6 ms·

It’s more that Meta uses the showing of incomplete & currently not functional hardware/software as a marketing ploy. Apple has never really done that (at least

It’s more that Meta uses the showing of incomplete & currently not functional hardware/software as a marketing ploy. Apple has never really done that (at least in the post Jobs return era). They demonstrate what their intention is… then release the device. Zip, except maybe some WWDC stuff in-between. Which makes sense: Apple is Product Vision & UX focused, Meta (and most other companies) are Product Delivery & User Consumption focused. Neither is wrong, they’re just aiming at different goals.

cscurmudgeon 3y ago
> Apple has never really done that (at least in the post Jobs return era). Apple Maps. I still remember the hilarity. https://www.tomshardware.com/picturestory/607-ios-maps-fail.html https://www.tomshardware.com/picturestory/607-ios-maps-fail....
- photonerd 3y ago
  When did they use an incomplete, pre release, version of Apple Maps for tech journalism marketing? They didn’t. So not a counter example.
  - cscurmudgeon 3y ago
    Isn't Apple known for demoing pre release versions of everything on stage? I think that fairly counts as a "marketing ploy"? Apple is so good at it that folks that folks don't even realize what is happening. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BVthxoS6H9k https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BVthxoS6H9k
    - threeseed 3y ago
      I wouldn't call that pre-release by the standard definition. The product is complete and it's just about ramping up production and sending stock to retail stores.
    - photonerd 3y ago
      That’s when they announce it, yes. That’s usually they only time they do that. Compare with Meta: pretty sure this is the 3rd “sneak peak” cycle on this hardware in the last couple of months.
      - sgift 3y ago
        No, it's not. It's different technologies each time that their research lab is working on at the moment.
SV_BubbleTime 3y ago
There was that Apple wireless charging pad that never came out because they couldn’t get it to work.
- photonerd 3y ago
  But that’s sort of what I mean: announced, never any mention again. Just cancelled. No additional “here’s that thing but it’s half built”, just… dropped And it’s a pretty rare thing to have that mode of failure for them.
  - chaostheory 3y ago
    Yeah, I feel that this is why Apple announcements are exciting: they won’t show prototypes that may or may not be released to consumers. What they show they intend to ship within a year.
- giobox 3y ago
  There was also the infamous white iPhone 4 debacle, they had almost shipped the next one the following year before anyone got a white handset. A white handset may not sound like a big deal, but people really wanted that thing. That sticks out as one of the worst delays between announcement and shipping I can recall in Apple's history (~10 months and multiple delays). > https://venturebeat.com/mobile/apple-explains-white-iphone-delay/ https://venturebeat.com/mobile/apple-explains-white-iphone-d...
  - photonerd 3y ago
    Yeah, that was a technical delay (or rather a quality delay with a technical process). Was a super interesting problem they ran into. Very fascinating from a material science standpoint
    - SV_BubbleTime 3y ago
      Can you fill me in without search? I somehow missed the whole thing.
victor106 3y ago
> Apple is Product Vision & UX focused, Meta (and most other companies) are Product Delivery & User Consumption focused. Great insight
- photonerd 3y ago
  The general maxim I always use is “Apple is a Design company.” They ship hardware & software, but their core product feature for each is the design of it. Both individually and as a whole ecosystem. It’s actually kind of incredible they’ve done so well at this after Jobs & Ive left. Speaks to their culture.
  - CharlesW 3y ago
    Related quote I like: ”Most people make the mistake of thinking design is what it looks like,” says Steve Jobs, Apple’s C.E.O. ”People think it’s this veneer — that the designers are handed this box and told, ‘Make it look good!’ That’s not what we think design is. It’s not just what it looks like and feels like. Design is how it works.” The Guts of a New Machine: https://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/30/magazine/the-guts-of-a-new-machine.html https://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/30/magazine/the-guts-of-a-ne...
    - photonerd 3y ago
      Right, exactly. I feel design has really been pigeonholed into “visual design” by many.
    - goosedragons 3y ago
      Which is funny because Apple often does design fails with regards to how stuff works. The obvious Magic Mouse 2 charging port, their mices continued insistence that there be only one physical click button so it's literally impossible to right and left click at the same time despite games and other software occasionally needing that, being maybe the only monitor manufacturer in the world to still ship a monitor with a single input, the Mac Mini constantly being plagued by Bluetooth/Wifi issues because of its chassis design etc.
namank 3y ago
> Which makes sense: Apple is Product Vision & UX focused, Meta (and most other companies) are Product Delivery & User Consumption focused. They are not competing goals. All companies have to show progress. Apple can afford to show finished products because it has multiple product lines. At any given time, at least one product line is shipping a finished version. Meta, on the other hand, won't be shipping a finished product for their pitch ("Meta"-verse) anytime soon. So they have to be content with work-in-progress.
- photonerd 3y ago
  > They are not competing goals. They are competing focuses however. Obviously they can all be satisfied, but you can’t focus on all of it. Otherwise it becomes “everything is a priority, so nothing is”. I’ve worked at places that tried that. It’s foolhardy & doomed.
sangnoir 3y ago
> Apple has never really done that (at least in the post Jobs return era). The trashcan Mac Pro desktop was heavily promoted to tech journalists before release to try and keep pro users from abandoning Apple. IPads and iPhones were going gangbusters then, and Apple had gone a long time without refreshing the Mac Pro. The common sentiment was Apple no longer cared about professionals that required workstation-level performance. IIRC, this was in the aftermath of the release of a neutered Final Cut Pro which seemed to cater more to prosumers than pros, since it removed key features. The intention was to signal pros to hang in there, and then the trashcan got released and had perf issues with throttling due to thermal challenges. Good times.
- photonerd 3y ago
  That’s true, though it was mostly only around the announce cycle part of that phase. Definitely a stronger push around it for sure tho. (I still say it was a great design, they just best on the wrong direction of chip/etc tech with it so it rapidly got useless)
- dev_tty01 3y ago
  > The trashcan Mac Pro desktop was heavily promoted to tech journalists They had one meeting where they told journalists they were not going to abandon the pro market space. This was when the trashcan had been out for a long time. Too long in fact. > The intention was to signal pros to hang in there, and then the trashcan got released No, the trashcan was released way before that meeting. One of the things discussed in the meeting was limitations of the trash can form factor.
  - sangnoir 3y ago
    > No, the trashcan was released way before that meeting I'm afraid you're referring to yet another Mac Pro marketing push that came later (for the 2019 "Lattice" / cheese grater redux version). I just looked up the dates & it lines up with my recollection and initial comment: the previous refresh (pre-trashcan) was in 2010. The Final Cut "Pro" X release that frustrated video professionals came out in 2011 and the trashcan itself was finally released in 2013. A lot of loyal video pros abandoned Apple for the Adobe/PC ecosystem in that era.
starluz 3y ago
Exactly. Meta always shows a preview because as you said their focus is user consumption - their vision is completely dependent on how the public vision forms around their idea. Beyond their core idea I think they observe usage and then figure out how to best exploit that. We’re seeing it now with threads- they’ve basically piloted it and have tons of data to guide their path to profitability. It seems they’re figuring out how to do this with hardware - by giving public previews they can gather all feedback. Tldr when your goal is to exploit peoples time you are reactive more than innovative, less secrets other than understanding human nature. When the goal like apple is to create the sleekest highest status product, it must be original and based on more objective standards (like aesthetics)
anonymouse008 3y ago
AirPower would like a word
- photonerd 3y ago
  Reread what I wrote: follows the same pattern.
langsoul-com 3y ago
The difference is Apple can drop 1 video of vr and get 400k sales. Meta cannot. Basically nobody can. Meta must drum up interest and hype to get people continuing to care about vr.

