Apple.com responsive?
- Started
- Last post
- 51 Responses
- err0
goto this site resize the window to a small size.
http://www.barackobama.com/
- hotroddy0
Responsive design is ONE website made to scale to different screens (most notably phones) using css.
The fact that you have to scale something so it fits on a smaller screen limits your options thereby making it look GENERIC. Collapsable menus, fluid grids, top to bottom scrolling... etc are all the RAGE thus resulting in a trendy and ever so generic style.
It's actually a lazy/easier way of building a website rather than building two separate sites ( *still only one backend) - One for mobile/touch events and one for desktop/mouse events.
- Nonsense. What about extra wide screens...? Tablets...... ?set
- tablets, extra wide screens have (relatively) same aspect ratio. Phones, however portrait orientation forces responsivenesshotroddy
- *phones forces you to be responsive due to it's orientation.. from my experienceshotroddy
- ie. you have to stack elements below one anotherhotroddy
- You have no ideaset
- this whole post is nonsense... responsive isn't about scaling, it's a rearrangement more than anythingmonospaced
- The Apple site HAS a generic responsive look to it... except it's not responsive.ETM
- It looks like it should stack and scale easily based on the arrangement of most sections.ETM
- slappy0
Screw apple, why isnt QBN responsive?
- omg0
ask Siri
- SigDesign0
I think we can attribute this methodology to their current 'separate worlds' approach.
iOS and OSX are separate worlds to them, and therefore they probably feel that making a sales site 'for their device' work on the 'device itself' as a simple waste of resources.
What brings you to Apple.com? Chances are, you're not checking it out on your mobile phone.
It may be that at some point in the future, the experience of making large computer and software purchases on a mobile device will be better and more frequent. But, at this point, Apple clearly treats their .com as a desktop portal, and their app store as a separate entity.
Look at iTunes... that whole experience of purchasing songs and movies is also a separate experience. I think it does make sense in the long run to start merging these experiences into one.
- With all the different sized monitors, shouldn't everything be a little responsive today?omahadesigns
- omahadesigns0
Shit, apple.com isn't responsive at all, right?
- omahadesigns0
windows.com got it right, even with that standard drop down menu.
- << this is what I mean about generichotroddy
- Hell yeah windows.com is generic, but at least you can use it on iPhone.omahadesigns
- People don't go to the windows site though. Apples site is busy as fuck.monospaced
- Lol mono, pretty fair pointHombre_Lobo
- animatedgif0
Because the point was the iPhone was powerful enough for the real web
- You mean exactly like the person before your said?set
- You..set
- Couldn't be arsed reading the whole threadanimatedgif
- guys im right here..ephix
- ETM0
So those saying that responsive design is generic, can you show me how the Apple site looks any different in layout than many of those sites? It has the same vibe, yet doesn't actually respond..
- ernexbcn0
It's not responsive for the reason @ephix already stated, but why they haven't made it responsive after all these years? who knows.
- ernexbcn0
Remember that when the iPhone launched previous phones displayed interpreted and watered down versions of the web, some even text based only. That the iPhone was capable of displaying sites just like a desktop computer was a selling point.
Here's a discussion on Quora about this:
http://www.quora.com/Responsive-…- I was browsing the web pretty well before the iPhone pal.fadein11
- super cool story broernexbcn
- you weren't browsing the web well on your phone before the iPhone thoughmonospaced
- That's great. Then we realized it can be even better than pinching, zooming all over the place.ETM
- hotroddy0
etm@ there are parts of the apple.com that have no need to go mobile.
1. In some instances they decided against stacking elements top to bottom when you can swipe horizontally. Why stack top to bottom if you can get away with scrolling right to left.
