The metadata service is a big issue. When you pair EC2 with common, off-the-shelf software, you can end up inadvertently allowing requests to EC2's metadata service. That allows an attacker to gain the same privileges as the EC2 instance they're hitting, which often means they can access resources like private S3 buckets.
While the metadata service isn't technically a vulnerability, it's poorly designed. Not enough thought went into its security, but too much relies on it for them to disable the current version overnight. Any changes are going to take many years.
Great! While we can argue over whether not changing an app icon is immoral, it is your prerogative to make that trade off. Let’s just not pretend the tradeoff doesn’t exist.
> I remember it being considered a problem for the seller if a potential customer does not like offered product.
That doesn't sound like making a informed tradeoff, that sounds like the adage of "The customer is always right", which is a very different approach to business.
I highly doubt any company making a statement by changing their app icon hasn't considered the impact and I'm sure is actively watching metrics like uninstall metrics. And I'm sure given they're making the change they found it an acceptable trade off.
So in short, I don't really understand what you're point was trying to make, unless you disagree with my premise that the companies made an informed decision to modify their app icon?
Quantifying best is very difficult. Is it the best technically but market conditions makes it less appealing? Or is it the best fit for the market but it’s a nightmare to build and so they can’t pump enough of them out to be reasonable.
The products that launch end up being good enough in all areas but rarely/never the best in all areas.
If quantifying "best" is so difficult, then maybe Ive should have worded his words of consolation better, maybe? Otherwise it's just an empty platitude.
Someone like Ive, and anyone within his professional circle, would necessarily be intimately familiar with the concept of “beauty is in the eye of the beholder”, just as best is. Any one designers design is the best for that designer. Best, by anyones definition, doesn’t always make the cut.
The context here is product design. Does this mean that you think there's one perfect form of a product that everyone would agree is the best, from the bean counters, to the fabricators, to the users?
Well, if there isn't, Ive shouldn't have used the word "best"! It sends the wrong message. Designers should be careful with their words.
(As an aside, in my opinion -- and many others on HN, as I've read through the years -- Ive sometimes made the worst choice between two design decisions, so he definitely sometimes cut the best in favor of the less good).
(Also, judging by the reactions to my top-level comment, others agree with me!)
I think you're coming from a context that isn't design, so there's a language mismatch here. In design, and basically everything not dictated by maths/optimization, the precise definition of "best" is that it's subjective. From the dictionary: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/best
> 1. excelling all others
> 2. offering or producing the greatest advantage, utility, or satisfaction
Different models of products exist because "best" is subjective. The phone that is best for me is not best for you, but both are precisely, by definition, best for each of us. You seem to be thinking that the word "best" means some absolute global maximum, which is not the definition of the word. That maximum is made from weights in some huge vector space, with those weights being different depending on the perspective of each of us. There is no "correct" perspective that can allow this global maximum, that you seem to be searching for, to exist.
You're making the assumption that he, a celebrated consumer product designer, was not aware of the subjective, multivariate, nature of "best", when used in the context of consumer product design. I don't think that's an appropriate assumption, for any professional designer.
Both definitions 1 & 2 are universal and not exclusive to design, and furthermore, prove my point.
I stand by my opinion: Ive was either careless about words, or pointing out a flaw in Apple's process.
Please, don't try to convince me I don't understand product design or what "best" means. At this point, this intellectual match trying to save Ive from his own words is not productive.
How about an example then? Could you tell me what the best car to buy is? If you present the same make, model, and year as me, then perhaps you’re right. From what you've said, I think we can agree that you don't need details like my location, income, number of passengers, range, or driving habits.
> From what you've said, I think we can agree that [...]
No, we cannot agree on nothing of the sort. Where did I say I'm a car design expert?
Please stop trying to make me say things I don't want to. I'm just pointing out Ive's misleading use of language. Since Ive is a design expert, I hold him to a higher standard, but he certainly didn't "make the cut"! Maybe he wasn't the "best" after all.
> In addition, our superiors did me a disservice — they asked me questions like the following: " Has productivity growth stagnated because of remote work?" Of course, I was saying yes.
The author took no responsibility in the situation.
