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 540981
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Comment by ilovebeer
by Brendan on Sun 4th Nov 2012 05:04 UTC in reply to "Comment by ilovebeer"
Brendan
Member since:
2005-11-16

Hi,

Trying to deny that by suggesting consumers are mere mindless sheep, or somehow forced into their purchases, is completely ignorant & idiotic. The average Joe is perfectly capable of deciding what software works for him and what doesn't, just like he is perfectly capable of deciding what music he likes and doesn't.


So you're saying that companies spend millions of $$$ on advertising campaigns that have no effect whatsoever?

You're saying that (what I'll call) "unethical practices"; like using a monopoly in one area to gain an advantage in another area, or like forcing vendor lock-in on consumers, or like charging OEMs more for something if they dare to offer a competing product to consumers, or like perverting standards and/or patents to stifle competition; has no effect on consumers at all?

Trying to deny that consumers aren't sheep and aren't influenced in their purchases, is equally ignorant/idiotic.

The truth is somewhere in between - consumers aren't mindless sheep, but they also aren't able to choose the best product.

For some things (smart phones) I don't even think it's possible for a normal person to choose the best product. I mean, how many people are able to try each different smart phone for a few weeks so that they can make a truly informed decision? It's much more likely that a consumer will walk into a shop, get completely confused/bewildered and choose a product based on hype (and price) alone.

- Brendan

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by ilovebeer
by ilovebeer on Sun 4th Nov 2012 15:33 in reply to "RE: Comment by ilovebeer"
ilovebeer Member since:
2011-08-08

Trying to deny that by suggesting consumers are mere mindless sheep, or somehow forced into their purchases, is completely ignorant & idiotic. The average Joe is perfectly capable of deciding what software works for him and what doesn't, just like he is perfectly capable of deciding what music he likes and doesn't.

So you're saying that companies spend millions of $$$ on advertising campaigns that have no effect whatsoever?

I neither made nor implied any such claim. I simply pointed out the fact that people are perfectly capable of making decisions for themselves as to what they like and dislike.

However, since you brought it up, I guess that depends now doesn't it? No amount of advertising will ever get me to eat peas. Know why? Because I don't like peas. The exact same statement is true if you replace eating peas with smoking cigarettes.

You're saying that (what I'll call) "unethical practices"; like using a monopoly in one area to gain an advantage in another area, or like forcing vendor lock-in on consumers, or like charging OEMs more for something if they dare to offer a competing product to consumers, or like perverting standards and/or patents to stifle competition; has no effect on consumers at all?

Ok, ...again, I neither made nor implied any such claim. And again, people still have the final say in how they spend their money. The truth is people do have choice and the only people who fall into the trap you describe are the ones who choose to.

Trying to deny that consumers aren't sheep and aren't influenced in their purchases, is equally ignorant/idiotic.

No, it isn't equally ignorant or idiotic. Why? Because I'm a consumer and am nowhere near being a sheep. I'm almost unmoved by the massive amount of advertising I'm subject to. Do you want to know why all those millions of dollars are spent on advertising? Do you want to know why companies run ads on radio, tv, in print, on the internet, mobile, and everywhere else they can find space? Because advertising isn't nearly as effective as you claim. Advertising is more like carpet bombing and cross your fingers that you got something good, rather than a precision strike and hits the target every time.

The truth is somewhere in between - consumers aren't mindless sheep, but they also aren't able to choose the best product.

You clearly don't give people enough credit. While it's true, certain people lack the proper knowledge to make certain good purchasing decisions, for the most part people do just fine deciding what's best for them. As much as you would like to believe you are a more effective judge & jury to someone elses opinion, you are not and never will be.

For some things (smart phones) I don't even think it's possible for a normal person to choose the best product. I mean, how many people are able to try each different smart phone for a few weeks so that they can make a truly informed decision? It's much more likely that a consumer will walk into a shop, get completely confused/bewildered and choose a product based on hype (and price) alone.

Here's a more likely scenario.... A person walks into a cellphone store and tells the salesman what he's looking for. He also provides a ballpark price he's willing to pay. The salesman shows him different cellphone options that suit his needs, and the customer decides which one to buy.

What's more likely, that the guy made a bad purchase (one that doesn't suit his needs), or a good one (one that does). And in the event he isn't satisfied with the phone, is it more likely he returns it for a different one, or keeps it and complains for the next X years?

Here's a terrific piece of advice... Never underestimate peoples ability to think for themselves. Further, their ability to make good decisions based on their own needs, wants, and (dis)likes.

Reply Parent Score: 2

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

I'm almost unmoved by the massive amount of advertising I'm subject to.


Everybody who claims this has no idea how advertising works. Your behaviour is, in fact, motivated by boatloads of advertising. Unless you research every purchase you make - from bread to toothpaste to detergent to peanut butter to phones to computers - you ARE influenced massively by advertising.

Reply Parent Score: 3