What Google should learn from Apple
It was touching to see that Douglas Bowman, Google's visual design leader, chose, in announcing his resignation, to stroll down Steve Wozniak Honesty Avenue.
In a blog post, he summed up his feelings, as all the best designers should, in one simple statement: "I won't miss a design philosophy that lives or dies strictly by the sword of data."
He talked of how data was being collected (and one can only wonder what fine, laborious methods are used in the process) to judge the acceptability of a shade of blue, the width of a pixel, or the hair bang length of a brand manager.
Well, he didn't mention that last one, but I am prepared to believe it might be possible.
I know that there are some engineers out there who will delight in yet another triumph for alleged data over some subjective, sniffy, superior artist. I also know that there will be many, many artists and other sentient human beings who wish that they would just take a run and jump.
The artists wouldn't be sure, having seen Steve Wozniak's dancing exploits, that the engineers would all be able to coordinate the running and the jumping, but they would happily examine the living, breathing data.
I know we're all supposed to be heading into a rationalist phase, in which science dominates and judgment ruminates. But surely, there is (at least) one company that has proved that it is possible to marry engineering and something that might be described (by humans with no pixels to grind) as taste.
That company is Apple.
If Apple had been a purely data-driven company, would its products have ever looked as they do? And would its products ever have sold as they have?
(Credit:
CC David G Steadman)
I wouldn't even dream of attempting to compare the technical quality, brain power, or even dress sense of engineers at Apple and Google, though I have my subjective suspicions. But can anyone dispute that someone, somewhere along the line at Apple, made a judgment--a human, instinctive judgment--about what looks good and what doesn't?
Someone said, "I think," or "I feel," rather than, "The numbers tell me." And though I know it annoys some, Apple proved that people would pay more to be part of that tasteful world.
The fact is that human beings are astoundingly, depressingly, maddeningly human. Which makes them irrational, contradictory, capricious and, sometimes, just plain nuts.
These aspects are the hardest for engineers to get their talents around because, one hopes, they are impossible for engineers to get their talents around.
Apple recognized this from the beginning. The company understood that technology had to recognize humanity's irrationality and emotionality, with all the risk and subjectivity that entailed.
Apple managed to make it work. Google could too. If only it had a little more confidence in its own sense of taste, rather than in its apparent knee-jerk need to place a numerical value on every aspect of life, never mind business.
I suspect that Google wasn't quite so data-dependent at the company's inception. Do you really think that if the company used the same research methods then as it uses now to, for example, name itself, that "Google" would have been the winner?
My subjective feeling is that the company would have been called "SearchThis." Or, perhaps, "FindOut." How many of us would be searchthising or findouting today?
Chris Matyszczyk is an award-winning creative director who advises major corporations on content creation and marketing. He brings an irreverent, sarcastic, and sometimes ironic voice to the tech world. He is a member of the CNET Blog Network and is not an employee of CNET. 
I thought this was a really interesting article. It's called "How Apple did everything right by doing everything wrong." Very interesting read.
http://www.wired.com/techbiz/it/magazine/16-04/bz_apple
I never had a Newton, but I have had one of the new Shuffles for a week now. Except for the earbuds that fall out too easily I really like the Shuffle and that includes the online controls and VoiceOver. Will all future iPods not have onboard controls, probably not. However, we will probably have both so you can use your favorite ear buds with traditional controls or the new design. Innovation begets innovation, as well as imitation.
There is an often overlooked aspect of this - while Bill Gates was doing business studies at university Steve Jobs was doing calligraphy. He immersed himself in the simplicity of an oriental aesthetic philosophy.
That is not to say that Jobs designs everything personally (even if his input is reputed to be significant) but it is also his taste which has enabled him to nurture the talents of design genius Jonathan Ives and encourage design (as the Japanese traditionally do) down to the most humble of objects such as packaging.
It is said that Jobs considers such minute details as the size and style of screws on the underside of devices and forces the engineers to consider artistry at every stage of engineering decisions. Consequently an Apple device tends to be tastefully arranged even on the inside where only technicians are likely to look so Apple devices can be said to have beauty that not just skin deep but are beautiful to the core. There is no obvious economic reason to do this really (although it is possible that a clean and simplified arrangement may allow for greater efficiency in repairs and servicing and possible reductions in associated costs).
No other major technology company has a leader with a background in calligraphy and none has an all encompassing commitment to the aesthetics of industrial design. Since most artists and calligraphers tend to lack the financial and marketing wizardry of Steve Jobs it seems unlikely that other company's will be able to successfully follow Apple's example beyond simple surface treatments by simply hiring calligraphy graduates or similar and Apple is likely to retain their lead in industrial design so long as Jobs is around.
Please don't think I underestimate the massive influence of Steve Jobs. When I said that someone took a decision about thinking and feeling, who else might I have been talking about?
Thank you for commenting.
Chris
They are also subject to influence and look to their peers rather than inward in their quest for self esteem. This is where Apple's marketing is as important as their design. Whether their prodicts are better or not, the marketing barrage tells those humans that possession of an Apple product will win them praise among their peers.
I'm not discounting the efforts and successes of Apple. Their products and software really do look superb. The real power is in the brand and the perception of what is attached to that brand.
Some brands like Wal-Mart, Stanley and Microsoft carry a functional, nuts and bolts familiarity. Others like Apple, Starbucks, BMW and [insert clothing label here Izod, jordache, Calvin Klein, Armani, Hilfiger etc] carry the "in" , "worldly" and "celebrity in waiting" feel.
Again not to speak against the great work they've done but I've found that the majority of the people i've polled about there Apple products are more enthused about having one than what it actually does for them or how it works. The conclusion I draw is that while the design teams and craftsman are truly outstanding, it is the marketing people that should get more credit.
