safe to assume - based, again, on your thoughtful and incisive commentary - that if you were the one with the butler, you might just find it in your heart to be slightly more "conformist".
You don't have any idea what the Queen actually does, do you?
Check her diary. I bet you wouldn't be able to manage two weeks of what she does. She's 86, and has dedicated her life to serving others. I'm going to take a wild stab in the dark and guess that you dedicate yourself to serving yourself whatever's in your parents' fridge when you get home from art college. No doubt you'll have some impressive rebuttal, but I don't really mind: I've already judged you without knowing anything at all about you... just as you seem to be doing to HRH.
Myself, I don't hate the Queen, in fact my Uncle adored her and because of Him I have a beautiful old tin commemorating her engagement to Prince Philip - about the size of a laptop, 2 inches deep, with a color photograph of the happy couple printed on it - and a souvenir coronation mug (he collected them, some very valuable, I don't think mine is). He always wanted to live in England yet did not get an opportunity to fulfill this wish.
I think you were harsh on SB in your message. I would rather ponce (like prancing, I would guess) on my estate cooking biscuits too. I can imagine some of what the Queen does, and no thank you.
Just wanted to make sure you didn't think that was a bad thing. Poncing around cooking biscuits, I mean.
that, as usual, the comment pages of ElReg are stuffed with vitriol the minute that anyone in the public eye is applauded or rewarded for doing anything. So here we have all the warbling along the lines of "it's only a rectangle" or "mediocre art schooler in the right place at the right time", "he's not an engineer only a designer". The Queen and the royal family are not spared any rancour either, it seems.
The problem is that the only thing these bitter and twisted little outbursts achieve is to highlight how petulant, self-righteous, intolerant, judgemental and unsophisticated the originators must be.
Here's something to ponder: if all that energy that was devoted to all this resentment was put towards something positive, what could be achieved?
This post has been deleted by its author
This post has been deleted by its author
Awesomely predictable == predictably awesome...
...or neither you nor I would be here (well, probably we would, as El Reg does occasionally cover IT or other related stories, but I digress).
OK, so the constant warring is not awesome in the slightest*, but aren't most of us here as a brief respite from shovelling coal into some IT/project management/technology/whatever furnace? Given generally accepted theories re: small semi-frequent breaks and their positive effect on productivity, is it so far-fetched that this outpouring of vitriol might actually increase economic output somewhere, somehow...?
A stretch, probably. Either way, it seems none of us are immune to the giddy thrill of a wee dram of petulant, self-righteous, intolerant, judgemental and unsophisticated semi-anonymous judgement. I know I'm not.
* it may not be awesome, but it can be fun?
PS I'm awarding myself a FAIL for being unable to type reel gud (or proof my own comments prior to submitting them), despite my fairly complete awareness of the Preview function. Sorry for the deleted posts...
"it seems none of us are immune to the giddy thrill of a wee dram of petulant, self-righteous, intolerant, judgemental and unsophisticated semi-anonymous judgement. I know I'm not."
Me either but here at the Reg I endeavor to be respectful. Other commentards may not realize the pains I take to use American spelling and American references and American humor in order to not be seen as patronizing my esteemed colleagues in England, wherever that is.
I like to laugh and even petulant self-righteous, intolerant, judgemental comments can be funny. For instance, I stayed out of the design argument (own opinions and who cares?) but had to laugh at the 'Look I've drawn a rectangle where's my knighthood?' comment. Now that was funny. Since I am a lady I did not guffaw, however I did laugh.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
