Russ wrote:

Electrified wrote:

 

If people were bitching about something missing, or something more was needed, yes, you might have had a point. Apparently Trip-E succeeded in his little rhetorical maneuvre.

 

 

Fair Enough, but there was a remark back a ways by Ojibway that the designers didn't finish the job, and we ran off with it.

 

That doesn't necessarily mean that something needs to be added. I can design a chair in ten seconds flat. Getting the proportions and details right, however, would take me a while, since it's easy to draw four legs a back rest and a set, yet quite difficult to make the proportions play well together without adding anything extraneous.

A "half finished design job" doesn't imply that if he had finished the job he would have added to it.

Edit:

Btw, this is "my" perfect dining room chair - great to sit in, proportions are excellent, it's elegant, yet "rugged" because of the solid back rest, and the seat paper string plays well together with the wood, especially the oak version, and the perceived fragility of the paper plays well together with the narrow "attachment points":

Electrified wrote:

That doesn't necessarily mean that something needs to be added. I can design a chair in ten seconds flat. Getting the proportions and details right, however, would take me a while, since it's easy to draw four legs a back rest and a set, yet quite difficult to make the proportions play well together without adding anything extraneous.

A "half finished design job" doesn't imply that if he had finished the job he would have added to it.

What's that line?  "Two people, separated by a common language"?  Here in the States we refer to work as you describe as half-a$%d, not half-done.  😎

Russ wrote:

What's that line?  "Two people, separated by a common language"?  Here in the States we refer to work as you describe as half-a$%d, not half-done.  😎

LOL, well I think the difference being that a half-done design job is when we can see the "vision" of the designer, but also see that it didn't actually pan out as it could have.

To me, a half-arsed product would translate into "a botched job".

But that is my personal useage of it, and as I'm not a native English speaker, I won't swear that that is how English speakers use it. :)

Electrified wrote:

Russ wrote:

What's that line?  "Two people, separated by a common language"?  Here in the States we refer to work as you describe as half-a$%d, not half-done.  😎

 

LOL, well I think the difference being that a half-done design job is when we can see the "vision" of the designer, but also see that it didn't actually pan out as it could have.

To me, a half-arsed product would translate into "a botched job".

But that is my personal useage of it, and as I'm not a native English speaker, I won't swear that that is how English speakers use it. :)

Here in the American South that term would imply lazy, lackadaisical, or perhaps in our context here, uninspired.

Russ wrote:

Here in the American South that term would imply lazy, lackadaisical, or perhaps in our context here, uninspired.

That covers it very well. A designer not finishing his job, would also fit perfectly with that 🙂

Had to look "lackadaisical" up, though, lol.

I wasn't "maneuvering" at all. When it comes to rhetoric, I prefer to splash about. 

I was simply prompting a more thorough critique from a poster who seemed to leave his opinion in far less complete a state than our industrial designers. For those not trained in ID, at college your work is subjected to critiques by instructors and classmates alike and you're required to defend all the decisions you made in developing the piece. 

That being said, if someone were to offer a criticism like "it doesn't look finished" that person would be prompted to elaborate so that the meaning could be fully understood. So I'm wondering, in what way would the poster change the design? A different shape? Different materials? He refers to not getting the details right, which seems to imply that something has been left out or added extraneously. 

I don't mind the design at all.

Granted, it doesn't make my jaw drop like the Beolab 8000's or the BeoCentre 2300, but it looks like what it is, a Bang & Olufsen iPod dock.  It doesn't quite have the look & feel of a proper B&O stereo because it's not a proper B&O stereo.  It's just an iPod dock, perhaps the worlds current best.  I don't think B&O is pretending it's anything but, and there's nothing wrong with that.

I've listened to the thing at B&O Toronto and if you've been in that store you'll know it's quite a large open space. The BeoSound 8 filled the room!  I was highly impressed.  No, it didn't have the best bass I've ever heard, but for its size it was excellent.  For it's price . . . well, a smart shopper could likely find better sound, but that's usually the case with Bang & Olufsen money vs. separates anyway.

