DescentBB

Nope.

http://gizmodo.com/343641/1960s-braun-p ... les-future

An interesting look on how Apple obtained some of their ideas for product design.

I hardly think so. Explain to me how these two are so similar, that any simularity is not just a matter of following the same, common design philosophy:




You might as well say Apple copied this:



But of course, Rams has always been credited as an influential designer, and certainly the designers at apple where aware of his works... It's just kinda silly to pick one designer out of the many and say 'oh look... apple must'ave copied this or that...'

WillyP wrote:I hardly think so. Explain to me how these two are so similar, that any simularity is not just a matter of following the same, common design philosophy:

But of course, Rams has always been credited as an influential designer, and certainly the designers at apple where aware of his works... It's just kinda silly to pick one designer out of the many and say 'oh look... apple must'ave copied this or that...'

Not only did you post one of the least convincing pairs of photos in the article, you also seem to have missed the end of the article, where it concludes (just as you do) that these are not "copies" but rather just influences.

But you seem to know who Rams is so you probably know more about the subject than I. I'm just saying that yes, some of those resemblances are pretty uncanny.

I picked those two pictures mainly because they were first. My point was not that Dieter Rams was not influential on Apples designs, but that there were so many other designers who also were. Singleing out one particular designer is implying that Apple copied this designer. Sure, there are some simularities, but there are thousands of products out there you could say that about.

Take the perforated metal on the radio. That design has been used on radios since before Rams's time. The pic I posted is of the Guggenheim Museum, designed by Frank Lloyd Wright, sometime prior to 1956. It's all about clean, functional design, as opposed to the ornate design previously known.

*shrug*

fashion is fashion. There hasn't been anything truly original in decades.

Braun's products are famous for their industrial design (even now). I think you can hardly find a more flattering comparison for Apple.

It's all about clean, functional design, as opposed to the ornate design previously known.

Exactly. That's one of the reasons I like Apple so much: at the moment they seem to be the only one's in the whole industry who a are interested in this philosophy of design at all (with the exception of Audi in the car business). And it shows not only in the industrial design of the products, but in the design of the OS's GUI as well.

Some of those comparisons are a stretch...

Insomuch as I used to bash Apple, my attitude about them really changed when I broke down and bought an iPod. I really think it exhibits brilliant industrial design. The click wheel is one of the most elegant and intuitive control mechanisms I've ever seen on a music player, although it would be all for naught if the UI didn't follow in the same simple, straightforward design. Fortunately, it does.

I think here lies a strong difference between Microsoft and Apple. Microsoft's approach tends to take something that is complicated and graft enough tool tips and help text onto it until it \"becomes\" user friendly. Apple's approach has deeper roots - make it uncomplicated in the first place and the rest is gravy.