3 ms·

Edit: inlining the comment here instead since this turned into a conversation These products just feel like “component pipeline optimization” instead of workin

Edit: inlining the comment here instead since this turned into a conversation These products just feel like “component pipeline optimization” instead of working backwards from customer needs. There should be 3 iPads, all with the same form factor, same connectors (can’t believe I even have to specify this): small medium large, and they should be called iPad mini, iPad, and iPad Pro. The iPad should serve the vast majority of the market. The pro should really feel like it’s for Pros. The mini should feel like it cannot be beat on a hike taking nature photos. Stories based on use, not price. The way I imagine them talking about iPad uses cases instead is: “imagine you want to buy an iPad, but you only have $399. Boom: iPad mini, the perfect fit!”

askafriend 8y ago
I welcome your take! And thanks for adding it here so people can contrast them. One thing I think it’s important to remember is that Apple today isn’t the same small, quirky company it was in 2007 when the iPhone came out. It’s now one of the largest companies on the planet with a global customer base of over a billion people in hundreds of countries. They need to run a different strategy and they need to have more product choice at different price points. I think they’re navigating it the best they can - and obviously no business is without mistakes. They will make mistakes (iPhone 5C) and that’s OK. However, trying to pattern match Apple’s decisions from the 90s and comparing them to decisions today is just poor thinking imo. That’s what people in this thread (not you @tolmasky, I’m just on a tangent now) seem to be trying to do. The Ballmer comparisons are poor as well, imo.
- tolmasky 8y ago
  I certainly agree that a larger company requires different decisions, but I think that they fail to even state their case correctly. Perhaps they have a reached a size where a hyper-simplified product line would be leaving an unacceptable amount of money on the table as they successfully saturate their normal customer base. Even in that world, it doesn't mean that the product line has to be so fundamentally confusing and lacking in narrative. These same products could be pitched similar to how I said in my comment: tell me why I want these aside from their price differentiation. Don't make me feel that I'm fundamentally choosing an iPad over an iPad Pro because the better chip doesn't fit in my budget. An iPad comparison matrix shouldn't be necessary with proper story telling: https://www.apple.com/ipad/compare/ https://www.apple.com/ipad/compare/. That page is right out of the Dell playbook of comparing 17 different monitors that have obscure and highly technical differences. But, going back to the stories affecting the product design, I feel that increasingly Apple products rely on incidental and manufactured differentiation vs. essential differentiation. I can tell that they have refrained from putting the better chip into a certain model (since that better chip fits into an iPhone just fine), instead of the very nature of that model of course not allowing that sort of chip. I know this is harder, but fundamentally what I'm saying is "take the low end seriously". Like I mentioned in my other comment, if the "iPad mini" was more like an "iPad Active", and perhaps was more resistant to wear and tear (could survive being dropped if you're skateboarding for example), then all of a sudden the model takes on a personality. It is less powered, but more rugged, there is a tradeoff that feels earned. Instead, the tradeoff feels entirely driven by budget windows.
  - askafriend 8y ago
    I think I agree with you on both points. More-so the former point than the latter. On the former, I do think they’ve lost the product/customer narrative in the last couple years and I think it’ll take another WWDC and another iOS update for them to find their way. They’re just now re-focusing on both iPad hardware AND software. For a few years (mid 2010s?) they doled out a few hardware updates that moved the needle moderately but the software didn’t (and you can argue still doesn’t to the fullest extent) take advantage of iPad to provide the functionality leaps it needs to have a compelling narrative. We’re just now in the past year or two starting to see the narrative develop with iPad Pro, Pencil, and iOS 11/12. A similar strong narrative probably needs to develop for the lower end iPads though I’m sure they’ll continue to sell simply because everyone else in the market is either asleep or incapable. On the latter point, I agree with the spirit and I love how you phrased it. However, I’m not actually sure how much it matters in this case. I’m not completely convinced it matters to the extent you seem to think it does. I think the supply chain optimization is fine and the whole point is that it’s not crazy different from last-year’s iPad but it’s a lower price point and meaningfully more capable (think schools buying in bulk, etc). It would be nice if they FOCUSED on the lower end but that has never been Apple’s style and they are very very deliberate about what things they choose to focus on. It’s both the greatest strength of the company and one of the weaknesses - two sides of the same coin as things tend to be.
  - Corrado 8y ago