For those looking for an upscale iPod dock, and where style AND sound are paramount, the BeoSound 8 is an excellent product which will be well worth its price to its target market.  People looking to replace a proper stereo, however, might be a little disappointed IMO.

As for its design it does have to visually compete with two products of grossly different sizes.  I don't know how they could have resolved the design any better.

mike

How can it be considered non B&O design.  It kinda reminds me of the Beo5/6.  A circle with an oblong on top.

On the B&O site, the page for the Beo6 it says "Inspired by contradictions

The square glass display with soft touch keys and the aluminium ball with tactile keys and a volume wheel are inspired by contradictions - the circle and the square, giving Beo6 an unusual visual expression."

Isn't this what they were delivering on?

TripEnglish wrote:

I wasn't "maneuvering" at all. When it comes to rhetoric, I prefer to splash about. 

I was simply prompting a more thorough critique from a poster who seemed to leave his opinion in far less complete a state than our industrial designers. For those not trained in ID, at college your work is subjected to critiques by instructors and classmates alike and you're required to defend all the decisions you made in developing the piece. 

That being said, if someone were to offer a criticism like "it doesn't look finished" that person would be prompted to elaborate so that the meaning could be fully understood. So I'm wondering, in what way would the poster change the design? A different shape? Different materials? He refers to not getting the details right, which seems to imply that something has been left out or added extraneously. 

 

to answer a few of your points -

First of all, I agree that coming up with the design form is not easy. But once you have the initial idea, working out the details – and I'm talking 'visual details' in this case, is the really hard part. I know. I've been there.

I was a designer and lecturer in design for some 25 years and a student for 5 years before that. (Silver/goldsmith and furniture designer) So, I have been on both ends of the 'critique', more so as a lecturer as I would always be expected justify my comments. Furthermore, simple geometric shapes – circles, squares, rectangles - have been the starting point in many of my designs.

I cannot say what I would do to improve the current design - but

If it were a student who presented this design to me I would tell him/her to go back and work on it some more. And that is what it needs. There is much more detail in the back of the BS8. The cones are nice especially with the brushed alu rims. I'm not too keen on the stepped bit though. Almost needs to be more subtle, in the same way that the front is too subtle! Maybe the speaker covers could have a very subtle convex to them (like my Zenith Royal 500D way back) to give them more substance or visual volume. And the joining element – I might bring it forward, level with the speakers which in turn, if convex, would create a nice distinction between the flat and the convex, a transition, if you like. But, hell, I'm not redesigning it!

I agree with Electrified – the iPod/iPad/iPhone becomes the focal point when it should be a secondary element. “One size fits all” is a tall order and I think the idea of an external, remote or wired, dock would work better which in turn would mean the source would not be the focus. It could be equally 'well designed' but not 'competing' or detracting from the BS8.

As an admirer of B&O for decades I expect great things from them and feel that this particular design really falls short of my B&O expectation. As murcieme said; “it does not make my jaw drop”. I think it should.

But, its better than a lot of stuff out there and if someone likes it thats fine. Thats the interesting thing about people and perception. We all see things differently!

I don't understand why the design of the Beosound 8 provokes such hefty reactions. It looks fresh and to-the-point, does not resemble anything that already exists. B&o have changed their design some 10 years ago, coming out of the Jensen era.

Why didn't for instance the Beolab 9 trigger these reactions? It's not a clear beauty either at first look. As with a lot of designs, things have to grow on you.

Or beocom 5? Or even the Beolab 5? Not instantly regarded as beautifull by many who saw them for the first time, all you can say is that the design is special and different from other AV manufacturers. 

Why raising the bar so high? B&o have had a history with inconsistent designs, yes they've made some products that still can be regarded as icons/classics, like the Beocenter 9000, the Beovision MX, beocom 2000, beogram 4000. But on the other hand, but how about the beovision avant which I think is an ugly CRT pretending to be a fancy flatscreen, hanging on a massive wall that makes the Berlin wall look elegant. And industrial design ages, the Jensen designs still are nice to see but they are evident from yesterday. So get on, and get used to these 2 circles with an ipod in the middle.