[Sigia-l] Re: Design(ers) [was: is bad design a choice?]

[Trenouth, John]

Scott said:
> iPods are not yet a majority of Apple's sales, so I'd go 
> with the entire computer line and OS X.

Sales aren't a terribly meaningful measure.  However stockprice is, and
Apple's stock has just about doubled over the past year.  That's a
textbook definition of success for any
executive/board-member/shareholder.

Can *design* (perhaps to most ill defined term used here) take credit
for this growth in value?  Perhaps some.  But like Manu says there are
WAY more salient factors that have driven the growth of Apple's
shareprice.  

For instance, the iPod represents Apple's entry into the consumer
electronics world (in 2004 a $150 billion a year market in the US
alone).  The supposition being that the iPod will only be the first of
many new consumer electronics products Apple will market.  Since Apple
can't seem to move beyond 5% market share in the computer industry,
moving into new territory almost necessarily means growth of some sort.

Don't get me wrong, Apple is a fantastic example to managers and execs
everywhere of what careful, thoughtful design strategies can accomplish.
Such examples make our jobs a lot easier (here's a thought: why is Apple
to only example we designers seem to talk about?  Who else is winning
though design strategy, and how?). But I fear we're way way overstating
the case here.  The reality is that Apple's design teams are merely one
small factor in what has happened to their stock price.