I also believe this is a major reason for the pricing. Part of it is demand but the rest is not to devalue the brand. It adds a dose of exclusivity which supports the marketing which starts the cycle all over again. As soon as the Mac marketshare gets too high, this point goes away. This is why it is so important for new versions to come out. Everybody has an iPod but only some have the latest iPod.
I just thought that the Apple Marketing Dept. deserved mention.
You are right today. And you will be right tomorrow.
Chris
Many people do buy Apple as a status symbol. This does not mean that Apple as a brand is devalued, but it does affect the brand's perception. The perception of any business as cool or as a status symbol is fuelled by those who are always seeking to follow trends or try to be popular, or even just imitate those who they think are popular (sounds like high school!).
BMW is a great car brand, who are leaders in automotive engineering. Yet sales reps and real estate agents buy them as a status symbol, and contribute to the idea that BMWs are only driven by '*****' as Jeremy Clarkson from Top Gear would say. This doesn't make them any less of a great car company. It is just those who adopt their product form a stereotype associated with the BMW brand. BMW continually win International engine of the year awards in many categories, but the real estate agents don't know or don't care. They just see the badge on the hood, and their colleagues who also drive BMWs.
Apple is the same. They have won many industrial design awards, perhaps more than any other tech or consumer company, but many buyers just see the badge, like it's an Armani or Hugo Boss suit. Those who truly get it, are seen as religious zealots in the hippie church of Steve Jobs. Those who don't get it, just see a fancy box, containing parts they can buy cheaper and put together themselves.
Perhaps the only people who buy Apple computers and really get them are those in Desktop Publishing and Graphic Design, the same groups that embraced them in the mid 80s, or students who love using them at school (before they go on to work in the corporate world and are chained to the black or beige box on the desk)
The only ones who truly appreciate BMWs are often the ones who can't afford them unfortunately. Apple Macs may be more expensive but at least they are cheaper than a BMW... and real estate agents probably don't use them :)
P.S. I own an iPhone (love the inexpensive games) and prefer a PC.
That cool looking OS X Leopard on Intel is a certified UNIX Operating System which passes all the tests as the above ones. Apple gathered 4% of market with UNIX, plain UNIX, it still calls Terminals as tty (teletype!).
Making it work while it is beautiful and easy along with all that zero tolerance to security issues? I wonder how many Apple fans actually think about such a miracle which they achieved or actually aware that they are running NeXT, a very new one but still NeXT.
The question in particular with Google is their decision to override human subjectivity and values for more concrete science. This as mentioned seems to be a very far cry from their inception and roots, and could be perhaps interpreted as a sign that the company is taking themselves far too seriously. While I think it is interesting that scientific approach and methods are doing a lot of great things, it is the humanity in all of us that makes these things great. I think Google and many of those tending towards the more mechanical/clinical/technology side need to keep this in mind.
Great post!
Apple may dominate, for now, the MP3 player market, but that won't last forever. Apple is very much moving from the PC market to the consumer entertainment market... I wonder if they will really be making PCs in 10 years time. God forbid anything happen to Steve Jobs; Apple is too linked to his cult of personality.
For example they give Hawaian names to their ATA controllers as Kauai etc. or actually lecture developers about what they should use, what they should give up just like a experienced developer looking for them almost in plain english.
It is not just logo or anything, it is the complete package.
What, how to OVER CHARGE their lemming like FUDS for Chinese Sweatshop made garbage that comes off the same assembly line as low-end Dells, eMachines and Gateways???
Bwah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ...... (it's true, AppleTards).
Now, as an adult who has worked in a Microsoft environment for the last 12 years, I have grown to disdain the Apple "premium" for what is basically the same thing - a computer. I have 2 multi-core PC's running currently running Vista at home and every computer in my office has XP or 2000. Why? Macs are too expensive for what they ultimately do -- word processors, web browsers, video and music, games, presentations, and spreadsheets. Apple has lost me and my desktops & laptops to the PC world because of their silly brand premium.
All that said: I use my iPhone everyday. When I do, I am reminded of what I'm missing not owning a Mac anymore.
Ease of use? Nay. Try setting up the AirPort Express. It looks good, but functions like a brick.
As software and infrastructure become commonplace and more complex then an individual cares to understand, much like consumer industries the differentiating value is design and speaking to the customer experience. Any industry goes through an evolution of usefulness > usability > delightfulness, and in some cases the industry Google is in is still stuck between usefulness and usability.
It appears that in some cases Google has chosen to optimize for the mechanical, measurable parts of the experience first, because is the easy way out and scales better on a fast schedule across many products. By making that part best of class at a huge and free scale and before anybody else it succeeds despite a lack of visceral and visually delightful experience.
In contrast, Apple has kept a nice balance between form and function by really 'listening" to their target customers' needs, desires and why not, whims.
As a disclaimer, I am neither pro-Apple or pro-MS, just analyzing from a marketing perspective. (For the record, I use a Vista PC and an iPod Touch, and frankly, I love the simplicity of the iPod, even if its OS 2.0 is still missing the mark ...!)
- by anonymous500r March 22, 2009 3:33 AM PDT
- @myles taylor It's not really Google's job to be innovative and trend-setting. Their jobs are to create designs that will please the majority of people and do something useful while being efficient in a band-width and loading time sense. Apple's website, while beautiful, takes a long time to load on my connection. Google reader meanwhile loads up like a snap, simply because it doesn't have all those fancy graphics. I personally applaud Google to be moving away from a bloated and slow world plagued with featuritis.
- Reply to this comment
-
Showing 1 of 2 pages (40 Comments)