Jony Ive Blames Corporate Agendas for Ruining Modern Tech Design

Jony Ive 批评企业功利议程破坏现代科技设计 这位前苹果设计主管认为，企业对可量化指标的痴迷已取代了真正的人文关怀，催生出毫无灵魂的产品。 在这场长篇深入对话中，传奇设计师 Jony Ive 爵士回顾了自己立足硅谷33年的观察，将他在苹果早年那种使命驱动的“纯真狂热”，与当今科技行业的企业功利议程进行了对比。他阐述了设计公司 LoveFrom 的创作哲学，强调真正的创新需要深切的关怀、拒绝草率盲目的“颠覆”论调，并致力于建立人与人的连接，而非追逐那些易于量化的指标。Ive 还分享了旨在培养团队坦诚脆弱特质的实用仪式，并探讨了创造者面对现代科技所带来的快速且始料未及的后果时必须承担的重大责任。 产品是我们自身的鲜明证明，简明扼要地阐述了我们作为人类的核心价值与专注追求。 (0:21) 真正的设计，划清了纯粹为了赶工期或迎合定价而制造的产品，与真正致力于推动人类物种向前发展的产品之间的界限。 (0:21) 现代科技行业已在很大程度上偏离了为人类服务的纯真狂热，转而在很大程度上受制于企业议程、金钱和权力的驱动。 (0:21) 真正的创新不应与所谓的颠覆、大肆破坏或为了标新立异而标新立异混为一谈，后者只会留下一片狼藉。 (9:10) 将全然的爱与关怀倾注在产品微小、不易察觉的细节中，是一种精神行为，也是向全人类表达感激的一种方式。 (9:10)

Sir Jony Ive argues that design is fundamentally a moral and spiritual act of human care, cautioning that modern technology risks forfeiting this responsibility by prioritizing financial metrics and rapid disruption over craftsmanship and societal well-being. Care, Gratitude, and the Limits of Metrics (9:10) Ive maintains that manufactured objects stand as a direct testament to their creators' values, rejecting the conventional Silicon Valley mindset of disruptive innovation that breaks things without creating better alternatives. Drawing on Steve Jobs's perspective that making tools with care for strangers is an expression of gratitude to humanity, Ive argues that people possess an intuitive capacity to sense both care and carelessness in a product. He exemplifies this through practices like finishing the concealed interiors of hardware—comparable to a master cabinet maker finishing the back of a drawer—and obsessing over packaging details so users realize that someone cared about their experience. This devotion to craft challenges what Ive characterizes as the corporate environment's "insidious lie": the conviction that because attributes like cost, schedule, weight, and speed are easily quantifiable, they are the only factors that matter. According to Ive, prioritizing metrics over unquantifiable human values reduces simplicity to mere clutter removal, producing "desiccated, soulless" tools. He contends that whether designing consumer hardware or backend infrastructure, working without genuine concern for the end user results in a corrosive existence. Nurturing Fragile Ideas and Scaling Taste (27:22) Ive observes that early design ideas begin as fragile, precarious thoughts easily extinguished by loud corporate environments where opinions outshine genuine insight. To protect these vulnerable concepts, he emphasizes the necessity of active listening, quiet contemplation, and mutual vulnerability within creative teams. At Apple, this took the form of specific group rituals, such as rotating weekly responsibilities for cooking breakfast and holding design workshops inside team members' homes. Working in living rooms rather than sterile corporate conference rooms altered physical postures and shifted designers' focus toward the intimate environments where consumer products are actually used. When organizations grow beyond the scope of any single designer's direct oversight, Ive asserts that maintaining quality requires clinging to core motivations rather than attempting total administrative control. Furthermore, he rejects the common assumption that teams must compromise quality to achieve execution speed. Ive treats this trade-off as a flaw in language and framing, arguing that organizations should instead pursue the inherent elegance of working efficiently to achieve high standards without sacrificing detail. Technological Velocity, Harm, and Civic Duty (47:22) Contrasting the purpose-driven atmosphere of Silicon Valley in 1992 with today's corporate focus on power and capital, Ive expresses deep concern over the unintended consequences of modern technologies. He acknowledges feeling personally burdened by the adverse effects that smartphones, the internet, and artificial intelligence have had on attention spans, children, and education. While relieved that safety is being openly discussed regarding AI, he points out that social media was allowed to expand for years without comparable scrutiny or resistance. To contextualize this dilemma, Ive points to the Industrial Revolution, where societal disruption was met with civic and architectural investments, from ornate Victorian sewage pumping stations to planned worker villages built by industrialists like Cadbury and Fry. However, Ive notes a critical difference between historical and contemporary technology: 19th-century society had the time to pause, assimilate technological change, and construct legal and social frameworks, whereas contemporary digital technology evolves too rapidly for society to establish guardrails before harm occurs. Contextual Form and the Multidisciplinary Collective (44:25) In his post-Apple practice with the creative collective LoveFrom—a team of 50 to 60 specialists spanning industrial design, architecture, typography, and music—Ive has embraced a broader stylistic range, described as his "ornament era." He argues that design language should not be rigid or dogmatic, but rather tailored to the specific problem at hand, noting that creating the coronation identity for King Charles III demands an entirely different approach than designing a computer. Ive links this evolution to historical design movements like the Bauhaus, observing that new eras often begin with raw, energetic experimentation with new materials—such as tubular steel furniture—before gradually maturing into refined expressions of beauty. Emphasizing that utility and aesthetics remain inseparable, Ive maintains that if an object fails to function properly, it cannot be considered beautiful. Ive leaves open the question of how modern tech enterprises can structurally slow their deployment cycles to prevent societal harm, placing the burden of ethical responsibility directly on individual creators.

