Clement Mok (CM): The original Apple ][ (yes, the Apple II was referenced by two inverted brackets, later by two // slashes) computer was designed for the hobbyist and little or no attention were needed to market. At the very beginning, you had to code your own PC software. Software at that point was primarily a niche market primarily for computer enthusiasts sold primarily through mail order or computer faires. Customers were fine if the software disks came in brown paper envelopes. They could care less. There was no need to market software until VisiCalc came along in 1979 and made personal computer a quasi-consumer product. The software, a spreadsheet program became a very popular program for small businesses and accountants. This made and changed Apple’s fortunes very quickly.

This prompted IBM to get into the PC business in 1981 and in so doing it legitimized the market but also changed the dynamics on how software was marketed and distributed. All of a sudden, there were stores that you can walk into to buy a personal computer as well as software.

The original IBM PC packaging designed by Vignelli & Associates (see photo above) influenced the early years of software package design. Ashton-Tate’s dBase and Borland’s CP/M OS software and Software Publishing Corp’s Harvard Graphics were the major players during this nascent period of software growth. Software packaging was nothing more than putting labels with the name of the software and a company label on diskettes and manuals. Apple had to up its game. As a scrappy start-up, they had to court software developers to code better features and help them market software to the small business market that was out of the reach of IBM. Hence a parallel design track developed during these early years. While this growth was taking place, the video-game market formed and took-off in 1982 with titles like Atari and Electronic Arts on Commodore 64 consoles. — that market dynamic drove the packaging on a completely different design track.

CM: It has been overlooked, for a handful of reasons. Firstly, as a general rule of thumb, software applications are usually tools and it’s hard to compete with gaming titles. You are more likely to take notice the cover of a novel than a user manual. Secondly, software, at least in the early years, always played second fiddle to hardware. PC’s were the primary driver and the object that got consumer excited. It was viewed as the magic box. People had a tough time differentiating the what a computer does and how software come into play.

Thirdly, it wasn’t until the Macintosh (84) with its Graphical User Interface (GUI) and the introduction of Desktop Publishing (85) that the dots connected with a lot of people. Just because you have a computer, it doesn’t mean you can produce nice documents. It requires different software to make graphics and layout. In my opinion, the beginning of the “consumer software industry” really began in 1984 at SoftCon. Up until then consumer software packaging was not taken all that seriously. There was now a market and there was competition. If you looked at packaging during this period, one doesn’t have to do much to get noticed. There were only a handful of players in the space. To develop a brand, all one has to do is to pick a color and used it consistently. For Microsoft it was an evergreen. For Aldus (PageMaker), it was purple blue. It wasn’t until Adobe who got into the consumer software business with Illustrator in 87 that I saw serious attention being paid to the marketing of software. Distinct product identities were being developed for the marketing of software. And, lastly, the dynamics of the software industry changes every 6–12 months. It’s hard to create, sustain a package approach that one can build overtime.

CM: The formal precursor for software packaging is closer to a book cover design than it is to album art design in the early years. In part this was a function of the distribution channels. In software stores, they were organized by categories much like a bookstore. Video games software packages drew its early design archetype from movie posters and music album art. As products and distribution merged, so did package designs.

For a while, shelve space drove package design and as a result supermarket package tactics came into play. Spine design is every bit as important as what is on the front of the box. Even when CD-ROMs were displacing the need for a larger box, some software publishers kept their software packaging large to justify the higher cost as it would appear the customer is getting more. And during the early and mid-90’s — a period of time where half of all consumer software was sold through catalogs — the design of the boxes needs to work as a postage size graphic. No different than the constraints and requirement of an app icon these days.

CM: The size of these boxes initially was a function of the number of discs and user manual documentation associated with these software. Before the days of CD-ROMs and DVDs, software were distributed in 400K, 800K single or double sided 3.5 inch floppy discs. As I recall the original Adobe Illustrator packaging contained 4 if not 6 floppy discs. It was another 6 or 8 for documentations and add ons. So it’s not unusual to have 20+ discs in the early copies of PageMaker, QuarkExpress or Director. Then there were the user manuals — a quick reference guide that was under 100-page, a reference guide that was between 200–300 pages. With registration cards and other cross-marketing materials, it’s at least 3-inches thick worth of materials — hence the size of the box.

