4 ms·
How the iPhone Got Tail Fins – Part 2 of 2
- bradleyland 15y agoInitially I wasn't really grokking the author's point, but I think it comes down to a single disagreement in terminology: "GM had figured out how to take a product which solved a problem – cheap transportation – and transform it into a need." Specifically, the use of the term "need". Needs are things that we can't do without. Basic (cheap) transportation, is a "need" for many people, but it doesn't represent the type of marketing shift that the author outlines in the article. I'd turn the statement on it's head: GM had figured out how to take a product which solved a problem – cheap transportation – and transform it into an object of lust. The message is the same. I don't think I disagree entirely with what Steve is saying, but I found the use of the term "need" jarring in that context. I think Apple's formula is a mixture of the "bigger fins" strategy, as well as genuine product enhancements. If you buy a phone for "needs" (cheap communication), I'm not sure you're buying an iPhone. You buy an iPhone (or any smartphone) because you want more than the basic needs. In some cases, people buy them simply as jewelry, but I think that angle is way overplayed. A pre-requisite for the "jewelry" claim is that the owner not utilize the phone for its actual utilitarian features (apps, browsing, email, camera, video, mms, etc). I'm sure the jewelry aspect comes in to play getting people in the door, but I'm not sure they stay that way for long.