Designers Are Design’s Worst Enemy

“Here’s to the crazy ones, the misfits, the rebels, the troublemakers, the round pegs in the square holes. The ones who see things differently. They’re not fond of rules, and they have no respect for the status quo. You can quote them, disagree with them, glorify or vilify them; the only thing you can’t do is ignore them because they change things. They push the human race forward. While some may see them as the crazy ones, we see genius because the people who are crazy enough to think they can change the world are the ones who do.”

— Apple Think Different ad, narrated by Steve Jobs

Copyright Ferrari

The message from Steve Jobs in the Apple ad above saved Apple from bankruptcy. And Jony Ive owes most of what he has learned about design and marketing to Steve. I think it is important to remember this when we are taking part in the ongoing discourse on Ferrari’s new EV, “Luce”.

The tone in social media and in the press is a mirepoix of ignorance, incompetence, and fear I’ve rarely seen elsewhere. And while Ferrari has given two of the world’s most renowned designers a chance to redefine EVs, people around the world are throwing tantrums with the maturity of a five-year-old.

I’m equally surprised to see that a large percentage of those who feel it is their calling to share their opinion have “designer” in their titles. And upon reading the first-response articles, I witness a complete lack of professional courtesy, with qualities such as curiosity and informed critique of those who run ahead in an attempt to deliver on a huge and risky bet. Instead, they spew outrage and ridicule. I expect this behaviour in the average person seeking a dopamine hit on social media, but professionals should refrain from such reactive slurs.

Owning up to the title of designer, you sign up for a set of values and behavioural requirements: such as being curious about constraints and dependencies, business goals and visions, the possibilities and limitations technology offers, and, moreover, how people respond to new technology. Designers should know how these, in combination, inform and shape decisions, and those of us who have lived long enough to contribute on projects that offer true value to consumers and society should honour those values.

I admit I was not sold on Luce’s exterior aesthetics at first glance, and I, too, fell into the trap of juxtaposing the design with my perception of what a car should look like and what a Ferrari was. But when I shake off my first impression, I switch on and invest in understanding; I choose to be curious, and I begin to ask the questions they most likely asked: What were the business objectives, and what were the visions behind this enormous bet? When you seek knowledge and invest in acquiring insights that enable you to put all these questions, visions, dependencies, and constraints together and understand that every decision has a stakeholder, and that no man is an island in these projects, then you are in a position to share an opinion in public. We critique, we don’t criticise; there is a difference.

What difference good can do

The discussion has, of course, rekindled the infamous: “What is design?” discourse. This navelgazing, introvert-outside-in, narcissistic discourse that produces nothing; stripped of consequence. While the question “What is good design?” is an inside-out question that focuses on the output of our expertise and shifts the centre of attention of the discussion to design’s contribution to the business, the strategy, the consumer, and society. It is a discourse that embraces value, constraints, context, purpose and the intellect. One word…

The anti-woke mob

Not even a week has passed since Ferrari unveiled the Luce, and its launch has reached headlines in newspapers all over the world. Why is this causing the blood to boil in seemingly everyone able to form an opinion?

It matters because it symbolises a significant shift in what can be considered the pinnacle among combustion-engine-powered machines. When Ferrari messes with the dreams and emotions of so many, it also evokes the rage of the combustion-engine anti-woke mob. They are, as we speak, sharpening their pitchforks, ready to defend their values, what they see as their culture, in this case catalysed through the brand of Ferrari. We saw this when EVs became a common sight on the roads; it sparked fear in people. And people are afraid of the new and what they don’t understand; this has always been and always will be a fact.

There is an old design principle that still holds true: “Most Advanced Yet Acceptable (MAYA)” —You can’t push the customer further than they’re willing to accept.

Jony Ive has been mastering this approximation at Apple throughout his career, but did he miss his mark this time with the Ferrari Luce? In the context of the culture and what the Ferrari brand symbolises, the answer seems to be: yes. But just wait a god damn minute. How many current Ferrari customers are holding the pen amongst these opinionators? Consider this: 81% of all new Ferraris are sold to customers who already own a Ferrari; 40% of these customers already have more than one in their garage. Ferrari will sell approximately 13,500 cars in 2026. My unqualified guess as to how many of these are shouting their opinions from the rooftops is: none.

But why then, why does this matter to the average person? Because if Ferrari and Jony Ive hit the mark with this bet, it will contribute to shaping the future of the automotive industry; it will be a hallmark and a preview of what’s to come. It will be, by some, translated into that one of the last bastions and defenders of the past has caved and joined the ranks of the inevitable future to come; who then is left to fight?

While other, less brave brands have treaded lightly and attempted to build a bridge to avoid triggering that exact fear through some variant of skeuomorphism, adding fake engine sounds, not meddling too much with people’s predispositions about their brand. But they haven’t tried to break the mould like Ferrari and Ive are doing with the Luce. Jaguar tried to break the mould some years ago… and failed — remember? The numbers are honest: global sales after Jaguar’s rebrand fell from 61,661 vehicles in 2022 to 33,320 two years later. Just shy of a 50% decline. The market is of course too complex to be able to prove the direct causality, but it didn’t help.

This is what I find impressive with Ferrari’s bet: it’s risky as fuck, but damn, it’s brave. It’s Ferrari reclaiming temporary ownership of its brand from the cultural proprietors who hold it hostage in the past, shaping its vision for its future legacy and keeping the fire alive, not preserving the ashes.

There cannot be design without innovation

In a recent interview, the award-winning journalist Cleo Abram speaks with Jony Ive and Ferrari chief designer Flavio Manzoni. Here, we have two of the world’s most renowned designers given an hour to describe the design principles and the vision behind the Luce.

Ive’s detailed walk-through of his design decisions shows that good design is about triggering the desired emotions. And if there is one thing he has succeeded with the Luce, it’s exactly that.

The current trajectory in cars is toward a design that aims to render the driver obsolete. But Ive cut against the grain of the current trend, a trend I would coin as “detactilisation” of automotive design. Ive is bringing back physical and tactile instruments in the cockpit, which is the right way forward. Ive contested the industry’s cost-incentivised focus and the idea that just because a car has an electric powertrain, it needs touch screens and digital output.

As Cleo stated in her interview, “The inventor of the multi-touch screen wants us to touch fewer screens”. Ive says in the interview that “Bad design kills people, and designers should feel that responsibility”.

It’s genuinely inspiring to listen to Manzoni cite legends and talk about the many dimensions of performance; not just lateral acceleration, which he finds boring. How visual aesthetics are shaped by the technology’s possibilities and constraints. How battery performance informs the overall design, and that design without innovation isn’t design; it’s something else.

Learn

For decades, we designers have been shouting over the walls to be heard in discussions that inform the products we design. Not being heard, we have resorted to shouting louder and louder, unaware that if you spend a disproportionate amount of time shouting your value instead of showing it, people stop listening. So we ended up having a discourse with ourselves, as we ourselves were the only ones to answer our own call. The echo chamber has, of course, been supercharged by social media algorithms, creating the illusion that anyone else cares.

You recall the children’s game we had at birthdays, at least in the eighties. The musical chairs? One fewer chair than players; music stops; everyone scrambles; the last one standing without a seat is out. Then you remove another chair and go again.

While designers have spent their golden years in self-realisation mode, others have stepped up and filled the chairs, and, round after round, when the music stops, designers have found themselves chairless. And the only chair left, judging by the discourse, is how things look. Ive and Menzoni are bringing new chairs to the musical game here, people. And neither of them needs to shout; the Luce does that for them. Embrace it and learn from it.