> design for the sake of design, with little regard for functional implications
This is a fundamental misunderstanding. The minimalist aesthetic is underpinned by the principle that form follows function, and is absolutely opposed to ornament or visual additions. Aesthetic === functional in this worldview; it's not a separate thing which gets added in. (This is precisely why Ives and others eschewed skeumorphism.)
Yea, except, Apple most definitely favors aesthetics over functionality.
Take the iPod shuffle:
- Gen 1 was minimal, usable, and a portable USB drive,
- Gen 2 was minimal and usable, but lost its portable USB drive functionality (required a cable to also be carried around), but
- Gen 3 was smaller for no reason, moved the controls to an earbud cable which was impossible to use while running, and cost extra to buy an adapter if you didn't want to use their shitty earbuds, and then
- Gen 4 returned to the 2nd Gen design, because Gen 3 was very clearly flawed.
Seriously, explain the 3rd Gen iPod Shuffle.
I can cite many examples where they've dumped functionality for aesthetics, like non-removable batteries, fully-sealed computers (latest Mac mini), etc, but this is the clearest mistake they've made where they had to actually reverse course because of their favoritism for aesthetics over functionality.
I'm not going to defend individual design choices as I wasn't party to the tradeoffs being considered - and I disagree with some of them myself. But if you are involved in any kind of design (and I would definitely include programming here), you will be well aware of how much goes into boiling down a set of compromises into something elegant and usable - and how hard it can be to communicate why some part of that was really the best choice and took a lot of deep thought and iteration to get there. And you'll also be aware that design is never finished.
More generally, Apple have taken what many might think of as an industrial design approach and applied it to consumer design in a more rigorous way than others. So a lot of thought about coatings and materials used for screens and bodies, packaging (part of the consumer experience), and so on.
To construct a plausible scenario around your point off the top of my head, reduced size is clearly a key functional feature of a portable device, and while I'm not defending 3rd gen shuffle, it would make sense that a device you might go running with would be better if absolutely tiny. And if you are on the run, there would be an argument for having controls on the cable rather than the device. I think these kinds of things are clearly getting a lot of attention as we see the designs are being iterated and previous mistakes corrected.
Likewise, things like sealed devices are absolutely functional design decisions from the point of view of creating a mass-produced device. The success of the ipad bears this out. It may appal me that apple will only completely swap an ipad with cracked screen, or that I can't upgrade RAM in my macbook - but I can understand that standardisation and non-customisation is key to things like a predictable user experience, manufacturing and supply chain, worldwide warranties. Apple have always been about this and it's why they manufacture both hardware and software. I won't buy the 12" macbook computing device myself, but for family members it might be the ideal laptop. Anything else and I know I'm going to get several more messages a week asking me why facebook and twitter aren't working.
Right-- but Ive also seeks to reduce form so much to the point where it begins to impede upon functionality. Take the thickness of the iPhone 6, for instance. The drive to reduce the noticeability of the hardware is at the direct expense of battery life and camera quality; I'd certainly consider this a failing of his design philosophy.
But yet its one of the best phone cameras available today. It pains me to see the horrible pictures many of my Android friends post to Facebook. And after the iPhone 5 battery the 6+ battery is serving me more than well. I can go a day and a half without a charge. Would a thicker version that could go a week serve customers better? I don't think so, I rather like its slenderness.
Regarding the non-replaceable battery, while I am sure that they had some profit-motivated reasons to go that way, you also have to take in account that high-density batteries are a bit dangerous to handle, so replaceable batteries need a protective shell (adding to their volume).
In other words a non-replaceable battery can provide a bit more power for the same volume. So even if the primary motivation might have been aesthetics (no need for large openings in the body) I am sure that it wasn't the only reason for that decision.
Of course, I've no reason to doubt that. Apple's design philosophy is great for many people, but the trend of its design becoming the only design for interfaces (see also: Galaxy S6) is disappointing. It homogenises the market and ultimately makes it less interesting.
How Is that Apple's fault, if somebody decides to rip off their design decisions instead of making different ones that could prove them as better option on the market?
Samsung Galaxy s5 had a removable battery, and the company even touted the functionality pretty heavily in its marketing materials. Did that saved the S5 from failing on the market?
This is a fundamental misunderstanding. The minimalist aesthetic is underpinned by the principle that form follows function, and is absolutely opposed to ornament or visual additions. Aesthetic === functional in this worldview; it's not a separate thing which gets added in. (This is precisely why Ives and others eschewed skeumorphism.)