4 ms·

Given how incredibly intuitive Apple products are, I find it hard to believe that they develop products without market testing. It might be a secret to the publ

Given how incredibly intuitive Apple products are, I find it hard to believe that they develop products without market testing. It might be a secret to the public but I am almost certain you can't nail UI so perfectly without undergoing some user testing. All the users/testers/vendors have all probably signed an NDA and value the partnership with Apple enough to not disclose anything.

neuronic 9y ago
> Given how incredibly intuitive Apple products are This used to be the case and might still be compared to most other products, but that value keeps diminishing more and more. I would certainly welcome an increased focus on "it just works" again as opposed to "it looks flashy". I enjoy using Apple products a lot for various reasons but it became hard to overlook some issues, especially when it comes to software.
sgift 9y ago
Apples UI is only 'intuitive' if you're used to it. People have the same problems when first using Apple products they have with every other product. It's a myth that Apple products are better in that regard that Apple loves to tell, nothing more.
obmelvin 9y ago
As a sibling comment pointed out, Apple UIs being 'intuitive' is pretty subjective. As an android user whenever I do something on an iOS phone I have trouble going 'back' because there's no consistent back button.
wpietri 9y ago
You're confusing two different things. They do a ton of prototyping and user testing, which allows them to make a very polished product. But they don't just throw things out into the market and see what happens. User testing has clear limits. The context of a user test is usually something like, "Assume that you have bought one of these, and assume that you're trying to do X. See if you can do X with this." If you're assuming those things, you can't test them. This is in contrast with what startups do, which is just launching something to see if the market gives a shit. Apple is a good example of that, too. Look at their first product: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_I https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_I This computer didn't have a keyboard, a monitor, a case, or a power supply. But it was a clear minimum viable product: people bought it and used it, while making it clear they wanted more. A year later, they launched the Apple II: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_II https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_II These days Apple would never launch something so rough and experimental as the Apple I. Instead, as with MP3 players, smartphones, and smart watches, they were content to let other people pioneer the space and then swoop in once the market was proven. Magic Leap is trying to be as slick as 2010s Apple, but that cuts them off from acting like 1970s Apple. That could work if they're correct on all their key design and market hypotheses. But it's a giant gamble, and unlike 2010s Apple, a failure could kill them.

neuronic 9y ago

> Given how incredibly intuitive Apple products are This used to be the case and might still be compared to most other products, but that value keeps diminishing more and more. I would certainly welcome an increased focus on "it just works" again as opposed to "it looks flashy". I enjoy using Apple products a lot for various reasons but it became hard to overlook some issues, especially when it comes to software.

sgift 9y ago

Apples UI is only 'intuitive' if you're used to it. People have the same problems when first using Apple products they have with every other product. It's a myth that Apple products are better in that regard that Apple loves to tell, nothing more.

obmelvin 9y ago

As a sibling comment pointed out, Apple UIs being 'intuitive' is pretty subjective. As an android user whenever I do something on an iOS phone I have trouble going 'back' because there's no consistent back button.

wpietri 9y ago

You're confusing two different things. They do a ton of prototyping and user testing, which allows them to make a very polished product. But they don't just throw things out into the market and see what happens. User testing has clear limits. The context of a user test is usually something like, "Assume that you have bought one of these, and assume that you're trying to do X. See if you can do X with this." If you're assuming those things, you can't test them. This is in contrast with what startups do, which is just launching something to see if the market gives a shit. Apple is a good example of that, too. Look at their first product: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_I https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_I This computer didn't have a keyboard, a monitor, a case, or a power supply. But it was a clear minimum viable product: people bought it and used it, while making it clear they wanted more. A year later, they launched the Apple II: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_II https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_II These days Apple would never launch something so rough and experimental as the Apple I. Instead, as with MP3 players, smartphones, and smart watches, they were content to let other people pioneer the space and then swoop in once the market was proven. Magic Leap is trying to be as slick as 2010s Apple, but that cuts them off from acting like 1970s Apple. That could work if they're correct on all their key design and market hypotheses. But it's a giant gamble, and unlike 2010s Apple, a failure could kill them.