Aesthetics have a bad rap in geek circles. CmdrTaco infamously slammed the original iPod with “No wireless. Less space than a nomad. Lame”. In other words, it’s all about the features and the functionality. If you don’t do more than the other guy, you’re useless. I don’t agree, but I accept.
It’s when the argument is raised from the “I” and to the “them” that it starts getting ridiculous. In arguing some new, ugly IBM laptop over the MacBook Air, I read the following and thought this is exactly where it goes wrong: “If you’re buying a laptop to impress girls at Starbucks (in which case, you might want to do some serious self-evaluation), this ain’t the one for you”. In other words, people only buy beautiful products to impress other people (and that’s a shallow thing to do).
It’s actually not so much that this position is ridiculous, it’s more that I feel sorry for someone holding it. I get so much enjoyment out of surrounding myself with beautiful things that I feel sad for anyone missing out on that. Aesthetics is a feature in itself. One that I — and most the rest of the human race — is perfectly willing to let trump other functionality.
I think you’ve fundamentally misunderstood why people buy beautiful products, if you think it’s all about projection. While there’s certainly something to that (and I see absolutely no shame in that either!), it’s at the core about people feeling good about that which is pretty. That doesn’t make us shallow, that just makes us human.
Matthew
on 16 Sep 08I couldn’t agree more.
Steel
on 16 Sep 08Totally true. Whether its about a pair of shoes or a sports car, its about invoking that passion and emotion within yourself and not necessarily to flaunt it to others.
John Topley
on 16 Sep 08When I see a beautiful external form factor it suggests to me that the company responsible probably lavished as much care and attention on the product’s internals as well.
Tim O'Brien
on 16 Sep 08The other, more offensive, portion of that statement is that “the girls at Starbucks” are solely interested in aesthetics and not function. The unspoken idea there is that females are merely interested in pretty baubles while “real men” are interested in function. In other words, “this is a Man party and our stuff has to look tough”. I’m personally tired of the, “Man as rugged, tough individualist” story, and I’m perfectly happy with my pretty iMac. I even produce Music with it; Music which I consider to be very “pretty”.
Jon Gretar
on 16 Sep 08Looks matter for almost everything we do. You work better in a good looking office. You learn more when the school building impresses you.
But of course. Often you have to select the functionality over the looks. You don’t climb Mount Everest in Skechers.
Grant
on 16 Sep 08Love that sentence – I couldn’t agree more.
Glenn Vanderburg
on 16 Sep 08The fact that people don’t generally value beauty in products like this is just a sign of the immaturity of the market. For a while, cars were valued almost entirely for their features, making “any color you want, as long as it’s black” a viable strategy for the Model T. But it didn’t take all that long for people to start caring about how their cars looked, and since about the 1950s nearly everyone has cared about that. The same change is happening in the computer and electronics markets now.
Steve
on 16 Sep 08Good point, but I am on the fence with whether I agree or not, because while I do derive satisfaction from having beautiful things, I think a good chunk of this is because I imagine how these things are (or would be) perceived by others. Because people WILL see these things sometime (maybe not a lot, but sometime). I feel compelled to admit, too, that I am leery of viewing technology as a fashion accessory. But that is just me.
Eric
on 16 Sep 08It’s not just about outside beauty either. OSX is great because it’s clean and gets out of my way. Apple has also been known to use good hardware on the inside.
People sometimes get lost in “featuritis” and forget that if the device does less, but does it better, that is usually an improvement.
Matt Brown
on 16 Sep 08Speaking of beautiful aesthetics, KFC are now offering chicken strips made with the Coronal’s ORGINAL RECIPE eleven herbs and spices! I haven’t been this excited since McDonald’s converted all of their nuggets to white meat.
David Andersen
on 16 Sep 08One of the ironies of people who like to impress others with their material goods is that they often select rather ugly things (granted this is all a matter of opinion). Witness the number of expensive, ostentatious homes that have been built.
Greg
on 16 Sep 08Right on.
Derek
on 16 Sep 08The “impress girls” logic is flawed anyways. There is a good chance that you’re impressing more guys at Starbucks with your nice looking computer than girls.
Chris
on 16 Sep 08Amen, brother. I recently blogged about the alarming lack of design quality that is assailing Apple’s App Store. I was accused of being a “snob.” Apparently only snobs care about look and feel.
