« Apple Fans Anger Points Out Different Design Philosophies | Main | YAAB: The Upcoming Competition of Closed Versus Open in Mobile Computing Platforms »
[MacBook Air Teardown] Why We Used the Word 'Waste'
The fifth article in the MacBook Air Teardown series was read by more people than expected, which is always an unexpected pleasure. However, I have a feeling that some readers may have misunderstood the article.
We often receive strong comments after publishing an article about Apple Inc., so, we were waiting for a reaction when Wired introduced our article in a blog on its Website.
Maybe the reporter for Wired misunderstood the article. If he felt the engineers or reporters in the article were insulting or envious of Apple, then he was incorrect.
I admit that the explanation in the article was insufficient and apologize for any misunderstanding that may have caused. However, I do not believe the engineers who participated in the disassembly were at fault either. So, I will explain some of the background and our intention that were not included in the prior article. So, I ask for your indulgence, but after reading through this article, we hope you will understand we did not use any sophistry.
Design far different than expected
First of all, a comment on the headline, "No Waste Outside, Nothing but Waste Inside." We used this title because we wanted to share our surprise with the readers. Before opening the MacBook Air, we imagined the inside to be as full of advanced technologies as the outside. However, the design we found inside the chassis turned out to be totally different from what we expected.
For example, it was difficult for the engineers to understand why there are so many screws. The more the screws are used, the more assembly processes have to be gone through, therefore increasing the cost and chance of mistakes. In addition, if a screw came out while the computer was in use, it might even cause a short circuit. If the intent was to enhance the robustness of the device, the engineers thought there might be a better way to accomplish this.
Of course, there must be a good reason that Apple designed the laptop in this way. Maybe it wanted to ship the product as early as possible or to give the keyboard a more responsive feel. Also, it is possible the company will change the design once it commences high-volume production.
However, in our analysis, we could not find any conclusive reason as to why Apple used so many screws when we tore down the notebook. We thought, there might be other methods to ensure the robustness of the keyboard, so, on the basis of cost, we described the design as wasteful.*1.
In contrast to the slim case of the notebook, the internal design gave the impression of not being the most optimal design possible as well as being costly.
When one of our editors made that comment reflected in the headline, it suddenly struck me how I should put together the article. In the end, the headline really reflected our surprise at finding Apple’s design.
*1: The engineers who participated in the tear down articles are specialists in the design of mechanical parts for personal computers. Other parts, such as the printed-circuit boards, were analyzed by other technical specialists, but the results of this analysis was not reported on Tech-On!. It is possible that misunderstandings arose because we did not mention this.
Is waste good or bad?
Then, why did it seem that this message did not reach some readers? It may be because we did not fully explain our stance that we do not consider "waste in the design" and "lack of advanced technology" as bad things. In fact, we never described Apple or the MacBook Air as "bad." I believe that, if "waste" expedites the shipment of the product or ensures a better user experience, it is more than welcome. I will come back to this point later.
Because our articles are written with our normal audience, Japanese electronics engineers, in mind, our mistake is we assumed that all of our readers shared this idea with us. For example, Wired cited the comments "I can't find anything that is technically superior" and "We can make the same computer at a lower cost" from our article, making it sound like we were emotionally objecting to the MacBook Air.
However, the engineers who made those comments did not have that kind of feeling at all. They were just expressing their observations and probably their surprise that this popular laptop was designed in this way. If those comments were understood to be malicious, then the blame is on our writing skill, not on the engineers. *2
*2: By the way, Wired misquoted our article by saying, "Those ... do note a certain oddness to the layout: there's definitely extra space in there, which is strange considering that it's the world's thinnest in-production laptop." Wired published a correction note on its >Japanese Website< but not on the English one.
What we wanted to discuss
Some readers might say that our article is too provocative. I do not deny it. But we did not intend to start an argument about the superiority of Apple's design or whether Japanese manufacturers are envious of Apple. We wanted to discuss which is better suited to our times, the Japanese manufacturing approach, which is focused down to the details of the basic hardware, or Apple's approach, which puts more emphasis on the industrial design, software, user experience and so forth.
