I agree. It seems there’s some preconception that just because the site is for a mac app, it has to look like an apple product. Where’s the creativity?
@ Skelliot, it’s not just you. They do tend to have similar visual themes. But, and one important thing to bear in mind when reading comments such as #5 is that it doesn’t, in fact, look like an apple product. It feels like an apple product you are reminded of apple, but if anybody were to come out and say that this site was created by the apple web design team. I would actually be surprised. Because there is a lot about that is a departure from the very sleek and specific language of apple.com, or indeed any of their software.
About the site, there are issues with the rollovers in chrome as mentioned already. I’m not entirely sure, why, they need to be so complex as to rotate. Whether that really adds anything much. They seemed to run very slowly in safari4 if you rolled across them in quick succession. One overriding concern is that the whole page feels a bit narrow? I click on the product pages, and the tab area wants more space…. a lot of the content generally around the site feels squeezed in.
Don’t get me wrong, I reallllly like the design. And it is great to use (pity about the Tweetie app tho ). It is just that the originality of these sort of sites is coming to an end.
I mean honestly, there is no way I could come up with a design as cohesive and beautiful as this one.
In this case, I think the style is appropriate. Do you think the product would appeal as much to Mac users if the site looked like Microsoft.com? Would a “original” layout really be better for their business?
Website’s are not art pieces. They are usually meant to sell something. And in most cases, originality is not a huge factor in selling.
The gradients, fonts and nice icons remind me of the Mac OS. But it really has very little resemblance to Apple.com – so what are these “apple ripoff” comments really referring to exactly?
The site is well put together. They have created a consistent visual language.
There seems to be some browser inconsistencies though, and I agree that the site feels too ‘skinny’ overall at 740px wide.
The “importance” of originality depends on the product itself. If you have a highly original product, the level of importance of originality is not as high as for a product which is not highly original (e.g. multiple competitors with small differences with regards to USP’s).
However, having a highly original product, combined with a unique design, sets you apart as a pioneer.
What all the mac-inspired sites fail to realize is that you don’t have to look like an Apple site to appeal to a Mac audience. Having an Apple icon, or a medal which says “Built for Mac’s” or something similar, is enough to convey that idea.
However, I am not placing the blame on the designer. More often than not, it is the client that requests for the site to look “Apple”. I would not be at all surprised if the designer initially provided a design which was unique, and then rejected by the client because it didn’t look “Apple” enough.
(Unfortunately though, that does not seem to be the case here, as the designer’s own site seems to be “inspired” by Apple.)
However, what this gallery is doing is further perpetuating the idea that having a copied look is better than acceptable. In fact, the lack of originality is rewarded by making it appear on a web design gallery.
Exactly. I was even disregarding the fact that this site is being featured on a web design gallery.
Again, just because the product being sold is a Mac product doesn’t mean the site needs to resemble a Mac product. I feel having an original looking site would be way better for selling a product in most cases. Just like any other form of advertising. Would you want to see a print ad for a product in the beginning of a magazine then see an ad for a different product at the end of the magazine that looks the same? You would want your product to differentiate from anything else.
Not to mention the point you’re making that originality doesn’t even seem to be a major factor anymore, when on a web gallery site you think that that would be the first priority.
Your case that originality automatically makes it appealing is assuming a lot of things.
Originality and commercial success do not go hand-in-hand. Something can be highly original, and yet totally alienate their customer base by being too abstract for the vast majority to connect with.
I certainly agree that affective branding includes differentiating the product/service. That’s a given. This usually includes unique design amongst other things.
But to say that the design would be commercially more successful if it employed some sort of ground-breaking design that got the attention of the design community is nothing more than a wild guess. How would you know? Have you sold a similar product and tested different designs?
I also agree that taking the literal approach of marketing a Mac product by using certain similar design qualities is probably the easiest solution to the design challenge. However, coming up with a different direction may have (would have) demanded more time to explore/refine. Do you know the budget of this project? Perhaps what was available was not enough to explore alternate and more ‘out-of-the-box’ ideas.
There are always more things to consider than meets the eye.
Whether the design is valid to be on BWG is another issue completely. I would argue that the author can post any sites they wish. There are no rules. If you don’t like the sites that are posted, there are many other galleries to check out.
The rollovers do only work in Safari 4 because they’re Webkit css effects. I don’t think it’s a good idea to use Webkit transitions instead of cross-browser ajax solutions because it gets kinda boring in other browsers if you know how it looks in Safari…
I think you need to re-read my post again. As I did say: I didn’t initially accuse the designer outright, as there are other factors which we may not be privy to (budget, as you mentioned, being one of them). However, the designer’s own page lessens the benefit of the doubt that I had initially given.
