Jump to content
Product Design Forums

Treasurebox
Sign in to follow this  
Guest Tudoran Liviu

Imove

Recommended Posts

Guest ID2010

Fanstastic work but just ditch the Apple reference.

 

So many designers want to 'Apple-ify' all their projects. Your work is strong enough alone to stand without a gimmick.

 

Again, nice work.

 

you have a really nice process (would be interesting to see a video)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Strander
Now. I'd like to see how this great piece of concept art can be turned into what matters... PROFIT.

 

If you’re really in it for the "PROFIT", then pushing your concept towards engineering and science is certainly not your best move. Looking at your talent, I see no reason you couldn't do what Scott Roberson has done in film and do very well for yourself. In the film industry, your concept art is the product so you don't have to worry about logistics, you can focus on emotional impact.

If you really love seeing things become real, working products, then getting familiar with engineering and science is a great idea. I am just saying there are avenues where you can do just fine without ever having to get in depth about what’s beneath the skin. And don’t forget about marketing, it does matter, so I would recommend dropping the Apple connection.

Also, unless you are interested in designing business structures, I hope you don't equate profit with what really matters. Adding value will lead to profit, but focusing on profit shouldn’t be part of the design process.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Buff
Now. I'd like to see how this great piece of concept art can be turned into what matters... PROFIT.

 

If you’re really in it for the "PROFIT", then pushing your concept towards engineering and science is certainly not your best move. Looking at your talent, I see no reason you couldn't do what Scott Roberson has done in film and do very well for yourself. In the film industry, your concept art is the product so you don't have to worry about logistics, you can focus on emotional impact.

If you really love seeing things become real, working products, then getting familiar with engineering and science is a great idea. I am just saying there are avenues where you can do just fine without ever having to get in depth about what’s beneath the skin. And don’t forget about marketing, it does matter, so I would recommend dropping the Apple connection.

Also, unless you are interested in designing business structures, I hope you don't equate profit with what really matters. Adding value will lead to profit, but focusing on profit shouldn’t be part of the design process.

 

Interesting arguments, but I must say I don't entirely agree.

 

I do accept there are areas of design that need no function or realistic opportunity to move into real life production. We for example produce concept pieces as futuristic ideas to stimulate thinking and help move towards developing IP, which can be profitable. Additionally we work with some people who develop 3D models for the gaming industry. We recently assisted a client with an animation to promote their product with all the scenes conceptual except for the very small element of the product itself.

 

 

Where I tend to diverge with you thinking however is where product realization comes closer to reality. I can't think of any client who wanted to make a loss developing the world’s greatest product.

 

Let’s take the Nintendo Wii for example. It makes a good profit, took huge market share for them off Sony mainly and catapulted Nintendo back to the top of the industry. The technology as far as the consumer has been concerned is quite a breakthrough, yet VR does exist... but how many folks would be prepared to pay let’s say £40,000 for a games console? A few yes, but that would hardly make the shareholders happy, and if the share holders aren’t happy there is no work, no work, no mortgage getting paid.

 

I appreciate designers might want to stick to some noble idea that design should have freedom of expression and be free of constrains such a finance, but reality bites and bites hard.

 

That said, I do agree with you that adding value is key. Add value and the profits will (more or less) happily follow. However, too great many products don’t get to market because their design is ill considered. Not ill considered with regard to function. Not ill considered with regard to aesthetic or even with regard to immersive and emotional experiences, but fail instead because they are simply not commercially viable.

 

My company has taken more than a few designs created elsewhere that for the client would prove to be unviable and re engineered/designed them. In those cases we have turned them in to successful product and saved our clients more than the fees we have charged. for example, by making some considered modifications we helped save a client more than £3.5M. Had we not done that the project would have been canned at a cost of some £800,000. The product in turn saves the end user millions of pounds per year in fuel efficiency. That fuel efficiency alone was not enough of a selling point to make the project go ahead at a cost of £3.5M and writing off the £800k investment was the cheaper option.