    Wow, this really resonates with me. For a while now it has felt like Apple has based everything on price points instead of usability/purpose. And you're right, that's something that I expect "Dell" to do; "all of these things are exactly, slightly different in ways that you probably can't tell". A ruggedized iPad mini is a great example of a differentiation that I can get behind and use. Right now, if I had to purchase a new iPad for my Mother I'm not sure which one I would get, and it almost wouldn't matter. Almost. But I'm not 100% positive which would be the best value+performance+portability+convenience combination. If there were "only" 3 the decision would be much easier. Heck, I could even tell her to "go to the Apple store at the mall and tell them you want the iPad Active (or whatever)". At this point I don't think I could guide her even if I was on the phone with her while she was standing in the Apple store surrounded by iPads. :(
intopieces 8y ago
How does reducing customer choice follow from working backwards from the customers’ needs? Doesn’t the variety in product imply a variety in customer needs? There is not one kind of pro, not one kind of consumer. Shouldn’t Apple be able to offer a wide choice of options and rely on marketing and the 100 blueshirts in every store to guide the customer? It was confusing to have so many options when tablets and smartphones were new, or when a person could say “I don’t really do computers” and have a successful career. None of those are true now; babies can and do use tablets, middle schools have carts of iPads or Chromebooks. My grandma has an iPad. She calls it her “Facebook,” but she has one. Simplicity has its appeal, but I trust the market analysts at Apple have a plan for market differentiation with a wide lineup.
- tolmasky 8y ago
  Because customer needs rarely vary that greatly within one brand. The whole idea behind a general purpose computing device is that it is, well, general purpose, no? If you require minimum 4 "high level product concepts" (iPad,Mini,Air,Pro), then it doesn't seem so general purpose anymore. Especially when you realize that people are actually also often deciding between upgrading to iPhone Max (not that different in size or capability to an iPad Mini), or MacBook/Air/Pro (not that different in size or capability to iPad Pro). So, are you selling a great general purpose tool, or have you degraded back down to screwdrivers vs. hammers? I personally don't believe that the tasks these devices aim to serve merit having 7+ separate "high level product concepts", and that even if they do, these particular products don't clearly delineate those separations. That is to say, maybe there is room for this many different product choices -- but these products in particular actually offer a confusing array of choices due to their, often arbitrary, intersection of capabilities. It's important to make a distinction here: I think there is certainly more room for configuration within a product line ($x upgrade for a faster version of product X), but this is very different than essential feature axises that define a product line itself. Some of them are unavoidable, sure, like a smaller form factor often needing to have less cpu/ram/whatever. However, that's certainly not the case here -- the iPhone Max is smaller than the iPad mini, yet much much faster. Per your own argument, why is Apple not serving the part of the market that needs the portability of the iPad mini but wants the best CPU? Well, because the real point of the iPad mini is to satisfy some budget window probably, not a deep empathy with the user. Also -- I keep forgetting to bring this up in these situations, but I would not be surprised if the actual purpose of the iPad mini is point-of-sale terminals, conference room check-ins, and office visit terminals. That's the number one place I see these particular devices, and in fact the number one place I see iPads in general.
alistairSH 8y ago
I'm not convinced 3 is the magic number, but I generally agree. I'd much prefer a bit more standardization across accessories and connectors. In my mind, I'd build... Two sizes of iPad Pro (12" and 10" roughly) One iPad (10" and thin enough that an "Air" model is redundant) One iPad Mini All would use the same connectors (or, at least adopt them over time, as I'd expect Pro models to see new tech a generation before the iPad & Mini) and accessories (pencil, etc).
ken 8y ago
> The pro should really feel like it’s for Pros. I feel that the "MacBook Pro" name was a fundamental mistake, and the root cause of 15 years of "pro" naming issues. Not only is it a bad name on its own [1], but "professional" is so broad that it can describe literally every working person on the planet, in some capacity. All that label is doing is causing everyone to say "This isn't a perfect machine for my professional use" and then try to shame Apple for it. Half the professionals I know aren't even using "pro"-labeled machines -- it's neither necessary nor sufficient. It's just an awkward label that the internet is taking far too literally. Of course, if they dropped it today, everyone would say "See? Apple admits they aren't making machines for professionals any more!" They can't win. [1]: "Apple marked the transition to Intel by discontinuing the well-known, long-respected PowerBook name. The Intel-based pro laptop is known as the MacBook Pro, a name that met with a less-than-enthusiastic reception at the Expo keynote." --lowendmac.com, 2006