However, I do need to point out that you are assuming I am talking about a designer-focused original design when I brought up the issue of uniqueness. I wasn’t. I was specifically talking about brand originality.
Since site design is part of a product or the company’s branding, and is arguably of greater importance for new brands because, more often than not, a new brand’s website is the first form of contact a new customer experiences with your company.
So by going with a copied approach, an opportunity to set yourself apart in the eyes of your target market has been clearly missed.
Now, in essence, this issue should be no different (nor bigger) than a random beauty salon copying the brand direction of a peer such as Smashbox, but by essentially rewarding the lack of originality by making it appear on a well-trafficked site, the author is unintentionally sending the message: “Hey, it’s ok, go on and keep copying Apple. No need to be original and spend MONTHS designing a totally unique brand style for your client – just take the easy route! In fact, do copy Apple, because I think it’s a good idea, and your web design practice will even be given some form of bragging right because you can show your clients you appeared here. ”
Honestly, I wish that the true web design professionals would put up a gallery of their own, because I promise you, at least more than half of the sites featured here would never make the cut.
I mostly agree with all of what you said in your last reply, except a few things. On the issue of Atebits differentiating their company or products via design, they have not really done that. That much is true.
Tweetie is a great App, and it’s gaining a lot of traction with consumers. I don’t think their design is preventing any growth. to say otherwise is silly imo. There is no evidence to suggest it.
As designers, I think we are prone to taking the statements about copying and “ripping off” a little too far.
Gradients, big & detailed icons, subtle aluminum texture, etc. are not owned by Apple. Just because someone uses those techniques does not mean they are copying. Unoriginal… maybe, but copying, no.
You may not be claiming this much. But I have seen others that do and it’s getting ridiculous. It’s like a web 2.0 witch hunt.
In some ways, conforming somewhat to these stylings could be a good thing when appropriate (i.e. when your selling Mac Software). Familiarity creates comfort and trust.
However, this conformity needs to be balanced. As you said, uniqueness is required to effectively brand a business or product. Those design techniques need to be kept in check.
PS: The “Designers own page” you speak of is an online business card. It’s a personal page. Maybe he admires the style of design that Apple made famous, and choose to use it for his personal page. So what if he likes Apple/web 2.0 style? That doesn’t back up any claims of copying.
I don’t think this site looks like an “apple site”. What I said is that most mac app sites look the same (big icons gradients etc). This isn’t really a bad thing. They have a demographic to target and they are doing it well. Good on them.
Personally I really like the design. Just want to see something different from mac application vendors.
You said it best! They definitely are targeting their market. I think everyone just wants to see a little innovation within that formula, as do I.
I personally have came across some websites for Mac software that didn’t conform, and I was immediately turned off. It was a subconscious thing and I thought and I was left wondering if the developers were really Mac people or understood the whole user experience that Apple encourages.
That reasoning is of course not valid, but I have come to associate that style of design with great Mac software.
Good points all around. I think the wording I used was too strong – yes, it wasn’t a rip, nor was it a copy. Maybe inspired is a better word.
I agree about how familiarity breeds trust, and yes, I never did intend to suggest that the lack of originality was hurting the business. Rather, I was merely bringing up the issue that if the design was a little less inspired, and a little more unique, the brand would stand out even more than it does in the current guise.
Either way, I wasn’t trying bash nor start a witch hunt. My only stance in this whole matter is that originality needs to be given greater consideration and reward, much like it is in the advertising industry.
After all, if we ourselves as designers, continue to strengthen the idea that web 2.0 is pretty much the acceptable standard, we will all be shooting ourselves in the foot: the majority of our clients have no clue, nor any idea of what truly makes a good website design, and if they become too familiar with a certain look (web 2.0), anything else will make them uncomfortable – even scared to try out.
And as far fetched as that may seem right now, if the majority clients become “trained by familiarity” and only wish to see web 2.0-style sites, how do we, as individual designers, differentiate ourselves? By NOT rewarding originality, and instead, rewarding a “common” style, we will be walking closer towards the path of becoming a commodity.
There is a reason why other creative industries, such as fashion and advertising, champion original creativity and look down upon a lack of. It is their way of both differentiating themselves from one another, and educating customer and clients about what is “good” and what is not.
And so… to conclude my long-winded monologue:
Is the site design bad? Not at all.
Is it original? Not really.
Should it be on a design gallery? No, I don’t think so.
32 Comments
Drool. This site rocks. It’s so clean. Although I do like the noise textured background, it’s becoming overused already.
PS – the site was designed by Tim Van Damme (Made by Elephant) http://timvandamme.com/
Issues in Chrome.
issues in chrome and firefox.
ajax rollover not working.
I love the site design. But I can’t help but feel that every mac app website looks EXACTLY like this. Is it just me?