 

Whilst in the design thinking argument, the 'suits' seem to be trying to hijack design; design would do well to put down its prima donna ego and pick up the accounts spreadsheet and take a closer look just how it is design earns its wages to pay the milkman his dues.

 

My company makes money because we make money for our clients. I do know of a couple of my rather illustrious competitors who have made it difficult for their clients to make a profit. Perhaps that’s why they are losing more and more work?

 

Apple makes a good profit don’t they? Well from 12 man design team, with 15 products to market, turnover at some $34Bn and profits at $5.7Bn, I’d say that’s not doing too shabby. So how much does an iPhone4 cost? £200 on a 18month contract? Well how about £500 and £300 of telecoms subsidy. Would Apple have 40% share if the consumer price was the full £500?

I would wager that Jonathan Ive has a little less freedom to design to his heart’s content than we would like to romanticize or we are perhaps led to believe. Steve Jobs is not in the business of losing money.

 

Design away... you can lose as much money as you like, but in the end you’ll only be designing fro yourself in a cold bedsit with a tin of baked beans for lunch.

 

The products we buy do not exist for our enjoyment; they exist to deliver profit for the companies that make them. In order to maximise those profits, the design, engineering and marketing teams, along with the grey suited chaps from accounts work together as an homogenised team to deliver those products to fulfil our desires enough to part with a sum of money we are comfortable with for the given benefit se feel they bring to our lives. If that where to cost more than we are willing to pay, whilst allowing the retailer and distributor and manufacture to make a living... then those loved products would be our mere fantasy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Strander
I appreciate designers might want to stick to some noble idea that design should have freedom of expression and be free of constrains such a finance, but reality bites and bites hard.

 

Old school business practices hold this above your head “If we make a big profit, you will all make a lot of money. If we do badly, you will be out of a job, eating out of tin can”. Intuitively that seems like it should work, but hold on, for design and innovation it’s just the opposite. This video explains why:

 

In my opinion, the job itself should be a big part of the reward. The process of designing with a diverse team of smart people is highly rewarding. I just got an email today about how a product I helped design is selling like crazy and being featured all over the place. Earlier in my career that would have meant more, but now it’s almost interference to what I am currently working on.

 

No doubt, I want to be paid well in the end and I want my company to be successful. But while I am in the trenches of design I don’t want to think about making tons of money, or being famous for that matter. It will only distract attention away from designing the right products and experiences.

 

Adding value includes making the product more available to your intended audience. I’ve been to China enough times to understand that the true grunt work is engineering based and designers need to play a role in this. It still stands, if your company can’t be profitable and you lose your job, it may have nothing to do with design, which may have included successful design for marketability. Not to worry talented designers, there are plenty of employers who can turn your talent in success on the balance sheets.

 

Apple makes a good profit don’t they? Well from 12 man design team, with 15 products to market, turnover at some $34Bn and profits at $5.7Bn, I’d say that’s not doing too shabby. So how much does an iPhone4 cost? £200 on a 18month contract? Well how about £500 and £300 of telecoms subsidy. Would Apple have 40% share if the consumer price was the full £500?

I would wager that Jonathan Ive has a little less freedom to design to his heart’s content than we would like to romanticize or we are perhaps led to believe. Steve Jobs is not in the business of losing money.

 

So the Smartphone pricing structure is an Apple invention now?

 

You may hate the rundown term “design thinking” but Jobs has truly designed the apple experience. The industrial design, although usually pretty sexy, is only a small part of the experience. Apple makes it possible to have thin margins on the Iphone and still be plenty profitable, why? Because of its seamless portal to the iTunes and the App store. It’s a reciprocal system that usually ends with the best user experience in the business. And their one of kind culture and philosophy extends to every facet of their company. It would be great if the iMove could be an exercise in “how would apple reinvent itself as a transportation company?”. I bet that the fuel / refuel system would be just as important as the car itself. As it is now, the exercise is purely aesthetic, and in my opinion it would stand better marketed in some other way.