前苹果首席设计官Jony Ive认为，卓越的设计本质上是一种对人类表达关怀与感激的精神行为，而非受制于商业指标的妥协；面对技术演进带来的负面连锁效应，创造者必须重拾公民责任感，以深层的工艺严谨性和同理心对抗短视的破坏式创新。 抵制指标谎言与破坏式创新 (9:10) Ive对比了1992年他初入硅谷时的行业风貌与当下的现实环境。他指出，早期的硅谷充满志同道合、致力于“服务人类物种”的天真热情，而今科技产业却严重由金钱、权力和企业议程驱动。针对行业推崇的“破坏式创新”陈词滥调，Ive明确表示反对，认为将创新混淆为标新立异或砸烂事物极为危险。盲目打破旧事物只会留下一片狼藉，唯有在打破是创造出更优方案的必然结果时，破坏才具备合理性。 此外，Ive抨击了企业界只专注可衡量属性的“隐蔽谎言”。现代企业往往耗费全部精力讨论时间进度、成本、运行速度与重量等数字指标，并误认为只有这些容易衡量的指标才重要，进而将无法量化的创意品质贬低为个人主观意见。他强调，真正的极简主义并非粗暴移除杂乱元素，盲目简化只会制造出干瘪且无灵魂的产物；真正的设计应当精准提炼并传达物品的核心本质与功能，并充分保留常被科技界忽视的愉悦与幽默感。 守护脆弱创意：团队仪式与工作环境 (27:22) 在日常实践层面，Ive拒绝在执行速度与产品品质之间做出非此即彼的妥协，主张通过重新定义问题语言，将对速度的追求转化为“以极高效率打造惊艳品质”。针对企业扩张导致创始人个人品味难以面面俱到的阵痛，Ive认为唯一的解决之道是在各发展阶段始终坚守核心价值观与初衷动机，以此作为全员在无人监管时保持高标准的底层抓手。 Ive特别强调，新创意在早期阶段极其脆弱，常规企业环境中人人急于发声和固执己见的喧嚣往往是扼杀好创意的元凶。为此，他在团队内部推行了旨在促进倾听与相互信任的日常仪式。例如，团队每周五由一名成员轮流为全员制作早餐，借由生活细节培育脆弱性与关怀感；团队还会轮流在成员家中的客厅开展全天研讨，借助真实居家环境与沙发茶几的心理暗示，摆脱压抑沉闷的企业会议室思维，立足真实生活语境推敲消费产品设计。 人文关怀的直觉感知与隐形工艺 (36:03) Ive认为美与实用性密不可分，若一件物品无法发挥功用，它本质上就是丑陋的。他引用理论家Christopher Alexander的观点指出，在方案抉择中应当始终选择更具人性温度的路径。Ive直言，多数企业在产品开发中低估了用户的鉴赏能力，而实际上人类拥有一种近乎精神直觉的天赋，能够敏锐感知物品或软件是否倾注了设计者的用心与关怀，正如人们能够毫不费力地察觉到粗制滥造与漠不关心。 为了践行这种关怀，Ive信奉“橱柜木匠标准”——极致品质往往体现在无人注意的角落。如同顶级木匠会精心打磨抽屉的背面，Ive在苹果任职期间不仅执着于产品内部不可见结构的精细处理，还曾在周末耗费数小时推敲包装盒内线缆摆放与塑料拉环的手感。他强调，仅关注产品表面会带来难以抹去的肤浅感，而用户在拆箱使用时所感受到的细致考量，实质上是一种跨越时空的深层精神沟通。 技术的无心之失、历史镜像与底层设计 (47:22) 谈及智能设备、互联网与人工智能对现代人注意力及下一代造成的负面冲击，Ive坦言自己曾深度参与设计的某些产品带来了“远非令人愉快”的非预期后果。他主张即使创造者并无不良意图，也必须对其设计后果承担全部责任，并透露这种责任感正是驱动其当前未公开项目的重要动力。他将当下的技术狂飙与英国工业革命对比，指出维多利亚时期的排污基础设施建设拥有充足的历史时间让人类社会建立配套的制度与伦理框架，而今天的技术迭代速度远超社会反思的步伐。 Ive从19世纪贵格会企业（如Cadbury's与Fry's）为工人规划建设完整城镇住宅的历史案例中汲取灵感，呼吁将设计拓展为涵盖文化、政治与精神层面的广泛公民责任。面对Stripe等底层金融基础设施平台，Ive借用弗洛伊德关于“人唯有爱与工作”的论断指出，在软件或基建设计中倾注关怀并非纯粹的商业策略，而是一种基本的人性义务；如果人们在漫长的工作生涯中对使用产品的人缺乏关怀，工作本身就会演变为一种极具腐蚀性的生存状态。 Ive的反思展现了其从工业美学实践者向审视技术社会伦理者的转变，但他关于“关怀能够被直觉感知”及“效率与极致品质无需妥协”的论断，在财务与指标高度挂帅的现代工业体系中仍面临巨大落地张力；面对移动互联网过往的教训与AI浪潮的迅猛推进，现代技术能否在造成不可逆的社会创伤前建立起足够的人文与伦理屏障，依然是一个尚未解决的根本命题。

[0:21] Jony Ive: what we make stands testament to who we are. [0:21] Jony Ive: we are here to serve the species. [9:10] Jony Ive: I have a real issue with I think people confuse innovation with being different or breaking stuff, [9:10] Jony Ive: I don't think breaking stuff and moving on quickly leaves us... well, it leaves us surrounded by carnage. [9:10] Jony Ive: I believe that when somebody unwrapped that box and took out that cable and they thought 'somebody gave a about me,' I think that's a spiritual thing. [9:10] Steve Jobs: a way of expressing our gratitude to the species. [14:27] Jony Ive: if I'm consumed with anxiety, that's how the work will end up. [14:27] Jony Ive: We spend all our time talking about attributes because we can easily measure them. Therefore, this is all that matters. And that's a lie. [21:49] Jony Ive: I would get belligerent and say no, we don't have to choose, we can do both. [21:49] Jony Ive: How can we work wonderfully efficiently to create something with breathtaking quality? [24:16] Jony Ive: Why did I do that? Has a motivation shifted? [24:16] Jony Ive: we will find ways to be the control freaks we were born to be... or we can say care as much as we [can], but let's be honest. [27:22] Jony Ive: Opinions aren't ideas, [36:03] Jony Ive: If something doesn't work, it's ugly, [36:03] Jony Ive: You sense carelessness. [40:51] Jony Ive: Beauty takes time, [56:16] Sigmund Freud: all there is is love and work, [56:16] Jony Ive: I'm just Johnny.

[0:00] I'm very excited about this interview. [0:02] Uh there are few people in the valley [0:05] who need uh or in the technology [0:06] industry more broadly who need uh less [0:09] of an introduction uh than uh than than [0:13] Johnny. And it struck me as I was about [0:15] to walk on here that he barely even [0:18] needs a surname. [0:20] Um please welcome to the stage Sir [0:23] Johnny IV. [0:26] [Applause] [0:33] Okay, let's do this. [0:40] All right, so um well, thank you for [0:43] joining us. I really would love to say [0:47] that um I I am unspeakably grateful and [0:51] honored to be here. Um spending any time [0:54] with Patrick is a big deal. So, thank [0:56] you. [0:57] Well, um I want to um start sort of in [0:59] the uh in the obvious place. Um just I [1:03] mean you didn't I don't know if you got [1:04] to kind of walk the floor and [1:05] everything, but you you can see sort of [1:06] a little bit here and I you're see you [1:09] had the monitor backstage and so forth. [1:11] Um what do you think of the design? [1:16] It's lovely, isn't it? No, it's it's [1:19] very um do you know I've not been here [1:22] um I haven't been here for a long time [1:25] and um I have some very strong um and [1:28] vivid memories of being here but no the [1:30] design's lovely. [1:37] The um the first event I ever came to in [1:41] uh in San Francisco uh was uh was one [1:43] that you designed where the otter [1:46] behind. It was the uh WWDC in I have to [1:49] go back and check. I I think it was 05 [1:51] maybe it was 06. Uh but um that was the [1:54] first event I came to in uh in San [1:56] Francisco and it was actually I want to [1:58] say it was here in this room at Muscone. [2:00] Uh but uh but actually um John get got [2:03] to be in here but I was relegated to the [2:05] overflow room [2:07] which was not my fault. All right. So um [2:11] well speaking of that you came to [2:13] Silicon Valley in 1992. Is that right? [2:16] That's right. Yeah. So [2:18] um you're still very young but that was [2:21] um that was uh you know a couple of [2:23] years ago. A couple of decades ago. Um [2:26] how has how is Silicon Valley? So Alan [2:29] Allen K says that um the software [2:32] industry and the computing industry is a [2:34] pop culture uh in the sense that we we [2:37] are ahistorical and we don't understand [2:40] the ideas and the antecedants and the [2:43] things that came before us and you know [2:45] that's Alan K's view I don't know if [2:46] it's right but I thought it was an [2:48] interesting idea and certainly it's the [2:49] case that if you ask people I don't know [2:51] to you know in in in many industries the [2:56] greats and the creators and so forth are [2:58] these kind of big hallowed names. But if [3:00] you ask people, you know, who invented [3:01] the internet, a lot of people in the in [3:04] the technology industry don't have a [3:05] don't have, you know, a clear sense of [3:06] of that history. I've always found that [3:08] kind of phenomenon interesting. But [3:09] since you've now got to observe Silicon [3:12] Valley for, you know, 33 years, how's it [3:14] changed? [3:15] Well, I I think when when I was at art [3:19] school, I um so I I studied design um in [3:24] England. I I I was born in London and [3:26] studied up in the [3:28] northeast and I [3:31] remember discovering the Mac um in my [3:34] final year sadly. I wish it had been [3:37] earlier. [3:39] Um, but I I came to realize something [3:43] that was I I I should have realized [3:47] earlier, but that what I realized was [3:50] that what we make stands testament to [3:54] who we are. And what we make describes [3:58] our values. It describes our [4:00] preoccupations. It discuss, you know, it [4:03] describes beautifully, succinctly, um, [4:06] our [4:07] preoccupation. [4:09] And this struck me so powerfully when I [4:12] saw the Mac. [4:15] Um, and I I I got a very specific puzzle [4:20] was a kind of bicycle for the mind. That [4:22] aspect of it or something else? It was [4:23] every part. I got a very clear sense of [4:26] a group clearly of of original thinkers [4:31] with clear values completely [4:36] um I I I I think obsessed with people [4:39] and culture. You know that there was you [4:42] know you can look at something and it [4:43] can either it can tell you I was [4:45] designed um to meet a price point at a [4:49] certain time so I hit the schedule. we [4:52] can repent at our leisure and and and [4:54] it's as cheap as we hoped or you can try [4:58] and design