God's way of telling you that you have more money than common sense

[Photo_Smith]

I agree no further discourse is necessary as if you see my counterpoint of your statement as a dismissal of your view as "easy" something which I've never stated and is a word you plucked out of context wrt to your celebrity argument then you're not actually thinking at all just re-itterating your own empty cynicism.

 

[zauhar]

This is a one-of-a-kind camera, correct? Ivey may have not even put much effort into it, probably more the Leica engineers who had to actually fabricate it.

It is pointless to discuss the ergonomics of something not to be produced for a mass audience, more as a very expensive collectors' item. All in all, this may just represent a bad day for Ivey, an off-hand effort.

Regarding the whole concept of charity auctions - I don't go against them, as you shouldn't discourage anyone who wants to do a good work. But in the end they set a bad precedent. The maintenance of the public good requires taxes, not charity.

My eldest just graduated from high school, one of the two best in the city. It's library was shut down this year, because of the school funding crisis. The library is reopened due to the kindness of an anonymous donor. I should applaud this person, and if I were the principal I would gratefully accept the donation, but this sets the lousy and unrealistic expectation that every year some other good person will step up to fund what should be a cornerstone of the school.

Randy

 

[Sejanus.Aelianus]

But in the end they set a bad precedent. The maintenance of the public good requires taxes, not charity.

Wise words, indeed. But there is an element in every society, which believes otherwise.

 

[Dez]

The thread seems to have taken wings and flown far from the original discussion of the Jony Ives Leica. If I may, I'd like to return there for a moment.

A lot of people seem to be bent out of shape about the practicality of this camera. I believe they are missing the point- this is an exercise in industrial design which just happens to be able to be used after a fashion as a camera. Its practicality or lack thereof is irrelevant.

I used to live in southern California, and as an ardent motorcyclist, loved to take rides into the desert hills near my home. At the edge of the desert there was a rather upscale biker bar, where every weekend, hundreds of custom Harleys would be on display. Many of these bikes showed beautiful design and exquisite workmanship- there were several by the famous Jesse James from Long Beach. They were gorgeous to look at and no doubt cost a fortune, but it would be worth your life to actually try to ride some of them on the highway. The owners didn't care about that of course, since that wasn't what they were for. They were rolling sculptures that were just barely rideable enough for the owners to make it to the bar alive. So don't worry about the usability of the Jony Ives Leica. You can be assured that whoever plunks down a fortune for it won't care.

Cheers,
Dez

 

[Roger Hicks]

The thread seems to have taken wings and flown far from the original discussion of the Jony Ives Leica. If I may, I'd like to return there for a moment.

A lot of people seem to be bent out of shape about the practicality of this camera. I believe they are missing the point- this is an exercise in industrial design which just happens to be able to be used after a fashion as a camera. Its practicality or lack thereof is irrelevant.

I used to live in southern California, and as an ardent motorcyclist, loved to take rides into the desert hills near my home. At the edge of the desert there was a rather upscale biker bar, where every weekend, hundreds of custom Harleys would be on display. Many of these bikes showed beautiful design and exquisite workmanship- there were several by the famous Jesse James from Long Beach. They were gorgeous to look at and no doubt cost a fortune, but it would be worth your life to actually try to ride some of them on the highway. The owners didn't care about that of course, since that wasn't what they were for. They were rolling sculptures that were just barely rideable enough for the owners to make it to the bar alive. So don't worry about the usability of the Jony Ives Leica. You can be assured that whoever plunks down a fortune for it won't care.

Cheers,
Dez

Dear Dez,

But if it doesn't work, it's not industrial design. It's a piece of would-be fine art -- as are the Harleys to which you allude. My argument is simply that if this "exercise" has not been created by a celebrity designer; if it did not borrow (wholly inappropriate) design cues from a commercial product that is all but worshipped by its more extreme fans (hmmm... Harleys again); then it would be dismissed by far more people as just another bad redesign of the M by someone who allowed his preconceptions and ego to take precedence over the product.

The points about "celebrity designer" and "design cues" are what some people seem determined to ignore. Or possibly unable to understand. Randy's point about auctions -- and let's get real, half a million bucks is the kind of money that takes us firmly into celebrity auction territory -- points up, as I have repeatedly said, an uncritical acceptance of "shallow, trivial, cash-only celebrity culture" as distinct from a grown-up debate about what the future might hold.

Cheers,

R

 

[bobbyrab]

If you look at the original iPod, on first viewing you would easily have thought it a exercise of style over functionality having as it does one button surrounded by a wheel, and yet you were able to select, pause, play, skip and adjust the volume with ease using just your thumb. As design goes it's hard to fault.
Now I don't know the specifics of how this camera will operate, but I'd be willing to bet that the functionality will be surprisingly easy, and the recessed wheel etc, will have been thought through well enough. I'm also willing to bet most of the critics here would still hate it, but that's just the way things are.

