2. 1: Design attributions Apple’s design may be good (or not –see below), but too many people accept that the success of the company can be attributed to their design achievements Jobs, Ive and the media have reinforced this causal relation, underplaying the primary role of marketing and exaggerating the ancillary role of design Yet, many designers prefer to believe fabricated stories that attribute commercial http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2012/05/jonathan-ive-knighted/ success to ‘design strategies’
3. 2: The ‘inevitability’ illusion Apple’s successes largely depend on a system of ‘engineered anticipation’, while their failures go largely unnoticed -or are grossly underrated. Their product design escape objective evaluation and professional scrutiny. Critical views are non- existent or are rapidly dismissed as ‘dissenters’ of a higher cause. www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/apple/9488354/New-iPhone-New-iPad- Rumours-drive-Apple-value-to-new-heights.html
4. 3: Sosumi: Double standards Apple has shown a double standard in regard to intellectual property. Jobs ‘borrowed’ many inventions from Xerox PARC and SRI in the 1980s and the company is well known by experts to improve existing technologies. Yet, Apple is the most active company launching patent battles against http://www.mbaonline.com/ Also see: http://www.androidauthority.com/patent-war-infographic-88534/ competitors.
5. 4: Stereotypes The corporate strategy of Apple has been built in building simplistic and ridicule stereotypes. Sadly, many in the design world have blindly adopted this worldview and equate the ‘creative type’ with buying Apple products. The irony is that “think different” becomes a way of conventional, uncritical conformism. http://www.apple.com
6. 5: Cult and rhetoric Indoctrination, delusion and infatuation of a leader’s personality have been very successful components in Apple’s commercial strategy. Apple fanatics are made believe that by buying these products they somehow ‘change the world’. Few people are critical of Apple’s revolutionaryhttp://www.world-and-local-news.com/2012/06/5-signs-that-apple-is-cult.html rhetoric.
7. 6: Greenwashing Apple is constantly questioned for its strategies, materials, suppliers and ‘sustainability’ claims. They have addressed some complaints, but the core of their strategy is “planned obsolescence”. Many corporations engage in these practices, but it is especially cynical coming from a company thathttp://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/apr/21/apple-least-green-tech-company markets itself in such metaphysical terms.
8. 7: Bubble Apple’s growth is unsustainable and the company is over-valued - this is 2012, check back in a few years. This is almost trivial from a design viewpoint, except that so many people are claiming that design can do miracles for any company who follows Apple’s example (see slide #1).mashable.com/2012/08/22/apple-is-ridiculously-valuable-infographic/
9. 8: (no) design contribution Besides setting superficial trends in product appearance, Apple design has made no substantial contribution to design. Jobs and Ive follow the modernist tradition, praising Bauhaus, Braun and Dieter Rams’s 50-year old principles. Their claims of “product essence” and “purity” are http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/apple/8555503/Dieter-Rams- uncanny and lead to a Apple-has-achieved-something-I-never-did.html racist ideology of design and aesthetics.
10. 9: The designer is God Apple’s paternalistic view of design is becoming a paradigm in some design circles. In such conventional terms, the “user” doesn’t really know what he/she wants – and the designers’ superiority enable them to envision breakthrough ideas. Fortunately, participatory and co-creation methods have shown in the lasthttp://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2011/08/28/steve-jobs- decades that individuals and american-genius.html communities know better than any self-proclaimed genius.
11. 10: Gatekeeper Apple’s model of the Internet consists of an “app world” where they get to decide and approve what is made available to the users. This is not being challenged by most people, but it is as if back in the 1990s Mosaic and Netscape inspected every website before its publication.http://gawker.com/5809978/listen-to-richard-dreyfuss-make-apple-sound-evil Ludicrous.
12. Want more facts and arguments? Check Morozov’s article:http://www.tnr.com/article/books-and- arts/magazine/100978/form-fortune- steve-jobs-philosopher