Through the libraries of the local Polytechnic University, I fortunately have access to a seminal book: AppleDesign — The Work of the Apple Industrial Design Group, by Paul Kunkel with photos by Rick English (1997). The book went out of print not long after being published, and it’s an amazing treasure trove of information on Apple’s design approaches and investigations from the early Apple II days until 1997. And that means not only a lot of details about several projects which never saw the light of day, but also a lot of photographs of prototypes and mockups illustrating the various ideas and explorations within the projects — whether they led to a known Apple product or not. Needless to say, I find this to be incredibly fascinating, and I return to this book on a regular basis even though I know it quite well by now.

Since I’ve just talked about the most recent addition to my collection, a 17-inch iMac G4, I’ll share a brief extract from that book showing a design idea that, while considered many years before, and for a different project, might be viewed as a first seed of the iMac G4 design.

The Pomona design investigation

(Image source: KCG Computer Museum)

The final design of the iconic Twentieth Anniversary Macintosh (codename: Spartacus) was the result of a long investigation that had started a few years before, in the autumn of 1992. The investigation was internally code-named Pomona. From the AppleDesign book:

“For years, I’d wondered how the computer would evolve from a box into something more physically compelling that would fit better in the home,” says Bob Brunner [the Director of Apple’s Industrial Design Group at the time]. “In survey after survey, customers told us they want ‘power systems’ with expansion slots and extra drive bays that allow them to add to their system at a later date. That demand forced us to adopt a box-like design to hold the cards and drives. But most home users never add to their system, which leaves them with unused slots, drive bays that remain empty, and a box they don’t really need.”

Eventually, says Brunner, “home users should realise they only need a standard setup with a single expansion slot. When that happens, we can stop thinking of the computer as a plastic box and instead give it a shape that expresses its function, using materials such as wood, metal and leather that are more in tune with the home environment.”

To anticipate this change, Brunner launched the Pomona Design Investigation in October 1992, wrote a two-page design brief, and invited IDG’s designers, as well as consultants from Silicon Valley, Tokyo and New York, to submit concepts in an effort to redefine the home computer, invent shapes to better address user’s needs and employ materials that would function as well in a domestic setting as Apple’s platinum grey plastic works in the office. […]

The Pomona design brief was distributed to IDG’s designers and five outside consultants — Eric Chan of EC Design (New York), Tangerine (London), IDEC (Tokyo), Montgomery & Pfeifer (San Francisco), and IDEO Product Development (San Francisco). Their task was to create a desktop Macintosh with high object value using miniature components, high aesthetic content, and alternative materials. […]

As Brunner expected, the Pomona brief sparked an avalanche of ideas, many of which did away with the traditional computer box or shrunk it to a barely noticeable size. Eric Chan and his staff at Ecco Design generated dozens of sketches showing tabletop, desk-mounted and freestanding concepts.

One of such concepts took inspiration from Richard Sapper’s Tizio lamp, with the motherboard and drives housed in a desk ‘base’, and a flat panel display mounted on a long, adjustable arm. Sounds familiar?

(Source: P. Kunkel, AppleDesign — The Work of the Apple Industrial Design Group, page 212)

Above you can see a scan of plates 388-389 from the AppleDesign book. The notes on the sketch should be fairly readable, while for sake of completeness I’ll transcribe the caption printed in small text under the photo:

Pomona Design Investigation: Hard Models. 388 Phase One Sketch for a Desktop Computer, by Eric Chan (Ecco Design, New York, NY), inspired by Richard Sapper’s Tizio Lamp. 389 Tizio Concept. Industrial Design: Apple Computer: Robert Brunner, based on a sketch by Eric Chan. Dates of Design: January-April 1993.

1993 means almost ten years before the introduction of the iMac G4. Now, I don’t know if the iMac’s design was achieved internally through a completely different, independent route, or if the designers went back looking at past ideas and thought about giving this concept a second chance, but it’s a nevertheless intriguing connection.

Filed under: Hardware Tagged: Computer history, Design

by Lowell

Great job by Democratic National Committee (DNC) member and Democratic Party of Virginia (DPVA) Steering Committee member Frank Leone in demolishing a bunch of "myths" surrounding the Virginia GOP's "loyalty oath" for the March 1 presidential primary.  Key points, with a bit of my commentary mixed in.

1. Despite the media's relentless, dishonest attempts at creating a false equivalency between the Democratic and Republican parties, Leone explains that in fact both parties do NOT do "loyalty" oaths for Virginia presidential primaries. In fact:

...Since Va. Code 24.2-545 was adopted in 1999, parties may require voters to sign a statement of affiliation to participate in the state-administered presidential primary. Republicans required a statement in 2000, asked for a statement in 2008 and 2012, but withdrew their requests when outrage ensued, and have required a statement for 2016. Virginia Democrats have never required an oath to participate in their Presidential primary. Ever.

2. As I've pointed out as well, it's a very different thing for parties to require loyalty "pledges" or "oaths" in party-run, party-paid-for, low-turnout caucuses and conventions. A primary, in contrast, is run and paid for by the state. Also important to note is that the Virginia General Assembly, in its infinite wisdom (heh), has not passed legislation to require registration by party in Virginia. In other words, if Republicans are so worried about Democrats crossing over and messing with their preeeeeccciousssss primaries, then why don't they pass a law requiring party registration? Uhhhh.