 

Buff, it sounds like you are more involved in the business side of things then most designers. I am imagining there are a few creative people who depend on the fact that you understand your company’s business model so I hope you continue to advance and share your knowledge of designing for economics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Buff

I completely agree with your above post. everything you say is absolutley the correct way to yeild those profits I speak of.

 

toyota for example, and lets not get ahead of ourselves, toyota are hardly considered sexy and underlines your comment that sexyness is only a small part of the process. I feel often the sexyness is blown out of proportion to the more holistic view you share with us above.

 

I indeed also agree that Jobs has designed (or at least played his part in) the whole system.

 

From my experiances that design encompaces the finding and designing to the price equilibrium. Failing to do so wont garuntee failure, but sucess comes that much harder and slower.

 

Again I totally agre and in fact feel enthused at your observations regarding the realities of manufacturing in China and the 'grunt' of the engineering.

 

I feel many of your contemperories often miss the golden oportunity to fully engage with engineers, sales and marketing and finance guys.

 

Often you won't be thanked tor 'intefereing' with the cross functional teams and appreciation will only be shown for paying lip service to such.

 

I suspect from your enthusiasum fro your job and your comapany that you are fortunate to have excelant employers who themselves belive that design is a holistic business more perhaps than any other.

 

I only hope schools and universities can educate this in the next generation and companies begin to adopt this as a prime motivation.

 

My role within my company is client facing yes. I have an excelant chairman to look after the business bit as despite my protesting about the lack of business nouse within the ID industry, I can't claim to ave too much of it myself.

 

I am infact a mechanical engineer by profession so I know quite well the grunt you speak of. too often in my career I have seen engineers not understand design as much I have seen designers not understand business or businessmen not understand either design or engineering.

 

Where there exists greater opportunity and reward, not just for the company and its employees, but also the consumers, is when those independant functions work seemlessly together.

 

I noticed from your link in your signiture the company you work for and I revied it with interest.

 

Whilst it might not be IDEO it seems likely to me that the company will enjoy delivering good quality deign and engineering for their clients. A welcome change from what is commonly on offer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Tudoran Liviu

Hi Buff

Thank you for the compliments, I totally agree with the study of materials, etc...the problem is that usualy I am quite busy, I finish a project pass to another, so I don't really have time to finish them properly...I am still in the learning phase....2nd year at IED, Torino (Transportation Design) I graduate in one year and a half...no plans for a master course....

as for the future work...everything that involves design/creativity...product, automotive, interior, concept art...who knows? we'll see... :)

 

regards,

 

You're an awsome tallent. Who gives a stuff if it isn't Apple enough.

 

Now. I'd like to see how this great piece of concept art can be turned into what matters... PROFIT.

 

So tell me if you can, what technology powers the vehical, what materials and processes would be used to manufacture it. Don't forget, Ive would invent his own material if he had to, so think more of material properties and future possibility than what exists now. Your design is far reaching and conceptual in its language, so your thoughts about its manufacture should be simmilarly aligned. You should think about how you are going to inspire engineers and scientists enough to deliver at least some of the promise. try to base it on something tangiable though. your concept you say is for 2020, keep that in mind, don't go crazy. of course if you'd rather go crazy then think perhaps 2030 or even 2050 (will we still have wheels then? I think so)

 

If you want to produce an concept that is realisable within the next 5 years, then I would suggest you tone down the design language.

 

still, it's pretty awsome.

 

when do you graduate? do you plan to do a masters? where do you plan to work? which industry?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...

Not apple? Very apple it is a car not a laptop. This guy has nailed the Apple vernacular with the minimal choice of two materials, plastic/glass and aluminium. If it were the "thinnest lightest car" you cannot transfere the FORM No, apple products are are divices that are of a scale that are primarily held by the hand whist a vehical is an inverse ergonomic that holds and protects the body held within. They work on completley different levels and scale. If you are talking about Form then smallest thinnest does not cut it with a car. Ridiculous! great work mate you nailed it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.