4 ms·
I think the idea that Jobs had "great taste" is a myth. What he was good at was implementing an all-encompassing product strategy that established Apple product
by bsanr2 7y ago
I think the idea that Jobs had "great taste" is a myth. What he was good at was implementing an all-encompassing product strategy that established Apple products as status symbols. I don't think it's an accident that Apple "arrived" in the late 90s. Why? Because that's when their experience with education enterprise could be combined with the broad marketing lessons to be learned from products like Air Jordans.
Apple products were visually-distinctive, but I wouldn't call them beautiful; they were relatively easy to use, though I wouldn't call them intuitive. But because they passed the bar in those two respects - in other words, because Apple products were not ugly nor difficult to use, and therefore not completely repellant on their face - the way was opened for Jobs to execute his coup de grace: positioning (through advertisement, third-party association, and pricing) the iMac, iPod, and eventually iPhone as markers of one's own affluence and taste. Everything else coalesces around that kernel of desirability, whether it's warranted or not. The "unifying sense of taste" of the products themselves is an illusion; what matters is that everyone agrees that Apple is the premium choice, in a society where premium (not necessarily fit) is of utmost importance.
This is why Apple stores and support are so crucial. Every generation of Apple product has a competitor that's more elegant, better-performing, more durable and reliable, better integrated within its own ecosystem, etc. But, again, what Jobs understood was that humanity always trumps engineering in the way our social and cultural hierarchies are constructed. Concierge and community are more desirable - more premium - when problems inevitably arise or UX inevitably fails. They maintain the illusion of usability when usability itself breaks down.
Jobs was just really good at playing people.
- partyboat1586 7y agoWhy then in other markets are there multiple premium brands? Say for example cars, Lamborghini, Ferrari, Porsche... There is no Apple in that market. Or take watches as another example, so much choice. Apple is the only company that has nailed the premium computer. Why?
- bsanr2 7y agoI don't agree that there aren't multiple premium brands within the phone, computer, and media player spaces, but humoring you, I would say that platform lock-in is a factor. If I sell my Ferrari to buy a Lambo, I don't have to find new gas stations and roads to use.
- partyboat1586 7y agoFirst of all the media player space is dead. Secondly just because Samsung Andriod phones or Dell XPS laptops are nominally premium doesn't mean they are on par with Apple in terms of how they are perceived by consumers. They are also certainly not status symbols. A Lambo or a Ferrari are pretty much on par in the eyes of the consumer for how premium they are and how much of a status symbol they are. Not so with X premium android vs iPhone or X premium windows laptop vs a Macbook. I think you're right that platform lock-in is one factor. I think the other factor is that Apple uses their own proprietary operating system. They have control all the way down to the hardware level and that gives them an advantage. When I close a MacBook it goes to sleep. When I close a premium Windows laptop there is a fairly high chance it's going to overheat in my bag. This is of course an issue that can be fixed but its only one of many smaller things that make up the whole product. Because Apple consistently gets enough of them right people look past the smaller flaws and see a polished product in a way that is not often seen in consumer electronics.
- bsanr2 7y ago>First of all the media player space is dead. Not quite. In fact, the premium media player space is essentially the only one that still exists. They're mostly Android-based devices with high-quality DACs for the playback of lossless, high-bitrate music files. >Secondly just because Samsung Andriod phones or Dell XPS laptops are nominally premium doesn't mean they are on par with Apple in terms of how they are perceived by consumers. I disagree. Microsoft's Surface line is also seen as premium, and Lenovo's Thinkpad line is still considered to offer top performance for business and enterprise customers. In phones, Apple is not unassailable in the US, and outside it, deals with heavy competition from Samsung and Chinese brands. >I think the other factor is that Apple uses their own proprietary operating system. You sound like a fanboy.
- lotsofpulp 7y ago>Every generation of Apple product has a competitor that's more elegant, better-performing, more durable and reliable, better integrated within its own ecosystem, etc. Just the fact that Apple actually provides software updates for devices for years longer than their competitors seems to disprove at least part of this statement. Their investment in retail stores and customer service is laudable, but to say the iPad has any competition in any of the metrics mentioned above is not true.
- bsanr2 7y agoI suppose that depends on what device category you place the iPad. To many, it's a particularly hobbled laptop, especially with the advent of 2-in-1s. >Apple actually provides software updates for devices for years longer than their competitors This is also debatable. The nature of Apple's sandbox means that it's much harder to find third-party support. A nominal official upgrade that effectively bricks your older device doesn't compare favorably to a PC or phone that can have FOSS replacements installed that actually increase performance.