Live Blogs - Apple Press Event 12 Sep 12

[Graham]

Originally Posted by holymadness

Apple embraces modernist design principles which state that form is inseparable from function.

Seems a bit rich to sue Samsung over form then.

Graham

[afv011]

Originally Posted by holymadness

Apple embraces modernist design principles which state that form is inseparable from function.

Originally Posted by holymadness

What likely happened is that Apple decided they really wanted the new form factor. Lighter and thinner took priority over everything else, including upgraded camera optics and, it seems, a dual antenna.

Which one is it? Form and function and inseparable, or they sacrificed function over form? You are contradicting yourself.

[Bilbo1967]

Originally Posted by holymadness

Apple embraces modernist design principles which state that form is inseparable from function. Read a book about Walter Gropius or Mies van der Rohe. It is no coincidence that Jony Ive's greatest influence is Dieter Rams.

You seem to be assuming that the modernist design principle is the only valid one? Many would disagree.

[holymadness]

Originally Posted by afv011

Which one is it? Form and function and inseparable, or they sacrificed function over form? You are contradicting yourself.

No contradiction, just the recognition that no design can have everything.

A car is designed to get you from point A to point B, not cook you breakfast and do your laundry. You wouldn't accuse BMW of sacrificing function over form because their latest model doesn't make sausage and eggs.

Originally Posted by Bilbo1967

You seem to be assuming that the modernist design principle is the only valid one? Many would disagree.

Why would I assume that? In architecture, in particular, I detest modernism. I am just explaining why Apple makes the decisions, choices, and sacrifices they make.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by afv011

Which one is it? Form and function and inseparable, or they sacrificed function over form? You are contradicting yourself.

I do think Apple sacrificed function for form. They should have made the iPhone 5 wider. NFC would have been a good addition. An even better battery and upgrade the camera. Add the third antenna and that would do pretty well.

[holymadness]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

I do think Apple sacrificed function for form. They should have made the iPhone 5 wider. NFC would have been a good addition. An even better battery and upgrade the camera. Add the third antenna and that would do pretty well.

Apple makes the iPhone thinner and lighter at the expense of a better camera and third antenna = sacrificing function for form.

Apple makes the iPhone heavier and thicker in order to include a better camera and third antenna = also sacrificing function for... function?

Clearly, this is the wrong way to approach the issue. Form is function. Weight and size are functions of an industrial product. Like it or not. You can prioritize different aspects of design but you can't have your cake and eat it, too.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by holymadness

No contradiction, just the recognition that no design can have everything.

A car is designed to get you from point A to point B, not cook you breakfast and do your laundry. You wouldn't accuse BMW of sacrificing function over form because their latest model doesn't make sausage and eggs.


Why would I assume that? In architecture, in particular, I detest modernism. I am just explaining why Apple makes the decisions, choices, and sacrifices they make.

Apple should have come out with a new iPhone that would have been upgrade worthy from the iPhone 4s. But they didn't. Apple came out with minor incremental updates that aren't worth upgrading from a 4 or 4s. That's the problem. Apple's update is so-so. Sure it's better, but it's not better enough. I'm upgrading because my iPhone is old, slow, and doesn't run well. But would I wan to upgrade from a 4 or 4s? Nope. Not at all. Not worth the money. If Apple doesn't do any real innovating on the next iPhone, it still won't be worth upgrading. There is nothing innovative in the iPhone 5. It's just an iPhone 4s with a .5" taller screen, slightly better battery, updated processor and different connector. As long as Apple was going to be changing the connector, they should have made the screen wider since it doesn't matter if it's form fitting to the same devices as the 4s. It won't work. If you've invested some good $$$ on accessory devices, you'll have to buy new ones if new ones come out. This is Apple screwing customers.

Basically, if I was looking for a smartphone and didn't already have an iPad and didn't have the 3G, I'd be going Android. Apple really dropped the ball here. The iPhone 5 is nothing special. The presentation was lackluster as well. Apple is losing focus on reality.

[holymadness]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

Apple should have come out with a new iPhone that would have been upgrade worthy from the iPhone 4s. But they didn't. Apple came out with minor incremental updates that aren't worth upgrading from a 4 or 4s. That's the problem. Apple's update is so-so. Sure it's better, but it's not better enough. I'm upgrading because my iPhone is old, slow, and doesn't run well. But would I wan to upgrade from a 4 or 4s? Nope. Not at all. Not worth the money. If Apple doesn't do any real innovating on the next iPhone, it still won't be worth upgrading.

Yes, we have heard your opinion on the matter. You were wrong before and you are wrong now. I see no reason why any company needs to give its customers compelling reason to abandon their products after one year and upgrade to new ones. That sort of product cycle seems perverse to me.

[Bilbo1967]

Originally Posted by holymadness

Apple makes the iPhone thinner and lighter at the expense of a better camera and third antenna = sacrificing function for form.

Apple makes the iPhone heavier and thicker in order to include a better camera and third antenna = also sacrificing function for... function?

Clearly, this is the wrong way to approach the issue. Form is function. Weight and size are functions of an industrial product. Like it or not. You can prioritize different aspects of design but you can't have your cake and eat it, too.

Form and function are different things. That's why there are different words, with different meanings, for them. I think pretty much everybody understands what is being said when it's stated that Apple sacrifice function for form and no amount of buzzword BS ("form is function") will change that.

[holymadness]

Originally Posted by Bilbo1967

Form and function are different things. That's why there are different words, with different meanings, for them. I think pretty much everybody understands what is being said when it's stated that Apple sacrifice function for form and no amount of buzzword BS ("form is function") will change that.

In that case, why not make it three feet long and weigh ten pounds? You can probably fit about 18 different antennae and NFC chips in there. I'm sure you'd be delighted with the result.

[Dulin's Books]

Originally Posted by holymadness

you can't have your cake and eat it, too.

yes you can. I have, in fact, a piece of pound cake in hand right now that i am eating too.

however you can not eat your cake and still have it too

[Bilbo1967]

Originally Posted by holymadness

In that case, why not make it three feet long and weigh ten pounds? You can probably fit about 18 different antennae and NFC chips in there. I'm sure you'd be delighted with the result.

I didn't think you'd have a real answer for that. And you didn't disappoint.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by holymadness

Yes, we have heard your opinion on the matter. You were wrong before and you are wrong now. I see no reason why any company needs to give its customers compelling reason to abandon their products after one year and upgrade to new ones. That sort of product cycle seems perverse to me.

You bring out a new product worthy of upgrade from the previous model and you can capture new customers. You come out with the iPhone 5 and new customers go elsewhere.

[afv011]

Originally Posted by holymadness

A car is designed to get you from point A to point B, not cook you breakfast and do your laundry. You wouldn't accuse BMW of sacrificing function over form because their latest model doesn't make sausage and eggs.

And a phone is designed to make calls and give you access to the internet. Simultaneously if the technology allows it (which Samsung proves it does). I'm not asking for the phone to cook my breakfast, simply to work as a modern phone is supposed to.

[holymadness]

Originally Posted by Bilbo1967

I didn't think you'd have a real answer for that. And you didn't disappoint.

Could you please state, for posterity, that you think form is entirely separate from function?