back
49 comments
A lot of IKEA criticism here, but what they are doing is actually pretty neat.

All of their products are probably designed in some sort of CAD software, which means they already have the models necessary to do these sort of mockups.

It still must have taken them foresight and money to get from "having models" to "easily arranging and realistically rendering", but now that they are there they can save money, update their catalogs faster, and generate less waste.

Fairly obvious, yet still a cool practice. Wonder how many other companies are doing something similar.

"Wonder how many other companies are doing something similar."

Easy bet that Apple's website 'hero' images have been 3D renders for years.

I just checked the fifth image from the top (the kitchen) http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/OB-UG852_IKEAb0_G_... in the real catalog. I would never have guessed it was not real when browsing through it. If I knew there were some it could have been a candidate because there are no people in it. But otherwise, it looks like a very regular photograph.

EDIT: Mistake! I did not look at the correct image, mine was similar but different. Disregard the above.

EDIT 2: So this means I am looking at a picture in the catalog that I don't know whether it is real or rendered. But knowing that they new render some images, that the image has no people in it (which is not uncommon in the catalog), and that especially the cupboard doors have some artificial feeling to them, my guess is that "my" image is rendered too. But also, there is a bottle of olive oil on the counter, and its brand is a brand that is common in Sweden, and contains details on the label that seems authentic. So they put much effort into small details in that case.

It says there "This is a 3-D model." below the thumbnail of your image.
I was looking at an image in the paper catalog which I at first thought was the same but turned out it was not the same.
I've had a consistently bad experience with Ikea furniture.

Bedroom dressers - the bottoms fall out of the drawers and should ideally be glued in place (the instructions don't suggest this). Even with glue, they sag after a year or so.

Kitchenware - their handles on their pots and pans are very heat conductive so make sure you're wearing an oven mitt. Their kitchen block furniture with the thick wood top is well made, though it should be stained and varnished to avoid stains.

Chairs - maybe half the chairs I've gotten from Ikea had poorly drilled screw holes such that the chair couldn't be assembled correctly. Fortunately, the benches are made of such soft pine (read: scratchable) that you can drill your own hole easily.

Sometimes Ikea will eliminate a part (eg: a supporting brace for a dresser) but not redesign the assembly instructions. You might think you're missing that part, when in fact it was omitted deliberately.

They save money where they can by selling you disposable furniture.

Really? I've had pretty good luck. I've been using one of their shelving units [1] for more than 5 years, and it's held up very well. My wife and I are using their dining set that was just $100 for the table and two chairs, and it's fantastic [2]. We're also using an Ikea bed. I was a little skeptical about getting a bed from Ikea at first, but it's more comfortable than any regular mattress I've ever tried, or the Select Comfort bed I used for a number of years (it's one of the foam mattresses with slats).

Sure, it's a pain to put some of them together (especially the bed frame and slats... yikes), but I've had consistently good quality. The only problem is that you really need to check the box before you go home. There are often missing or wrong parts.

Just my experience, though. The furniture is good, but shopping there is an adventure I'd rather not go through again.

1. http://www.ikea.com/us/en/catalog/products/10196431/ 2. http://www.ikea.com/us/en/catalog/products/80157129/

> Really? I've had pretty good luck. I've been using one of their shelving units [1]

Same here, although only 2 years so far the Expedit feels like a beast, and the modularity is great. Plus it's fun moving baskets around.

> They save money where they can by selling you disposable furniture.

Well, yes, that's the general idea of most items in their catalog. You buy their well-designed version instead of Wal-Mart's poorly-designed version. Their target market is not exactly people who would otherwise shop at Restoration Hardware.

In my case, Ikea is a lifesaver. I move around quite a bit, and when I need a piece for a new apartment I'd rather not spend a bunch of money when I'm going to be leaving it behind in a year or less. I've probably bought that damn perforated aluminum cutlery holder 8 times on 3 continents.

I've found that the cheaper items at Ikea are just that -- cheap, and often not very durable. Once you move up to their higher-priced choices, however, things are a lot more solid in my experience. My parents recently retired a full set of tall bookshelves that was probably 25+ years old and still in very good shape. My computer desk here is still going strong after 10 years or so, and our extendable dining table, while basic, has taken some abuse over the years and is holding up well.
i think you might be setting your expectations a little too high. It's ikea furniture, yes the drawer bottoms sag a bit, but it's not hard to grab a hammer and put a brace in there. You get what you pay for, ikea saves money by selling you 'disposable' furniture, but unlike most companies they actually do pass the savings on to you.

And butcher-block kitchen furnishings are designed to get stained and look used and broken-in, that's the style. Please don't varnish it.

Ikea recommends that you varnish the butcher-block kitchen furnishings for sanitary reasons. Wood is very good at absorbing all sorts of contaminants that you'd rather not ingest and an absorbent wood surface is difficult if not impossible to sanitize.

I completely agree with you regarding the stained and broken-in style. That's why I got it!