There was also this notion that the bigger the box, the more you get and the more it’s worth. This came about in the late 1980s when EggHead and CompuUSA were distributing Mac and Windows software. These were still specialty stores. Size matters when it comes to conveying value.

It wasn’t until 1992 or 1993 when CD’s and CD-ROMs were built into most CPU did the size of the box began to shrink. The size of the box was also used as an anti-theft deterrent. It’s much harder to stuff a candy box size software than a shrunk-wrapped CD-jewel-case. During this transition period, product managers had to deal with people who still wanted their user documentation in paper format. Looking for reference information on a disc was still difficult to use. Hence the persistence of large boxes well into the mid and late 90’s.

Prior to 1984, IBM software package consists of two if not three linen-finished 3-ring binders. Binders were the format of choice as it was easy to add and update without the need to reprint the entire user manual. As often the case, user documentation does not happen until software code freezes for shipment. They are printed in black and white with little or no consideration on format or audience. These unbound 200-300 page instruction are 3-hole punched and shrunk-wrapped and shipped with the bounder. There are usually sleeves in the binder for 5.25 inch floppies.10-12 disks were not uncommon has these disks holds only 160 KB (single sided) ea. Software during this period of time was sold in box slip-cases, shrunk wrapped and shipped with the CPU.

Apple didn’t have the same constraints and requirements as the MS-DOS business world. Instead of 3-ring binders, user manuals were wire-o-bound. The exception was with Lisa when they follow the route of IBM producing their manuals in 3-ring binders. The wire-o-bound format has two advantages. The first was cost. Instead of a slipcase to house the three-ring binder, the wire-0-format was much more cost effective to fabricate and ship. The second was that page insert updates could be done at Apple assembly facilities during the wiro-binding process instead of a shrink-wrapped mailing sent to the user. Apple’s format prevailed and was adopted by the rest of the software industry by the late 1980s.

As function of better Graphical User Interfaces (GUIs) which required less explanation, user manuals got thinner over the years. This was true for simple applications. But for application like PageMaker, Quark and Photoshop, size of user manuals were in multiple simply due to feature creep and add-ons. While this was going, non-mac software publishers had to deal with the transition of MS-DOS to Windows. Instead of inventory MS-DOS or Windows version of their software, some shipped both version of their applications in the sample box along with user manuals for both platforms. There was a great deal of waste of unused material. Sizes of boxes didn’t change much over the years as it was driven primarily by distributor and how the boxes display or fit on their shelves.

Even when CD-ROM became a standard on CPU’s, many software publishers hedged their bets and continued to produced printed user manuals for their users. CD-ROM user documentation was difficult to access and often very slow. Quick Reference guides were usually printed shipped along with multiple CD’s, including an application installation disk, a disk of tutorial/templates, and a user manual and reference disk. This was during the mid 1990s when online access and the internet was just coming into being. Designing software package for retail really didn’t come into play until the late 80’s when there were retail stores. Hence the early package designs where nothing more than a logo and the name of the software.

We pretty much know what happened once people figure out how to download software online.

CM: I first worked on the original packaging for MacWrite and MacPaint — the software that came bundled with the original 128K Mac. I was part of the original team that launched the Macintosh in 1984. Nothing prepared me for this experience.

CM: Software is something that you don’t really see. It’s something that you experience on this other device call a personal computer. RAM and ROM were something software uses? Or was that hardware? Input to the process? Steve Jobs said, “It’s your job to figure this out. I know it when I see it.” There were no briefs, there was just hanging around enough with the engineers and using the software. The graphical user interface was so different on the Mac that it was important to display that aspect of the software front and center on the box. The fact that it came bundled with the hardware, many of the retail constrains where no present in the first design.

CM: Since no one knew what a Graphical User Interface is, showing the graphical screen was the main driver for many Apple and Mac software packaging initially (1984-1986).

Things started to change in (1987-1990) when the essence of the software application was hard to communicate with a single screen. Claris, an Apple software subsidiary launched in 1988, had to recalibrate and rework their package system once they realized the single screen approach was no longer effective in the marketplace. I took a stab at reworking the system, and Marty Neumier eventually ended up reworking the entire system for Claris in around 1991.

A shift was afoot in 1988 when marketers realized they had to do more than putting the name of the software and a screen on the box. Retailers where setting up their stores much like a bookstores and software publishers were looking at different approaches to attract customers.

