john gruber – John Morrison – Product Strategy and Brand Identity

The brilliant and talented tech commentator Marques Brownlee (aka MKBHD) has published a video discussing Apple’s built-in advantage and how it relates to the accusations of anti-competitive behavior against Apple by Tile.

I really liked Marques’ piece, and I think he did an excellent job of laying out Apple’s historical pattern, but I feel it missed something big.

John Gruber nailed exactly what it is:

The problem for a company like Tile — to name one high-profile company that is not pleased by Apple’s entry into its market — is that location tags are inherently simple, and Apple’s Find My network is bigger and better than Tile’s device network. Everything about AirTags is better than Tile, if you’re an iOS user. So it goes. If the answer to the question “Would this add-on be better, and be useful to many users, if it were built into the system?” is yes, you should expect it to be built into the system sooner or later.

Long-term readers of this blog may remember I was an early crowdfunding backer of Tile and managed to get some interesting questions answered early on.

Here is the thing: I loved Tile’s trackers, but they have never lived up to the promise of the initial pitch video for a host of reasons:

The trackers themselves weren’t loud enough.
If the missing item was in a coat or a bag, or anything muffling it, good luck finding it.
The radio connections were awful.
I can’t tell you how often the app would fail to connect to a Tile tracker that was in the same room, let alone one that was on another floor.
Proximity indication was basically non-existent.
In the initial video, Tile showed something akin to ‘signal bars’ to indicate proximity. Honestly, that concept was the thing that convinced me to buy it. Nothing even close to it ever materialized

I also hated having to replace trackers annually (or ‘Re-Tile,’ as the company calls it.) It was years before a model with a replaceable battery came along, and it was a more expensive option.

Just based on the core set of features and functionality, AirTags improve on Tile in every regard. And that’s before we talk about Apple’s pre-installed network or the company’s careful consideration of user privacy and safety.

The finding interface alone, with a clear indication of distance and direction, delivers on Tile’s initial promise far better than Tile ever did.

The only thing Tile really has going for it is that it was first to market. If Apple were to be restricted from entering a market like this, consumers would be worse off, not better. In this case, Apple’s innovations and advancements will push the whole market forward, and competitors will be sure to follow.

If Tile wants to make a case that Apple has acted anti-competitively, it will need to show how the company’s actions have harmed consumers, and honestly, I don’t see it.

Apple has built a better mousetrap, and while it has undoubtedly used its unique market position to do so, this is just good product strategy in action.

I completely agree with the critics like John Gruber: The London 2012 Olympic games logo is hideous. It’s just inexcusably ugly.

Coudal Partners attempted to defend the logo, but to me, I almost find their defense offensive to common sense. They state ten reasons why it should be loved; they do not comment on the fact it’s visually unpleasant. Regardless of why we ‘should love it,’ the fact remains still that the logo is ugly. No amount of politicking in its favor will change that fact. However, for the sake of argument, I’ll bite and respond to their defense:

It’s not boring. The bright colors and distinctive design definitely DO stand out and it’s immediately recognizable. Everyone’s talking about it. Designers always complain about the status quo, so we find it surprising that so very few are taking a stand for a somewhat radical design.

It looks like something out of the Flintstones. Just because it stands out doesn’t mean it is good. I’m kind of insulted by the end of that statement, really. The whole ‘designers always’ comment. Just because it is a radical design does not make it good. I’m all for daring and unique if you can pull it off well, and it looks good. Yeah, this logo is daring and unique, but it doesn’t look good.

It’s different. It avoids all the go-to pratfalls of current logo design. No brushstrokes! No feathered drop shadows! No mirrored reflections! No gradients, patriotic colors, rainbows, ribbons, landmarks, symbols of unity, maps, swooshes or globes!

Yes, it avoids a ton of cliché’s, and that is a good thing, but it subscribes to several others, most notably the neon pink ‘futuristic’ look of the early 1990s children’s toys and TV. I feel like I should be watching ‘Saved By The Bell.’

It’s reproducable. Aside from the word “London” going chunky when sloppily rendered for the web (notably on the BBC reproduction that ended up on every site critiquing the logo), it’s good to see a logo that’s so easily printable, broadcastable, embroiderable and moldable (think of how horrible those 9-color rainbow brushstroke logos look when they’re process-printed out-of-register with a 100 line screen on a McDonalds Cup!). It even looks pretty great in black and white.
It’s flexible. A variety of color combinations, shapes, and patterns are available, keeping the logo slightly different on each view, but consistent (the BBC showed only the pink and yellow version, which didn’t help its case). Also, keep in mind that an Olympic logo is almost always saddled with the logos of corporate partners. This square, bold mark will hold up.
It’s the basis for a graphic system. Events require a complicated system of signage, identification, ornamentation, and even architecture. This logo and its associated colors, shapes, type and patterns are the perfect starting point for some fantastic signage, event icons, banners, tickets, uniforms and merchandise.

