Apple's design process

Awesome thanks for the inside

"a huge amount of work and takes an enormous amount of time."

Oh, right, that always helps!

Kind of a "tried-and-true" approach to concepting. Where I think Apple stands out is in considering form first, then function (as opposed to form OVER function, which makes for pretty pieces of useless junk).

Linking everything back to itself is STUPID.
Only MORONs do that

I am surprised they reveled this much about their process... but glad they did.

http://theeffectivelife.wordpress.com/

To summarize:

1. Design

2. Mock-up

3. Present ideas to management

Very original.

@Turk ... to summarize your comment:

1. Boil insightful info from interview into lame and obvious steps.

2. Put them in an order that everyone else uses.

3. Mock them as being unoriginal.

Very original.

Actually, the idea of paired design meetings is fairly original, and ingenious. Too often during the design phase we constrain ourselves by what can be done. If someone suggest something a little far fetched, they're shot down for "dragging out the meeting" and wasting peoples time. Having one meeting a week specifically scheduled to allow designers(of all flavors) to present their most wild ideas, without the boundries of feasibility is a great way to push the evelope. The iPhone and MacBook air must have both started this way. Someone had to suggest that there would not be a removable battery, which at the time was a completely insane idea, but has since proved to be brilliant.

"That might add time up front, but it removes the need to correct mistakes later on."

If only more companies would allow their Engineers to spend more time up front to catch problems and issues early in the development process. The earlier you catch a problem, the easier (read: cheaper) it is to correct.

I wonder about Apple's approach to Why versus How.

I took Alan Cooper's class on interaction design. The focus was to start with a Persona, discover her goal, and then create the simplest path to reach that goal. This approach seems at odds with some Microsoft products that give you as many paths to reach as many goals as possible.

My impression is that a big Why at Apple is to make the thing a pleasure to behold. This goes beyond simply a Persona's goal and focuses on the means as well as the ends. For some people, an Apple *is* the Pony. The tradeoff is: does this Pony go anywhere, or is it a kiddy ride that goes around in a circle?

This may sound down on Apple. It isn't. I'm typing this on a MBP - my first Mac since a Ci - and the first machine since my Sharp Mebius PJ that is an absolute joy to use. We're going places.

Cheers.

This is absolutely fascinating from a design standpoint. Apple obviously makes hardware and software we love, but exactly how their process works is very interesting. I always assumed if they used rough sketches as the last step before they shipped. Every professional designer and especially every software development group I've ever worked with did, so it's interesting to me that Apple does not.

-Chilton Webb
http://ConjureBunny.blogspot.com

From my experience, it's not just the processes that create good design but a culture that encourages and supports those processes. Upper and middle management down through project management and development need to have an understanding and appreciation of design. My experience has been that efforts to improve processes to include/utilize design better are short lived. Teams will agree up-front to try a new process, but end up reverting to what they are comfortable with. Kudos to Apple on what I assume is a culture that respects design.

It's not the process, if it were that simple every company would be Apple. Its the people, the culture of the company and the leadership.

Some people mistake process for work, process is simple, mechanical, that anyone barely qualified can come up with, usually it's this narrow focus on process this which kills creativity

Part of Apple's success is that they are a public company willing to forgo short-term gain for larger long-term payoffs. For example, the development of the iPhone (based on various accounts) is impressive because Steve Jobs was willing to hit the reset button on a major product that didn't turn out quite right. The result is a successful new wireless mobile platform instead of just an iPod with some phone functionality.

Process is, by definition, the constraints under which you do something. That does not make it good or bad. Baking bread requires a process or it will not come out right.

What is important is that the process and the ingredients are equally important to get a desired result.

Often it is believed that with just the right process you can add any ingredients in any amounts you want and still get a nice big loaf in the end, which is obviously false.

The converse, that with the right ingredients the process does not matter, is also false.

There's another element here too that I haven't heard voiced. Apple seems to not only make a good looking and good performing product, but they then "bet the farm" on it, so to speak, with brilliant presentation packaging and advertising!

To attempt to distill a process from genius is to totally miss the point.

This article contradicts everything I heard about iphone development which was jobs himself put the pieces together from various teams.

Only in a culture of bureacrats would the solution be distilled into a process any bureaucrat or child could follow with absolutely no results.

Its genius that rules, and everything else is intellectual poverty, process or not.

I dont have to worry much about this, as I am a genius. Processes are the crutches of fools and incompetents.

How hard they worked to achieve their success... 10 to 3 to 1 is fantastic. But wondering how is it possible by others.

Btn had it perfectly:

Part of Apple's success is that they are a public company willing to forgo short-term gain for larger long-term payoffs.

Having this as your base, before your desire for great design; meaning actual working, not failing & then beautiful design is key for this kind of company. Any great art/design school teaches these principals of design first. If you build it & build it right, the people will come. The part that Btn has right is the basis for a great design company, because at the end of the day, that's what Apple is. It's too bad the music industry can't follow that "part" of Apple's success. Maybe if they changed their goal to this, they can figure out their problems...