something that [5:00] genuinely attempts to move the species [5:03] on. And I had a very clear sense of the [5:06] latter that this was created by this [5:10] renegade group in California and so [5:14] powerful. I mean, I studied industrial [5:16] design. I didn't study [5:18] technology but I was so moved by the [5:21] clear [5:23] values and the resolve and the courage [5:25] that I think enabled the the embodiment [5:28] of those values [5:30] um that I wanted to meet these people. I [5:33] wanted to come out and so after college [5:36] in '89 I first came out I had to return [5:40] this is probably way too much [5:42] information. Um you're among just a [5:46] couple of friends. Exactly. It's a this [5:47] is a a small intimate fireside chat. [5:49] Well the interesting thing was that I [5:51] had um a job commitment. I was sponsored [5:55] through college and so I had to go back [5:57] to work in design in London and there [6:01] was a [6:02] strange liberty I think that afforded [6:05] me. I was impossibly shy and I think if [6:08] I'd been traveling out to meet people [6:11] with the goal of getting a job, I I [6:14] would have I would have found that so [6:16] anxious making, I don't think I would [6:19] have dared to meet people. [6:22] Um, and so because I had no agenda, I [6:25] think also I think people were probably [6:27] happier to meet me because they didn't [6:29] think I wanted anything. Um, [6:32] and so to to to dare to get close to [6:36] answering your question, [6:38] um, what I saw in ' 89 92 when I finally [6:43] moved out, Apple I worked I consulted [6:46] for Apple for a couple of years and then [6:49] they persuaded me to move to San [6:50] Francisco. what to move to to Apple [6:53] here. [6:54] [Music] [6:55] Um what I saw I think was or or what I [7:00] felt was [7:02] um or a sort of an innocent euphoria I [7:05] think of of like-minded people driven by [7:11] values clearly in service of humanity [7:14] gathering together in in some small [7:18] groups in some huge groups. [7:21] But I I do believe there was a very [7:24] strong sense of purpose and that purpose [7:27] was we are here to serve the species. [7:30] And was that at Apple in '92 or in the [7:33] technology industry in '92 or in the Bay [7:35] Area in '92? [7:38] That's a great qu I I think honest [7:40] honestly Patrick it was everywhere. I [7:42] felt um and even though you know there [7:45] were competitors, even though I did feel [7:47] that there was an underlying sense of [7:50] our place [7:52] um as [7:53] servants and of principled [7:57] service and what's changed well I don't [8:01] think that's the case entirely. Um I I [8:04] think there are agendas that are about [8:06] well there are corporate agendas. I [8:08] think um and and this will sound a [8:11] little harsh, but it is um driven by [8:14] money and power. Um and I think if if [8:19] you know how you tend to get you you end [8:21] up somewhere by sort of increments, [8:24] um I think if you were to starkly [8:27] contrast today with 92, [8:31] um I think that would be a reasonable um [8:35] assessment. And for anybody creating [8:38] software, creating a product, creating a [8:41] company, what's the what's the center or [8:44] what's the north north star that you [8:47] perceive as you know having um you know [8:51] gotten a skew today or the thing that [8:53] people should you know hold firm to in [8:55] order to avoid some of these failure [8:57] modes. Is it what you just mentioned [8:58] having a clear sense of purpose? Is it [9:00] sort of having a kind of servant [9:02] orientation? How how would you think [9:03] what is what's at the heart of it? [9:10] I I I think there there need you know [9:12] there there need to be foundational [9:15] values and an understanding of our place [9:18] in in all of this and and um having a [9:22] clear sense of the goal which is to [9:25] enable and [9:27] inspire people. I mean, you know, [9:29] Patrick and I were talking um just a [9:32] while ago about being tool makers, and [9:34] I'm very clear and very proud that [9:36] that's my occupation and that's my [9:39] practice. [9:41] Um I I love trying to move things [9:44] forward, which means [9:46] innovating. [9:48] Um I I have a real issue with I think [9:52] people confuse innovation with being [9:54] different or breaking stuff. Um, I have [9:57] no interest in breaking stuff for the [9:59] sake of breaking stuff. Um, I I don't [10:03] think breaking stuff and and moving on [10:06] quickly um leaves us well, it leaves us [10:10] surrounded by carnage. Um, I I'm [10:14] interested if things get broken as a [10:16] consequence of actually creating [10:19] something better. Um but [10:23] I I I think one of the things that is I [10:27] think it's part of the human condition [10:29] is that [10:30] we assume that progress and innovation [10:33] is sort of inevitable and you know that [10:36] it's not you know that you have to have [10:39] you know this underlying conviction [10:41] which is fuel and then we need an idea [10:44] and a vision and then the resolve to [10:49] make that vision something that is real [10:53] that is not just for us but that we can [10:56] share broadly. Um you once used a phrase [10:58] with me uh sincerely elevate the [11:02] species. [11:04] Yeah, I I I think [11:06] that you know that I I remember many [11:09] times and and fortunately I'm not [11:11] talking in in the past tense, but I do [11:14] remember particular Sunday afternoons [11:17] working [11:19] um actually I remember working on some [11:23] absurd details with with in terms of [11:27] packaging and [11:30] um and in such a tr I mean this this [11:33] compared to what um you guys do this [11:36] will seem so trivial but I had such a [11:40] clear awareness that in designing a [11:44] certain solution for for example how we [11:46] managed a cable that's in a box that [11:50] designing that I knew that millions of [11:53] people would engage with this little tab [11:56] and I can either make the cable an easy [11:58] thing to [12:00] unwrap sorry That is such a trivial [12:03] example, isn't it? But but but but [12:05] clearly you think that um I mean you you [12:08] can describe the purpose of that in you [12:10] know seconds saved you know that shaves [12:12] 5 seconds off the unwrapping of every [12:14] cable and multiply it across hundreds of [12:15] millions you know but but I get the [12:17] sense from you that's not why you do it. [12:19] It's not it's not this trivial [12:21] utilitarian you know m multiplication [12:23] and calculation. There's something [12:25] spiritual in it for you. What's the [12:27] spiritual thing? I I think the spiritual [12:29] thing is that um I believe that when [12:32] somebody unwrapped that box and took out [12:35] that cable and they thought somebody [12:38] gave a about me, I think that's a [12:41] spiritual thing. And I think it's a [12:48] way and I know I'm in good company here. [12:51] I know that when you you know what used [12:54] to depress me was this sense that [12:57] solving a functional imperative then [12:59] we're done. But of course that's not [13:01] enough. That's that's not that's not the [13:05] characteristic of an evolved society of [13:08] an evolved species. And so that Sunday [13:12] afternoon when I really should have been [13:13] out with my [13:15] boys and I'm worrying about this this I [13:19] I did feel a connection and an [13:23] excitement that somebody was going to [13:26] experience something that they don't [13:28] even know exists yet. And even though it [13:30] was a small thing, um it would really [13:34] did come genuinely from a place of love [13:36] and of care. Um, and Steve spoke about [13:40] this. I mean, he spoke about it way more [13:44] eloquently than I can, but he talked [13:46] about when you make [13:48] something with love and with care. Even [13:52] though the people that you've made it [13:54] for, you don't know their [13:57] story. They don't know your story. [14:00] You'll never even shake their hands. But [14:03] when they use the product that you've [14:06] made, it it's a way and the way Steve [14:09] expressed it I thought was so beautiful. [14:11] He said it's a way of expressing our [14:14] gratitude to the species. And I thought [14:18] that was such an an [14:20] incredibly thoughtful and beautiful and [14:23] authentic declaration. [14:27] So when people talk about your design or [14:31] design that occurred in your time at [14:33] Apple, um they often refer to [14:37] minimalism, [14:39] simplicity, the clarity and function, [14:42] you know, things like this and that's [14:43] all certainly true. Um, but part of [14:46] what's very striking to me is how much [14:48] of it uh seems to um seems to have some [14:52] kind of [14:54] um sense of humor or joy woven into it. [14:58] Like there's the um the iMac like the [15:01] Pixar lamp. Um there's the the lozenge [15:05] iMacs in their uh technicolor. Um there [15:09] were there were even iPod socks. [15:14] What's the role of joy in design? [15:17] Well, I I I think [15:19] if that's such a good question because I [15:22] think one of the mistakes that people [15:24] make is that they think simple products [15:29] um you know simplicity is about removing [15:33] clutter and to me that means you just [15:36] would end up with an uncluttered product [15:39] um but a kind of desiccated soulless [15:41] product. actually as that's a beautiful [15:43] description a desiccated soulless [15:46] product. I [15:48] think that's what a lot of minimalism [15:51] ends up being um or modernism ends up [15:55] manifesting as. [15:58] I my goal and our goal collectively has [16:02] been to bring order to chaos, to try and [16:06] in but simplicity to me is trying to [16:11] um succinctly express the essence of [16:16] something and its purpose and its role [16:18] in our life. [16:20] Um I actually think that [16:24] um something that I'm I I feel conscious [16:28] of is that [16:31] um I think generally in in the valley [16:34] and generally in our shared you know in [16:35] our industry I think joy and humor has [16:38] been missing. [16:41] Um, and that's something that I I I that [16:45] that sort of weighed on me a bit. And [16:48] um, [16:49] and I um, you know, the the products [16:53] that we we you know, we're all [16:55] developing, they're complicated, aren't [16:56] they? Um, and sometimes joy gets [17:00] confused with being trivial. Um but but [17:04] I think I always go back I don't know [17:06] about you but I always go back to being [17:08] very clear that the my state of mind and [17:12] how I am in my practice ultimately is [17:16] going to be embodied in the work. And so [17:19] if I'm if I'm consumed with [17:22] anxiety that's how the work will end up. [17:26] And so, um, I I think to be hopeful and [17:30] optimistic and joyful in our practice [17:34] and and be that way in how we relate to [17:38] each other and our colleagues. I [17:41] actually think that's how the products [17:42] will will end up. [17:44] There's a um there's a uh there's a [17:47] wonderful talk um by a guy called Daniel [17:50] Cook um about how to build a um a [17:54] princess saving enterprise application [17:58] um uh but he uh he you know kind of [18:00] deconstructs uh Super Mario um and [18:03] obviously the the core purpose is to to [18:05] save the princess um and uh sort of [18:08] approaches it from a standard enterprise [18:09] application design standpoint uh and uh [18:12] and puts together uh some um some uh [18:15] some examples of how one might go about [18:17] it. And he impuges this approach and and [18:19] and kind of critiques it because he says [18:20] that this kind of design fails to [18:23] recognize that uh that the user is a [18:26] person. Um the person wants to learn, [18:30] the person can change. The software has [18:33] an effect on the person and you have to [18:35] take that very seriously. And the words [18:36] you're using uh enable, inspire, love, [18:39] care, gratitude, joy, they to me they [18:42] seem to come from a conception of the [18:43] person as somebody who's living and [18:46] changing and the software in fact hasn't [18:48] affected them. It's what so so something [18:52] Patrick and I have talked about in the [18:53] past is and and this is something I'd [18:56] love to try and describe and and you'll [18:59] have to you'll have to help me um [19:01] because I think it's really important [19:04] and it's something that I realize and it [19:06] took me many years at Apple to realize [19:09] this but it's it's an effect that I [19:12] believe occurs when you're in larger [19:14] groups of people involved in the common [19:17] cause of developing a [19:19] product. I I think one of the things [19:21] that happens is, you know, generally we, [19:23] you know, we grow up wanting to be able [19:26] to relate to people and wanting to be [19:29] sociable. Um, we find ourselves um in a [19:34] work environment with hopefully a [19:37] diverse range of people. [19:41] And one of the things that's interesting [19:43] is if if we're developing products [19:45] together, um there is this I I noticed [19:49] this and it used to infuriate me before [19:52] I came to try to have a slightly more [19:55] generous interpretation of why this [19:57] happens, but that people generally want [20:00] to talk about product [20:03] attributes that you can measure easily [20:06] with a number. So if if you if you if [20:09] you guys think about it and you think [20:11] about what would dominate the [20:13] conversations that you would you would [20:15] have product conversations you will end [20:17] up talking about schedule cost speed [20:20] weight um anything where you can you [20:24] know generally agree that six is a [20:26] bigger number than [20:27] two and I understand why but the problem [20:31] is much of what you know much of my [20:34] contribution and the contribution of [20:36] designers and other [20:38] creatives, you can't measure easily with [20:41] a number. Or it's it gets even more [20:44] demeaning. It can be just, well, that's [20:46] your opinion. Well, that's like telling [20:48] your heart surgeon, well, that's your [20:50] opinion, and you having a go yourself. [20:53] Um and [20:55] so what I came to realize and I think [20:58] this is [21:00] um I the the I think the more generous [21:04] interpretation I had was we do that [21:06] because we want to try to relate to each [21:08] other. We do that because we want to be [21:12] inclusive. But then this is the [21:14] dangerous thing that happens and and I I [21:19] would I I would encourage um I I [21:23] desperately hope this doesn't sound [21:24] arrogant but I would really encourage [21:26] you to think about this because I've [21:29] been so [21:30] struck by how important this is. The [21:34] insidious lie [21:36] follows which is we spend all our time [21:40] talking about attributes because we can [21:42] easily measure them. Therefore, this is [21:45] all that [21:46] matters. And that's a lie. It's [21:49] important, but it's a partial truth. [21:54] and all of the stuff that I think [21:56] designers and other creatives [22:00] um can contribute to an experience or to [22:04] a product um that can make it delightful [22:08] to use and joyful to use as well as more [22:11] productive. Um if it's delightful and [22:14] joyful, things tend to be used more. [22:19] Um are equally important. Um, nothing [22:23] you say sounds arrogant because when you [22:24] have a beautiful British accent, then [22:26] you can get away with anything. [22:29] Um, so, [22:31] um, um, we're speaking about the import [22:35] and the impact of design, but if we [22:37] shift a little bit to the