So basically, it meets the minimum requirements for being a logo? The whole point of creating a logo is to be able to create a brand image around it. Anything that can’t be printed with other symbols or in different sizes would simply be unacceptable. Just because this logo can do these things doesn’t mean it should be picked.

The last part in that group scares me: ‘a basis for a graphic system’ ugggg a whole theme based around this hideous thing… yuck!

It’s timeless. We’ve read complaints that it’s reminiscent of Tangrams (popular since the 1800s), Jamie Reid’s “Never Mind the Bollocks” cover (1977), MTV (1981), ’80s new wave design (Swatch, Bennetton), Emigre Magazine, early 90s television titles (Wacaday, Going Live, The Ben Stiller Show). We’ve read complaints that it’s too ‘current’ and it’ll look dated by 2012. We’ve also read complaints that it’s too futuristic or modern. As far as we’re concerned, all design is influenced by other design. This design rises above its influences, yet remains simple enough to stand on its own. If current trends continue (towards four color, “computery” 3-D), this logo will be even more fresh in five years.

I hate this defense. Just because there is a lot of bad design out there that seem to have a lot of similar conventions which this one lacks doesn’t mean this is good. It just means this one manages to stand on its own with its ugliness; it succeeds in being ugly in a completely refreshing way.

It’s English. The two names that come to mind when we hear “british design” are two of our favorite designers of all time: Neville Brody and Peter Saville. Without being a direct knockoff, the 2012 logo is evocative of their work, the punk and new-wave movements, rave culture and everything we like about the United Kingdom.

What? Because it’s jagged and neon it evokes all these things? I find that demeaning to those cultural movements.

When we hear “my kid could have done that!” we think “success.” Some of the greatest logos of all time involve two lines (the Christian cross) or three lines and a circle (Mercedes). Your kid COULD have done that, but she didn’t. Nor did she design the graphics standards manual that goes with it. So give it a rest. Or send us her resume.

There is a difference between this logo and a Jackson Pollock painting. Sure they both have that same criticism of them, and that defense. But the fact of the matter is Pollock’s work managed to have an air of excitement and interest around it, bottom line, it was good. This logo is just ugly. Just because it is simple or different doesn’t make it good. This defense could be raised to almost any piece of art that is simple, doesn’t mean it’s right or worth defending, and it detracts from the real instances where this defense is essential. It comes off as that elitist ‘art for art’s sake’ attitude that so often leads people to think all artists are self-righteous nut-jobs. It hurts the design community as a whole when you use this excuse on something not worthwhile.

It cost £400,000. That’s probably a bargain for an incredibly high-profile complete graphic identity system for an international company/event designed by experienced professionals. Anyone valuing the importance of design should give that argument a rest, too. We wouldn’t have taken the job for a shilling less.

Do you know what that translates to in Dollars? I’d kill for a gig like that and laugh all the way to the bank. I cannot believe London’s Olympic committee got suckered into that. It’s comparable to the emperor’s new wardrobe. Someone must have convinced them this was smart when the fact is they got taken. The emperor has no clothes on.

It’s unexpected. Chicago is bidding for the 2016 Olympics and the temporary logo is a perfectly decent design. It’s attractive, memorable and generally liked. It even generated a fair amount of internet buzz. But those brushstrokes and gradients don’t reproduce well, the narrow vertical orientation complicates usage and by 2016, the Sears Tower is likely to be Chicago’s third-tallest building. More than anything, the London logo takes the Olympic logo to a new level of boldness, abstraction and simplicity. And we’re a bit jealous.

Just because it’s unique doesn’t mean it’s good. It doesn’t hide the fact that it’s ugly. Yes, it stands out… because it is ugly.

To make matters worse, it says nothing about the Olympics. Any logo could be put in the middle of that zero, and it would symbolize that. The logo cannot stand alone and evoke any sort of meaning. It cannot exist and say ‘Olympics,’ ‘sports,’ ‘competition,’ or anything for that matter without the Olympic rings in it. Seeing things like this make me miss people like Paul Rand who knew how to use symbolism to make something meaningful, is there no one like him left these days?

There is a point where abstraction without meaning is just dumb, and any function is lost. This design is way past that point. Is there really a whole generation of designers out there for whom symbolism is lost on?

That worries me.