Apple design head Jony Ive has given the opening interview at the first Condé Nast International Luxury Conference, in which he justified the concept of a mass-produced Apple Watch as worthy of the label ‘craftsmanship.’
It’s not so much about things being touched personally – there are many ways to craft something. It’s easy to assume that just because you make something in small volumes, not using many tools, that there is integrity and care – that is a false assumption.
Newson echoed this comment, reports Vogue, saying that machines are simply tools, much like a craftsman making a hand-made product might use a drill …
Both men said that their joint background as silversmiths had served them well. You can’t, they said, just design something in the abstract or on a CAD system without understanding the importance of the materials used.
“We’re not just designing in our heads and then on a computer,” said Newson. “We both have the ability to understand certain materials; we come from a standpoint of being taught manually.”
“We both grew up making things ourselves,” added Ive, “and I don’t think you can design in materials without understanding their exact attributes. For the watch we developed our own gold because we loved how it felt. It’s that love of the material that drives so much of what we do.”
Nothing to do with saving money on that special gold, of course …
Newson said that having known each other for more than 20 years, and frequently discussed the challenges they faced, working together was a natural next step – Ive adding that they became friends so quickly because “we perceived the world in a very similar way.”
Despite mixed early reviews of the Apple Watch user interface, Ive seems confident, stating that “if people struggle to use the technology, then we have failed.”
We first learned the pair would be speaking at the conference last month.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
has John gained few pounds in the last few months?
well, Jony ;)
“Nothing to do with saving money on that special gold, of course …”
Not sure why this snarky comment is there? It links to a confused article that sort of realises that Apple’s 18 karat gold alloy is 75% pure gold the same as all other 18 karat golds. It still seems to think apple is saving money somehow even though all these alloys have about the same amount of gold in. Weird article.
For clarification, Apple are being creative in the 25% (non gold) part to create their Watch alloy while still maintaining the 18 karat rating.
You need to re-read it …
Not really, Gold’s atomic mass is 197, silver is 108. 18 karat need to be 75% Au by weight so mixing silver saves a bit – 10% ish. Swapping out the silver for something light can only save so much to maintain ‘75% by weight’.
Now, include the R&D of creating a new alloy that performs properly and bringing that to market and it’s very hard to conclude that this is a money saving exercise. It’s more likely that they actually wanted to make a harder gold alloy that won’t get returned as much.
I agree with dailycardoodle.
18 karat gold is always going to be 75% pure (24 karat) gold by weight… no matter what alloys you use in the other 25%.
1 ounce of Apple’s 18 karat gold has ¾ ounce of pure gold, just like any other 18 karat gold.
If, hypothetically, the gold body of the Apple Watch weighs 100 grams, then there would be 75 grams of pure gold in it.
What might change (very slightly) is the volume taken by an ounce of 18 karat gold, due to the different alloy combinations.
But if it turns out that the 18 karat gold used in the Apple Watch takes up a tiny more volume than if it was made from another, softer alloy combination, it is well worth having a gold watch that is designed to be “up to twice as hard as standard gold”, as Apple contends.
Love ya Ben…there seems to have been some snark in your cereal this morning. I understand what you’re saying and understand the linked article…but that’s because I grew up in the jewelry industry, not because of your savvy journalistic skills.
I also disagree with the conclusion you’ve made that it is to save money. It’s about making it lighter and more resilient. The people paying for an Edition A. expect it to last, and B. would have paid more for 30% gold weight without blinking.
Be more open huh?
Perhaps I misunderstood your comment: “It still seems to think apple is saving money somehow”. That appeared to imply you didn’t see how it was saving money. It’s a clever technique.
The point is Ben, if you alloy gold with something lighter you can (as you’re asserting) use a little less gold by volume, to achieve the same percentage by weight. BUT… the amount you’ll save is small and can’t logically be a primary driver for developing a new alloy.
Way more logical that they want a less scratch prone gold Watch.
So it ends up sounding like a slightly odd, negative, conspiritorial argument.
The claims that deserve some journalistic research are, for me, the watch being a harder aluminium and a harder ‘glass’ – both compared to iPhone 6. I’d really like to know the facts behind these materials.
Primary driver is debatable, I agree; factor, for sure. The harder glass claim seems verified by the recent scratch tests. The aluminum also appears stronger.
and to answer your question directly Ben, it’s not saving money! All the other costs of developing and testing a new gold alloy are surely higher than a few % of base material saving.
I’d think saving money would be important, but that Ive wouldn’t get into it if there weren’t other more compelling benefits. If you watch this short vid about Hublot’s “magic gold” you’ll see that the primary benefit is that it boost the gold’s hardness by a huge amount. In their case, about 2.5 times as hard as standard 18K gold. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfOV87WUL-8) So yes, your comment was snarky.
Cool video. It certainly look like they have something similar. It will be interesting to see how 5 main case materials (metal and glass) survive real world use. One review, Verge I think, said the steel Watch was picking up scratches quite quickly.
Another thing to remember is that gold jewelry (including gold watches) is valued by the weight of the gold… Not the volume of the gold.
One design of watch or ring or bracelet containing X ounces of 18 karat gold, may have a different volume than another different designed watch or ring or bracelet containing the same X ounces of 18 karat gold.
Due to the different designs and shapes of jewelry, and different alloy mixes, the gold content is always valued by weight.
Once someone has disassembled and weighed the body of the 18 karat gold Apple Watch “Edition”, whatever the weight turns out to be, it will be certain that 75% of that weight will be pure gold (as it should be).
The craftsmanship on the Watch is outstanding. Seeing them in person, it is a huge step above the competition. The rolling of the crown, suppleness of the fluoroelastomer band, tactic feedback, etc. speak to the care that went into it – things that are unapparent in rendered pictures or spec sheets.
