Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 3rd Nov 2012 01:11 UTC, submitted by Panajev
Apple "Earlier this week Apple fired Scott Forstall, the architect of its iOS platform, and handed his duties over to the company's chief industrial designer, Jonathan Ive. Ive and Forstall had an infamously chilly working relationship, and one of their biggest disagreements was over the role of so-called 'skeuomorphic' design in Apple's products. Forstall, like his mentor Steve Jobs, favored it; Ive disliked it. To many observers, Forstall's forced exit looks like a vindication of Ive's stance. But if he wants to continue Apple's enviable trend of innovation, he'd be a fool to throw the baby of skeuomorphism out with Forstall's bathwater." Hoped for a thorough article on the benefits of skeuomorphism - got the age-old and intrinsically invalid excuse 'because it sells'. Windows isn't he best desktop operating system because it sells so well. Lady Gaga isn't the best artist because she sells a lot of records. This argument is never valid, has zero value, and adds nothing to what should be an interesting discussion.
Permalink for comment 541022
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[7]: Comment by ilovebeer
by kwan_e on Mon 5th Nov 2012 11:05 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by ilovebeer"
Member since:

The reason is because advertising is simply not nearly effective as people like Thom claim, hence the `spray & pray` techniques commonly used in advertising campaigns.

If everyone used the same advertizing agency with the same advertizing team, then you'd have a point. But they don't, so you don't.

Another strawman that gets raised is that marketing and advertising is synonymous. THEY'RE NOT. Marketing includes a whole lot more than just advertizing.

Everyone, stop conflating the two.

The vast majority of the population are not mindless zombies. Most of the time they're perfectly capable of deciding what they want and what they need. If people were so easily persuaded, as Thom, you, and few others suggest, you would see much small advertising budgets with much better results.

Go to Youtube and search "Derren Brown". You don't have to be a mindless zombie to be affected by marketing.

Nobody has said advertising is ineffective. Obviously it is to some degree. But, the degree to which people are influenced & make decisions based on advertising varies greatly. Are you the type who see's a commercial for McDonalds chicken nuggets and then goes and buys them? Or could you watch a million of those commercials and never go buy them because you simply don't want to or don't like them? Do "you" like burgers because you're told you like them, or because you actually do like them (what a crazy concept to grasp)?

Yet how many people actually default to McDonalds instead of a competitor like Burger King? Most people don't actually consider eating from elsewhere. Again, commercials are just one part of marketing. The whole franchise "familiar appearance" across all McDonalds "restaurants" are part of marketing.

Repeat after me:


it is none-the-less fact.

No it's not. It is not fact and the science shows otherwise. Humans are scarily predictable and malleable.

The only real reason why people oppose the MARKETING-NOT-JUST-ADVERTISING argument is because the think their desire that humans have a special dignity that makes the truth wrong.

Reply Parent Score: 2