At least that’s what those who don’t understand look and feel (and can’t attain it for themselves) want you to think.
“Sure our product is uglier than the other guy’s, but you’d have to be a shallow jerk to care!”
These arguments are either disingenuous or ignorant. Much like the “only kool-aid drinkers buy Apple stuff” nonsense you hear in every tech site comments section. The implication being, of course, that only mindless sheep care that their stuff both works and looks (and feels) good doing it. When in reality it’s the mindless sheep that don’t care.
Anonymous Coward
on 16 Sep 08lol @ Matt Brown
You just decided what I’m grabbing for lunch today. Thanks!
Chris
on 16 Sep 08@ Glenn, I’m glad you made the Model-T analogy, because that exact example also came to my mind when I read the original post. If no one really cared, we’d all still be driving Model-Ts.
For years the PC world was dominated by the thinking that computers were simply tools. Who cared if they were ugly, cheap-looking, loud, etc. Cost was all that mattered, and bland, generic box assemblers like Dell shot to the top.
But now people are starting to realize, “Hey, if I have to look at (and listen to) this thing for 60 hours a week, more than any other single thing in my life I look at, why can’t it look good? And be quiet?”
Mac sales will continue to rise as people come to this realization.
Reminds me of the recent Wendy’s “Kicking Trees” ad:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4VilgP2UtsI
Justin
on 16 Sep 08Working with attractive products or in an attractive environment: 1) makes me happier on a subconscious level 2) increases my productivity 3) perhaps because of the previous two points, reduces my daily stress.
These factors actually have influenced my decision to go freelance / work remotely—I have much better control of my tools and environment.
Micah
on 16 Sep 08For the life of me, I read the title and thought it was going to be a political rant.
DHH
on 16 Sep 08As an aside, the Air actually does work as a way to strike up conversation in coffee shops. I’ve had a handful of those “ohh, that’s so beautiful, how do you like it?” comments.
I’m sure someone would take that as another point for “it’s just for shallow people”, but I just take it as “this is so well done as to be a conversation piece”. Which is great!
Andy Kant
on 16 Sep 08I would say that aethetics when it comes to computers is more of a benefit than a selling point, its something I would take into consideration but not something that would convince me to buy one item over another. Aesthetics come into play in my buying decisions when the features/functions portion are relatively equal for my purposes.
I have two MacBook Pro’s (one is a work computer, one is a personal one), but the sole reason that I bought them is because Macs are the best web development machines due to being able to test all environments easily and a bash console is hard to live without. I appreciate that MBP’s look good, but that isn’t why I bought the machine and there’s actually a cost to it: You gain a more attractive computer, but with worse wireless performance and a higher than average operating temperature (both due to the aluminum case/form factor).
Taylor
on 16 Sep 08@Steve: I feel the same quandary, and I’m sure I’m inconsistent in my own consumption decisions and rationale.
Perhaps pursuing aesthetics = pursuing authenticity as humans.
Meaning, we’re human, and the sooner the better that we recognize that fundamental fault and make things that appeal to being human (and endurable characteristic) rather than attempting to sublimate and change ourselves (a guarantee for long-term failure).
Leadhyena
on 16 Sep 08You never did like Ayn Rand, did you? :)
At the risk of sounding the opening shot of a flame war, allow me to counterpoint. Beauty is truly in the eye of the beholder, and while many look at an IPod and appreciate its form factor and interface feel, others will reject it for the DRM, sometime clunky menu selection, the short lifespan, and the lack of OGG support. Beauty is a measurement of worth in that it is eventually a weighing (in the neural net of the brain, this is quite literal even if unperceived) of the different attributes that make up the subject of perception.
While many people in this society do appreciate the truly aesthetic, some of us also factor in function into that question, quite unaware and yet quite appropriately. From an evolutionary standpoint, beauty appeared as a function of survival, necessary to judge what to eat, what company to entertain, what forest to inhabit. All of these were functional judgments when we needed to make basic decisions in order to survive and multiply. What I’m getting at here is that function eventually feeds beauty and the two are not unrelated.
You rightfully state that “There’s no shame in looking good.” As stated above I contend that “looking good” once depended on a function of something not necessarily related that eventually fed into that aesthetic. The iPod is beautiful because it feels good in the hand and has a natural control mechanism. Coming back to /. : CmdrTaco was wrong in denying the worth of the iPod, but not for the same reasons; he was right in saying that the iPod wasn’t as technologically advanced, but he didn’t realize how little that really factored into the equation compared to its usability in the eyes of the market which eventually ruled against that judgment.