askafriend 8y ago

I welcome your take! And thanks for adding it here so people can contrast them. One thing I think it’s important to remember is that Apple today isn’t the same small, quirky company it was in 2007 when the iPhone came out. It’s now one of the largest companies on the planet with a global customer base of over a billion people in hundreds of countries. They need to run a different strategy and they need to have more product choice at different price points. I think they’re navigating it the best they can - and obviously no business is without mistakes. They will make mistakes (iPhone 5C) and that’s OK. However, trying to pattern match Apple’s decisions from the 90s and comparing them to decisions today is just poor thinking imo. That’s what people in this thread (not you @tolmasky, I’m just on a tangent now) seem to be trying to do. The Ballmer comparisons are poor as well, imo.

tolmasky 8y ago
I certainly agree that a larger company requires different decisions, but I think that they fail to even state their case correctly. Perhaps they have a reached a size where a hyper-simplified product line would be leaving an unacceptable amount of money on the table as they successfully saturate their normal customer base. Even in that world, it doesn't mean that the product line has to be so fundamentally confusing and lacking in narrative. These same products could be pitched similar to how I said in my comment: tell me why I want these aside from their price differentiation. Don't make me feel that I'm fundamentally choosing an iPad over an iPad Pro because the better chip doesn't fit in my budget. An iPad comparison matrix shouldn't be necessary with proper story telling: https://www.apple.com/ipad/compare/ https://www.apple.com/ipad/compare/. That page is right out of the Dell playbook of comparing 17 different monitors that have obscure and highly technical differences. But, going back to the stories affecting the product design, I feel that increasingly Apple products rely on incidental and manufactured differentiation vs. essential differentiation. I can tell that they have refrained from putting the better chip into a certain model (since that better chip fits into an iPhone just fine), instead of the very nature of that model of course not allowing that sort of chip. I know this is harder, but fundamentally what I'm saying is "take the low end seriously". Like I mentioned in my other comment, if the "iPad mini" was more like an "iPad Active", and perhaps was more resistant to wear and tear (could survive being dropped if you're skateboarding for example), then all of a sudden the model takes on a personality. It is less powered, but more rugged, there is a tradeoff that feels earned. Instead, the tradeoff feels entirely driven by budget windows.
- askafriend 8y ago
  I think I agree with you on both points. More-so the former point than the latter. On the former, I do think they’ve lost the product/customer narrative in the last couple years and I think it’ll take another WWDC and another iOS update for them to find their way. They’re just now re-focusing on both iPad hardware AND software. For a few years (mid 2010s?) they doled out a few hardware updates that moved the needle moderately but the software didn’t (and you can argue still doesn’t to the fullest extent) take advantage of iPad to provide the functionality leaps it needs to have a compelling narrative. We’re just now in the past year or two starting to see the narrative develop with iPad Pro, Pencil, and iOS 11/12. A similar strong narrative probably needs to develop for the lower end iPads though I’m sure they’ll continue to sell simply because everyone else in the market is either asleep or incapable. On the latter point, I agree with the spirit and I love how you phrased it. However, I’m not actually sure how much it matters in this case. I’m not completely convinced it matters to the extent you seem to think it does. I think the supply chain optimization is fine and the whole point is that it’s not crazy different from last-year’s iPad but it’s a lower price point and meaningfully more capable (think schools buying in bulk, etc). It would be nice if they FOCUSED on the lower end but that has never been Apple’s style and they are very very deliberate about what things they choose to focus on. It’s both the greatest strength of the company and one of the weaknesses - two sides of the same coin as things tend to be.
- Corrado 8y ago
  Wow, this really resonates with me. For a while now it has felt like Apple has based everything on price points instead of usability/purpose. And you're right, that's something that I expect "Dell" to do; "all of these things are exactly, slightly different in ways that you probably can't tell". A ruggedized iPad mini is a great example of a differentiation that I can get behind and use. Right now, if I had to purchase a new iPad for my Mother I'm not sure which one I would get, and it almost wouldn't matter. Almost. But I'm not 100% positive which would be the best value+performance+portability+convenience combination. If there were "only" 3 the decision would be much easier. Heck, I could even tell her to "go to the Apple store at the mall and tell them you want the iPad Active (or whatever)". At this point I don't think I could guide her even if I was on the phone with her while she was standing in the Apple store surrounded by iPads. :(

