Why do Canons look so much nicer than Nikons?

I'm a devout Nikon user but I can't help but notice the nice appearance of Canon bodies and lenses. Canon does an excellent job making sure every lens is very trim and contour while Nikon lenses (especially entry level ones) are chunky and ugly.

Why is this? Can Nikon, one of the "big two" camera manufacturers not afford to hire better designers? I'm quite perplexed.

Aesthetics sell easily to stupid people.

I think it's very subjective and totally a matter of taste. I feel canon caters to the flashy crowd with Red rings and white lenses.

A lot of the canons also look cluttered to me, take the 24-70 for example:

To me the nikons look cleaner, less clutter, more professional.

They look nicer because they are nicer

If you want to be impressed by the way the camera looks, get this one instead

http://cameraquest.com/m6thgold.htm

I'm a devout Ferrari user but I can't help but notice the nice appearance of Lamborghini bodies and parts. Ferrari does an excellent job making sure every part is very trim and contour while Lamborghini parts (especially cheaper ones) are chunky and ugly.

Why is this? Can Lamborghini, one of the "big two" car manufacturers not afford to hire better designers? I'm quite perplexed.

same argument using Ferrari and Lamborghini

I rather like the design of my Nikon camera to be quite honest.

Canon has millions more of dollars to spare for aesthetics. Nikon concentrates on the technology inside that ugly surface and devoting their resources to bring out that latest technological development ahead of everyone else. Don't worry, poor Pentax looks more horrendous and lower-tech but I'm not complaining. To me, Sony looks more smug than Canon. Sony has the design developed with the technology right from the start. So there goes your top 4.

Who cares what the camera looks like? Surely a photographer's first concern should be image quality & ease of use.