Tecnadis nanoparticle microporous coating protects building surfaces repelling water while allowing them to breathe
via cultofmac.com
Interesting article on ways for corporate IT departments to allow employees to use their own iOS devices with corporate networks.
via techcrunch.com
There is a lot to agree with in this article, but it's central tenet, that Apple have created a platonic form that almost invites copying, to the extent that avoiding copying aspects of the design are almost impossible; is disingenuous. It's a plagiarist's charter against minimalism.
As a designer, I know that most of the time, products are simply 'over-styled'. Designers try to put their stamp on their product. Copying what has gone before is usually a sign of failure. There are aspects of tablet designs that could easily have been done differently. For example - a flat bezel.
What about the buttons? Why a single button? Why is it centred? Why is the shape symmetrical? Why is it a physical and not a touch button? Why is it located on the bezel instead of at the sides. The Nook SImple Touch has buttons at the sides for navigation. Why not a row of rectangular buttons along an edge or the sides? Why an 'On' button and not a slider? Why use a design that has a seamless appearance between case and screen? Why the tapering edges? Even the location of some of the controls on many tablets is a rip-off of the iPad. Sony didn't rip off the iPad with their tablets, and no-one else needs to either.
Minimalism is simply one style and a design philosophy among other equally valid ones. There is no set of rules dictating how things should be designed.
Samsung has completely ripped off the iPad and iPhone design in the same way that that Asus has ripped off the design of the MacBook Air. This is scandalous and indicative of the total disregard for copyright in Asia.
Look at tablet design before the iPad. Much more diversity. When Samsung ripped off Apple unashamedly they more or less gave everyone else carte blanche to do the same. Seriously, it looks like Samsung management said to their designers, "We want an Android version of this. Just copy it, make it widescreen, add our branding and we'll sort out the legal issues".
Admittedly most of my criticisms are aimed at Samsung, but every subsequent tablet manufacturer has been a bit more cautious with copying the basic idea, as if to see how hard Samsung get hit by Apple's lawyers.
All the other tablets add no extra functionality to the case design. The other reason Devin's article is disingenuous, is because designers ought to have a legal, moral and professional responsibility not to copy their rivals' designs but to add individuality, function and corporate identity. Every one has failed in this regard.
In my opinion this kind of copyright abuse is blatant and scandalous. Devin is making flimsy excuses to justify it.