CM: In the late 1980s and early 1990s, I was design consumer software package that were under $100; between $200 to $500 for niche as well as business markets; and specialized authoring software for developers at $1500 – $3000 per seat license. They all drive different packaging considerations and configurations due to sales and distribution channels.

CM: I’m not sure if there is a right way to answer this question. You learn from everything you designed as I am the sum of my past. What I learned in logo design, lead me into icon design, which then lead me to user interface design, which then lead me to software design and information design and product development. In a parallel track, what I learned in logo design, lead me to brand development, which lead me to package design and marketing, when then lead me to user research, then data mining and user experience. Such is the education of a designer.

I dabbled with children apps in 2011, were specific lessons from my packaging experience did come into play. Apps are no longer available on Apple’s apps store but you can definitely see how the lessons from package were carried over, for example, with Critteroos: www.critteroos.com.

CM: Less friction. Less waste. It’s a good thing. What I can’t stand is the subscription model.

Eddie Yuen (EY): In the 80's, companies like IBM, Microsoft, and Apple started selling software for personal computers. Since then, software has always been shipped in a box. Over the past two decades, the size and material of the box has evolved as people became aware of the amount of environmental waste created by these software packaging. In the late 2000s, the software landscape completely changed with the arrival of web-based apps, and later cloud computing. With more software companies heading to the cloud as a delivery platform, the desire of a physical box is also diminishing.

EY: When you look at the type of software that was packaged in the early days, it was either operating systems, programming languages, or word processors. None of it was visually exciting. That’s why the box front always had a picture of a computer or screenshot to indicate it had something to do with a computer. It was the arrival of the Macintosh and the introduction of MacDraw that we first started to see simple illustrations on the box fronts to show what the software could do. This was followed by conceptual illustrations when Adobe launched Photoshop and Illustrator. This was a major milestone of software packaging design. Since then both Adobe and Apple have held very high design standards, and audiences expect something different and better.

EY: I consider software packaging should be somewhat like an album cover. There should be visually intriguing cover art with a great box opening experience. I remember when I bought vinyl records in the old days, I would carefully check out every component, from the cover art to the liner notes while enjoying the music. It is the same with software packaging. Every piece of material should be well thought out and nicely designed. Unfortunately, a lot of the software boxes out there are treated like cereal boxes, with overwhelming visuals and promos on the front and excessive product information elsewhere on the box.

EY: Most software packaging in the 90s were pretty large in order to hold thick user manuals, getting started guides, multiple floppy disks, and all the promos materials. One of the most common forms of packaging was the sturdy slip case, which was built with strong paper stock. As shelf space in retail stores began shrinking, the size of software packaging was also reduced. Some products are now available via a credit card sized physical object, via a redemption code. When companies became more environmentally conscious, the technical requirements of packaging also evolved. PDFs and online instructions began replacing paper manuals. DVDs replaced multiple floppy disks and CDs. At Adobe, as we designed our packaging, we were cautious to avoid metallic ink or other conventional printing materials that were not environmentally-friendly. Instead of shipping pre-built boxes, we shipped all of our materials flat to reduce its carbon footprint. This is important because we are not only designing beautiful packaging, we are also committed to being a leader in green packaging.

EY: Before working at Adobe, I was a freelance graphic designer working with different design shops in San Francisco. In 1995, I was hired as a designer at Adobe. My responsibilities included various marketing communications, from direct mail to product brochures. Back then taking on a leadership role in project packaging was a big deal. I was an assistant to the Senior Designers and Art Directors creating in-box materials. I gradually became more involved in the actual packaging creation process — like working with printing operations and printers and press checking.

EY: My first official packaging project was Photoshop 3.0 for UNIX. I was able to own the entire packaging design process, from concept and execution of the box front artwork to every piece of in-box collateral. Since the UNIX version launched after Mac and Windows, I basically followed the same workflow and process. However, I had to create all content from scratch because the audiences and business goals were so different. The challenge was to create product art that was different from the Mac/Windows version, but still held together as one unified Photoshop brand.