2. I would like to see this section resolved for phone using css media quires:
http://www.apple.com/30-years/Responsive design isn't deep. CSS media queries?? Is that so hard? All I'm saying that when you design for mobile FIRST you're setting up trap where your desktop site will look, scale, resize function like windows.com
- You are aware that right to left swiping is fully available on mobile.ETM
- Fucking lol! That page IS responsive guy. Save the menu/footer on the first page.ETM
- Did you click any of the timelines on a phone? Works perfect, scaled and stacked. Font size changes etc.ETM
- You should look at their CSS. Basically, to me, any further argument from you has not validity.ETM
- * no validity.ETM
- And to finish, anyone who has WELL designed a responsive property, knows it's a bit more than just shallow, media queries.ETM
- queries.ETM
- if it works than what are you arguing?hotroddy
- 30-years page is NOT responsive. Post a screenshot. It works just like on desktop. Actually desktop has hover sliding which shows it was meant for desktop.hotroddy
- *it relies heavily on hover state which shows you it wasn't meant for mobile. And no extra care for mobile.hotroddy
- Post a screenshot? You don't own a smartphone?ETM
- That explains a lot, I guess.ETM
- a screenshot says a thousand words which is why you are reluctant to post.hotroddy
- i'm done arguing with idiots 20 words at a time.hotroddy
- I'm saying open the fucking page on your own phone and INTERACT with it. Seriously, WTF?ETM
- Again... explains A LOT.ETM
- The world goes the direction it goes, regardless of your own ideals of how it should be.ETM
- orrinward20
My guess would be they're a well run business and only build X when there is sufficient demand that without X they would lose money or a noticable amount of credibility.
As people have mentioned, most people on an iPhone probably use the store app.
I'm an Android user so I'm speculating here but I suspect the store app allows Apple to give better taillored results as it will have access to your current apps, what you use most and your general phone usage trends, but a mobile version of the site is unlikely to be able to accrue that data as easily.
Did you find out that their mobile site was shitty when you really needed it, or did you just find the flaw through passing and it happens to be a big deal to you because you hunt imperfection?
As an iPhone user, what are you really missing out on through a poor experience on the mobile version of their store?
- boobs0
Well, one thing you are missing out on is most all of the support information, which doesn't seem to be on the store app. And the store app has way, way less information in it than apple.com does. The store app and apple.com are not really comparable, I don't think. But in a way, that's all kind of beside the point.
My point is, they've made billions on the iPhone. They put mobile web browsing on the map. Shouldn't the inventor of the iPhone have a website that is usable, and legible, on an iPhone?
I mean, it doesn't have to be responsive, per se. But, you know, the letters shouldn't just disappear into miniscule dots, and you shouldn't hit 4 buttons on the nav bar when you use it on a phone.
And, you know, the idea that Apple is lazy, and just can't be bothered seems odd to me. They put enormous amounts of effort into the tiny details of their products, and product presentation, and user experience, and design, and making things look good.
So, to me, it's obvious that they have chosen to do that. It's a deliberate decision. But why? What is the rationale? To impress Jodie Foster? To make it impossible for people to read the site while riding the bus?
I don't get it.
It seems a bit like going into the General Electric plant and finding everything lit by candle...
- ukit20
I think this comment had it right:
http://www.qbn.com/topics/685178…
One thing you will notice is there is a lot of inertia around large sites like this. I remember when Yahoo announced a big "redesign" of their site but only bothered to change the homepage. I'm sure if Apple could start from scratch they would create a responsive site, but it's probably a bigger effort than people think when you are talking about hundreds of pages of custom layouts that would need to be updated.
- really? I'll do it for one million dollarsGeorgesIV
- I'll do it for $999,990iCanHazQBN
- ESKEMA0
Apple.com is not a simple site, its a fucking beast. I agree that they should have a more optimized version of it but it's a tremendous task to make it full mobile. They're probably working on it, who knows..
My point is, it's not just putting some media queries, the site is huge with lots of different sections. Not an easy task without sacrificing a lot.
- cannonball19780
Because R/GA is a shit shop.
- GeorgesIV0
ok, I can accept the non responsiveness but png text.. with the type all blurry,
at this point I'm asking myself, do they even have web developers at apple?- think differentfadein11
- MUST CONTROL LINE BREAKS.MrT
- Stop fcn shoutingMrT
- Type looks fine to me. Seriously. Might be your monitor.iCanHazQBN
- freedom0
How much more would the computers cost if they made the perfect website? Does anyone here use Safari either? I don't.
They are not in the web design business and I'm sure if you want to buy an apple, it works great on any computer or tablet.
Microsoft has a responsive site, but I don't care.