I have personally become somewhat surprised on how the latest and greatest Mac OS software upgrades have become less stable, crash more often, more vulnerable to viruses and becoming more easily accessible for hackers... You would think that Mac OS X was running Windows XP or some other Microsoft software?

Raul says: If it were that simple, every company would be Apple. I don't agree with that. Companies have their own cultures which are very hard to change. And not every company even knows how Apple does it. And, even knowing how Apple does it, I bet very few companies would actually change how THEY do it; managers often have strong beliefs in how things should be done, and many are not willing to learn and experiment.

I do agree with your point that having good people makes a huge difference. Apple, knowing how Apple works, presumably interviews looking for people who will fit the Apple culture.

What I want to know is how much time are these designers/engineers working per week? If they are constantly revising and revising you can say for sure they're not putting in 40 hour weeks....

From what I read about the iphone people didn't see their families for months. lol

Apple's design process is not original, but its proactive, open-minded and creative culture allows for the process to flourish.

It's simply the pursuit of excellence! If Steve Jobs hadn't been as interested in design as he is in winning through (read iCon) Apple products would look as dull as any other electronic companies. Look at the Gil Amelio years.
There is an Apple philosophy for the look and feel of it's product and that doesn't come from committee, it needs someone to take the lead. Processes and creativity are great tools but they still need direction.

They don't bet the farm, it appears that way. The last time Apple bet the farm was in switching to OS X and moving to Intel. And that was proven in research for a while. Apple is very strategic in their approach to anything they do, and believe that it should be a brilliant presentation. It's the Culture.

1. Find a bunch of 1960's Braun products
2. Copy them

http://gizmodo.com/343641/1960s-braun-products-hold-the-secrets-to-apples-future

Still sheltered from the REAL ID world being a graduate ID student at Georgia Tech I was surprised that their process isn't widely used. It seems, well, common sense.

What leads certain design companies to turn out 3 dogs and 7 filler concepts in order to complete 10 ideations for a client? Is it management's fault? The client's expectations?

Or is it as MICAH BEALS says it, "Kudos to Apple on what I assume is a culture that respects design."

What makes us respectable like those building makers (architects)?

The insertion of the e*pletive in this article is totally unnecessary here. Don't distract readers from a good article by interjecting that kind of garbage. It makes it hard to distribute in the workplace.

Still, thanks for the article.

The expletive was part of a quote. They used an asterisk instead of a U. Stop reading the internet and get back to work if you have a problem with it.

This kind of process is the kind that exists when the leaders have good insight to the creative and product development process. Otherwise, the leaders just tell the 'builders' to 'hurry up' and the builders are paid to churn out product.

10-3-1 is fascinating. I'm going to implement it immediately.

You know, none of this process stuff is rocket science. You read it, and you think "heck, that sounds easy."

Try implementing it in real life. If you think it's easy, you obviously are completely ineffective in your organization, or you're a liar.

Apple shares its process because if your organization could do it, it'd be doing it already. If you can't do it, you won't be able to without a cultural overhaul, which'll cripple your company for at least a year or two.

apple is a monarchy

I think their approach of starting in Hi-Fidelity can work there because Apple as products and organization already have a strong design identity across the company, and their products are fairly predictable from a technology/innovation perspective. The art of Apple lies in the details and the execution, not in raw innovation and advancement.

I do not think this Hi-Fidelity approach works well in more innovative areas with more unknowns, where you have to kiss a lot of frogs before you find a prince. Which is much less painful when done in high volume and low fidelity.

Apple's secret comes from their culture, and that comes from their leadership. But that doesn't say it cannot be duplicated elsewhere. Just need those elements first.

I like the paired design meetings idea. Usually one starts with the wild-eyed brainstorming, then get down to serious business, as a linear process. To continue the brainstorming right through the project sounds good to me (as a creative type!) Just yesterday, after a year of work on a project, I had a "wild" idea which may just get up -- and overcome the obstacles that have been dragging us back all that time. Sometimes you need a long lead time to get to a point where those crazy ideas actually make sense.

Marcus has it correct. the biggest reason why apple churns out good products is all the decisions are ultimately made by Jobs and a very small circle of advisors. You don't have a bunch of middle managers imposing their useless two cents onto everything. Processwise, it's not too different from most design firms or organizations with design capability.

I've been using a Toshiba laptop instead of usual Apple one. It's like comparing a tank with a Porsche. OK, Apple's design process is thorough, and mildly innovative, but that's not it. They succeed because they have an uncompromising vision - and they stick with it because their excellent design has become the overriding factor in consumers' buying decisions.

http://diaphania.blogspirit.com

Anyone else take this with a grain of salt?

I mean obviously it's true and bound to be accurate, but it's still corporate PR.

I am a designer and did not find this in the least illuminating. Blah blah blah. I think Apple just has great leadership, a visionary at the helm, great respect for the power of design, and they hire good people. Apple is so secretive; I read somewhere once that their own employees don't know about certain products b/c Apple doesn't want anything leaked. That they would release any useful morsel of their process would be a surprise.