EY: When we first shipped our products, the strategy was to rely on an iconic object to build strong brand equity like Venus for Illustrator and an eye for Photoshop. We knew our customers related to these objects and had an emotional connection to them. When we launched Creative Suite 1.0 in 2003 which was a bundle of multiple products, we decided to move away from this strategy and started introducing a completely new visual language using x-ray photography of different objects like a feather for Photoshop, a flower for Illustrator. Since then, we no longer used an iconic object to represent a product. Each product Identity has been evolved and changed at every launch. In 2014, we started to depart from the systematic approach. Instead, we reached out to our own creative community through Behance and curated a variety of artwork from amazing talents around the globe. The diversity and richness of the creative was just incredible. We have been working closely with our creative community. We want to celebrate what they did, make them shine and give credit to their amazing work.

EY: Since Adobe is a company who makes graphic tools for designers, our target customers in the early days were mostly designers, desktop publishers, and printers. Unlike regular business users or engineers, most of this audience has a highly developed aesthetic standard. This gave us the opportunity to exercise a bit more creative freedom. For instance, instead of showing boring screenshots in a very literal way, we are able to accomplish this by using beautiful, conceptual visuals that show customers the context of the product, and also inspire them to use the products to create their own work.

EY: Launching Adobe CS3 was one of the biggest challenges in my career at Adobe. After Adobe acquired Macromedia in 2005, we started discussing how could we combine 15 products from the two companies into one big, powerful product brand. We had to come up with a solution to create a fresh packaging system that clearly signaled a new product without sacrificing the integrity of two already well-established brands. We basically reimagined the entire packaging from size, structure, to using recycled materials. Everything was printed in three different countries and shipped in 26 languages. The level of complexity was just incredible.

EY: The CS6 launch was one of the most remarkable projects I have worked on. Instead of following the traditional systematic approach, we worked with our agency Tolleson Design to come up with a totally unconventional concept for software packaging. We used different human faces to represent the diversity and uniqueness of each product. Together they formed a unified product line. This project also allowed me to collaborate with several amazing artists around the world to work on creatives that represents the diversity of our products. We wanted to invite our community to be part of this creative process and give attribution to them by crediting each of them on the packaging featuring their art. The result was phenomenal and well received. CS6 also marked a major milestone of our product brand. We are no longer a company that just creates tools. We provide the tools to our community and grant them the creative freedom to make amazing things. We then celebrate them and pay tribute to them.

EY: Though it’s not necessary software, I think Apple’s iPhone packaging really changes the packaging landscape. The simplicity of the design and well-thought out structure, and the attention to detail provides a special experience for users. This same principle applies to other Apple packaging, and it’s a real inspiration and model that everyone wants to follow, including software packaging.

EY: In the past, my knowledge of packaging was limited to seeing it as a container. The bigger the box, the more content we wanted to fill it with like manuals and advertisements. There was a lot of clutter to go through before user could get to the software. Over the years, I learned this has a negative impact on the user experience. The same goes with other design like web and print. Think about the whole experience. Eliminate things that do not add value to the users.

EY: I think it’s all part of changing consumer behavior. Instead of shopping at a physical store, people prefer shopping online. They are streaming movies directly to their TV/devices instead of picking up a movie at a store. People want things quick and easy. It’s the same with software delivery. Why wait for a 12–18 month cycle when you can get the latest and greatest instantly? As technology keeps progressing, downloading software is a breeze. It’s all part of the evolution of how we are buying things.

Kathleen Forsythe (KF): The first software packaging I designed was font packaging for Bitstream, Inc. in mid to late 80s (86/87/88). This was the very beginning of the digital font era – when fonts became consumer retail products. At around the same time, I started designing software packaging for Lotus Development Corporation. They had several business software products on the market and they contracted different design firms to work on each of the product lines. We designed not only the product packaging (box/slipcase, etc) but also the collateral material and documentation to go along with it. My packaging design involvement continued throughout the 90s with software companies Centerline Software (browser technology), and Vivo Software (video technology). However, by the end of the 90s, the “box” had already been reduced to a “folder kit” because documentation had been captured on digital media instead of printed books.