So defend “good looks” as far as it gets a bad rap from geeks, but no further than that; there still is a lot of beauty in the function from where it ultimately comes and something can be both “surface-ugly” and deeply beautiful at the same time, depending on who is looking at it and what their criteria are.
Sur
on 16 Sep 08The psychology seems comparable to those Java programmers who say “Rails is awfully pretty to be a web app framework, Servlets are more nerdy”... how idiotic thinking is it that you don’t wanna accept a thing because it is really pretty than what you have.
Juan Pablo
on 16 Sep 08So truth. I have some friends that actually doesnt understand why I bought a iPod over other MP3 players. I tried to explain them in a lot of ways and with a lot of features why I did that. They had a lot of arguments that actually were truth and makes mi iPod worst. So this post is perfect to make them understand why.
GeeIWonder
on 16 Sep 08There’s a difference between things adorned with superficial aesthetics and beautiful things.
A big one.
Rhonda Michelle
on 16 Sep 08Yes, beauty & functionality together are possible. The best organizational systems succeed with this concept. It’s much more compelling to use an organizational system {ie: file folders, closet organizers} that is visually appealing. We communicate through the design of a piece as well as providing the usage through its functionality. A fine balance of both parts of our brain.
Dmitry
on 16 Sep 08We buy nice clothes, good looking cars and beautiful furniture… but of course our computers should remain ugly and purely functional :)
I absolutely agree with you David. We use computers every day, so why the heck should they lack good design and aesthetics? Beautiful objects are enjoyable to use, and computers are no exception. Apple understands this, and now other manufacturers are starting to pick it up too, slowly.
Johan
on 16 Sep 08Hm. While the IBM is definitely not as lickable as the Macbook Air (In fact, pretty much anything that Apple makes), it does have that look on purpose.
The comparison here is between a Toyota Land Cruiser pickup (just about the best workhorse that exists) and an Aston Martin DB9 (Just about the most beautiful car that exists). They are not serving even close to the same purpose, and the physical appearance reflects that. Given a choice, I’d probably go for the DB9, unless I need to go off-road or carry stuff ;-)
I get your point about the physical looks being a big deciding factor for its own innate value, and not for impressing others. If the Macbook Air fitted what I needed, it would probably have been my first choice, based purely on looks.
However, dismissing the rather crude ‘impress girls’ argument out of hand is not entirely valid. I know that if I am looking for something to fit my way of working, I would have lots of options to be weighed up, but if I wanted to impress people, I’d go for the Macbook Air every time ;-)
Don Schenck
on 16 Sep 08As a good-looking - well, no … rather incredibly handsome - man, I agree. Women often flock to me, not to see my iPod or my car, but rather just to be seen with me.
/*cough/*
Dan
on 16 Sep 08I thnk the main problem is people without a lot of money get pissed off by smug folks spending all their disposable income hoovering up every Apple product going and wondering why the rest of humanity doesn’t worship the ground they walk on.
Fair enough if you’ve carefully researched and concluded that you’d work smarter, harder and faster with Apple products, but not everyone is like that and find IBMs or whatever to be a better fit for them.
Budgetary concerns will be an issue too and there’s no getting away from the fact that a low-range Apple laptop is much more expensive than a low-range non-Apple one.
Personally, I’d love an Apple laptop, but my wife would kill me. If I did have one, of course I’d show it off, but I wouldn’t walk around demanding attention like some folk I know do…
Morning Toast
on 16 Sep 08I agree about wanting beautiful things for yourself, but it’s the folks that blatantly “announce” the ownership of said pretty things that cross that line and have turned beautiful things into nothing but objects of gloat for the sake of gloating.
Bottomline, just buy what works best and be done. If it’s a Ferrari, great, if it’s a Kia, so be it.
Jake
on 16 Sep 08The funny thing is I feel the Thinkpad design is really beautiful.
GeeIWonder
on 16 Sep 08I thnk the main problem is people without a lot of money get pissed off by smug folks spending all their disposable income hoovering up every Apple product going and wondering why the rest of humanity doesn’t worship the ground they walk on.