I can strongly recommend the large Galant desk. It's basically indestructible, and a nice design (just one giant smooth flat surface, with nicely adjustable legs). I basically don't use anything else to work on now if I can help it.

Also have bought some large sturdy wardrobes. Can't speak for the rest of their stuff as it never seemed sturdy enough in the store to buy anything else.

My IKEA rule is "no moving parts"and that has served me well after a dresser disaster.

Stepstools, picture frames, meatballs are all very sturdy.

I've had the same experience with their meatballs.
At Ikea, you need to know what to look for. The drawers are a problem. Solved by specifically looking for sturdier drawers.
As far as I know they subcontract to local manufacturers, so quality may depend on where you live or buy.
"They save money where they can by selling you disposable furniture."

Done. That's why most people go to Ikea. They aren't looking for bulletproof furniture. They're making stuff for people that want to have some furniture for a while and feel no guilt when they chuck it after a year or so.

I really don't see how this is relevant to the submitted article?
Bah, yet another "can you spot the CGI" test. I've never seen one that wasn't badly imbalanced in favor of CGI, by using tiny (400x300) images.
I got 4/5 (and the one I got wrong was the one I was most unsure about).

Even with the small nature of these images, there's certain things that stood out as either not worth the hassle to get right in 3D for a catalogue (too naturally imperfect or detailed), and others where it looked like it would take way more time to make realistically in 3D instead of just taking a photo. Some of the lighting effects were pretty poor too.

Supposedly, this should be the updated 2013 calendar: http://onlinecatalog.ikea-usa.com/US/en/IKEA_Catalog/

Either the CGI is really good, or maybe it's for the next 2013 catalog.

I got all of them right. I think the 3D ones are still identifiable easily. Though I've do admit I do a lot of 3D work in Blender3D, so I may just have an eye for when it looks to perfect.
"In all, IKEA plans to publish 208 million catalogs this year, more than double the amount of Bibles expected to be produced."

What a silly comparison. I'm not sure if that's supposed to sound impressive or not, but I would assume the number of bibles being produced isn't that high - everyone that wants one already has one, and it's not like they update it each year!

"everyone that wants one already has one" - that may be true in first-world countries, but not worldwide. Religious oppression and persecution is still a large phenomenon in the world.

But yes, it is silly to compare production numbers a book you may own for decades with a catalog that is tossed when the next issue arrives. The catalog would win by a large factor even if the readership was exactly the same.

It is a fun comparison, that is all. You can compare anything to anything, it doesn't have to be meaningful in a big way.
I now choose to compare the Curiosity rover doing a donut on Mars, with IKEA's choice of Verdana and 3D imagery in their catalogue.
Bible printing isn't just driven by intrinsic demand -- various groups push lots and lots of bibles out into the world to evangelize their religion.

I think one group claims to have sent 250,000 bibles to American servicemen.

The bible is something of interest to a lot of people, and they all must have acquired it at some point.
what a weird thing to be bothered by.
12% 3D-Renderings per catalog seems a nice optimisation effort, but rather deadline-wise than cost-wise. While it makes it easier for them to meet the catalog deadline, the cost savings are neglible (at least compared to the total cost of the "demo furniture" in their 350 shops worldwide)
I like Ikea's selections, and its designs are appealing to younger home owners. But from my experience, Ikea really needs to improve customer service. I called Ikea regarding some problems with delivered furniture, and they put me on hold for about an hour.
Have you ever tried their website with 'Ask Anna'? I actually wasted my own time formulating a very direct and specific question, got a 'hold on, I'm thinking' response, then 10 minutes later found out that it wasn't a live text-chat with customer services, but a terrible AI, whose final response was 'have you tried looking at the catalogue?' (yes! and its not there. Which is why i need to ask someone a question!).

Thanks for wasting my time Ikea! Better to just not have that 'feature' there at all IMHO...

I can't really tell anything about their phone service. I've had good experiences with their in-store service however. So I think it's not all areas of their customer service, but they could certainly improve.
I love this, it puts them in a great position to be able to offer DIY SketchUp-like interior design right from their website simply by inputting your room's dimensions. The boyfriend was just speaking to how useful this would have been for some of his recent projects if Home Depot offered something similar. Allow the ability for people to build with individual parts from other pieces ala IKEA Hacking and I bet it would be really successful.
The quote that caught my eye was:

>> "We don't have to throw away kitchens in the Dumpster after the photo shoot."

That does not speak well for the quality of the furniture.

It's been used commercially, which makes it tricky to repackage and sell. It could be donated to a charity, but once it's been used for a shoot it'll generally be torn down rather than taken down to save time.
Yeah, I'm just imagining this conversation.

"Should we let some charities know they can come get free furniture when we're done?" "Nah, it's probably break if they try to move it now that it's already set up. Just trash it."

And "we don't have a few hours to wait" doesn't sound like a great excuse, either.

