Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 27th Apr 2012 02:56 UTC
In the News "Sir Jonathan Ive has been crowned British Visionary Innovator in a competition, run by the Intellectual Property Office. Ive won by a large margin with almost fifty per cent of the vote (46.6%). In second place was Sir Tim Berners-Lee (inventor of the world wide web) with 18.8 per cent of the vote. James Goodfellow OBE (the inventor of PIN technology and the cash machine) was in third place with 15.2 per cent of the vote." Alan Turing was also nominated. If you ever needed an illustration of everything that's wrong with the technology industry today, it's this. Guy who designs the exterior of mass-market gadgets wins over guys who actually really contributed to technology. Telling.
Thread beginning with comment 515894
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Missing the point
by Thom_Holwerda on Fri 27th Apr 2012 08:47 UTC in reply to "Missing the point"
Thom_Holwerda
Member since:
2005-06-29

As nice a designer as Ives is - his wholesale Braun ripoffs not withstanding - you can't honestly argue, with a straight face, that he deserves an award for innovation more than Berners-Lee or Turing.

Like I said - it's telling for the state of the industry and the world itself - like the war on science currently taking place in the US. A sad state, where design is more important than actual technology. Arguing that a designer of the exterior of mass-market gadgets deserves this award more than, say, the guy who invented the motherfcuking world wide web, quite possibly the greatest and most profound development in the history of mankind, is almost downright offensive.

In 200 years' time, nobody will give two shits about iPods and iPhones. However, we'll still feel the reverberations of Berners-Lee's work, and the history books of those days will tell of the effects of his work, its importance, and how it changed mankind forever.

Your stupid iPods, iPhones, Android phones, and more of that crap? They'll barely be a sidenote.

Edited 2012-04-27 08:49 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 9

RE[2]: Missing the point
by MOS6510 on Fri 27th Apr 2012 09:11 in reply to "RE: Missing the point"
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

Well, Berners-Lee did "invent" the world wide web on a NeXT computer.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: Missing the point
by arpan on Fri 27th Apr 2012 12:21 in reply to "RE[2]: Missing the point"
arpan Member since:
2006-07-30

Which AFAIK wasn't designed by Ive.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: Missing the point
by Soulbender on Fri 27th Apr 2012 09:48 in reply to "RE: Missing the point"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

You're confusing innovation with invention.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Missing the point
by kwan_e on Fri 27th Apr 2012 09:53 in reply to "RE[2]: Missing the point"
kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

You're confusing innovation with invention.


Invention is a special kind of innovation. An invention can also be an innovation. But an innovation is not an invention.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Missing the point
by Tony Swash on Fri 27th Apr 2012 13:46 in reply to "RE: Missing the point"
Tony Swash Member since:
2009-08-22

The award was a result of people voting. Democracy can be irritating if one disagrees with how other people vote. People voted for Ives because his work resonates with them and that's because of their experience of his (and Apple's) work. bear in mind also that Ives has a portfolio of work over a period of time and one that is building a very large and deep cultural footprint.

a designer of the exterior of mass-market gadgets


You still thinking about design in a shallow way. It's a classic error and one that almost all of Apple's competitors make. There is a very good film about the importance of design called 'Objectified' that's worth a look.

http://www.objectifiedfilm.com/objectified-trailer/

his wholesale Braun ripoffs not withstanding.


Now, now - stop being bitchy. Ives 'ripped off' Dieter Rams in the same way Henri Matisse. 'ripped off' Gauguin ;)

In 200 years' time, nobody will give two shits about iPods and iPhones.

Like we have forgotten about the the Fender Stratocaster, the Helvetica type face, the Swiss Army Knife, Levi 501 Denim Jeans, Telephone Type 300 or the Mercedes-Benz 300SL perhaps??

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE[3]: Missing the point
by kwan_e on Fri 27th Apr 2012 14:10 in reply to "RE[2]: Missing the point"
kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

[q

In 200 years' time, nobody will give two shits about iPods and iPhones.

Like we have forgotten about the the Fender Stratocaster, the Helvetica type face, the Swiss Army Knife, Levi 501 Denim Jeans, Telephone Type 300 or the Mercedes-Benz 300SL perhaps?? [/q]

Forgetting and "not giving two shits" are different things.

The Fender Stratocaster hasn't been around for 200 years. Neither has the Merc 300SL. Neither has Helvetica. The Swiss Army Knife actually has a use, rather than just looking good.

What's more telling is that you obviously think the Helvetica type face is on equal importance with the invention of the WWW, or the mathematical bases of computing.

What next? Are you going to try to argue that Lady Gaga songs are of equal importance to the discovery of penicillin?

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: Missing the point
by Thom_Holwerda on Fri 27th Apr 2012 16:36 in reply to "RE[2]: Missing the point"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

You still thinking about design in a shallow way.


I don't (you'll see with the next version of OSNews, designed by me). I just think it's utterly idiotic to consider the design of a music player and phone to be as important as the world wide web or Turing's work.

The only reason you think about Ive like this is because he's from Apple. That's all there's to it. Had Berners-Lee been an Apple employee, you would've defended him. That's just how you operate.

Edited 2012-04-27 16:37 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[3]: Missing the point
by tylerdurden on Fri 27th Apr 2012 18:34 in reply to "RE[2]: Missing the point"
tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17

Like we have forgotten about the the Fender Stratocaster, the Helvetica type face, the Swiss Army Knife, Levi 501 Denim Jeans, Telephone Type 300 or the Mercedes-Benz 300SL perhaps??



I think you have your orders of magnitude mixed up... none of these items is more than a few decades old, let alone hundreds of years.

Edited 2012-04-27 18:36 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: Missing the point
by nefer on Sun 29th Apr 2012 11:21 in reply to "RE: Missing the point"
nefer Member since:
2012-02-15

Design IS the product. Design is how it works, not how it looks.

Id much better have well designed, well thought out products, which are easy to use and can be picked up by millions, than techy gadgets which are based around great ideas, but poorly executed, in usability, in look and feel, in build quality. That just competely counteracts with the prime goals of said device in the first place, which is being a tool to enable humans to do something beyond their initial capabilities.

Consider computers. Before the iMac came along, your average desktop PC was a mumbo jumbo of cables. all components were modularized, which meant you had cables for video, printer, mouse, keyboard, speakers, scanner, network ... looking at the back of a PC, its a mumbo jumbo of cables, a dust collecter and a laymans nightmare to set it up. Most people needed an IT guy to get their computer working.

Before you go "but that already existed before" let me stop you right there : the iMac was the machine that brought this quality of computing to the proper attention of the masses, and changed the experience for millions in this respect in a positive way; maybe for you, as a technology enthousiast, this is trivial; for millions of computer users, however, its things like this which make a profound impact on overall user experience.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: Missing the point
by kwan_e on Tue 1st May 2012 08:54 in reply to "RE[2]: Missing the point"
kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

Design IS the product. Design is how it works, not how it looks.
.
.
.


I can't believe that people can even argue that a person's contribution to what amounts to nothing more than wasteful discard-once-broken consumerism deserves an innovation award MORE than the person who made computing achievable; MORE than the person who gave the power of crossing cultural and physical barriers to communication to the common person.

Really, "geeks"? Really?

Reply Parent Score: 2