This is also the reason why we concluded the article with the sentence "The MacBook Air's mysterious internal design might be a violent antithesis against Japanese manufacturing, which allows no compromise even in detailed parts of the hardware."
However, this sentence might have been misunderstood by some of the readers including Wired, which wrote, "Nikkei claims the Air is 'a violent antithesis against Japanese manufacturing' traditions that allow for none of the compromises it represents. Editor Mayuko Uno reported that some engineers agreed that the 'insides are full of waste.' Ouch!." It may have also lost something in translation because what we really wanted to emphasize was the difference in the approaches, not whether one was better then the other.
I guess that the article was misunderstood because we do not necessarily share the same viewpoints with all of the readers. As mentioned earlier, the articles were written with our regular readers in mind, basically those who design electronic products for Japanese manufacturers.
They are struggling to create products that sell well in the world market. They must know that Apple is one of the companies they should learn from as well as compete with. So, we implied the possibility that Apple differentiated the laptop in other ways other than just the internal hardware design. That implication may not have been understood by everyone.
Learning from Apple
Japanese manufacturers have much to learn from Apple as mentioned in the blog by Phil Keys. For example, they can learn to develop products based on designing for an user experience and to create products which make users feel like they have an emotional tie to the company’s products and perhaps the company itself.
I have written several articles in the Nikkei Electronics magazine as well as the Japanese Tech-On! site that deal with this topic. They are, unfortunately, written in Japanese, so here is a short summary. Comparing the iPod with Sony's MP3 player, I explained how Apple emphasizes user experience in an article titled "What Apple has and Sony doesn't" in March 2005.
I examined the reason why Apple products trigger emotional reactions from users by using the iPhone as an example in "Why the iPhone turns us on?" in July 2007. And I discussed the social background of why Apple products began to be accepted by a wide range of users in "Talking about Apple Always Becomes Emotional" in January 2007.
In these articles, it is readily apparent that I am a Mac user and really into Apple products. So, I can understand the feeling of Mac users responding to articles that (apparently) vilify Apple or its products.
However, I do not think superior hardware design always brings a better user experience. On the contrary, Apple, as far as I understand, focuses on realizing a rich user experience without necessarily applying advanced hardware technologies to its products. We rediscovered this in the design of the MacBook Air.
Japanese manufacturers, though they claim they design products with the user in mind, often end up emphasizing their own technologies, instead of a good user experience.
For example, I pointed out that the functionality and pricing of Sony's Walkman announced on the same day as Apple's iPod nano were disappointing in the article "Both Apple and Sony surprised us". Also, we showed Sony's development system is still centered on hardware technologies in "Sony's TV, Google's TV" (PDF file).
Technologies work behind the scenes
I do not deny the importance of technologies because they can be an important source of added value. And I do not say Apple makes little of technologies. In the article "the Story behind the iPod," Apple explained the reason its success with the iPod by saying it developed the software, hardware design and industrial design by itself.
In the article, Stan Ng, then director, iPod and iSight, Worldwide Product Marketing said "This is not easy for Microsoft, which only makes software, or Dell, which outsources hardware. They cannot grasp the big picture."
To put it simply, manufacturers should make efforts to make attractive products by using their technologies, not by showing off their technologies in the products. The best technologies are those that work behind the scenes.*3
*3:The same thing can be said to software technologies. Alan Cooper, or "the father of Visual Basic," explains why user interfaces designed from the viewpoint of software engineers are difficult to use in his book, "The Inmates Are Running the Asylum: Why High-Tech Products Drive Us Crazy and How to Restore the Sanity." To achieve high user satisfaction, he recommends designing an user experience before software engineers start coding programs.
In our MacBook Air teardown article, we did not intend to claim either "Apple's products are poorly-made" or "Japanese technologies are the best in the world." We wanted to push manufacturers, especially those in Japan, to kick the habit of focusing solely on technology and to develop their own methods of improving user experience and satisfaction.
Takuji Imai, Tech-On!
