Since the Sunday Times claimed Jonathan Ive is about to quit Apple, the tech press has gone into OMG APPLE DOOMED mode again, and the Guardian’s Apple’s worst nightmare: Is Jonathan Ive to leave? headline sums things up pretty well.

To answer that particular question: no. Ive is a good designer who’s worked on some iconic products, but he’s not irreplaceable. There are other great, visionary designers in the world. The Guardian article also echoes a commonplace sentiment:

Surely Apple’s board, though they must be desperate to retain Ive, would find it in their interest to allow flexible working in this instance?

Suggestions that Ive should get ‘flexible working conditions’—when the report suggests he’s going to move back to the UK—are ludicrous. Industrial design for an industry giant isn’t something you can work remotely on. Ive can’t just check in now and again via Skype, fling over some ideas via email and pop over to Cupertino every month or so. A designer of his seniority needs to be there, available to see how things are progressing, leading teams, utterly in the mix.

The article also notes one of the most bonkers rumoured points of contention:

There was no hint in Apple’s recent annual meeting that Ive’s position was in doubt in any way, but also no suggestion that it might be Ive rather than current acting chief executive Tim Cook who might replace Jobs permanently.

Gosh, I wonder if that’s because Ive doesn’t have any experience at running an Apple-sized business, unlike, say, Tim Cook, who’s done the job ably already, and continues to do so?

Personally, I hope the Sunday Times is talking bollocks (and, frankly, it wouldn’t be the first time), because Apple with Ive is likely better than Apple without Ive. But if Ive did decide to leave, it wouldn’t be the end of Apple, and nor would it be a case of Apple somehow being unfair and inflexible regarding an employee’s demands.

Charlie Brooker in The Guardian:

Here’s a familiar, mundane scenario: you’ve got an iPhone with loads of music on it. And you’ve got a laptop with a new album on it. You want to put the new album on your phone. But you can’t hook them up and simply drag-and-drop the files like you could with, ooh, almost any other device. Instead, Apple insists you go through iTunes.

This is a pretty common argument against iTunes, but one I’ve never fully understood. Yes, iTunes is sluggish and a pain in the arse sometimes, and, yes, Apple could do more to detach its iThings from the desktop using some kind of wireless sync (rumoured in an upcoming iOS update), but drag and drop? Really?

The thing is, music management is one of the few things iTunes remains really good at. When you rip a CD, it helpfully organises everything and shoves the digital files in a logical location (something you can stop it doing, if you’re, for some reason, turned on by the prospect of dragging folders around your OS’s file system). If you’ve a large collection, it’s easy to search, and you can rapidly create smart playlists, based on complex criteria (or, if you want more control and have loads of time to waste, you can revert to drag and drop, to standard playlists). These days, I use a combination of playlists to determine which music ends up on my devices, because it’s quicker and more efficient to do so when there’s 90 GB of music lurking on my Mac.

Without iTunes, I’d rarely—if ever—bother to update the music on my devices, because it’d be too much hassle. And without playlists that block recently played tracks, I’d likely end up playing the same old stuff all the time, rather than continually rediscovering old favourites.

So, yeah, iTunes is mostly a bit crap, and it could make things a whole lot easier in many ways, but it’s still a great means of managing your music and the music you shove on to your iThings.

VP of worldwide publishing Gonzague de Vallois on Pocket Gamer, commenting on EA’s pre-Christmas 59p/99-cent videogame price-point slash:

We weren’t that happy with the Christmas promotion because it was backed by Apple and they highlighted it on their store worldwide

One of their roles is to highlight premium content and to help publishers make money out of the platform. It’s a long-term market, and we have to be careful that we don’t get people used to the 59p price range.

Uh huh. I guess that’s why Gameloft has now slashed the price of 30 of its games to 59p/99 cents.