@ Skelliot
I agree. It seems there’s some preconception that just because the site is for a mac app, it has to look like an apple product. Where’s the creativity?
@ Skelliot, it’s not just you. They do tend to have similar visual themes. But, and one important thing to bear in mind when reading comments such as #5 is that it doesn’t, in fact, look like an apple product. It feels like an apple product you are reminded of apple, but if anybody were to come out and say that this site was created by the apple web design team. I would actually be surprised. Because there is a lot about that is a departure from the very sleek and specific language of apple.com, or indeed any of their software.
About the site, there are issues with the rollovers in chrome as mentioned already. I’m not entirely sure, why, they need to be so complex as to rotate. Whether that really adds anything much. They seemed to run very slowly in safari4 if you rolled across them in quick succession. One overriding concern is that the whole page feels a bit narrow? I click on the product pages, and the tab area wants more space…. a lot of the content generally around the site feels squeezed in.
Just a little details but the design rocks.
Really nice design. Love the new layout and the gray background.
Don’t get me wrong, I reallllly like the design. And it is great to use (pity about the Tweetie app tho
). It is just that the originality of these sort of sites is coming to an end.
I mean honestly, there is no way I could come up with a design as cohesive and beautiful as this one.
I am just giving my opinion
.
I love this site. It’s clean but still interesting.
In this case, I think the style is appropriate. Do you think the product would appeal as much to Mac users if the site looked like Microsoft.com? Would a “original” layout really be better for their business?
Website’s are not art pieces. They are usually meant to sell something. And in most cases, originality is not a huge factor in selling.
The gradients, fonts and nice icons remind me of the Mac OS. But it really has very little resemblance to Apple.com – so what are these “apple ripoff” comments really referring to exactly?
The site is well put together. They have created a consistent visual language.
There seems to be some browser inconsistencies though, and I agree that the site feels too ‘skinny’ overall at 740px wide.
@Danny H
The “importance” of originality depends on the product itself. If you have a highly original product, the level of importance of originality is not as high as for a product which is not highly original (e.g. multiple competitors with small differences with regards to USP’s).
However, having a highly original product, combined with a unique design, sets you apart as a pioneer.
What all the mac-inspired sites fail to realize is that you don’t have to look like an Apple site to appeal to a Mac audience. Having an Apple icon, or a medal which says “Built for Mac’s” or something similar, is enough to convey that idea.
However, I am not placing the blame on the designer. More often than not, it is the client that requests for the site to look “Apple”. I would not be at all surprised if the designer initially provided a design which was unique, and then rejected by the client because it didn’t look “Apple” enough.
(Unfortunately though, that does not seem to be the case here, as the designer’s own site seems to be “inspired” by Apple.)
However, what this gallery is doing is further perpetuating the idea that having a copied look is better than acceptable. In fact, the lack of originality is rewarded by making it appear on a web design gallery.
@DDD
Exactly. I was even disregarding the fact that this site is being featured on a web design gallery.
Again, just because the product being sold is a Mac product doesn’t mean the site needs to resemble a Mac product. I feel having an original looking site would be way better for selling a product in most cases. Just like any other form of advertising. Would you want to see a print ad for a product in the beginning of a magazine then see an ad for a different product at the end of the magazine that looks the same? You would want your product to differentiate from anything else.
Not to mention the point you’re making that originality doesn’t even seem to be a major factor anymore, when on a web gallery site you think that that would be the first priority.
@DDD
Your case that originality automatically makes it appealing is assuming a lot of things.
Originality and commercial success do not go hand-in-hand. Something can be highly original, and yet totally alienate their customer base by being too abstract for the vast majority to connect with.
I certainly agree that affective branding includes differentiating the product/service. That’s a given. This usually includes unique design amongst other things.
But to say that the design would be commercially more successful if it employed some sort of ground-breaking design that got the attention of the design community is nothing more than a wild guess. How would you know? Have you sold a similar product and tested different designs?
I also agree that taking the literal approach of marketing a Mac product by using certain similar design qualities is probably the easiest solution to the design challenge. However, coming up with a different direction may have (would have) demanded more time to explore/refine. Do you know the budget of this project? Perhaps what was available was not enough to explore alternate and more ‘out-of-the-box’ ideas.
There are always more things to consider than meets the eye.
Whether the design is valid to be on BWG is another issue completely. I would argue that the author can post any sites they wish. There are no rules. If you don’t like the sites that are posted, there are many other galleries to check out.
The rollovers do only work in Safari 4 because they’re Webkit css effects. I don’t think it’s a good idea to use Webkit transitions instead of cross-browser ajax solutions because it gets kinda boring in other browsers if you know how it looks in Safari…
@Danny H
I think you need to re-read my post again. As I did say: I didn’t initially accuse the designer outright, as there are other factors which we may not be privy to (budget, as you mentioned, being one of them). However, the designer’s own page lessens the benefit of the doubt that I had initially given.