 

[Photo_Smith]

The points about "celebrity designer" and "design cues" are what some people seem determined to ignore. Or possibly unable to understand. Randy's point about auctions -- and let's get real, half a million bucks is the kind of money that takes us firmly into celebrity auction territory -- points up, as I have repeatedly said, an uncritical acceptance of "shallow, trivial, cash-only celebrity culture" as distinct from a grown-up debate about what the future might hold.
Cheers,
R

The amount of money that this will generate for the charity has nothing to do with a societal acceptance of 'cash driven celebrity culture' and a whole lot more about how much collector of those two designers will pay.
You seem to be hung up on 'celebrity' and what this means to design.

The fact is this isn't new, people have always wanted to buy one off designs from famous designers look at prices generated by works by Mies van der Rohe or Marcel Breuer-100k for a chair?
How about $360,000 for a tea pot?
http://www.dezeen.com/2007/12/21/the-361000-teapot-marianne-brandt-breaks-bauhaus-auction-record/

How dare that cult of celebrity erode the true light of design! Truth is it just doesn't happen, its more of the ABA crowd complaining than anything.

Some would have you believe that this is only about celebrity and the faux disgust they attribute to what they term as 'celebrity designers' belies the truth in the simple situation we have here which is two friends have got together at someone else's request to re-skin a camera for charity.
No one has used it we don't know how well or if it works to assert anything else is a pre judgement based on ignorance.

No disgust needed, this isn't about celebrity culture but something that has been happening for many years and well known designers will continue to sell their wares for many years to come-no outrage needed

 

[Roger Hicks]

. . . We are most likely on the same page here . . . .

I don't know about Sejanus.Aelianus but you and I certainly are, especially when it comes to "I do indeed wish no one had to raise funds for HIV/AIDS research by pretending to "sell" cameras, desks, and pianos".

Cheers,

R.

 

[Sparrow]

Oh goodness! ... it must be art then? :shocked-face:

 

[thegman]

Did you actually mean to write that? 😱

I think these two are perfect examples of Apple's design characteristics. The Newton (I think) looks nice, and worked extraordinarily well. I know people mock the handwriting recognition, but consider how long ago the Newton came out, how long the battery life was, how nice the matte screen was to write on and view, how the Newton OS was simply a delight to use. That was good design.

The remote you got with an iMac or an Apple TV looks nice, but does not work too well. You press 'Menu' to go backwards, and text entry to enter your username, password, or search terms into the Apple TV is horrific. Also, I find that the buttons are not raised enough to use without looking. Sure, my TV remote has about 50 too many buttons, but the Apple TV simply does not have enough.

Roger Hicks has it completely right about industrial design. When you talk to most people about 'what is design?', they'll say it's 'the way something looks', which works for a drawing, but just about nothing else.

Apple is a conflicted company with it's design, some things it's about how it works such as Mac OS X, and to a point iOS, but sometimes it's just about how it looks, like the new iMac, Magic Mouse, Apple Maps, etc. They look amazing, but work pretty poorly.

 

[Major Tom]

Well of course as you probably know the new Apple TV uses a different remote, the one shown was shipped with the original white version (it will work OK on the black Apple TV). Entering any password or search is awful with software and buttons, worse on my Samsung TV, simply because there are so many buttons, randomly placed -- one minor error and the thing turns itself off. Sadly my Samsung controls all have about 80 buttons but no keyboard!!! Crazy isn't it?

I never look at my remotes, could not see them in the dark if I did look, they are raised enough for me, it's not like there are a lot of buttons to search for.

You are aware the new Apple TV software update allows the use of a wireless keyboard? Or you can now control it from an iPod or iPhone, which is what I do.

Most new blu-ray players and TVs are HID compliant. All of them eventually will be within a year. There might be the odd driver issue, but in my case everything works fine.

 

[thegman]

Well of course as you probably know the new Apple TV uses a different remote, the one shown was shipped with the original white version (it will work OK on the black Apple TV). Entering any password or search is awful with software and buttons, worse on my Samsung TV, simply because there are so many buttons, randomly placed -- one minor error and the thing turns itself off. Sadly my Samsung controls all have about 80 buttons but no keyboard!!! Crazy isn't it?

I never look at my remotes, could not see them in the dark if I did look, they are raised enough for me, it's not like there are a lot of buttons to search for. Owned two Newtons, it was the handwriting software that mentally ruined them for me. The first PDA I loved was the Sidekick -- it was so damned Star Trekkie! T-mobile says they may still bring out another Sidekick to replace the G4 model discontinued in 2012.

You are aware the new Apple TV software update allows the use of a wireless keyboard? Or you can now control it from an iPod or iPhone, which is what I do.

