3 ms·

You could say the same about Dyson or Oxo or Bodum. Having a single esthetic and coherent product line is a choice. On the face of it, it sounds like a company

You could say the same about Dyson or Oxo or Bodum. Having a single esthetic and coherent product line is a choice. On the face of it, it sounds like a company would want coherency, but in practice it means leaving a lot of money on the table for every single of your products. Any consistent design decisions means anyone who's not pleased by it has no option in your lineup to go to. That's of course a gamble Apple is willing to take. For instance, Apple consistently uses glass and metal in their product design, the only exception I can think of being airpods and their mouse. I personally prefered the plastic for weight and comfort, so that set me out of the market for their headphones and I went to Sony for instance. Same for laptops with touchscreens, if you care any bit about them Apple is a no go to you. Same for so many things. PS: on inconsitencies and incoherencies, Windows is the king of the kitchen sink approach, and it's consistently stayed ahead of Apple in numbers. Another instance on how being opiniated isn't only a positive aspect from a business perspective.

inconceivable 3y ago
porsche also.
hnaccount_rng 3y ago
Your point is valid, but that ... diversity? ... comes at a _very_ steep price. Not only for the manufacturer, also for the consumer! With Apple I _know_ a couple of things about any future purchase, without ever having used, held or felt the particular product. Namely: 1) Build quality will be significantly higher than competitors, 2) It will hurt my feelings to look at the bill after checkout, 3) It will work as advertised (or slightly better). Yes there also will be quirks I'll be unhappy with, which I _could_ (given enough time and experimentations) find a better solution for. But fundamentally I'll be getting a solid product, that works well enough. It is _that_ promise, which fundamentally allows Apple to do an online store and do a mostly directly-to-customer retail operation. If you increase diversity, you make this "buy any product and you'll be fine" thing so much more complicated, loosing more sales than the niches even contain. I'd guess almost all people just want it to work :TM:, at least that's me, and that's me deciding the phone of my mum
- makeitdouble 3y ago
  I totally see this point, in particular as an opportunistic Apple customer myself. Apple doesn't need to do marketing regarding some aspects of their products (e.g. build quality) and can focus their messaging on more specific parts. On the other hand, that doesn't seem to be what most consumers long for. Apple had two runaway successes with the iPod and then the iPhone, but to note, the iPhone is not the best selling phone brand nor dominates the international market. Same way Apple is not the #1 computer maker. So yes, focus and consistency brings tremendous value, but there are many other ways to get that level of value, and many customers will have different priorities. (I also don't think any brands need to be #1, being profitable should be enough, but I am more and more interested by how Windows has stayed at the top for so many years. In particular Apple progressively feels closer to Sony when it was at its peak: superbe products, strong ecosystem binging, coupled with also a heavy dose of strategy tax on how to benefit from what the other companies are doing)

inconceivable 3y ago

porsche also.

hnaccount_rng 3y ago

Your point is valid, but that ... diversity? ... comes at a _very_ steep price. Not only for the manufacturer, also for the consumer! With Apple I _know_ a couple of things about any future purchase, without ever having used, held or felt the particular product. Namely: 1) Build quality will be significantly higher than competitors, 2) It will hurt my feelings to look at the bill after checkout, 3) It will work as advertised (or slightly better). Yes there also will be quirks I'll be unhappy with, which I _could_ (given enough time and experimentations) find a better solution for. But fundamentally I'll be getting a solid product, that works well enough. It is _that_ promise, which fundamentally allows Apple to do an online store and do a mostly directly-to-customer retail operation. If you increase diversity, you make this "buy any product and you'll be fine" thing so much more complicated, loosing more sales than the niches even contain. I'd guess almost all people just want it to work :TM:, at least that's me, and that's me deciding the phone of my mum

makeitdouble 3y ago
I totally see this point, in particular as an opportunistic Apple customer myself. Apple doesn't need to do marketing regarding some aspects of their products (e.g. build quality) and can focus their messaging on more specific parts. On the other hand, that doesn't seem to be what most consumers long for. Apple had two runaway successes with the iPod and then the iPhone, but to note, the iPhone is not the best selling phone brand nor dominates the international market. Same way Apple is not the #1 computer maker. So yes, focus and consistency brings tremendous value, but there are many other ways to get that level of value, and many customers will have different priorities. (I also don't think any brands need to be #1, being profitable should be enough, but I am more and more interested by how Windows has stayed at the top for so many years. In particular Apple progressively feels closer to Sony when it was at its peak: superbe products, strong ecosystem binging, coupled with also a heavy dose of strategy tax on how to benefit from what the other companies are doing)