Posted by Keita Mochizuki : March 5, 2008 12:27 PM
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://blog.nikkeibp.co.jp/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/163142
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference: [MacBook Air Teardown] Why We Used the Word 'Waste' :
» Nikkei Electronics Teardown Squad from CmdBreak.com
If you like to see the inside of electronic devices but are too afraid to tak... [MORE]
TrackBack Time: March 16, 2008 10:02 AM
Conversations or writing regarding "anything-Apple" is as of religion and politics; often overly-emotional, out of context, and unfortunately, often without fact and provocation.
It's unfortunate that many American sources and readers didn't take into account the "target audience" of the initial argument and the viewpoints and mindset/s of the experts involved in the teardown.
As an Apple-user myself, I appreciate that the teardown "exposed" potential-waste; in the end, I want the best possible product for the best possible price, and this might encourage "Japanese manufacturers" to create better products and might help Apple to fine-tune the Air. I didn't take anything in the article to be malicious, but because of the connotative-values of certain words present in the article, I'd assumed that tempers would flare-up.
I believe that that's because many news-junkies only "half-read" things... quickly scanning text, taking quoted-text out-of-context and moving quickly to repost "shocking headlines." In-part, I believe that WIRED's take is/was nothing more than a media-stunt for traffic and coverage.
Posted by Bradtastic : March 14, 2008 12:45 PM
Sure, I don't see what the excitement is about. I had a Sharp Actius UM32W (US version of the Mebius) for 4 years and it is everything the Apple Air is and more. Thin, light, well designed and fully functional. I don't know how many screws it had in it, and I don't really need to. According to my measurements, it is 2mm thinner than Apple's "thinnest laptop ever".
My UM32W got dropped from an airport X-ray scanner and broke its LCD. I find tragic that I'm unable to buy a replacement. Apple can do it, Sharp did it 5 years, why can't anyone else do it (and why are current Sharp machines heavier and thicker?)
Posted by Roland : March 16, 2008 04:32 PM
"why are current Sharp machines heavier and thicker?"
"why did Apple put so many screws in the Air?"
why did your laptop shatter?
All three questions have the same answer.
Posted by doro : March 26, 2008 11:18 AM
The Actius doesn't look 2mm thinner than the Macbook Air in these pictures : http://www.notegear.com/Content/Content_View.asp?TNum=29&kind=2&gotopage=37
Posted by : March 29, 2008 08:25 AM
Your response makes clear what the articles that quoted you earlier did not- namely that far from attacking Apple, you were surprised to find that they can achieve a unique success by not over-emphasising technology and features.
I am pretty sure that the product in question- the Macbook Air, had compromises in design so as to facilitate an early entry to market of it's revolutionary design. It captured people's imagination, who often went on to 'compromise' their desire to have one and get a Macbook or Macbook Pro instead.Yet the shortcuts were in the area of affordable design,not in that of user experience- where Apple reigns supreme.
The Macbook and earlier iBook line shows Apple's willingness to create a consumer-based product, yet maintaining it's individuality. Japanese manufacturers offer great and useful technologies, but usually without the emotional appeal offered by Apple- though perhaps Sony comes closest. People simply love their Mac and not just for the features.
But Japanese manufacturers are often making what people most want to buy and are too focused on offering compelling features. The synergy of features and experience is an even greater goal. To provide this, the designers need to look beyond what people currently want and to what they subconsiously dream of- to be one step ahead this way.
The Macbook Air may not be all that practical, but it is a taste of the future and has already had a great impact. Cheaper to produce, more powerful versions will probably one day come. But Apple didn't wait until they were possible before they released this mini-opus of sub-laptop design. Now everyone is again copying them- and this is what truly sets them apart.
Posted by Gideon Davidson : April 25, 2008 10:04 PM
Hello my friends :)
;)
Posted by TendugFinue : May 14, 2008 03:02 PM
I don't expect this will get posted, but please forward this message to the author.
-------------------------
Man stop prattling. You are allowed to dislike a laptop. Grab your *****, and say "They wasted a bunch of space! Too many screws!"
Posted by Obrian : June 6, 2008 03:52 PM
There are no questions
:)
Posted by ditridis : November 13, 2008 10:39 AM