practice, [22:41] um, is there a trade-off between speed [22:43] of execution and ensuing quality? [22:53] sometimes. Um I was hoping you'd say no. [22:57] I I I absolutely know there are fabulous [23:00] examples where um I I I would reframe [23:05] the question as as it being about [23:08] motivation. [23:09] So I think what tends to happen is [23:12] when when we're put in this situation of [23:16] having to choose um I would get [23:19] belligerent and say no we don't have to [23:21] choose we can do both um it's very hard [23:24] I mean I know you guys have heard this [23:26] lots but it's hard to do quality and [23:29] speed and cost and other things but um I [23:35] think I think there is a beauty to [23:38] working efficiently ly and I think we [23:41] can say that's um speed. I think I think [23:46] you know I know we both are pay a great [23:49] deal of attention to the words that we [23:52] use because they affect the way we think [23:55] and the words that we use to frame a [23:57] problem are some of the most important. [24:01] And so I I I I would sort of frame the [24:05] issue of of how can we work wonderfully [24:09] efficiently [24:10] um to create something with breathtaking [24:14] quality. [24:16] um as organizations grow uh there's [24:20] another kind of tension where maybe for [24:23] various people here in the audience [24:25] certainly this is something I've [24:26] experienced in the early I mean the [24:28] early days it's it's in the earliest [24:30] days it's just you um and then there's [24:32] you know maybe a couple of other people [24:34] but you can kind of excuse me kind of [24:36] say a breast of everything that's [24:37] happening and you feel like you have the [24:41] opportunity at least to exercise your [24:44] taste or judgment or opinion and you [24:46] know, whatever the uh issue might [24:48] be. And then perhaps things continue to [24:51] scale and at some point it's it's far [24:53] beyond the uh it becomes um far beyond [24:57] the scale and scope uh of any single [25:00] human. And then there's this um there's [25:04] this discontinuity where there are [25:06] things that happen happened that I never [25:08] saw. Uh I never had the chance and uh [25:12] opportunity to weigh in on. I don't know [25:14] how I feel about it. I I wouldn't have [25:16] done that thing over there. How how do [25:18] you I mean Apple was not a small company [25:20] when you were there. Certainly not in [25:22] the um in the later years. How do you [25:26] deal with this? And and I think it's [25:28] both the scale and scope, but also [25:31] doesn't it feel [25:33] intrinsically unreasonable to simply say [25:36] that this thing here doesn't accord with [25:38] my taste? [25:42] Um I think it's very reasonable to say [25:45] that. Um it's it's it's very very hard, [25:49] isn't it? [25:51] Um I I think what I have I I do [25:56] believe that we go through chapters or [26:00] seasons and we the painful part is the [26:04] conclusion of one and the beginning of [26:06] the next where [26:08] we we have to adjust and we we change [26:12] our approach. I think the one thing [26:13] obviously it will not work to assume how [26:16] we started is how we're going to finish [26:19] and so I think being very clear that we [26:22] are in a constant state of flux and it's [26:26] trying to figure out I I believe what is [26:29] you know what I'm not going to [26:30] compromise [26:32] um and I think that's the very clear [26:37] focus on your principles and your values [26:40] and your motivations [26:42] I think the alarm bells always go off [26:45] for me when I think why did I do that? [26:50] Has a motivation shifted? And that's [26:54] when I've I I've really been upset with [26:57] myself and disappointed with myself and [27:00] reset. Um, but I I do think if if our [27:05] our motivations and values remain the [27:08] same, we will find ways to be the [27:11] control freaks we were born to be. Um, [27:14] and and which of course I mean or we can [27:17] say care as much as we but let's be [27:20] honest. [27:22] um [27:23] um for a design team that um that you're [27:28] leading or participating in, uh what are [27:31] the [27:33] rituals? Well, one of the [27:40] the I think [27:43] um that there's nothing more important [27:46] to me than the creative team. [27:50] and declaring that and being clear about [27:54] this this is my [27:56] contribution. [27:58] Um and therefore I need to be part of an [28:02] extraordinary [28:03] team. Um but that's just you know that's [28:06] the price of admission isn't it? So you [28:09] can have the people but practice our our [28:12] process our practice the protocols are [28:15] so important. um over over many years [28:19] over I mean I've been doing this and [28:23] leading small creative teams for I mean [28:26] over 30 years these are some of the [28:29] things that I found important um if [28:32] you're dealing as I was describing [28:34] earlier with [28:36] concepts that you can't measure with [28:38] numbers if you're dealing with ideas [28:41] that always if you think about the [28:43] evolution of an idea it always starts [28:45] off as a [28:48] thought and then a and you know then a [28:52] tentative discussion. Um [28:56] uh one of the things I realize is just [29:00] how you know these ethereal thoughts, [29:03] these fragile concepts, um are [29:08] precarious. And I think a small team of [29:13] people that really trust each other [29:18] um is I I I think is fundamentally [29:21] important. trust and and love each other [29:24] who care about each other. Um if you [29:27] care about, you know, then you might be [29:30] in danger of actually listening. You [29:33] know, the the thing that just kills so [29:35] many ideas. And I've worked in places [29:37] that where this happens. But people are [29:40] just desperate to be to speak and to be [29:43] heard. And there's nothing like you know [29:47] what kills most ideas I think are people [29:49] desperate to express an [29:51] opinion. And it's really let's be very [29:55] clear opinions aren't ideas. [29:59] Um I was going to say something really [30:01] rude then but I won't. Um but [30:05] um but I I I think you can say we can [30:08] cut it from the video. [30:11] But the the [30:13] the to be quiet and to listen and and [30:18] one of the things that terrifies me, I [30:21] know that I've [30:23] missed really amazing ideas that that [30:27] came from a quiet [30:28] place, from a quiet [30:32] person. And that really scares me [30:35] because I don't know what I've missed. [30:37] And so, so talking about the rituals, I [30:41] I think doing things that mean our [30:45] relationship is authentic and deep. Um, [30:49] you know, one of the things that I [30:50] discovered that I think is really [30:52] important, you know, we tried a lot of [30:55] things at Apple and most of most of the [30:58] things that I, you know, tried didn't [31:02] work out. Um but a few things [31:07] um I was excited about and grew I think [31:10] to be very powerful. I think one as a [31:14] practice it's very good to make things [31:17] for each other. I think for that to [31:20] become part of your um you know daily [31:25] way of connecting to your team to think [31:28] about what you can make for each other [31:30] that's just a really it puts you in a [31:33] lovely place. It makes you more worried [31:35] about them than you. It makes you [31:38] vulnerable and it makes them [31:40] grateful. And that's a lot isn't it? I [31:43] mean ju those things just think about [31:45] what I said that's a that starts to [31:47] define a quite a lovely culture and then [31:52] connected to that something I was really [31:54] struck by Paul Graham says make things [31:56] people want and Johnny Ives says make [31:58] things for each other [32:01] yes it it's a I mean that's what we do [32:04] isn't it I mean all we're doing is at a [32:06] very personal level practicing what [32:07] we're doing you know at our professional [32:10] level all of us here I I guess almost [32:13] every single person here we we're about [32:16] making something for other people and so [32:20] perhaps I I don't know quite make things [32:21] people want I feel is sort of a business [32:23] strategy whereas it sounds like what [32:24] you're saying is make things for each [32:25] other is a team strategy. Well, as a [32:28] team, well, so for example, one of the [32:30] things I thought was great was that you, [32:32] you know, every Friday morning, um, I [32:36] asked that one person on the design team [32:38] would make breakfast for the whole team [32:40] and we took it in turns and we had so [32:43] make things for each other. I'm [32:44] imagining, you know, prototype iPhones, [32:46] but no, it can also be bacon, bacon and [32:48] eggs. I'm talking corn flakes and milk. [32:50] I mean, we I mean, we soared I mean, [32:55] dizzy heights of some of the food and [32:57] some of it was so shocking. [33:01] Um, but it all came from the same place [33:05] in terms of motivation and um, and [33:09] something that was connected that I was [33:10] surprised at how powerful it [33:13] was, excuse me, [33:17] was we would host we would take it in [33:20] turns to have the design team come to [33:23] our homes and we would spend a day [33:26] working in our in our home. And the [33:30] This is something I probably thought way [33:32] too much about. [33:35] Um, but that it was in a very very [33:39] powerful way of one doing um or [33:43] encouraging [33:45] us in our practice to do good work and [33:49] in in [33:50] in building the team. And I think [33:53] there's an interesting first of all [33:55] there's an interesting dynamic in terms [33:57] of how we regard each other. You know [34:00] the host and this is a bit like when we [34:02] make something for one another the [34:06] host is slightly anxious and concerned [34:09] about the potential judgment of their [34:12] soft [34:13] furnishings. And I mean you know what [34:15] it's like when you have somebody come to [34:17] your house. there is a [34:19] self-consciousness and well certainly I [34:21] you know an an awkwardness I feel and an [34:24] anxiety and I don't think that's [34:28] unhealthy always and um and then the [34:32] guests who you are hosting are you know [34:35] they're on better behavior than if they [34:37] were all just trundling into a [34:39] conference room and then then you've got [34:42] the context you know if you're designing [34:44] for people normal I mean Who here would [34:47] actually want to spend time in a [34:50] conference room? I can't think of a more [34:52] soulless and depressing place. I mean, [34:55] the I I I always think it's funny. Think [35:00] about the relationship between the chair [35:04] you're sat on and how you feel. Like you [35:07] would you would none of you would sit [35:08] watching the TV on these chairs. [35:12] you I mean you wouldn't choose to sit on [35:14] this chair unless it was to listen to [35:15] John and Patrick. So I'm not sure that [35:18] we're the attraction this particular [35:20] event but [35:24] but I think there is an important point [35:27] which is if you're designing for people [35:29] and you're in someone's living room sat [35:32] on their sofa or sat on their floor and [35:35] your sketchbook is on their coffee [35:38] table. Of course you think differently, [35:40] don't you? Of course your your [35:42] preoccupation, your you know where your [35:45] mind wanders [35:47] um is so different than if you're sat in [35:50] in a in a typical you know corporate [35:53] conference [35:56] [Applause] [36:03] room. Is beauty subjective or objective? [36:09] [Music] [36:11] um figure we now get to easier [36:14] questions. Yeah, I I think it's I don't [36:18] I mean I'd be interested to on your take [36:21] on that. [36:23] I I think it's a bit of both. I I think [36:28] um I think utility and [36:31] function, if something doesn't work, [36:33] it's ugly. Um I I I've always get [36:37] frustrated when people try to, you know, [36:40] they they set up a false opposition [36:42] between, you know, utility and [36:44] aesthetics. And um when I've designed [36:49] something or been involved in the design [36:52] of something that doesn't work, I don't [36:54] care what it looks like. It's ugly. [36:58] I I think the tougher thing is when we [37:01] get on to the issues of taste [37:04] and and I think design has always been a [37:07] difficult thing in that um because it's [37:12] very easy for everybody to have an [37:14] opinion. Everybody does. It just doesn't [37:17] mean every opinion has the same weight. [37:20] And I think that I don't I think that's [37:23] a relatively robust statement in that if [37:26] you've studied if you've studied and [37:28] studied and studied design although I [37:31] know people who've studied and studied [37:32] design with terrible taste. So, [37:36] um I don't know. [37:39] Um yeah, it's a very it's it's a good [37:43] Okay. So, um Christopher Alexander said [37:46] that um that between two objects or two [37:50] choices or two paths, the one that feels [37:54] more humane uh is the one that you [37:56] should choose. but that this kind of [37:58] sense of humanity in the object is a [38:00] better guide than beauty which perhaps [38:02] pulls you into more subjective [38:04] territory. Does that resonate at all or [38:06] do you think that sounds crazy? No, I I [38:08] think that's absolutely the case and I I [38:10] think that people I I think um generally [38:15] most companies patronize consumers. Um I [38:19] think [38:21] users [38:22] are I actually do believe a very [38:25] sophisticated [38:27] And um I think there's issues of beauty [38:30] of h you know of of of humanity. I also [38:34] think, and this goes back to the first [38:36] thing I was saying about, you know, my [38:38] sense of Steve and and the Apple team, [38:42] you know, looking at the the first Mac, [38:46] um that you sense [38:49] care. [38:52] Um and I I've I've tried to talk about [38:55] this before. Um I really do believe and [38:58] and I I wish that I had, you know, [39:00] empirical evidence. Um but I do believe [39:04] that we have this ability to sense care [39:08] in whe it's easy in a service because [39:10] you confront care because you confront [39:12] the person when it's vicarious when it's [39:15] via an object where when when it's via a [39:19] piece of software. It's more complex. [39:22] But I think you might understand it more [39:24] if I said you sense [39:26] carelessness. You know carelessness. [39:29] And so I think it's reasonable to [39:31] believe that you also know care and you [39:34] sense care and [39:36] you work very hard and I felt [39:40] passionately about finishing the inside [39:43] of products. Um and when I mean [39:46] finishing I mean um you know we designed [39:52] everything and we cared [39:54] about everything. [39:57] Um, and you know, I mean, you I'm sure [40:02] many of you have heard the bit about, [40:03] you know, a great cabinet maker finishes [40:06] the back of a drawer, even though it's [40:08] unlikely it will be seen. But in the [40:10] same way, I think a mark of our how [40:13] evolved we are as people. It's what we [40:16] do when no one [40:17] sees. And and and I think that's that [40:20] that's a it's indicative. It's a it's a [40:23] powerful marker of who we truly are. Um, [40:28] and I I would be haunted by, you know, [40:33] if all we did was the [40:35] outside my I would have this nagging [40:38] feeling in my tummy that we were just [40:41] being superficial. [40:45] [Applause] [40:51] So you mentioned modernism uh a little [40:53] bit earlier in this in this discussion [40:55] and