I’m in two minds about low pricing for games on the App Store. There’s no question that big brands can make more money with permanently low pricing, and it’s clear some games are well-suited to that lowest tier (such as Pac-Man, which makes far more sense at a buck than five). However, EA and Gameloft are both rapidly devaluing their brands on the platform through regular bottom-tier sales. I already know plenty of people who hold off buying anything by either company, because they figure that sooner or later it’ll cost just 59p/99 cents. It’s like the budget-game industry from the 1980s all over again—albeit at a third (or less) of the price.

Earlier today, someone pointed me at the Daily Mail’s article How Britain drove its greatest genius Alan Turing to suicide… just for being gay, which includes the following quote:

[…] just two weeks before his 42nd birthday, the softly-spoken genius killed himself by taking a bite out of an apple that he had dipped in cyanide.

Some believe his bizarre death is commemorated to this day in the logo used by Apple on its electronic goods—so significant was his contribution to the genesis of the computer.

Over the years, this and many other myths have sprung up about Apple’s logo, but by writers who presumably can’t be bothered to ask its designer, Rob Janoff, what his thinking was behind the iconic design. As it turns out, aesthetics were Janoff’s only real concern, as I discovered when interviewing him for MacFormat a couple of years ago.

Below is the full transcript of the interview (lacking the brutal edit that was required for print), which explains how one of the world’s most famous logos came to be, and also delves a little more into Janoff’s (then) use of the Mac.

What do you use Macs for, and how do they help you work?
I use Macs for graphic design projects, internet communications, presentations and the daily business of life… from calendars to cooking! What’s very weird is that back in 1977, when I was introduced to the concept of a ‘home’ or personal computer, I thought it was kind of b.s. that anyone would actually do the applications we were promoting in the advertising and literature. But that was the Apple II and this is a Mac. You really had to be into computing to do your household finances or keep track of recipes on an Apple II. The Mac is so much more intuitive. It’s like apples and oranges—pardon the pun! Now I can’t imagine my life without my Mac. This hit me yesterday as I was cooking dinner, leaning over the counter, reading a recipe on the screen.

What software and hardware do you favour and why?
I just completely use a laptop now. Portability is the thing for me. I split my week between country and city, so if I have design work or life work I carry it with me. The software I use is not all that exotic: InDesign, Photoshop, Illustrator, Office.

What’s your approach to design?
I guess the most important thing a good design has to do is communicate. I don’t think people should have to work very hard to get what you are trying to say visually. How simple can you make it?

Do you have any golden rules?
“When in doubt, leave it out!”

How did you approach designing the Apple logo?
It was very simple really. I just bought a bunch of apples, put them in a bowl, and drew them for a week or so to simplify the shape.

What was the thinking behind the colour order of the stripes, and the ‘bite’?
There wasn’t a whole lot of hidden meaning behind the colours. The logo predates the gay-pride flag by about a year, so that wasn’t it—and there also goes the whole Alan Turing myth! The religious myths are just that too—there’s no ‘Eve and Garden of Eden’ and ‘bite from the fruit of knowledge’ symbolism!

I didn’t have much of a formal brief on the logo assignment, other than “don’t make it cute”. But I did know the selling points of the Apple Computer, and one of the biggest was colour capability. To me, that looked like colour bars on a monitor, which became the stripes in the logo. The order of the stripes, I’m sorry to say, had no particular grand plan other than I liked them that way. And, of course, the green stripe would be at the top where the leaf is.

The bite is really about scale and the common experience of biting into an apple. It was a happy accident that ‘byte’ is a computer term.

Apple’s logo is considered truly iconic, alongside logos like Nike’s. How does it feel to have been responsible for such a versatile, recognisable and long-lasting design?
Nobody’s ever asked me that before. It’s almost an out-of-body experience when the logo pops into my field of vision unexpectedly. I’ve felt the same way when I see a print ad or a TV spot I did when I’m not expecting it. But they only live for a week or two. And although the logo has changed over the years, it’s still the same basic shape and concept I designed over 30 years ago. I feel incredibly lucky to have crossed paths with Steve Jobs when I did. It’s kind of like watching your kids grow up and do really well. I’m incredibly proud of my kids—and the logo too.