Well I don’t know why anyone would get upset at someone else spending their disposable income,
I do see why people, with or without a lot of money, would have little patience for people buying a new [laptop/cellphone/music player/fingerprint collector] to replace their [bigger/smaller/not 3g/covered in fingerprints] previous one on credit with banks failing.
John Cromartie
on 16 Sep 08The Shakers sought perfection in everything they did. They believed that building things was a spiritual act, and that doing it well would honor God. The interesting thing is that they didn’t add superfluous decoration to their works, yet these are regarded as being quite beautiful. They ended up living in beautifully crafted surroundings that were not ostentatious or showy.
People can clearly care about design without being smug bastards.
JPC
on 16 Sep 08It seems to me that the technology community, programmers in particular, have had a word for the blend of form and function forever—elegance.
In the sense that the so-called geek sees the glass not as half-empty or half-full but as “twice as large as it needs to be,” it becomes a value equation.
What was sacrificed to get the MacBook Air so thin? Is it something that’s important to me? If so, it might not pass the elegance test. The unnamed iPod competitor is a straw-man, since there are many portable music players which are as (subjectively) aesthetically pleasing, and also more feature-rich—therefore, more elegant solutions.
To assert that there’s nothing wrong with looking good sounds like an excuse for companies (like Apple) that have used fit and finish to compensate for feature-set trade-offs less likely to be appreciated by consumers until after a purchasing decision is made.
Tor Løvskogen Bollingmo
on 16 Sep 08Then why does almost every webapp lack aesthetics you could get out of graphics in the UI instead of a simple CSS rendering?
James
on 16 Sep 08Excellent post.
Of course it’s equally true that some geeks use ‘functionality’ and a lack of aesthetics to make a point about themselves (“I don’t need beauty to be accepted”, or whatever), just like other people use beautiful objects to show off. Either way, it’s a shame to reduce something wonderful to a game of social one-upmanship. Like you say, beauty in itself is enjoyable enough.
The criticisms of an obect
Marcus Blankenship
on 16 Sep 08Read Don Norman’s book, “Emotional Design”. It asks (and answers) the question why we “prefer” things that are beautiful, and why we feel they work better than ugly items.
How others perceive us is a part of the picture; how it makes us feel about ourselves is what really drives our use, and the products appearance often regulates this.
For example, I’ve used hundreds of different mechanical pencils in my life (who hasn’t!), but keep coming back to just one, even though it’s not as functional as some. The Alvin Draft/Matic Mechanical pencil, while about 10 times the cost of a cheaper pencil and an admittedly crummy erasing system, makes me more productive and “happier” than a cheap pencil. I’m willing to overlook it’s deficiencies because I love how it feels to use it.
So, to overlook the purpose of beauty is to deny our humanity.
Kevin
on 16 Sep 08I was just going to mention Don Norman’s book, and lo and behold there it is… at the very bottom of the comments. It has a great deal to say on this topic… if inly it were up a little higher.
Benson
on 16 Sep 08I have a macbook air, and get frequently jolts of pure joy at the beauty of the design. Previous to this experience I may have disagreed with you (I have an ugly little mp3 player which I love dearly), but I have to say I strongly agree now.
Tim Jahn
on 16 Sep 08And part of it is understanding why people want to look good. I enjoy having good looking Apple products because, as you said, they make me happy. I understand this.
I don’t always understand why people love to spend $40 on a pair of jeans because they look good. They understand this; I don’t.
My Apple products are their jeans. While I may not understand, I’m learning to accept.
Vlad
on 16 Sep 08When you try on a pair of jeans, you don’t buy it because it has more pockets than the competition. That’s the simplest way to look at it.
GeeIWonder
on 16 Sep 08@Vlad, Tim, others:
Here’s another way to look at it: you could make most of the OP’s points (and many of the follow-ups) about the Bedazzler, and portray the people who don’t partake in, or worse, frown on the Bedazzling of all personal possessions and not appreciate beauty.
Furthermore, I personally find it pretty pedestrian to use the word ‘beauty’ interchangeably with the word ‘looks’, and think it speaks volumes on the original argument.
She’s a lucky girl.
JPC
on 16 Sep 08@Vlad: But what if you knew that the competition’s jeans were 10% less beautiful, but would last 40% longer, or wear better in the long run? What if the pockets in those jeans couldn’t fit your wallet? Or the belt loops were too skinny for your beautiful belt?