there's sort of a a puzzle that I've [40:57] been trying to reconcile around [40:58] modernism um that maybe you can sort of [41:00] help me with where um so much early [41:04] modernism was kind of deliberately ugly. [41:07] Like you have the Duchamp fountain and [41:09] you have I mean even Picasso's work I [41:11] mean it's it's dissonant, right? It's [41:12] not it's certainly not classically [41:14] beautiful. Um and then you sort of had [41:16] this political veilance to the um to the [41:19] program and you know Gropius said that [41:22] Bow House was a he said in the manifesto [41:25] that it was a socialist movement um and [41:27] you know you were originally trained in [41:29] bow house design right yes yeah so um so [41:33] there's this kind of and and you've [41:34] shown and the a tonality and you know [41:36] all this stuff right um but then the [41:39] Apple products and the products that you [41:40] designed are very beautiful uh and Apple [41:45] is not a socialist [41:49] undertaking. And so what's going on [41:52] here? And so the particular thing I'm [41:53] trying to figure out is was there a [41:56] strain to modernism where it was [41:58] intentionally trying to be dissonant or [42:00] you know even ugly or to shock people or [42:03] something and how maybe now with some [42:06] remove you know you're no longer at [42:07] Apple. How do you view all that view [42:09] that whole thing and what's your what's [42:10] your take on modernism? That's a great [42:12] question. [42:14] I I I think what tends to happen is is [42:18] very often at the beginning of a [42:20] movement whether it's a design or an art [42:23] movement there is that [42:26] um that incredible energetic [42:30] um I mean in in a way by definition if [42:32] it if it marks the beginning of a [42:34] movement there is [42:36] energy and I think often [42:41] beauty [42:43] is it evolves. Beauty takes time. Um, [42:48] and very often at the beginning of an [42:49] energy, it's an explosion and there's [42:52] not [42:52] time. [42:54] Um, I would dare presume that certainly [42:58] if we're talking about fine art that [43:01] people would say they they have no time. [43:05] They don't want to be distracted by [43:07] concepts of beauty. And so I think for [43:09] sure, you know, if if if a lot of [43:12] modernism was driven by, you know, the [43:15] heady um excitement about new materials, [43:19] um your obsession was the manipulation [43:22] of that new material. Um I one thing I [43:26] mean I'm not sure how many of you guys [43:27] know about Bow House, but this was a [43:29] movement in in Germany. Um but what you [43:33] will know you know you'll be and it any [43:36] it range from fine art to furniture to [43:40] architecture Patrick mentioned Walter [43:42] Gropius and um an incredible [43:48] um incredible movement but there were [43:51] you know what you would probably be most [43:53] familiar with would be chairs like um [43:56] the buer chair or the facility chair [43:59] which were if you think of try and think [44:02] of like um polished steel chromeplated [44:06] tubes that are bent. You know those sort [44:09] of bent chairs. So what's interesting [44:11] there is these guys had just figured [44:14] they were so excited because they'd [44:17] figured out how to bend [44:19] tubes. And so what did they do? They [44:22] bent tubes. And that's why all the [44:25] furniture is bent tube furniture. So I I [44:28] think that I mean that's what I would [44:30] have done if id figured because you know [44:31] when you bend tubes they tend to kink [44:34] and so they'd figured out this way of [44:36] putting springs into tubes and so of [44:39] course you run away and you'd bend as [44:41] many tubes as you could get your hands [44:42] on. Um beauty probably wasn't at the [44:46] front of your mind [44:49] tubes. So when I look at your work and [44:52] we haven't yet uh talked about love from [44:54] although maybe if you want to give [44:55] people a sort of a short summary of how [44:57] you think about that that might be [44:58] helpful but when I look at your more [45:01] recent work and some of what love from [45:03] uh has done um I see it as uh [45:08] as [45:10] Johnny's ornament era uh where Apple was [45:15] so stripped down and bare and you know [45:18] reduced to the essence And now uh I I [45:21] see that uh I mean maybe this is a [45:23] misapprehension um but now you're more [45:26] curious to uh to try other styles. Is [45:29] that true? I I I think it's a lovely [45:32] observation. Yeah. I I I think um so [45:35] it's nearly six years ago that I left [45:37] Apple. Um, [45:41] and my goal was to build [45:48] um the most extraordinary creative team [45:52] I possibly could. Um, and and we're [45:55] about 50 60 people. Many of many of the [45:59] the designers I've worked with for [46:02] decades and decades, which means I [46:05] worked with them at [46:07] Apple. And um but it's a very diverse [46:11] team. So it's a team of industrial [46:13] designers, graphic designers, user [46:15] interface designers, architects, [46:18] typographers, musicians, sound [46:21] designers. And I I think per perhaps [46:24] what what you're referring to is that [46:27] just the the the [46:29] the our usefulness or or the the the [46:34] people that we're collaborating with. [46:36] That's a very diverse group now where [46:39] before we were very focused and we had [46:42] um a clear criteria for what we were [46:45] doing. Um but if you're working for um [46:50] the king on his his coronation um [46:56] identity, that of course would demand um [47:00] a very different approach than the one [47:01] we would have taken if we were designing [47:04] instructional products for how to use an [47:06] iMac. So um so I think that's that's um [47:12] follow what you're saying. Yeah, I think [47:14] it's it it's it's really what the the [47:16] problem is that we're, you know, we're [47:18] we're addressing. Um, so you're talking [47:22] a lot about the purpose of design and [47:24] the effect that design has on the on the [47:28] recipient, on the user, on the consumer, [47:30] you know, whatever the case is. Um [47:32] there's widespread concern and [47:35] speculation uh about the effects of [47:38] smartphones slash the internet doesn't [47:40] necessarily you know accord just with [47:42] the the smartphone um but on some of [47:45] these products on attention spans uh and [47:48] you know whether it has some adverse [47:50] effect on kids or teens or who knows [47:53] maybe all of us maybe the adults as well [47:55] um you know there's questions over with [47:58] AI whether it you know changes how [48:01] education works and cheating and school, [48:03] you know, just so all of these [48:05] technologies that we create have this um [48:08] potential double-sidedness to them. And [48:10] so I guess as somebody who clearly takes [48:14] seriously and thinks seriously about the [48:17] full effects, how do you think about the [48:20] um about [48:21] the the possible harms? [48:26] Yeah, I think when um and and this [48:31] is there's probably not not anything [48:33] that I [48:34] I'm can be more preoccupied or bothered [48:38] by than what you've just described. Um I [48:43] think when you're innovating, of course, [48:46] there will be unintended consequences. [48:49] you hope that the majority will be um [48:52] pleasant surprises. Um certain products [48:57] that I've been very very involved with, [48:59] I think there were some unintended [49:01] consequences that were far from [49:04] pleasant. Um my issue is that even [49:08] though there was no intention, I think [49:11] there still needs to be [49:13] responsibility. Um and that weighs on me [49:16] as you know heavily. [49:19] Um I think um what I think has been [49:23] parti particularly difficult is [49:26] traditionally when you