*I can't believe that he apologizes for allegedly knowing so little about the subject.
http://www.dezeen.com/2013/09/19/dan-hill-opinion-finnish-design/
(...)
"Once Apple, and then Google, had deployed a richer, strategic approach to design in order to seamlessly orchestrate people, apps, media, devices and the interfaces between them, Nokia had no answer. Neither did Microsoft, for that matter. Hence these massive brands were left looking like the two kids picked last in the school playground, staring awkwardly at their boots, red-faced and uncomfortable in last year's kit. With no other option than each other, Microsoft bought Nokia's design function - minus Ahtisaari, who is moving on - simply to stay in the game.
"Artek's essential problem is that the entire furniture business is struggling for cultural relevance
Meanwhile, Artek had been looking forward, with Ville Kokkonen's seasonal affective disorder-defying lamps building on imaginative research. As with Nokia and Ahtisaari, Artek benefits from thoughtful designer leadership in Kokkonen; both draw from wide-ranging perspectives well outside of traditional design practice. Yet Artek's essential problem is that the entire furniture business is struggling for cultural relevance. Furniture is important for putting things on, yet unlike in the mid-twentieth century, it says less and less about our age. We know that, as architecture theorist Kazys Varnelis puts it, "technology is our modernity" now; inner space, not interiors.
"So the questions posed by these acquisitions are more fundamental than those of the balance sheet, where both moves make sense commercially. The question is cultural: Artek was born with an avant-garde mission, whilst Nokia was the first to capitalise upon the most influential cultural object of the last three decades. So this week of deals actually poses the question: what does Finnish product design do now?..."