Of course there’s no shame in looking good. And some follow up questions might be:
Am I placing too much value on any one attribute of an object? Am I being dazzled into something that’s not really worth what I’m paying for it? Will I be happy 6 months from now, when the novelty of the beauty wears off?Caligula
on 16 Sep 08All depends on the definition of “beauty”, I suppose.
The Air is pretty. Beauty, for me, lies beneath external appearances. I have more important requirements for things I use. Appearances are only one consideration.
I laugh at people that seek externally-”beautiful” girls, too-stupid. Unless there’s something on the inside, it’s stupid. If one can have both, terrific-but the Air ain’t both. It’s just pretty.
Tim Jahn
on 16 Sep 08I think it’s about value too. I don’t value jeans enough to justify paying $40 for a single pair.
I value my computing equipment enough though to shell out the extra money for an Apple product.
Again, seems to be a matter of understanding where other people are coming from.
Mark
on 16 Sep 08The post is confusing the issue by using Apple products as examples.
The value of Apple computers, especially, is way beyond just their looks.
Anyone who thinks I chose a Macbook Pro to impress girls, is living in an infantile version of reality where impressing people is the only reason they can think of for spending more money.
Macs make me so much more productive, overwhelmingly so, compared to an equivalent non-Mac, and that’s what it’s all about. I get more done, make more money, and have time left over to enjoy my life.
Rimantas
on 16 Sep 08@siftee Just curious – how do you define “Windows computer”? :)
MessengerBoy
on 16 Sep 08I’ve never thought of it this way before, but I think you’ve hit it right down the middle. I certainly didn’t switch to a Mac because I thought it was prettier than my PC, although it was. But, dare I say it, there is a certain elegance that comes with using Apple products. The way I explain it to people is like this. PCs and Macs are tools. I know my way around Windows and I know my way around OS X and I can get the job done with either. The PC running Windows 98 I use at work is just a tool, nothing more. However, I actually enjoy using my Mac. That’s the difference.
Bob
on 16 Sep 08That quote from the slashdot guy is incredible, shows you should never really trust the options of the hardcore geek crowd if you want to sell to the mass market.
Ridiculously Good Looking
on 16 Sep 08I’ve had to live with this problem all my life. Since birth, I have been despised and “labeled” as shallow and trying to impress people because I’m so incredibly and ridiculously good looking. Come on people, I was born that way. It’s not my fault I get all the ladies.
On a less-important note, I agree. Whether you think the beauty is in the perfect functionality of a product, or the way it looks, carries, or feels, that’s what ends up surrounding you.
Tom Davis
on 17 Sep 08Elegance also implies concision. Obviously undesirable features should be left out. But in many cases, somewhat desirable features should also be omitted when pursuing elegance. Of course omitting too much is also inelegant. What should be included, and what should be left out? As Einstein’s famously said, “Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler.”
Sunil
on 17 Sep 08Couldn’t agree more.
Peter Hickman
on 17 Sep 08The backlash against ‘beauty’ is the assumption that beautiful must necessarily be shallow, as in the airhead bimbo kind of way.
God forbid that someone could be both beautiful and intelligent and how dare people appreciate beautiful things and have depth.
It is nothing more that jealousy.
GeeIWonder
on 17 Sep 08the backlash against ‘beauty’ is the assumption that beautiful must necessarily be shallow, as in the airhead bimbo kind of way
I’m not sure if I agree or not. Just to say though, that the backlash I see here is not against beauty at all, but rather against the use of the term in the airhead bimbo kind of way. Read the OP. Read the title.
I’ve had a handful of those “ohh, that’s so beautiful, how do you like it?” comments.
You do know this is a [well documented] marketing technique, right?
Marko
on 17 Sep 08David has all these deep philosophical posts these past few weeks. Are you sure you’re not having too much free time? ;)
Rob
on 17 Sep 08If this post were a photo on flickr, I’d be adding it to my favorites.
Tim
on 17 Sep 08I have a Macbook Pro and I work on my own…who am I trying to impress??? :)
Keith
on 17 Sep 08Beauty for the sake of beauty is not enough. Where “beautiful” products become great is when they are both aesthetically pleasing and perform their given function well. The Macbook Air is a great example of that. If the Macbook Air was merely a cool looking product, but completely bailed on usefulness I don’t think it’d be nearly as “beautiful.” Likewise…if a product has all the functionality in the world and looks terrible it is going to be an ugly product that won’t likely garner too much attention. Look at the Alessi Design products which can get pretty pricey for mundane things like scrub brushes, etc. They are cool and beautiful, but what gets people buying and continuing to buy is how well they hold up and work!
