Interesting article suggesting that Steve Jobs keeps lifting the bar with respect to aesthetic design, with only the likes of B&O also understanding how to differentiate tech products with appealing looks.

From the article:

Jobs designs the iPod with an esthetically pleasing minimalist design. Why can't someone leapfrog the Apple designs? These are not out-of-the-world ideas from Jupiter. Bang & Olufsen makes these sorts of designs. These pleasing minimalist designs pour out of Scandinavian and Nordic countries. Move the design facility to Denmark. How hard is this?

Graham

The author of this article, John C Dvorak is the ultimate stuffed shirt. He has been highly critical of Apple and Steve Jobs for many years.

I almost dropped my iPhone when I noticed who had written the article.

I mostly agree that Apple designs are among the best. However Sony made a well designed carbon fiber laptop a few years ago. It was not well received because of the high price. ASUS has some good designs such as the NX90 designed by David Lewis from B&O which I guess proves the point.

Sony seems to have flashes of brilliance in their ID, but it's seldom "the total package." I was very impressed with the NX800 in terms of looks, but it's the same plastic shell and chintzy feel as any other Sony TV. There are plenty of brands like Miele, Gaggenau, etc. that make great appliances. Dyson as well. 

I think what it comes down to is that most companies don't really "get" what design means. They confuse it with decoration, or at least hope the consumer will. As long as the consumer doesn't register the difference between well designed and looks well designed I don't suppose much will change.

I have been reading "The Design of Everyday Things" also known as "The Psychology of Everyday Things" by Donald A. Norman, a classic book on designing for ease of understanding and use.

In it, the author talks of how to not make design mistakes through various techniques; one design sin is "creeping featurism" for which the author cites two preventions: avoidance, and organisation.

The example he gives of organisation is the MCP 5500+ (except he does not name it as such), the author states (next to the picture of the MCP):

Overcoming Complexity through Organisation

The remote control device for the Bang & Olufsen audio set (there are no controls on the set itself) serves numerous features and options.  The controls are made simple through principles.  First, the buttons are grouped into logical, functional modules.  Second, the display on the remote gives good feedback about the operation.  Third, infrequently used controls are hidden beneath a panel, which reduces the visual complexity in normal use but which is available when needed.

It is a very interesting book ... and one is given lots of dated examples which only a few designers (including Apple's) seem to have heard and paid attention to.

Let me throw one out there.

I find the design of the Iphone bad.

Reason is, many many use bumper cases for it essentially ruining the look. Everybody drops a phone, happens all the time. A well designed phone should have the "drop" protection integrated into the product, not added through a rubber suit that essentially ruins the beautiful design.

Design is not just about looks.

B&O messes up as well. Remember the early BC2 where you had to push "Go" twice on the Beo 4 to get a DVD to play .....

How to fix the Iphone? Use the rubber/plastic that is used on the BL3 and shatter proof glas that is available for eyewear.

jk1002:

Design is not just about looks.

Exactly correct, and exactly the point the book I quoted makes.

An example that I pondered on was the switch on my Nano.

It's "off" position is marked with red "paint", but its "on" position was not marked; then I realised that the Nano is actually "on" when it is "off", so the "red" position is actually a "stop, the controls are locked".  This is an example of very good design -- once you understand what the red sign actually means.