However, I do need to point out that you are assuming I am talking about a designer-focused original design when I brought up the issue of uniqueness. I wasn’t. I was specifically talking about brand originality.
Since site design is part of a product or the company’s branding, and is arguably of greater importance for new brands because, more often than not, a new brand’s website is the first form of contact a new customer experiences with your company.
So by going with a copied approach, an opportunity to set yourself apart in the eyes of your target market has been clearly missed.
Now, in essence, this issue should be no different (nor bigger) than a random beauty salon copying the brand direction of a peer such as Smashbox, but by essentially rewarding the lack of originality by making it appear on a well-trafficked site, the author is unintentionally sending the message: “Hey, it’s ok, go on and keep copying Apple. No need to be original and spend MONTHS designing a totally unique brand style for your client – just take the easy route! In fact, do copy Apple, because I think it’s a good idea, and your web design practice will even be given some form of bragging right because you can show your clients you appeared here. ”
Honestly, I wish that the true web design professionals would put up a gallery of their own, because I promise you, at least more than half of the sites featured here would never make the cut.
@DDD
I mostly agree with all of what you said in your last reply, except a few things. On the issue of Atebits differentiating their company or products via design, they have not really done that. That much is true.
Tweetie is a great App, and it’s gaining a lot of traction with consumers. I don’t think their design is preventing any growth. to say otherwise is silly imo. There is no evidence to suggest it.
As designers, I think we are prone to taking the statements about copying and “ripping off” a little too far.
Gradients, big & detailed icons, subtle aluminum texture, etc. are not owned by Apple. Just because someone uses those techniques does not mean they are copying. Unoriginal… maybe, but copying, no.
You may not be claiming this much. But I have seen others that do and it’s getting ridiculous. It’s like a web 2.0 witch hunt.
In some ways, conforming somewhat to these stylings could be a good thing when appropriate (i.e. when your selling Mac Software). Familiarity creates comfort and trust.
However, this conformity needs to be balanced. As you said, uniqueness is required to effectively brand a business or product. Those design techniques need to be kept in check.
PS: The “Designers own page” you speak of is an online business card. It’s a personal page. Maybe he admires the style of design that Apple made famous, and choose to use it for his personal page. So what if he likes Apple/web 2.0 style? That doesn’t back up any claims of copying.
His web design practice looks nothing like Apple: http://madebyelephant.com/
I don’t think this site looks like an “apple site”. What I said is that most mac app sites look the same (big icons gradients etc). This isn’t really a bad thing. They have a demographic to target and they are doing it well. Good on them.
Personally I really like the design. Just want to see something different from mac application vendors.
@Skelliot
You said it best! They definitely are targeting their market. I think everyone just wants to see a little innovation within that formula, as do I.
I personally have came across some websites for Mac software that didn’t conform, and I was immediately turned off. It was a subconscious thing and I thought and I was left wondering if the developers were really Mac people or understood the whole user experience that Apple encourages.
That reasoning is of course not valid, but I have come to associate that style of design with great Mac software.
@Danny
Good points all around. I think the wording I used was too strong – yes, it wasn’t a rip, nor was it a copy. Maybe inspired is a better word.
I agree about how familiarity breeds trust, and yes, I never did intend to suggest that the lack of originality was hurting the business. Rather, I was merely bringing up the issue that if the design was a little less inspired, and a little more unique, the brand would stand out even more than it does in the current guise.
Either way, I wasn’t trying bash nor start a witch hunt. My only stance in this whole matter is that originality needs to be given greater consideration and reward, much like it is in the advertising industry.
After all, if we ourselves as designers, continue to strengthen the idea that web 2.0 is pretty much the acceptable standard, we will all be shooting ourselves in the foot: the majority of our clients have no clue, nor any idea of what truly makes a good website design, and if they become too familiar with a certain look (web 2.0), anything else will make them uncomfortable – even scared to try out.
And as far fetched as that may seem right now, if the majority clients become “trained by familiarity” and only wish to see web 2.0-style sites, how do we, as individual designers, differentiate ourselves? By NOT rewarding originality, and instead, rewarding a “common” style, we will be walking closer towards the path of becoming a commodity.
There is a reason why other creative industries, such as fashion and advertising, champion original creativity and look down upon a lack of. It is their way of both differentiating themselves from one another, and educating customer and clients about what is “good” and what is not.
And so… to conclude my long-winded monologue:
Is the site design bad? Not at all.
Is it original? Not really.
Should it be on a design gallery? No, I don’t think so.