Sebhelyesfarku
on 17 Sep 08Apple products look gay.
Jon Moss
on 17 Sep 08If it looks great AND works brilliantly, you’re onto a winner.
Apple have got this sorted. Along with B&O, Simple Human, method and a few other companies / brands.
If you use something every day, day in, day out, there is even more reasont to have something which is beautifully designed and works well. I loathe items that don’t work, cause me annoyance, fail in function, especially if I use them a lot.
They usually get binned pretty quickly.
Colin
on 17 Sep 08Great discussion!
I’m all for beauty. I think it’s valuable to create beautiful things and share them with other people.
The problem, it seems, is that people can’t always decide for themselves what is beautiful. Instead, we rely on others to tell us what is beautiful, what is worth having, etc.
In other words, it is sometimes hard to distinguish “I think this is beautiful” from “my friends/my favorite blog/apple tells me this is beautiful so I want it”.
Don Schenck
on 17 Sep 08@Sebhelyesfarku: “What you’ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul”— from Billy Madison … and very appropriate here.
“Elegant”. One of my favorite words and concepts.
“Mastery” is another fav.
Mark
on 17 Sep 08This is a strawman but there’s a lot of truth to it. Consumers’ aspirations are major factors when they purchase things like cars, clothes, electronics. Aspirations – the “you” you want to be – always have the context of how you imagine other people see you. Read a book on social psychology and read a book on product marketing.
Jordan Wollman
on 17 Sep 08Well said, beautifully written, and heart-felt. I couldn’t agree with you, David, more.
GS
on 17 Sep 08So, is there shame in looking “ugly”?
kk
on 17 Sep 08Let’s be honest; at the end of the day, everything we do is about attracting the opposite sex. We’re all just dumb animals.
AtTheRisk..
on 17 Sep 08... of having my Rails developer card revoked by the community, let me say that I can guarantee, beyond a shadow of a doubtm, that some (and far too many, at that) folks buy Macs for the sake of being seen with a Mac or an iPod just for the sake of being seen . I won’t say “most.” I won’t say, “alot.” But, I do see it.
These are the folks who are keen to be seen in the local coffee shop, legs artfully crossed and reading some reading an overly-small print of a book. You’ve seen it and if you haven’t, it’s probably you.
I’m perfectly fine with surrounding yourself with beautiful things. What does give me the douche chills, however, is the folks you know that surround themselves with beautiful things under the false assumption that it somehow “enriches” their image or the their self worth. I’m reminded of a character “Pat Stevens” played by Nora Dunn on SNL a generation ago, who would pick up and thumb through a copy of vogue, to surround herself with beautiful people when her self esteem would dip.
Sam
on 18 Sep 08Luckely there are some sane people to that do not buy stuff for their looks. I couldn’t care less how my laptop looks as long as it’s fast and is as user friendly as possible.
Let’s hope IBM, Nokia & co keep making products with great features and never start to mimic the “Apple-business-model”.
Jarkko Laine
on 18 Sep 08@Sam
Surely user-friendliness has nothing to do with aesthetics?
Let’s hope Lenovo, Nokia & co start making aesthetically pleasing products with great and usable features instead of lots of features. How’s that for a business model?
commenter
on 19 Sep 08Do you need any more proof that this guy is a ghei queen who just loves putting it out?
Ste
on 19 Sep 08When I see a product with poor aesthetics I wonder: If they’ve skimped on something so important as the first impression, what else have they neglected?
Fabio Papa
on 22 Sep 08Bang on, David! How do they account for the high sales in all the non-portable (read desktop) products that apple is selling. Nobody except my family ever sees my iMac 24”, but every time I sit down at it, I KNOW I made the right decision buying it because it’s freaking gorgeous and INSPIRIING (it also works really well). Well-designed products make you feel good every time you use them, not just when you buy them. That’s the magic.
Espen Antonsen
on 23 Sep 08@DHH: I am currently considering MacBook or MacBook Air. Is the latter worth the price for the smaller weight? It does look great but weight would be the main reason for me two choose it over a MacBook. I will be using it to browse web, manage database and code ruby on rails so no need for much power.
This discussion is closed.