#craig federighi

Jason Snell sat down with Bud Tribble, Phil Schiller, and Craig Federighi to talk about the current state of the Mac in an iOS world:

“It’s obvious and easy enough to slap a touchscreen on a piece of hardware, but is that a good experience?” Federighi said. “We believe, no.”

“We don’t waste time thinking, ‘But it should be one [interface]!’ How do you make these [operating systems] merge together?’ What a waste of energy that would be,” Schiller said. But he added that the company definitely tries to smooth out bumps in the road that make it difficult for its customers to switch between a Mac and an iOS device—for example, making sure its messaging and calendaring apps have the same name on both OS X and iOS.

“To say [OS X and iOS] should be the same, independent of their purpose? Let’s just converge, for the sake of convergence? [It’s] absolutely a nongoal,” Federighi said. “You don’t want to say the Mac became less good at being a Mac because someone tried to turn it into iOS. At the same time, you don’t want to feel like iOS was designed by [one] company and Mac was designed by [a different] company, and they’re different for reasons of lack of common vision. We have a common sense of aesthetics, a common set of principles that drive us, and we’re building the best products we can for their unique purposes. So you’ll see them be the same where that makes sense, and you’ll see them be different in those things that are critical to their essence.”

A very different definition of “compromise" from Microsoft. And the right one, obviously.

The full interview by Sam Grobart. A few of my favorite quotes by Jony Ive:

But I think that when you use a product where there has been just tremendous care taken with its development and finally where it ends up, you may struggle to say, “Why might you like it?” But I do think that people know. They know about its biography at some level. They know what it took to get it there.

And:

The other thing we’ve talked about is that I think, very often, you can’t call out by attribute or name areas of value. But I do think that we sense when somebody has cared. And one thing that is incontrovertible is how much we’ve cared.

And:

That’s an interesting point, though. I mean, you could spend 60 percent of the time actually debating the virtue of why are we doing this. And I think one of the characteristics of Apple is that, if we’re faced with a hard problem—and the product is the culmination of many hard problems solved—if we face the hard problem, we don’t spend time debating why are we doing this. You know, the virtue of solving it. We spend all of our time just like trying to solve the problem.

Care, efficiency, and precision is a powerful combination.

Jony & Craig

While it’s hardly surprising that Apple would make a PR push leading up to the launch of the new iPhones tomorrow, it’s somewhat surprising that Apple decided to go with USA Today as well as Bloomberg Businessweek.

USA Today is behind both The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal in print circulation and likely far behind in web traffic. More importantly, it’s without question far behind in terms of tech-oriented reader mindshare. But perhaps they’re trying to appeal to a more mainstream audience.

Meanwhile, Bloomberg Businessweek is ranked 82nd in terms of magazine circulation in the U.S., behind publications such as Boys’ Life. To be fair, with Newsweek no longer in the picture, it’s hard to come up with another publication that would suit Apple — though Time, with over 3x the circulation, comes to mind.

Read More