intopieces 8y ago

How does reducing customer choice follow from working backwards from the customers’ needs? Doesn’t the variety in product imply a variety in customer needs? There is not one kind of pro, not one kind of consumer. Shouldn’t Apple be able to offer a wide choice of options and rely on marketing and the 100 blueshirts in every store to guide the customer? It was confusing to have so many options when tablets and smartphones were new, or when a person could say “I don’t really do computers” and have a successful career. None of those are true now; babies can and do use tablets, middle schools have carts of iPads or Chromebooks. My grandma has an iPad. She calls it her “Facebook,” but she has one. Simplicity has its appeal, but I trust the market analysts at Apple have a plan for market differentiation with a wide lineup.

tolmasky 8y ago
Because customer needs rarely vary that greatly within one brand. The whole idea behind a general purpose computing device is that it is, well, general purpose, no? If you require minimum 4 "high level product concepts" (iPad,Mini,Air,Pro), then it doesn't seem so general purpose anymore. Especially when you realize that people are actually also often deciding between upgrading to iPhone Max (not that different in size or capability to an iPad Mini), or MacBook/Air/Pro (not that different in size or capability to iPad Pro). So, are you selling a great general purpose tool, or have you degraded back down to screwdrivers vs. hammers? I personally don't believe that the tasks these devices aim to serve merit having 7+ separate "high level product concepts", and that even if they do, these particular products don't clearly delineate those separations. That is to say, maybe there is room for this many different product choices -- but these products in particular actually offer a confusing array of choices due to their, often arbitrary, intersection of capabilities. It's important to make a distinction here: I think there is certainly more room for configuration within a product line ($x upgrade for a faster version of product X), but this is very different than essential feature axises that define a product line itself. Some of them are unavoidable, sure, like a smaller form factor often needing to have less cpu/ram/whatever. However, that's certainly not the case here -- the iPhone Max is smaller than the iPad mini, yet much much faster. Per your own argument, why is Apple not serving the part of the market that needs the portability of the iPad mini but wants the best CPU? Well, because the real point of the iPad mini is to satisfy some budget window probably, not a deep empathy with the user. Also -- I keep forgetting to bring this up in these situations, but I would not be surprised if the actual purpose of the iPad mini is point-of-sale terminals, conference room check-ins, and office visit terminals. That's the number one place I see these particular devices, and in fact the number one place I see iPads in general.

alistairSH 8y ago

I'm not convinced 3 is the magic number, but I generally agree. I'd much prefer a bit more standardization across accessories and connectors. In my mind, I'd build... Two sizes of iPad Pro (12" and 10" roughly) One iPad (10" and thin enough that an "Air" model is redundant) One iPad Mini All would use the same connectors (or, at least adopt them over time, as I'd expect Pro models to see new tech a generation before the iPad & Mini) and accessories (pencil, etc).

ken 8y ago

> The pro should really feel like it’s for Pros. I feel that the "MacBook Pro" name was a fundamental mistake, and the root cause of 15 years of "pro" naming issues. Not only is it a bad name on its own [1], but "professional" is so broad that it can describe literally every working person on the planet, in some capacity. All that label is doing is causing everyone to say "This isn't a perfect machine for my professional use" and then try to shame Apple for it. Half the professionals I know aren't even using "pro"-labeled machines -- it's neither necessary nor sufficient. It's just an awkward label that the internet is taking far too literally. Of course, if they dropped it today, everyone would say "See? Apple admits they aren't making machines for professionals any more!" They can't win. [1]: "Apple marked the transition to Intel by discontinuing the well-known, long-respected PowerBook name. The Intel-based pro laptop is known as the MacBook Pro, a name that met with a less-than-enthusiastic reception at the Expo keynote." --lowendmac.com, 2006