Why was Mr. Lopp willing to share Apple's secret sauce? Because having a process is one thing but having the discipline and senior management buy-in to execute it is quite another. Any number of companies could attempt to clone what Mr. Lopp presents here but I doubt they have Apple's underlying culture and infrastructure to pull it off.

This 1000 foot overview actually sounds somewhat like what the process is like at Pixar, by all acounts.

Sketch first, come up with the entire "story" before any actual production, and don't be afraid to start over or scrap it entirely.

The missing link between process and a culture of embracing change is RIGOR. ie the discipline to apply a process rigorously without stifling creativity. Good design isn't just aesthetics but the constant application of some process to make the thing better on every level.

Didn't anyone notice the time lapse Apple allows its design teams to do their work. Most Apple wannabes out there couldn't afford Apple's luxury of time.

There is leadership and direction from a revolutionary and innovative mastermind as the key ingredient behind all world changing creations. One individual with a passionate vision, penetrating insight, a brilliant mind and a relentless determination and focus. Think Shakespeare’s plays, Michelangelo’s sculptures, Disney’s animated films (and Pixars), Dylan’s songs, Edison’s inventions, Sony’s broadcast system, the Beatles music, and Apple’s digital revolution. An individual leader is key—a driving force from which all else follows.

Starts at the top, look at Ballmer/Gates, or "sir" howie Stringer at Sony. Not to speak about the Asian suits running co's that put out product in these arenas. Then look at Jobs.. Each and everyone except Jobs looks like a guy not knowing how to dress or be his own man in the looks arena. This guy Jobs is a geek but knows how not to package as a geek. Hey, great compliment in my book. And I don't even own any apple product, but that's another conversation of not wanting a pod and look like part of the "hip" herd..;-)

Would love to hear a designer's perspective on why design at Apple is different.

These points strike me as entirely an engineering perspective on how design works. Valuable, but I'm sure there's more to it.

it's the brand stupid

Apple's design process is not new. Our design program has been teaching it (100 thumbnails, 10 roughs, 1 comprehensive) for over twenty years. Maybe that's why one of our graduates is now a creative director at Apple.

What IS different is the fact the design is respected and utilized in Apple's business culture, much like B&O in Europe. Europeans value design and designers, the US does not. Business in the last decade finally realizes that design is the only way to innovate and the suits HAVE to work with the creatives in order to stay on top.

If there is an insight here, it's the pixel perfect mock-ups. Most design teams focus on "core functionality" which, once cracked, is then just too easy to lash together and launch. This approach disregards the huge amount of time needed to perfect the ergonomics and finishing design.

Try reversing the process - spend loads of time up front creating a "pixel-perfect" concept - and only start the hard graft development work when that is as good as you can possibly imagine it.

I respect Apple's design process. I agree that the rigor in it counts a lot, but the process sets the baseline.

I am an interaction and interface design student, undergoing formal training in one of the few IxD programs in the US. Apple is actually remarkably retrograde by our standards. Nowadays, most serious practitioners employ "user-centered design," which derives product specifications from close, painstaking observations of user tasks, repeated iterative testing, and constant refinement based on observations of actual behavior. The challenge is to remove your own preconceptions and genius ideas from the process. Surprisingly often, these designs look like nothing special, or even look really ugly. But ask Amazon and Google if they work.
Apple uses "genius" design, which is just the old "I will build it and they will come" model. There are some advantages to this. You can't crowdsource the Taj Mahal. On the other hand, one misstep means disaster (numerous times, as we've seen with Apple). Furthermore, the elegance and beauty of a design may obscure the fact that the product is actually not all that innovative or useful. The iPod is just the first MP3 player that women would agree to carry, just because of the colors, light weight, and rounded edges. Boom--double your market, and get it big enough to go viral. It's sad that we live in a society so dependent on the thinking of hide-bound engineers that this worked. But it's not genius either. (Tying it to a proprietary, viral system does approach genius, but no one pays attention to that.)
Macs are attractive and easy to use, sometimes exceptionally so. But they're not always reliable, are far more expensive, are incredibly underpowered (no flames, I just refer to bench testing with similar tasks), and still don't run a lot of software, including entertainment and other titles. In turn, this has kept them from widespread business adoption, as they don't meet the needs of most businesses. Even the recent Apple success has boosted Macs to...6%...of the market. So speaking as a designer, these are *not* good designs. Truly great designs come to seem inevitable, and as such become part of the daily landscape. Apple products are still evitable. And "process" or no, it's still a bunch of crap happening before Jobs decides. If he so much as gets a cold, kids, dump that stock.

I wonder if this is the exact same process that produced big flops such as Cube, Newton and etc. Whatever their success/failure ratio is, I do agree that there are a lot to learn from Apple and it is a great process as general baseline. An incredible market success of ipod/iphone does not validate its process as a standard one to follow.