I feel like some reviews twisted history to fit their narrative that the Watch isn’t as intuitive as the “one-button iPhone”. In reality, it required years of marketing/education to get to this point, and the iPhone actually has about a dozen ways to input.
It’s also really easy to use. I didn’t find any of it confusing or any of the input methods extraneous.
I see zero benefit of Newson being involved in Apple’s design. He’s completely overrated as a designer. One quick look at his work on Google Images, and you see a ton of retro, organic crap. Yes, beauty is completely subjective and this is simply my opinion.
The silicone sleeves with the cut holes that Apple sold for the iPhone 5C – that had to come from Newson. He designed shoes with the same exact style and design language.
Let’s put it another way… He’s no Dieter Rams. Hell, he’s no Hartmut Esslinger from Frog Design for that matter.
Well if you say so I guess that makes it so…
Well that’s why they call it an “opinion”. Which I stated clearly I was offering. No need to be snarky.
Unless you worked on Ive’s design team, which getting onto I presume is the hardest designer job to land, you are not qualified to make statements on how Newson benefits Ive’s team. Never forget the the special synergies designers can have that gives that special touch not achievable separately
I don’t have to be on Ive’s team to look back at Newson’s design style and form an opinion. It’s all right there in full color. And again, I offered my opinion.
Design language is something that gets cultivated over the years through experience. The design language of Newson is organic. He’s not just going to up and change because he’s working with Apple. That was evident by those ugly silicone sleeves for the 5C.
And let’s not forget I started my comment with “I”. That means it’s my opinion.
Here you go. Marc Newson’s work in full color: https://www.google.com/search?q=marc+newson+work&biw=1382&bih=751&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=Dbs3VeznCu_msATBxIHoDw&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAQ
Tell me again how he fits with Apple’s design language?
One last comment. I agree with what you said about the synergies. It’s true, together they may be able to create design that’s an amalgamation of both their styles. I only hope that Ive has more influence, because he’s the far better technology designer of the two.
The Sport band and Milanese Loop seem direct descendants of Newson’s work. Who knows what else he has contributed to? The entire design team is like 20 people, and it’s not like Apple products have a credits sequence that rolls when you’re done.
Maybe if glances/notification center were just another app instead of pulldown menus from just one app (the watchface app), and maybe if that second button wasn’t there, putting the recent contacts in – again – a separate app near the watchface app – it would simplify things for those who don’t understand the UI. Many apps on the Watch show only recent/favorite content from their Phone app counterpart. And triggering Apple Pay could be done by double clicking the home button. Because honestly, why use fast app switching if you can’t see which app you’re switching to?
I agree that, coming from iOS’ Control and Notification Centers, it’s a little odd having to go to a watch face to enter a Glance or Notifications.
Disagree on the side button though. Double-clicking the home button to go to the previous app is quite useful. I don’t think you need a thumbnail preview to know that you simply want to go back. As a communication device, it’s nice to quickly access your top contacts without diving into the app home screen. Don’t forget, the side button also triggers Apple Pay with a double-click. It is a bit weird that it’s the same shape/position as the iPhone 6 sleep/wake button though.
It seems clear to me that Apple wants user interaction to be mostly on the watch face. They don’t want people thinking in terms of panning around the app icon screen and then tapping an app to do something. I hope some of this thinking comes to iPhone and iPad. I’d like to see Apple move away from the app-centric model where you have to go get information. I think they need to move to push and away from pull.
The svelte, timeless design of the Apple watch was clearly influenced by Newson’s environmentally conscious input and focus on objects that will have lasting utility.
/s
I would qualify Apple Products as “great” pieces of Engineering and Marketing but never Craftsmanship.
Anyways, the marketing blitz for the Apple Watch continues and the Watch Edition is once again at the Epicenter as Buzz Generator and Chatter. :)
How do you define craftsmanship?
It is in the dictionary and involves a PERSON, not a multidisciplinary team of Engineers and Designers.
There is also some MANUAL skill involved like in one to one process with the object.
The word “Craft MAN” says it all.
Certainly you can stretch the meaning of the word for marketing purposes, but then that is not the proper and common use, as most people understand the word.
After a career existing behind the scenes, Ives is now out in front. Moreover, there’s a gravy-train at Apple whereby anyone can be hired with the right justification, so Ives’ old friend Newson is now on board.
The Apple Watch is an opportunity for Ives to gain the kind of recognition as a designer he never could with Jobs out front as the spectacle; bringing Newson on board allows Ives to pull his old friend onto the international scene for each to receive accolades as designers of luxury products (I wish I could italicize “luxury” for the desired effect).
The whole transition feels more like self-interest than an interest in what Apple is doing, but that doesn’t have to be a bad thing. Designers like Ives and Newson aren’t interested in being knighted Queens or being heralded as innovators for the greatest tech company in the world. They want recognition as the designers’ designer. Again, nothing wrong with craving that recognition.
However, producing a product like the Apple Watch seems less like a means to an end in and of itself, but is also a means for Ives and Newson to enter the limelight on the international stage–by means of Apple’s unlimited coffers–to obtain the recognition they have long sought.
Or, they’re out there hustling watches for Apple, and that’s all there is to it. :)
My bad: should read “knighted by Queens . . ” not “knighted Queens”.
Still pretty funny, though.
Is quite interesting that not even Steve Jobs published a book about himself during his life time nor other people like Forstall that Played a more significant role creating the iPhone. Yet Ives has an entire book about himself that is selling pretty well.
Let me know when Ives publish a book about Industrial Design.