4 ms·

One of the reasons why he did that was because Apple was dying. They didn't have money and resources to support many models, and they needed to focus and do one

One of the reasons why he did that was because Apple was dying. They didn't have money and resources to support many models, and they needed to focus and do one thing right. So it was the right decision. As much as I like simplicity, if you look around there are tons of cases like this around us, and that's not because these companies are idiots who don't understand simplicity but it's because their products have reached saturation point where making it simple won't get more users. They need to expand horizontally by building variations that appeal to a wider audience. Sure it's kind of annoying, and you and I may not understand the benefits of the 9.7 inch iPad, but I am sure there are many people who understand exactly the benefits of 9.7 inch iPad vs iPad pro and will rush to buy them.

valarauca1 10y ago
Under Jobs during the early days they never sold many products at once. There was the old Apple II and new Apple II. Seeing as they went past 6 revisions of Apple II there was considerable churn. There was never much of a 1st party peripheral market. Like we see with iWatch. That nearly exclusively 3rd party.
- ajross 10y ago
  > Under Jobs during the early days they never sold many products at once. Depends on how early you go. The II+ was a straightforward upgrade to the ][ that replaced it, but the IIe was sold alongside the II+ for a long time. And then it refused to disappear while they sold the IIc and then IIgs. And don't forget the not-quite-part-of-the-family Apple III! Up through the early 80's they had a clean lineup. After that there were as many as four different variants on the Apple II in the market at a time.
sushisource 10y ago
Wait, really? You and I being readers of Hacker News are probably in a better position than 90%+ of customers to understand the benefits of one iPad over another. If it's not clear to us... who is it clear to?
- dramamuch88 10y ago
  Anyone who has watched Apple over the last few years? They've labeled the more expensive/"faster" models of their laptops "Pro" for quite a while. While the cheaper/less fast but still capable for a large swath of users lacked the "Pro". You seem to assume most users are going to care. They'll have a price and get what they can for as close to that price as possible. Average Jane/Joe doesn't wander around going "does it have ECC and multithreading?" They're more concerned with "Can I Netflix, YouTube, and Facebook on it?" For this new iPad the answer is "Yes." and they'll decide on price then. This forum is making this much more complicated while arguing for simplicity.
- cocktailpeanuts 10y ago
  It's exactly because we're on HN we are not aware of this need. It's a big world out there.
- mjburgess 10y ago
  That's not how price hurdles work. Products are segmented according to price, not features. There's a different market at each point and this determines what they will get -- not the reverse.
- threeseed 10y ago
  Be very careful about that line of reasoning. My experience is that IT educated people are the least in touch with the mainstream world.
gurkendoktor 10y ago
> They didn't have money and resources to support many models They have money now, but do they have the resources? Apple's software quality has arguably taken a nosedive, and they've started missing deadlines even for hardware. Assuming a kind time traveler gave 1997 Apple a few billion US$; could Apple simply have bought its way out of its problems?

valarauca1 10y ago

Under Jobs during the early days they never sold many products at once. There was the old Apple II and new Apple II. Seeing as they went past 6 revisions of Apple II there was considerable churn. There was never much of a 1st party peripheral market. Like we see with iWatch. That nearly exclusively 3rd party.

ajross 10y ago
> Under Jobs during the early days they never sold many products at once. Depends on how early you go. The II+ was a straightforward upgrade to the ][ that replaced it, but the IIe was sold alongside the II+ for a long time. And then it refused to disappear while they sold the IIc and then IIgs. And don't forget the not-quite-part-of-the-family Apple III! Up through the early 80's they had a clean lineup. After that there were as many as four different variants on the Apple II in the market at a time.

sushisource 10y ago

Wait, really? You and I being readers of Hacker News are probably in a better position than 90%+ of customers to understand the benefits of one iPad over another. If it's not clear to us... who is it clear to?

dramamuch88 10y ago
Anyone who has watched Apple over the last few years? They've labeled the more expensive/"faster" models of their laptops "Pro" for quite a while. While the cheaper/less fast but still capable for a large swath of users lacked the "Pro". You seem to assume most users are going to care. They'll have a price and get what they can for as close to that price as possible. Average Jane/Joe doesn't wander around going "does it have ECC and multithreading?" They're more concerned with "Can I Netflix, YouTube, and Facebook on it?" For this new iPad the answer is "Yes." and they'll decide on price then. This forum is making this much more complicated while arguing for simplicity.
cocktailpeanuts 10y ago
It's exactly because we're on HN we are not aware of this need. It's a big world out there.
mjburgess 10y ago
That's not how price hurdles work. Products are segmented according to price, not features. There's a different market at each point and this determines what they will get -- not the reverse.
threeseed 10y ago
Be very careful about that line of reasoning. My experience is that IT educated people are the least in touch with the mainstream world.

gurkendoktor 10y ago

> They didn't have money and resources to support many models They have money now, but do they have the resources? Apple's software quality has arguably taken a nosedive, and they've started missing deadlines even for hardware. Assuming a kind time traveler gave 1997 Apple a few billion US$; could Apple simply have bought its way out of its problems?