The point is that having some kind of reason for the clock's time in advertisements elicited all kinds of oohs and ahhs from the Apple fanboy crowd, "wow, no wonder everything Apple puts out is made out of unicorn farts, if they are this careful about this kind of insignificant detail."
And yet typography, one of Apple's most important differentiators, the one that put them on the map, that sustained the company for years among the graphic artist and desktop publishing industry, and probably one of the most important reasons the company is around today and didn't die off in the 90's, is in shambles on theses platforms. In other words, Apple cares about the appearance of attention to detail without actually caring about the actual substance. And as the blog post notes, Microsoft of all companies has actually taken some time and effort to improve their typography. Sure, Microsoft's font efforts are not nearly up to Apple's old standards, but then again, neither is Apple (as we see).
So long as people like yourself continue to overlook these kinds of differentiators, Apple will continue to de-emphasize them in their development efforts and instead appeal to the people who care about things being shiny than actually well thought out.
They may as well just fire the entire development staff and release a block of pyrite and sell it for $1200 at Best Buy. It will be released at a keynote, with a list of bulleted features. The inability to do anything with it will be one of those bullets. Fanboy blogs will carry on slavishly for years about how Apple carefully designed their pyrite product to fit the lifestyles of real people like them. And that the missing features, like actually doing anything, are the result of careful design activities by Jonathan Ive. Breathless commercials touting the shape of the block, how it just "fits" in the palm of your hand and was polished to a perfect shine by teams of Iraqi orphans, and how Jonathan Ive had a revelation and realized that it "should just be all bezel" will air during the Superbowl and the Olympics, "iPyrite, think shiny."
It will be followed a year later with a 50% price reduction and a new version at $1400, in an ever so slightly differently shaped block, and have a dazzler light attachment you can buy at the Apple store for $39.99. It'll be called the iPyrite 2GS. Some people will try to "jailbreak" their iPyrites by just shooting themselves up directly with heroin and bleach. But Apple will spend %20-30 of their revenue funding police departments and counter drug authorities to lock those people up.
Fanboy blogs will carry on asking questions like why anybody would want to jailbreak their iPyrite. It's clearly the best product in the mineral class. Jailbreaking will just ruin Apple's carefully designed user experience ecosystem and make Jonathan Ive (yes you have to say his full name every time) cry.
I stopped reading when I saw "typography, one of Apple's most important differentiators". I may be living in a fantasy world, but it's clearly not the same world you're living in.
Perhaps. I remember a time, of about a good decade or so, where the only places you saw Macs were in graphic design and desktop publishing shops, schools and movies (in that order). And the sole reason for that was that the Mac had excellent typography and WYSIWYG to printer support. Astoundingly good as a matter of fact.
There was also a time when Macs used m68k. Apple in 2010 is not Apple in 1990.
Apple still has excellent typography. They're simply no longer objectively better than Microsoft --- at typography. At design in general, they're still destroying everyone else.
If there's a branch of design that is one of Apple's "most important differentiators", it's industrial design. It isn't typography. If it was, Apple would spend the infinitessimal percentage of the huge amount of money they've banked to design a couple typefaces.
The article you're citing is also over-the-top. There are some real typographic nits in it, but there's also overt nonsense, like the idea that Apple is selecting its typefaces because they want to avoid licensing fees.
Look, either they are hyper focused on an attention to detail or they are not.
The time stamp on the ads was held up as evidence that they are, with breathless replies agreeing to that effect.
And yet when somebody points out area where that attention to detail is slipping, tptacek and friends comes along and dismisses an entire sustaining legacy of the company. "Fonts are stupid, who needs 'em anyway. Reading is for suckers."
Wonderful, so attention to detail is only important if it's what they are currently bothering to focus on. But if they aren't focusing on it, then it's not important?
It totally does. You dismissed the linked article wholesale as nitpicking "The article you're citing is also over-the-top. There are some real typographic nits in it...".
What you call nitpicking, I'm calling attention to detail.
I agree with you that their industrial design is top grade. Is it the most important differentiator? I dunno, anecdotally I don't know anybody that cares that the baseplate of the new Macbooks is a single piece of machined aluminum. Are all the buttons in the right places and is it pleasant to use and look at? I think those are important, and it's amazing how often that's done poorly.
But holding up absolutely meaningless marketing nonsense as a prime example of why Apple is the superior design shop, principally because it embodies the concept of "attention to detail" and then completely dismissing something that's actually important like "can I actually read the text on the screen" is nonsense. Really, nobody cares that the time is supposed to coincide with the big reveal at Macworld. But people do care if they put down 500-800 dollars on an iPad so they could download and read books and the table of contents is all over the page and they have to stop reading it after 20 minutes because the typography is a disaster.
We both agree that design is an important factor in product development.
I think we also both agree that attention to detail is an important factor in product development.
We also both probably agree that there are only so many resources you can through at a product's design, so compromises have to be made.
This is where we disagree (and this is why places like HN are interesting), you favor the external design of the product. How it looks on the shelf. Does it catch the eye of the consumer? You're even ok with letting other aspects of the product slip if it allows for a bit more time to go into small details of the packaging. I'm not saying this is bad or dumb or whatnot. But I am making the argument that you have to at least acknowledge that other areas are slipping -- something you and other Apple fanboys seem completely unable or unwilling to do. Basically there are no flaws in what Apple produces. Every one of Steve Jobs' and Jonathan Ive's babies is born perfect and without flaw. Anybody who says other than that doesn't "get it", is jealous or is a nitpicker.
I think that ultimately the utility of the device is more important. I'm willing to live with a little bit of ugliness in the package if the overall device is more useful. If I can use it for hours without fatigue, if I can do useful things I want or need to do with it, etc. If I have to have one more button on the bezel to accomplish that, that's fine. If I have to have a port on the back of the device so I can swap batteries, or stick in an SD card or plug in a usb device, that's okay by me. I don't want those things to diminish the device, I don't want the extra button slapped haphazardly in the middle of the screen for example. Or the door to the battery compartment to weigh 2 pounds. But those things are important. To me, and to other users.
Just because there are flaws in a product, does not make a product bad. It makes the product real. Putting blinders on, becoming an apologist for things lacking, dismissing valid issues, introduces you to group think, fantastical thinking, circular reasoning, self justification and fanboydom among other flaws in thinking; not to critical thinking and objective analysis.