The main factors precipitating the birth of the software packaging business was the technology explosion that was happening on both coasts. New technology – the internet, computer software AND hardware, etc. was popping up every day. There were so many tech start-ups in Boston (as well as Silicon Valley) that good design firms were very busy! These were also the early days of personal computers (80s), so if you were a designer in Boston (or Palo Alto), you HAD to be working on a computer (Mac, of course), understand the language, and keep up to date with the latest or else you would lose! We were lucky to be in that environment where there was so much proprietary intellectual property being created by many different start-ups – it created an incredible energy that lasted a decade. As I said before, software became consumer retail products, so of course shelf appeal became the #1 criteria for design. Young tech companies were very bold and not afraid to make a statement with their packaging. They wanted to look unique and different. They didn’t want “safe” or mainstream. My start-up clients, in many cases, were the engineers and I loved working with them. They were creative and they weren’t afraid to go out there with an abstract, conceptual idea. The more abstract, the better. That was why I loved working on tech projects. It allowed the opportunity for conceptual design which suits my aesthetic very well.

The decline of box-type software packaging declined for obvious reasons – documentation was provided on digital media – and much later would go away altogether and just be available online.

KF: Well, I have always subscribed to design journals, such as Communication Arts, Graphis, HOW, etc., and these journals always featured packaging as an important design category. They would publish packaging-specific issues, so within the design community, packaging was always considered important.

KF: I think software product design was considered “high end” because of the context of the product. In other words, it was higher end than other domestic “consumer” products, because the subject matter was technology and specific to a niche audience. I agree that it is closer to book cover and album art which can be much more conceptual than other consumer products.

KF: I had to align myself with excellent vendors and printers who would keep me informed of the latest materials, wraps for boxes, slipcase design, coatings to protect the ink, etc. In many cases, clients’ budgets would determine the physical limitations. Every software product package was “custom” to a certain extent, but most of the time we were using die-cuts that were standard.

KF: I got involved because of where I lived and worked – Boston/Cambridge was a major tech center of the country, being the home of MIT and Harvard. Tech companies – both software and hardware were prevalent. If you were a good designer in Boston or Cambridge during that time, you had tech clients and you mostly likely designed software packaging. I think that my firm was chosen to do work for these companies because they saw work in my portfolio that spoke to them. My work would not be considered “mainstream” at all. And the companies in those days wanted to make a unique statement.

KF: My process ALWAYS includes an in-depth “discovery” phase where I dive deeply into the context of the product. As I said earlier, I would work with the engineers to learn exactly what the product did, unique features, how it would benefit the user, etc. I would dig for interesting “process” elements that no one would ever think would be useful – and I would make those elements (however mundane) prominent in the design.

I always received good input from my clients. With the start-ups, they were small so I would often be working directly with the founding team. They may not even have had marketing people yet. The larger companies (like Lotus) had marketing communications people in place and they were my client contacts. They always gave excellent project briefs.

KF: I would always avoid “trends” in the design industry. It was easy to determine what trends would come and go quickly and those I would avoid. My objective, always, is to create timeless design that has no shelf life.

KF: My client contacts were either the founding members of the company, or they were extremely competent marketing communications people who understood their markets really well. They conveyed all the necessary information to me and we worked well together as a team. I always felt valued and trusted by 95% of my clients. Afterall, they hired my firm because our work was intelligent, conceptual and unique. Rarely did I have to compromise the integrity of a design because of a client’s opinion.

KF: I loved the font packaging that I did for Bitstream Inc in the late 80s. Working closely with Matthew Carter has been one of THE most significant accomplishments of my career and we remain good friends to this day. I also loved the work I did with Vivo Software. Loved the people and the creative freedom I was allowed. Our work put them on the map in the video streaming industry and they ended up getting acquired by a very large firm and they all did really well!

KF: In the early packaging days, the designers at Apple (Clement Mok, et. al) were very inspiring to me. There were a lot of West Coast designers that were doing fantastic work. I think we all learned from each other. It’s always been said that “everything has been done” and we’re just doing variations of what has already been done in the past. I think that’s true. Look at the work of the Constructivists in the early 1900s – they laid the groundwork for modern graphic design. They did it all! We have echoed their work throughout 1970s, 80s, and 90s.

KF: Designing for software allowed me to present contextual information in an abstract, conceptual form. It didn’t have to be “literal” and it didn’t have to reveal everything on the face. The design could leave something to the imagination – it could allow for interpretation. You can’t do that with other types of projects.

KF: I don’t mind the delivery system – downloading – but I’m not really crazy about subscription-based and paying monthly, indefinitely. I prefer to pay a one-time price for an upgrade and be able to choose when I want to upgrade.