Jobs and the designer quarrel, insisted on Apple’s logo reversed! It’s because of this

But one thing you may not know is that 20 years ago, when you sat opposite an open apple notebook, you would find that the apple logo was reversed. Ken Siegel has been recognized as the most creative designer of apple. He has been working with Steve jobs since the 1980s. For the orientation of the apple logo, he only considers the usage habits of Apple customers. When the notebook is closed, users will see a positive Apple logo. < / P > < p > however, the problem occurs when the laptop is turned on. The apple logo in front of the user turned upside down after being opened, and the user could not feel any abnormality. < p > < p > so jobs repeatedly asked Segal and his design team to adjust the design, and even had great differences and kept running in. Finally, we saw the apple logo. < / P > < p > this is what we often say: visibility triggers conformity. The more comfortable an observed object looks, the more likely it is to be imitated. And one of the key elements that drives people to share with each other, and even to make products spread wildly in the market, is “visibility”. < / P > < p > there is no doubt that this logo of apple is deeply rooted in the hearts of the people. We have to admire Steve Jobs for his outstanding business mind. He dares to break the traditional spirit of innovation and pursue perfection. Only in this way can Apple grow into a technology giant in the industry under his leadership. Although jobs passed away, his spirit and his pursuit of perfection remained in people’s hearts forever. This paper describes the tortuous experience and complex personality of Steve Jobs, and analyzes some doubtful points in his life, which can be called the most comprehensive and objective biography of jobs. < / P > < p > five biographies of famous people, only 59 yuan. All the successful people have not stopped reading. What’s the reason for those eager to succeed not to learn new knowledge? American companies begin to give up R & D: who should pay for corporate research?