What do you think about Apple’s more recent changes to the Apple logo, such as its move to a single colour, often with 3D effects?
Hey, it’s all about growing up. Everything goes through changes as it ages. I’m glad the logo has been able to keep up with the times. Logos often need to say different things as they age. I’m just glad it’s in such capable hands.

Are there any jobs you’ve worked on that particularly stand out for you?
One of the down sides of doing your most memorable piece of work so early in your career is that it’s hard to beat. Most of my career has not been about being a designer—it’s been about being an advertising art director. So I don’t really have a job that compares to the Apple logo. I would say coming up with an idea for a TV spot and watching it grow from concept to finished product was great most of the time, but most advertising isn’t as enduring.

After the 2010 UK general election, I made this:

It shows what we voted for and what we got. As you can see, what we got was, as usual, not terribly close to what we voted for. Now, we have a chance for change, but, as usual in the UK, it’s not change anyone wants. We’re going to get the option to replace the awful first past the post system with the barely superior alternative vote.

The BBC sums up the parties’ stances, and it makes for bonkers reading. In summary:

• The Conservatives want to stick with FPTP, although most Tory MPs don’t think AV would make any major difference to their party.
• Labour, now finding itself in opposition and with its seeming self-enforced policy of always having to play reactionary politics, is supporting AV. Again, AV won’t make much difference to Labour.
• The Liberal Democrats are in favour of electoral reform, but really want STV (single transferrable vote), not AV.
• The SNP is undecided but its leadership says it really wants STV rather than AV.
• Plaid Cymru supports electoral reform and backs AV, but wants STV.
• The DUP will back AV, but wants STV.
• The Green Party will support AV, but wants voters to be able to choose between a range of systems and favours “a fair, inclusive proportional way of voting”.
• UKIP is backing AV, but wants AV+.
• The BNP hates AV almost as much as the French and will campaign against, and favours “proportional representation”.
• The English Democrats, Christian Peoples Alliance, Respect, Jury Team and Communist Party all want a proportional system, and have varying stances on AV.

Reading through that, it’s pretty clear what’s going on and what’s going to happen. FPTP favours those in power, hence the Tories campaigning against AV. AV isn’t a big enough change to make any odds to big parties, hence Labour campaigning for AV, largely to piss off the Tories. For smaller parties, everyone wants a proportional system, so most are backing AV in the hope that it’s a first step towards one.

I’ll bet what’s going to happen, though, is that the Tories, backed by the aggressive and right-wing element of the UK press, will give the AV campaign a serious kicking until the day of the vote. We’ll hear a lot about how poor the coalition has been and how any change to the electoral system could result in more coalitions. (Never mind that the one coalition we’ve had in recent history was, seemingly, supposed to be magical and perfect, yet all the shitty UK governments elected by FPTP haven’t led people to go: “You know what? FPTP is rubbish.”)

Despite this, AV has a chance, because it’ll be backed by almost every non-Conservative party and some major press, and so it might win. But at that stage, we’re done. This won’t be a stepping stone, because Labour at that point will shut up shop. Labour knows that it’d be much harder to win 2015’s election under any form of PR, and so we’d be left with support for further change in the hands of the Liberal Democrats (who almost everyone in the UK now hates) and small parties that are either bonkers (hello, BNP!) or who make sense but have relatively little voice (nationalists, The Greens).

Personally, I’d love to see the UK finally embrace democracy in a very real way and so I’ll be supporting AV, and clinging to the sliver of hope that it’s a stepping stone and not a full stop. It’d be great to show up at the election booth in 2015, knowing that—for the first time in my adult life—my vote actually mattered. I just can’t see it happening though.