I had a Messagepad 100, and utterly loved it, probably my favorite ever PDA, except maybe the Psion 3mx. Never had a Sidekick/Hiptop, always liked the look of them though.

I did quickly try my Logitech BT keyboard with the Apple TV, but no joy, maybe I need to update firmware. I don't have an iPad or iPhone, just Mac and Apple TV.

 

[David Hughes]

I had a Messagepad 100, and utterly loved it, probably my favorite ever PDA, except maybe the Psion 3mx. Never had a Sidekick/Hiptop, always liked the look of them though.

I did quickly try my Logitech BT keyboard with the Apple TV, but no joy, maybe I need to update firmware. I don't have an iPad or iPhone, just Mac and Apple TV.

Yes, the 3mx was just right and should never have been changed. The screen on the following model was a pita. What screws me up is giving away the 3mx when I got the next one. The 3mx is still working ... (On the other hand someone gave me an old iPhone when the Galaxy appeared, so you win some and you lose some. I just wish I understood the iPhone.)

Sometimes you wonder how they test these things, I guess the costing is the only thing they worry about. It's like the supermarkets who are happy to pay strict teetotallers to buy their wine; well, that's my explanation of it.

Regards, David

 

[Roger Hicks]

That would still rather blow away most of the Bauhaus work. Ever sat in a Wassily chair or pulled out the drawers in a Rietveld desk?

Does this affect my comments about good industrial design? Or good design generally? Who but a fool, obsessed with fashion and trendiness, would buy a product that didn't work? Or, for that matter, a leaky building with oppressively low ceilings (yes, Frank Lloyd Wright)?

Many years ago, my brother was in the Scottish Design Centre with our mother and a friend of hers. The friend said, "What a beautiful chair!" My brother said, "No it's not. It's useless. It would tip over if you tried to sit in it." The friend replied, "Don't be silly. They wouldn't put it in here if it tipped over. Sit in it and you'll see." My brother laughed: "No. I'm not going to sit in it. It would tip over. You sit in it."

And she did and it tipped over...

The Royal Society for the Encouragement of Arts, Manufacturers and Commerce -- http://www.thersa.org/about-us -- was founded over 250 years ago. One of itsmain aims is to promote both good design and thinking about good design. There's a very enjoyable quarterly magazine. The subscription for a Fellow of the RSA is well over $200 a year. I wouldn't pay that if I didn't care about design.

To dismiss the functional aesthetic (never mind the aesthetic functionality) of the M-series by saying that it looks "like it was whipped up in a 1950's machine shop" suggests to me a pretty fundamental misconception about what "design" means.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Sparrow]

... oddly the 1956 250 Testa Rossa was "whipped up in a 1950's machine shop" too ... and that's also quite pretty

 

[thegman]

To dismiss the functional aesthetic (never mind the aesthetic functionality) of the M-series by saying that it looks "like it was whipped up in a 1950's machine shop" suggests to me a pretty fundamental misconception about what "design" means.

Cheers,

R.

Never have truer words been said. It astonishes me how many people consider the iPhone to be good design, when compared to say a Nokia 9210, it is truly atrocious. Put enough black, glass, and shiny metal on something, and it looks like good design, but good design needs to work.

The Leica M3 for me is about as close to 'perfect' design as it gets. It does exactly what it needs to, and no more. It provides total functionality with incredible simplicity.

 

[thegman]

Yes, the 3mx was just right and should never have been changed. The screen on the following model was a pita. What screws me up is giving away the 3mx when I got the next one.

I must say, I did actually like the Series 5 too, but looking back, I'd rather Psion had stuck with the Series 3 way of doing things. A Series 3mx with a built in cellular modem, SMS and email would be stunning.

 

[Roger Hicks]

. . . Who knows there may be a digital M in the future which reaches the pinnacle the M3 did?

Insh'Allah there will be. But until then, it makes little sense to welcome novelty for its own sake. As Nassim Nicholas Taleb points out, the old always has one enormous advantage over the new, in that it has already withstood the test of time. The new may or may not do so.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Roger Hicks]

We totally part ways on that, most of the old around me has not stood the test of time, and seems more horrific each day as I age. Of course I am not thinking of cameras, but in a social context. New is a risk, but I personally live currently in a country paralyzed by fear of abandoning the tested old.

Well, if something clearly hasn't stood the test of time, that's another matter. Taleb's argument was, I think, "other things being more or less equal". Also, an enormous advantage is not the same as a decisive advantage.

Chers,

R.

 

[Sparrow]

... the British archers at Agincourt could shoot thirteen arrows a minute ... then they changed to firearms and only got back to that level of efficiency six-hundred years later with the introduction of the smokeless cartridge for the Martini-Henry rifle ... humans aren't always logical I fear