Edit: hmm, my bad, my comment only somewhat relates to yours, it’s early and I went off on a tangent. Sounds like you have a way stronger basis for your assertion that they make transition easier than I do, so I want to acknowledge that. I’m skeptical, I think maybe it feels smoother to you because you’ve spent time doing it or something, and I’m fairly certain a deliberate part of their marketing strategy is to make experiences with other products artificially worse. But otherwise, I do have to take your comment seriously.
Original unnecessary spiel below:
I understand there is a somewhat academic point to be made here and that this design logic is heralded as the guiding principles behind their usability decisions, etc.
I used to buy that, and I’m sure it’s involved and the primary concern for plenty of people who work / have worked on the interface. But after watching Apple’s behavior as I’ve grown up with them, learning more about Jobs and his legacy, etc. - anything that feels “walled garden” to me, I’m calling a walled garden. I don’t believe their decisions are purely or even primarily for aesthetic and design-minded reasons. Worse, I believe the portion that is, is largely marketing to those who use Apple for the sense of smug superiority it grants (not accusing you of that! it’s a thing in the userbase though). And yet worse, I believe that anything that punishes someone who uses less of their products is usually intentional, and if not it’s at least known and accepted (with the caveat that they are threading a needle with the last one, and some degree of usability for outsiders is fully necessary for brand growth).
That’s a pretty uncharitable take when I type it all out, but I have to acknowledge that it’s how I feel. It doesn’t mean the UX design principles aren’t there. I just don’t buy that it’s for the users, it’s for the shareholders, like any other corp.
I appreciate your edit. I do promise that UXDers are doing their best to make your experience better, and that shareholders don’t have the level of input into design that it may seem when you’re angry at an interface for not behaving in the way you want.
At least at large companies, UXD teams don’t even know who the shareholders are, much less ever hear from them. If the interface isn’t serving you, it’s always because it’s serving a different (likely larger) use case that’s at odds with your use case. That sucks, but it’s not a corporate conspiracy. I’ve been in this industry for decades, and I’ve never seen that happen except at small companies where the owner barges into design meetings (that never happens at large companies because the owners are too busy to even know the names of the designers).
Yes, Steve Jobs was an asshole who was known to call low-level designers at 3am to demand a small change to an icon that somehow bent him, but he was a psychopath. That’s not how anyone else does things, and it had nothing to do with shareholders, just his own delusions about the colour blue. He also killed himself trying to fruit-ninja his cancer. He’s not a good barometer for the industry, or even Apple’s design, tbh. Designers often ignored him until he forgot and dog-squirrelled himself into the next thing.
What I’m saying is that if you hate a UI, it’s not likely because the company is trying to hurt you, but because the design is aimed at someone else or is just inferior.
Edit: hmm, my bad, my comment only somewhat relates to yours, it’s early and I went off on a tangent. Sounds like you have a way stronger basis for your assertion that they make transition easier than I do, so I want to acknowledge that. I’m skeptical, I think maybe it feels smoother to you because you’ve spent time doing it or something, and I’m fairly certain a deliberate part of their marketing strategy is to make experiences with other products artificially worse. But otherwise, I do have to take your comment seriously.
Original unnecessary spiel below:
I understand there is a somewhat academic point to be made here and that this design logic is heralded as the guiding principles behind their usability decisions, etc.
I used to buy that, and I’m sure it’s involved and the primary concern for plenty of people who work / have worked on the interface. But after watching Apple’s behavior as I’ve grown up with them, learning more about Jobs and his legacy, etc. - anything that feels “walled garden” to me, I’m calling a walled garden. I don’t believe their decisions are purely or even primarily for aesthetic and design-minded reasons. Worse, I believe the portion that is, is largely marketing to those who use Apple for the sense of smug superiority it grants (not accusing you of that! it’s a thing in the userbase though). And yet worse, I believe that anything that punishes someone who uses less of their products is usually intentional, and if not it’s at least known and accepted (with the caveat that they are threading a needle with the last one, and some degree of usability for outsiders is fully necessary for brand growth).
That’s a pretty uncharitable take when I type it all out, but I have to acknowledge that it’s how I feel. It doesn’t mean the UX design principles aren’t there. I just don’t buy that it’s for the users, it’s for the shareholders, like any other corp.
I appreciate your edit. I do promise that UXDers are doing their best to make your experience better, and that shareholders don’t have the level of input into design that it may seem when you’re angry at an interface for not behaving in the way you want.
At least at large companies, UXD teams don’t even know who the shareholders are, much less ever hear from them. If the interface isn’t serving you, it’s always because it’s serving a different (likely larger) use case that’s at odds with your use case. That sucks, but it’s not a corporate conspiracy. I’ve been in this industry for decades, and I’ve never seen that happen except at small companies where the owner barges into design meetings (that never happens at large companies because the owners are too busy to even know the names of the designers).
Yes, Steve Jobs was an asshole who was known to call low-level designers at 3am to demand a small change to an icon that somehow bent him, but he was a psychopath. That’s not how anyone else does things, and it had nothing to do with shareholders, just his own delusions about the colour blue. He also killed himself trying to fruit-ninja his cancer. He’s not a good barometer for the industry, or even Apple’s design, tbh. Designers often ignored him until he forgot and dog-squirrelled himself into the next thing.
What I’m saying is that if you hate a UI, it’s not likely because the company is trying to hurt you, but because the design is aimed at someone else or is just inferior.