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.
Thread beginning with comment 540932
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
BluenoseJake
Member since:
2005-08-11

Did you honestly just compare using an OS to eating crappy food or smoking cigarettes? Does that mean that using OS X is equivalent to eating organic? Is using Linux the same as eating hot dogs and sausages? That analogy is broken in 19 different ways.

Reply Parent Score: 1

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Did you honestly just compare using an OS to eating crappy food or smoking cigarettes?


No, I compared the way he came to the conclusion that it must be the best for them.
Windows may, or may not, be the best for them but it does not follow as a logical conclusion from the fact that they purchased it. Purchasing itself is not a measurement of how good a product is for you.

Reply Parent Score: 2

ilovebeer Member since:
2011-08-08

Purchasing itself is not a measurement of how good a product is for you.

Wrong. Purchasing decisions are certainly a metric by which you can measure value to consumers. Is it the end-all, painting the full picture? Of course not. That's just as ridiculous as the opposite, ...saying it's useless.

Reply Parent Score: 2

telns Member since:
2009-06-18

Purchasing itself is not a measurement of how good a product is for you.


People that go to McDonald's do so because they /think/ (rightly or wrongly) it is the best means of fulfilling all their relevant needs. Those needs include convenience, price, kid-friendliness, taste/enjoyment, time preference/hyperbolic discounting, risk tolerance, medical history, lifestyle, &c. All those factors weighed individually and subjectively lead some people to, and others away, from McDonald's.

So, good for you in what sense? Most the time that comes off (and in any public mention of McDonald's is always lurking) as good for your *health*. But health is not the only relevant factor, and is not valued as an end with identical weight by all people.

Of course sometimes people make mistakes or have poor information, whether choosing OS's or burgers. But the fact they chose otherwise than we would is not proof it was a bad decision for *them*.

Edited 2012-11-04 03:35 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

modmans2ndcoming Member since:
2005-11-09

using completely different markets that use completely different consumer selection mechanisms/criteria and affect those consumers completely differently.

Reply Parent Score: 2

BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

oh, ok then.

Reply Parent Score: 2