Why Intel will never inspire an iMac
Summary
Topics
COMMENTARY--Three years ago at Intel's Developer Forum, a group of bunnymen in gold lamé bunnysuits bounced down the stage with Intel-commissioned concept PCs. It was a particularly low point of the bi-annual event. The reason? Much as it would like to, Intel will never make or inspire an iMac.
When Steve Jobs returned to Apple in the summer of 1997, he brought one vital ingredient: an understanding of how design, manufacturing and technology should work together. Out went the over-extended production line of PC-wannabe beige boxes that proliferated under the gaze (or not, as I hope the case is), of Gil Amelio.
In came a philosophy that brought together the people who design motherboards with the people who design cases. And out came the iMac, closely followed by the G4 and, after a brief and forgivable mistake with the Cube, a follow-up to the iMac that was every bit as revolutionary as the original.
Such marriages of industrial design and technology are a heady mix that was common in the early days of both Apple and even non-Apple computers. The Commodore Pet is still an instantly recognizable icon in old re-runs of Buck Rogers in the 25th century.
But all that was before the IBM PC, which became the industry standard. Nobody (well, perhaps Microsoft and Sun excepted) can argue against the benefit of industry standards when it comes to technology. But when standards are extended to design, they inevitably descend to the lowest of all common denominators: the banal beige box.
Do you see beige boxes in sci-fi films? And if you did, would you recognize the manufacturer if it did not have a name badge on the front? The answer to both questions is a resounding no.
IBM and, later, Intel (which is largely responsible for motherboard formats) are not entirely to blame. At least IBM is now trying to break out of the mould. Intel has done little despite that highly publicized spasm of iMac envy on the catwalk in 1998. I was there, and I cringed alongside a thousand developers. Honestly, Pat Gelsinger and Craig Barrett really ought to know better.
In what was perhaps an effort to be as irreverent as the designs, Intel executives were surprisingly candid. They admitted they had not spoken to computer manufacturers (those people who have to sell the devices). They stressed that they were merely showing what is possible with a little imagination.
Well I saw what is possible, and it only made me appreciate Apple all the more. One of the more ridiculous examples was a box that you carry around with you. It had all the bits that you would expect to find inside a notebook computer, except the screen, keyboard and mouse pointer. It was roughly twice the size of even the biggest notebook computer available today. "What's the point of that?" I asked the design team. "Well," they responded, "You carry this around and have one screen and keyboard at work and another at home, so you can plug it in anywhere." They seemed genuinely surprised at the suggestion that someone might simply want to buy a notebook. "Yes, but this looks nicer," was the response. No, it didn't.
Not surprisingly, none of Intel's concept PCs ever saw the light of day. Sadly, though, Intel is still promoting them. Check it out, the original Aztec and Castia are still there. Sadly, of the really dumb one I describe above, there is no sign. But you can see what I mean. The designs all look as though they were created by art school graduates who thought; "Hey, let's design like a fifties-looking PC, but, like really futuristic, and stick loads of cool-looking bits on." Not one has the utilitarianism or style of either the old or the new iMac. Not one gives a nod to current ergonomic thinking, or indeed to laws that cover such areas. One of the worst, courtesy of HP, I had the luck to see in the flesh recently. Clearly, little has changed over the past three years.
Talkback - Tell Us What You Think
The best of ZDNet, delivered
ZDNet Newsletters
Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox
Facebook Activity