cscurmudgeon 3y ago

> Apple has never really done that (at least in the post Jobs return era). Apple Maps. I still remember the hilarity. https://www.tomshardware.com/picturestory/607-ios-maps-fail.html https://www.tomshardware.com/picturestory/607-ios-maps-fail....

photonerd 3y ago
When did they use an incomplete, pre release, version of Apple Maps for tech journalism marketing? They didn’t. So not a counter example.
- cscurmudgeon 3y ago
  Isn't Apple known for demoing pre release versions of everything on stage? I think that fairly counts as a "marketing ploy"? Apple is so good at it that folks that folks don't even realize what is happening. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BVthxoS6H9k https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BVthxoS6H9k
  - threeseed 3y ago
    I wouldn't call that pre-release by the standard definition. The product is complete and it's just about ramping up production and sending stock to retail stores.
  - photonerd 3y ago
    That’s when they announce it, yes. That’s usually they only time they do that. Compare with Meta: pretty sure this is the 3rd “sneak peak” cycle on this hardware in the last couple of months.
    - sgift 3y ago
      No, it's not. It's different technologies each time that their research lab is working on at the moment.

SV_BubbleTime 3y ago

There was that Apple wireless charging pad that never came out because they couldn’t get it to work.

photonerd 3y ago
But that’s sort of what I mean: announced, never any mention again. Just cancelled. No additional “here’s that thing but it’s half built”, just… dropped And it’s a pretty rare thing to have that mode of failure for them.
- chaostheory 3y ago
  Yeah, I feel that this is why Apple announcements are exciting: they won’t show prototypes that may or may not be released to consumers. What they show they intend to ship within a year.
giobox 3y ago
There was also the infamous white iPhone 4 debacle, they had almost shipped the next one the following year before anyone got a white handset. A white handset may not sound like a big deal, but people really wanted that thing. That sticks out as one of the worst delays between announcement and shipping I can recall in Apple's history (~10 months and multiple delays). > https://venturebeat.com/mobile/apple-explains-white-iphone-delay/ https://venturebeat.com/mobile/apple-explains-white-iphone-d...
- photonerd 3y ago
  Yeah, that was a technical delay (or rather a quality delay with a technical process). Was a super interesting problem they ran into. Very fascinating from a material science standpoint
  - SV_BubbleTime 3y ago
    Can you fill me in without search? I somehow missed the whole thing.

