3 ms·

So Schiller's explanation was really just making explicit the problem described: he more or less states that the goal of each product is to bring into question

So Schiller's explanation was really just making explicit the problem described: he more or less states that the goal of each product is to bring into question the necessity of the next. If every product you make, is by design, meant to obsolete another product, then it's going to be a lot of hard choices for the customer: every single thing you want to buy comes with the "but maybe this thing can do this too..." question. This doesnt really justify or bring insight into anything, but rather accurately predicts the confusion such a product line will create. Once upon a time apple wanted you to walk into an Apple Store and walk out with something useful, now they want you to consider where you side in the "personal vs power" debate.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
aresant 11y ago
I inferred this a little differently In his quote about the iMac* I think the strategy is essentially laid bare that they expect the top end to continue to drive appeal by being powerful and cutting edge - letting consumers continue to drive new experiences and productivity with that form factor And the waterfall model will, as such, continue as innovation / component miniturization collapses features downward. Look to the soon arrival of full ar/VR for a "desktop best" example. Eg VR is best via Oculus rift on a high power PC. There are translated experiences via Samsungvr and goog glass but nothing like the experience of say assetto corsa racing or elite dangerous on a 2x980gtx system. Naturally and over time this quality / set will roll downwards to mobile. * iMac: "It's job is to challenge what we think a computer can do and do things that no computer has ever done before, be more and more powerful and capable so that we need a desktop because of its capabilities. Because if all it's doing is competing with the notebook and being thinner and lighter, then it doesn't need to be."
- tolmasky 11y ago
  Sure, but that necessarily means that the "middle" will always be muddled. Only the edges can ever clearly offer unique value. This wouldn't be that big a concern if it wasn't for the fact that apples most valuable products are in this middle. the proof is in the pudding, regardless of what the theory is, from iPhone plus to iPad mini 2 to iPad mini 4 to iPad Air to iPad Air 2 to iPad Pro to the new MacBook to the MacBook Air to the MacBook Pro (all distinct products), I get some vague sense that I want two, but I'm not really sure which two. And my decision feels like I'm always going to leave something on the table, and unfortunate trade off (like lacking a pen device vs a natural trade off like performance)
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
alextgordon 11y ago
Apple's products are expensive. They're not impulse buys, you don't just walk into an Apple Store and -- on a whim -- decide to buy a $2000 computer or a $900 phone. Instead you go there, try out a few options, go home, think about it, make a decision, then order. So I actually think it was the original approach that was muddled. If customers are coming to your store with research under their belt, you'd better have a product right for them.
- Aloha 11y ago
  that really depends on your income level, for some of us, something like an apple watch /is/ an impulse buy.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

aresant 11y ago

I inferred this a little differently In his quote about the iMac* I think the strategy is essentially laid bare that they expect the top end to continue to drive appeal by being powerful and cutting edge - letting consumers continue to drive new experiences and productivity with that form factor And the waterfall model will, as such, continue as innovation / component miniturization collapses features downward. Look to the soon arrival of full ar/VR for a "desktop best" example. Eg VR is best via Oculus rift on a high power PC. There are translated experiences via Samsungvr and goog glass but nothing like the experience of say assetto corsa racing or elite dangerous on a 2x980gtx system. Naturally and over time this quality / set will roll downwards to mobile. * iMac: "It's job is to challenge what we think a computer can do and do things that no computer has ever done before, be more and more powerful and capable so that we need a desktop because of its capabilities. Because if all it's doing is competing with the notebook and being thinner and lighter, then it doesn't need to be."

tolmasky 11y ago
Sure, but that necessarily means that the "middle" will always be muddled. Only the edges can ever clearly offer unique value. This wouldn't be that big a concern if it wasn't for the fact that apples most valuable products are in this middle. the proof is in the pudding, regardless of what the theory is, from iPhone plus to iPad mini 2 to iPad mini 4 to iPad Air to iPad Air 2 to iPad Pro to the new MacBook to the MacBook Air to the MacBook Pro (all distinct products), I get some vague sense that I want two, but I'm not really sure which two. And my decision feels like I'm always going to leave something on the table, and unfortunate trade off (like lacking a pen device vs a natural trade off like performance)

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

alextgordon 11y ago

Apple's products are expensive. They're not impulse buys, you don't just walk into an Apple Store and -- on a whim -- decide to buy a $2000 computer or a $900 phone. Instead you go there, try out a few options, go home, think about it, make a decision, then order. So I actually think it was the original approach that was muddled. If customers are coming to your store with research under their belt, you'd better have a product right for them.

Aloha 11y ago
that really depends on your income level, for some of us, something like an apple watch /is/ an impulse buy.