Depends, when you've got one studio to work in, a very finite amount of time allocated to you and you've got to build and take down an entire set they'll generally not be too worried about keeping things in giftable condition.

I don't necessarily agree with it, but I do understand it.

Quality? We're talking about Ikea, not Thomasville. It's like saying a buffet isn't a high-quality meal. It's not supposed to be. They compete on value and convenience. This means things need to be easy to assemble yourself, and cheaper than pre-built and delivered furniture.

Besides, I have to imagine Broyhill and La-Z-Boy do the same thing with their quality merchandise. It's worth the loss of merchandise to not have to spend money shipping it back to a store.

I just wish they'd stop using Verdana.
They want the catalog to look cheap though, and Verdana certainly helps with that…

The font nerd in me died a little bit when they switched.

To me this is another interesting example of Marc Andreesson's "Software is Eating the World" meme: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405311190348090457651...
I honestly think everything is going to go information.

Also, I think that games, the little industry that could, is going to totally disrupt and destroy creative media production and consumption (movies/music/tv). Get ready to see an entire industry absolutely crush it.

Human needs - outside of survival - are largely experiences.

Having that great car, going on that ski trip, watching a movie, having a good family, spending time with people we like etc. I'm talking first world here (the vast majority of consumption). The rest of the world will catch up (I'm fully aware of their situation).

Experiences are information and information is cheap, scalable, plentiful and most importantly - limitless. Want a great house? Jack into your own personal VR and have whatever you like. Want to drive a lambo through Monte Carlo in the summer? GTA 15 has got that covered. Want to go out with a French supermodel? Done and done.

If all humans want are experiences then photoreal VR has, or will have, everything you could possibly need (outside of survival). You can create music. You can create movies. You can do that which you cannot do because of scarce resources (I'm ignoring the second law of thermodynamics).

Games are going to lead the charge, and you can already see the beginnings of it with the rise of the Machinima movement and, most importantly, with the recent release of photoreal game engines that support full scale movie production and development (Valve with Source Filmaker and Crytek's Real Time Cinema tech).

The price of making films is going to zero. The price of making novels is going to zero. Music - zero. Flying a jet - zero. Whatever it is that you want - VR can and will do it - and it will begin within this decade. Indeed - with the advent of fusion - energy is going to zero.

What could you achieve if everything was free? What happens when you can divide by zero?

We may very well see the death of physical consumption within this century (outside of fusion supplied energy).

Tell me I'm crazy.

Sources:

Crytek CryEngine 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZqNHJ-ekMR4

Source FilmMaker: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zri1c_If6Ic

DICE FrostBite 2 for Battlefield 3 - "Is it real?": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtMaJf45mQ8

[E3 2012] Watch Dogs: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xU7WGAJPRRw

[E3 2012] The Last of Us: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kbLOokeC3VU

Red vs. Blue epic fight scene: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ke9wtbzGjCI

GTA4 "Like a G6" music video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W5tuUU5dKb8

> If all humans want are experiences then photoreal VR has, or will have, everything you could possibly need (outside of survival)

But it's just not the same. Even if it looks, feels, tastes, smells and acts the same. It's not.

The real trick will be, can we convince people that they actually experienced that? The moment they know it was a simulation, they will feel like something's missing.

Same as even though chocolate produces the same chemical response as sex does ... it can't quite replace sex. (I'm not a biologist, this is data I picked up from Discovery Channel, but I do know chocolate doesn't replace sex)

>But it's just not the same. Even if it looks, feels, tastes, smells and acts the same. It's not.

Isn't it? Roller coasters give us the illusion of danger. Haunted houses the illusion of fear. Pornography the illusion of sex.

All of these are "fake" but continue to be popular because they create an experience in our minds. Maybe because all of these things appeal to baser, more automatic reponses they can defy rationality, but manipulating reality is already common practice.

Not with current tech - no.

But I highly doubt this is an insurmountable obstacle.

Humans can be convinced of many things that aren't in fact "real" or in indeed supported by any evidence other than appealing to human emotions/biases/prejudices (religon/"natural" markets/trickle down economics/communism/libertarianism/racisim).

Give it time - it will happen.

Or we nuke ourselves in the process of getting there.

Either way it'll be blast (see what I did there?).

What I'm saying is more along the lines of:

1. Step into a machine you know is VR - even though the experience will be fine, it won't be "quite the same"

2. Step into an aeroplane and fly around the world for ten hours. Then see something cool and go back home. - it will be an awesome experience .... even though everything beyond the airport's front gate was VR.

And even then, as soon as it got out the whole airport and everything beyond was VR, there would be people willing to pay a lot for the real thing.

I think what I'm saying is VR will be the McDonald's of experiences.

You're not crazy, not in the slightest, but what occupies my thoughts to some extent is what this...

"I honestly think everything is going to go information."

...means for both me and the aggregate (ie: people who aren't me).

There's going to be a heck of a lot of broken promises on the way, and no guarantee that the broken promises are in my favour. But then, that's the nature of promises.