victor106 3y ago

> Apple is Product Vision & UX focused, Meta (and most other companies) are Product Delivery & User Consumption focused. Great insight

photonerd 3y ago
The general maxim I always use is “Apple is a Design company.” They ship hardware & software, but their core product feature for each is the design of it. Both individually and as a whole ecosystem. It’s actually kind of incredible they’ve done so well at this after Jobs & Ive left. Speaks to their culture.
- CharlesW 3y ago
  Related quote I like: ”Most people make the mistake of thinking design is what it looks like,” says Steve Jobs, Apple’s C.E.O. ”People think it’s this veneer — that the designers are handed this box and told, ‘Make it look good!’ That’s not what we think design is. It’s not just what it looks like and feels like. Design is how it works.” The Guts of a New Machine: https://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/30/magazine/the-guts-of-a-new-machine.html https://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/30/magazine/the-guts-of-a-ne...
  - photonerd 3y ago
    Right, exactly. I feel design has really been pigeonholed into “visual design” by many.
  - goosedragons 3y ago
    Which is funny because Apple often does design fails with regards to how stuff works. The obvious Magic Mouse 2 charging port, their mices continued insistence that there be only one physical click button so it's literally impossible to right and left click at the same time despite games and other software occasionally needing that, being maybe the only monitor manufacturer in the world to still ship a monitor with a single input, the Mac Mini constantly being plagued by Bluetooth/Wifi issues because of its chassis design etc.

namank 3y ago

> Which makes sense: Apple is Product Vision & UX focused, Meta (and most other companies) are Product Delivery & User Consumption focused. They are not competing goals. All companies have to show progress. Apple can afford to show finished products because it has multiple product lines. At any given time, at least one product line is shipping a finished version. Meta, on the other hand, won't be shipping a finished product for their pitch ("Meta"-verse) anytime soon. So they have to be content with work-in-progress.

photonerd 3y ago
> They are not competing goals. They are competing focuses however. Obviously they can all be satisfied, but you can’t focus on all of it. Otherwise it becomes “everything is a priority, so nothing is”. I’ve worked at places that tried that. It’s foolhardy & doomed.

sangnoir 3y ago

> Apple has never really done that (at least in the post Jobs return era). The trashcan Mac Pro desktop was heavily promoted to tech journalists before release to try and keep pro users from abandoning Apple. IPads and iPhones were going gangbusters then, and Apple had gone a long time without refreshing the Mac Pro. The common sentiment was Apple no longer cared about professionals that required workstation-level performance. IIRC, this was in the aftermath of the release of a neutered Final Cut Pro which seemed to cater more to prosumers than pros, since it removed key features. The intention was to signal pros to hang in there, and then the trashcan got released and had perf issues with throttling due to thermal challenges. Good times.

photonerd 3y ago
That’s true, though it was mostly only around the announce cycle part of that phase. Definitely a stronger push around it for sure tho. (I still say it was a great design, they just best on the wrong direction of chip/etc tech with it so it rapidly got useless)
dev_tty01 3y ago
> The trashcan Mac Pro desktop was heavily promoted to tech journalists They had one meeting where they told journalists they were not going to abandon the pro market space. This was when the trashcan had been out for a long time. Too long in fact. > The intention was to signal pros to hang in there, and then the trashcan got released No, the trashcan was released way before that meeting. One of the things discussed in the meeting was limitations of the trash can form factor.
- sangnoir 3y ago
  > No, the trashcan was released way before that meeting I'm afraid you're referring to yet another Mac Pro marketing push that came later (for the 2019 "Lattice" / cheese grater redux version). I just looked up the dates & it lines up with my recollection and initial comment: the previous refresh (pre-trashcan) was in 2010. The Final Cut "Pro" X release that frustrated video professionals came out in 2011 and the trashcan itself was finally released in 2013. A lot of loyal video pros abandoned Apple for the Adobe/PC ecosystem in that era.

starluz 3y ago

Exactly. Meta always shows a preview because as you said their focus is user consumption - their vision is completely dependent on how the public vision forms around their idea. Beyond their core idea I think they observe usage and then figure out how to best exploit that. We’re seeing it now with threads- they’ve basically piloted it and have tons of data to guide their path to profitability. It seems they’re figuring out how to do this with hardware - by giving public previews they can gather all feedback. Tldr when your goal is to exploit peoples time you are reactive more than innovative, less secrets other than understanding human nature. When the goal like apple is to create the sleekest highest status product, it must be original and based on more objective standards (like aesthetics)

anonymouse008 3y ago

AirPower would like a word

photonerd 3y ago
Reread what I wrote: follows the same pattern.

langsoul-com 3y ago

The difference is Apple can drop 1 video of vr and get 400k sales. Meta cannot. Basically nobody can. Meta must drum up interest and hype to get people continuing to care about vr.