look at [49:29] um [49:31] innovation I mean there's nothing new [49:33] with I mean if you if you um one one [49:36] thing I mean Patrick and I were months [49:38] ago talking about um some of the [49:41] architecture that was associated with [49:43] the industrial revolution um in [49:46] England [49:49] And there so you know there are examples [49:52] well we could talk about this Google [49:54] Victorian pumping stations do so a [49:58] pumping so you imagine this [50:00] idea that sewage used to flow freely [50:05] down the streets and then suddenly and [50:08] this is for all of humanity's existence [50:13] um if if there were streets [50:16] Um and then suddenly sewage was [50:21] silently and predictably and [50:24] consistently kept from [50:27] streets and the machines that achieved [50:30] this were housed in cathedral like [50:33] structures. I mean it's [50:36] amazing and there there there is just in [50:40] incredible precedent for these huge when [50:45] when you have a big technological change [50:48] it impacts society. Um and the [50:51] industrial revolution is um my goodness [50:54] a profound profoundly [50:58] um [50:59] significant um you know occurrence in [51:03] the the the sort of mid middle of the [51:05] 1800s in in certainly in the UK. [51:11] Um, the thing that that I think is is so [51:14] challenging is there was time for [51:18] society to to to stop and consider what [51:22] was happening. And there was time for [51:27] structure [51:28] um and and whether that was sort of [51:30] infrastructure, whether it was sort of [51:32] social frameworks to to try and [51:35] assimilate and and deal with these [51:38] shifts. And I think what's been very [51:41] challenging is um we are moving so fast [51:45] um the discussion comes far too late and [51:50] there can't be I mean unless there is I [51:53] mean the thing that I find encouraging [51:56] about AI is it's [51:58] very rare for there to be a discussion [52:01] about [52:02] AI and there not to be the appropriate [52:07] concerns about safety. [52:09] What I was far more worried about was [52:12] for years and years and years there [52:15] would be discussions about social media [52:18] and I was extremely concerned about [52:20] social media and there was no discussion [52:23] whatsoever and and it's the insidious um [52:27] you know challenge of of a problem [52:30] that's not even talked about I think is [52:32] always more concerning. Um and so yeah, [52:36] I I think the rate of change is [52:37] dangerous. I think um even if you you [52:41] you're innocent in your intention, I [52:43] think if you're involved in something um [52:46] that has poor consequences, you need to [52:48] own it. And um that ownership personally [52:55] um has driven a lot of what I've been [52:57] working on that I can't talk about the [53:00] moment but look forward to being able to [53:01] talk about um some point in the future. [53:07] [Applause] [53:14] Um, you mentioned, [53:16] um, I wasn't going to bring it up, but [53:18] you mentioned the Victorian pump [53:19] station. So, um, uh, which, um, which [53:23] place and time in history had the best [53:26] design? [53:32] I Oh, I that's such a good [53:35] question. I I I would I wouldn't dare to [53:38] answer, but I I do think that the um I I [53:43] think what happened in the industrial [53:45] revolution I I am just absolutely [53:49] obsessed with at the moment. You know, [53:51] that there were um you know, as a team [53:54] at Love, we've been doing we've been [53:57] doing research. Um um I'm lucky enough [54:00] to work with this amazing writer called [54:02] Jamaima who I think might be here here [54:05] this afternoon. She's she's been doing a [54:07] bunch of research [54:09] um on on [54:12] on whe whether it's sort of physical [54:14] objects or social [54:16] consequences. [54:18] Um and and I I think because I see [54:22] design as much more than [54:24] objects. I I think for example um some [54:28] of the there were there were two [54:30] companies in England um that really were [54:33] born out of the um you know they were [54:35] Quakers. There was one called Cadbury's [54:38] and um the other was called a company [54:40] called Fries. Both Birmingham, right? I [54:44] I think they were I think in the [54:45] Midlands. Yeah. Um, but what was so [54:48] interesting was the people that ran [54:50] these companies, they also designed the [54:55] housing. And you don't just design a [54:58] place to put bedrooms, housing, which [55:01] meant towns, which meant, you know, this [55:05] sense of civic [55:07] responsibility. [55:09] And of course, that was appropriate [55:11] because people were moving. of the [55:13] industrial revolution was not just a [55:15] mass manufacturer for the first time in [55:18] history, but it was this huge movement [55:21] from the land to cities, which had never [55:24] happened before. And so I I just think [55:29] that generally when we talk about these [55:31] huge huge shifts, of course we all get [55:35] nervous and worried, but there are [55:37] wonderfully [55:38] encouraging prototypes that we can look [55:41] to. And there was I mean so just after [55:45] cabri and fries they were first um there [55:49] was um Hershey's in Philadelphia I think [55:52] and a very similar approach and concern. [55:56] Um I I know less about that specific [55:58] example, but um but so I I love it when [56:02] the innovation is is, you know, it's [56:05] cultural, it's political, um you know, [56:08] very often it's spiritual and it's um [56:11] manifest in in in buildings. But [56:16] um you don't um you you you speak in [56:20] public now very rarely and so um of [56:24] course very grateful that you're here. [56:26] Um we're at a programmable financial [56:30] infrastructure conference. [56:35] Um how and why should people I mean and [56:40] of course the businesses here are from [56:42] every crevice and you know aspect and um [56:45] and uh you know different sector of the [56:47] economy. Um but for people in the [56:50] infrastructure domain um or for [56:52] businesses like Stripe and maybe Stripe [56:54] is kind of an example or can be you know [56:56] stand in for other businesses where you [56:59] know ostensibly uh perhaps one ought not [57:02] care um intensely about design in the [57:05] way that perhaps a consumer uh [57:08] electronics company ought to. Um why [57:12] should a business with the [57:13] characteristics that Stripe has care so [57:15] much? [57:17] Well, if Stripe didn't, Stripe wouldn't [57:19] be Stripe and you wouldn't be sat here. [57:22] So, [57:23] um I every bone in my body. I I truly [57:27] believe that [57:29] um if we want to [57:31] participate um as members of the the [57:34] species, we [57:37] um I actually don't think we have a [57:39] choice. I think it's an obligation and a [57:42] responsibility to care for each other. [57:45] And I mean, Freud said a great thing. [57:47] Freud said, you know, all there [57:49] is, all there is is love and [57:54] work. Work and love. That's that's all [57:56] there is. And so, [58:00] um, we spend a lot of time working. And [58:04] so, if we elect to spend our time [58:06] working, not caring about other [58:10] people, I think not only do other people [58:15] um suffer. I think we suffer. I think [58:19] that's a corrosive existence. And so I [58:22] think it's I would see it as a not only [58:26] a responsibility but truly a privilege [58:29] if we get to practice and express our [58:32] concern and our care um for for one [58:36] another. [58:38] Um, yeah, I don't see it as a I I don't [58:41] I don't carve my existence up in that [58:44] way of of thinking his this is, you [58:48] know, with my commercial hat on or my [58:50] I'm just Johnny. [58:53] On that note, thank you so much for [58:56] joining us. Thank you very [59:00] much. Thank you.