There is a difference, even if I disagree with 089723645897236 that the distinction matters here. Design incorporates function as well as looks. A sports car can be beautifully styled, but if the electronics don't work and the engine is underpowered and the transmission has too few gears and the seats don't sit at the right angle, it's certainly not well designed despite its good looks.

What they're saying is that Apple's products are nice to look at but do not function well, which is a very arguable statement.

Apple's products have been increasingly driven by form over function after Jobs died - most obviously slimness over practicality, and gimmicks like the TouchBar over user delight.

To some extent the change started while Jobs was alive, but there's certainly limited evidence of commitment to beautiful friction-free computing at Apple now - as there was, more or less, when Jobs was in charge.

Watch is a low point, because the case design is far from a classic, and the functionality is crippled by poor performance and limited battery life.

So I agree with those who think Ives is overhyped. He can make hits under supervision, but if he's left unsupervised, he's the design equivalent of an architecture astronaut.

The fact that Jobs had zero interest in a watch speaks volumes. I suspect - but can't prove - that he would also have had zero interest in Hermès branding, and the rest.