What do good shoes, Google+ and Facebook have in common?

8 thoughts on “What do good shoes, Google+ and Facebook have in common?”

  1. I’m flattered! 🙂

    The thing is, I totally agree that their philosophies have and are shifting. I think your original article was a great summary of the new direction…

    I merely took issue with the sentence:
    “Google has finally developed an aesthetic that is visually different from Facebook.”

    I don’t just approach design through a visual lens at all – but your comment was very specifically about the visual design and aesthetics, which is what I take issue with…

    I genuinely don’t think one can reasonably argue they are visually/aesthetically different at all… and that’s the only part of your original assessment that I can criticise…

    1. James

      Yes, you and I are looking at the same thing, just differently. I could have used better words in the first place, but then I wouldn’t have had a chance to talk with you.

      Thanks for the engaging conversation.

  2. “Unlike him, I am not a designer and so my way of thinking about design is influenced by not mere visual aspects, but also how things are constructed.” You really should bold the mere in there so people will understand how much more informed your opinion is because you see the bigger forest while some crass commoner only sees the trees.

  3. Om, both yourself & Russell make excellent points.

    I felt the defensiveness of this article was unfortunate; your useful observations on the topic were relegated further down the page to make way for self justification – which a respected thinker & writer like yourself does not require!

    Thank you both for your insightful articles and opinions.

  4. Wow. That’s a level of precision and subltety we’re not used to in the days of programmatic buying, billions of search results, millions of engaged users. Quality?
    Thanks.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.