3. This Republican "loyalty oath" fiasco is 100% the Virginia Republicans' doing -- Democrats had nothing to do with it. Nor, I'd add, did this blog, which the Virginia GOP's Executive Director bizarrely attempted to argue the other day.

4. Frank Leone's final point is an important one, and worth reprinting in full.

My primary concern with the GOP requiring an oath is it will be administered by non-partisan election officials who may have a hard time answering questions like: What does it mean to be a Republican? Does this mean I have to vote for Trump if he is the nominee? Can I vote for Trump if he runs as an independent. There should be a way to allow Democratic primary voters to bypass this nonsense.

Or, as a well-informed reader emailed me.

* Data collection for a political party is the responsibility of that party, not of non-partisan Officers of Election. 

* This is clearly partisan political activity. By statute, partisan political activity cannot be conducted within 40 feet of the polling place entrance and is PROHIBITED inside the polling place. 

* Officers of Election have enough to do already.

* Finally, the last thing we need is for Officers of Election to have to spend time arguing with knuckleheads who don't want to sign the "Statement." 

My concern is not with the RPV Statement of Intent, or any other form of a party "loyalty oath." My concern is that neither the local Electoral Boards, the General Registrars, nor the Officers of Election (all volunteers) should be policing political party discipline and collecting personal data for a political party -- for ANY political party. If a party wants its members to sign a notice of intent, they can do it outsidethe 40-foot limit, with their own people, at their own expense.

All excellent points. Having said that, as a partisan Democrat, I'm honestly thrilled that Republicans are pushing this divisive measure that is almost guaranteed to anger and alienate a lot of Tea Partiers and other independent conservatives. In other words, if you're a Democrat, this is pretty much a situation in which we just thank our lucky stars that the Republican Party of Virginia is led by such "knuckleheads," to use the BV reader's highly appropriate word. :)

I've been trying to publish this post for 5 months. It's been sitting in my queue, and I've been too worried about fallout to publish it, despite the support of friends familiar with the situation. But I'm not going to enter 2016 knowing that I was too scared to do something. So here it is.

I work remote. This means that in most of the meetings I’m in, I’m a remote participant. If you’re in an organization that has a lot of remotes, maybe this will be useful to you! There are two scenarios I want to talk about:

1. Every person in the meeting is in a different location (100% remote)
2. There are 6 people in the meeting (5 local, 1 remote)

Scenario #1 is great! Everyone has the same connection problems.

Scenario #2 is a disaster. It took me a long time to understand why, but I think the primary reason is that it’s very hard to interrupt and indicate that I want to speak when I’m remote. You can’t indicate it visually as easily, so if I just wait for a break in the conversation to say something… well, it will never happen :)

Also, sometimes people can’t hear me, and I’ve had this exchange a lot

• other people: stuff
• me: minor remark
• other people: what? we didn’t catch that
• me: never mind.

I’ve gotten way better at being remote in meetings and interrupting. Now if I have something to say I just say “HI I HAVE A THING TO SAY”. And people say “yes julia?” and then I say the thing. It feels awkward but it works for me. But it took me a really long time to learn how to interrupt! Recently I was in a meeting with 8 local people and me and I said more than 5 things! I am now a remote meetings wizard.

It’s also hard to tell when a remote person is done speaking. I sometimes explicitly say “that’s all I have” or something at the end. So my interactions are awkwardly delimited by HI I HAVE A THING TO SAY – I AM SAYING THE THING - I AM DONE SPEAKING NOW YOU MAY PROCEED. This is great and it works.

local people can help

I once ran a meeting with 6 remotes and 6 local people, where I was local. Normally, this means that the local people do all the talking and the remotes are totally silent (because the barrier to entry is high). To combat this a little, I frequently asked the remotes if they had anything to say (Dan, I know you care a lot about this. What do you think?), and they frequently did have something really interesting to say! They were just not saying it.

The citizens of Woodland, N.C. have spoken loud and clear: They don't want none of them highfalutin solar panels in their good town. They scare off the kids. "All the young people are going to move out," warned Bobby Mann, a local resident concerned about the future of his burg. Worse, Mann said, the solar panels would suck up all the energy from the Sun.

Another resident—a retired science teacher, no less—expressed concern that a proposed solar farm would block photosynthesis, and prevent nearby plants from growing. Jane Mann then went on to add that there seemed to have been a lot of cancer deaths in the area, and that no one could tell her solar panels didn't cause cancer. “I want information," Mann said. "Enough is enough."

These comments were reported not in The Onion, but rather by the Roanoke-Chowan News-Herald. They came during a Woodland Town Council meeting in which Strata Solar Company sought to rezone an area northeast of the town, off of US Highway 258, to build a solar farm. The council not only rejected the proposal, it went a step further, voting for a complete moratorium on solar farms.

That seemed to please the residents evidently tired of Big Solar's relentless intrusion into their community. One resident, Mary Hobbs, said her home was surrounded by solar farms and has lost its value. That led Ars to the satellite view of Woodland on Google Maps, to see if we could verify the veracity of Hobbs' claims. This publication will not look the other way as Big Solar attempts to railroad the good citizens of small-town America. Alas, when we looked at the satellite view we didn't see any sign of solar farms as we perused the verdant fields and woods of the aptly named Woodland.

Read Comments