This kind of thinking is what has allowed Apple to sweep up so much damn money, along with ownership of the DAP and tablet markets. Give people what they actually need instead of filling out spec lists to appeal to the nerds.
But that was not because the iPod had no wireless, neither because it had less space than Nomad. I hope we can all agree, with the benefit of hindsight, that the reason for the slow uptake of the iPod was a combination of it being Firewire only, it being Mac only, Apple not being the brand they are now, and the fact that people were not really familiar with and didn't quite understand the concept of digital music.
I think we're both making the same point here - the original iPod had a lot of friction holding it back with consumers. What I was attempting to elude to was this: until the iPod had better connectivity options (USB and PC support) in addition to reaching storage parity (40gb by gen 3) it finally blossomed and took over the market. It's not that the 1st gen iPod was garbage - it wasn't - it just lacked some crucial components before it could conquer the market.
Apple doesn't have to do much to appeal to the mass market of people that purchase their products. The iPad 2 could have only added a camera, and it would sell by the millions this year.
Apple has very good PR. It's allowed them to create a nice ecosystem of brand loyalty where people will always come out to buy their "next great thing" year after year. They've made a good profit from it, so it must be working.
When you go beyond the people that buy Apple products because they're Apple products, to people that actually make a conscious and informed decision about what they buy, there are definitely several valid concerns and reasons not to buy into it. Pointing to large sales numbers as a counter-argument to criticism is just plain silly.
> Apple doesn't have to do much to appeal to the mass market of people that purchase their products.
Of course they do. They're not selling $20 pairs of jeans, here. They're selling expensive stuff that requires a conscious decision to purchase. Apple needs to provide a compelling case to move their product. It's not practical to buy something just because it's from Apple. It has to actually do something for you as a user.
> Apple has very good PR.
This line is exhausting. Apple has very good products. The great marketing and PR is a result of having very good products.
You can't sell 15 million units of a brand new, $500 product in nine months on the strength of TV ads and magazine pieces. It has to actually work well. There may be an initial element of brand trust to grease the skids for launch but sustained sales require something real.
My parents aren't Apple fans. They're not nerds. They spend a lot of time frustrated with technology. They're nuts about their iPad because it works really well. That's it. Adding a USB port isn't going to make them like it better. It's going to make it more complex, which is going to degrade their experience in using it.
"Oh, well, that whole 12 hour battery thing? Doesn't count if you use the USB port. Then it's something else."
"What? Why?"
"USB uses power."
"Why?"
etc.
> Pointing to large sales numbers as a counter-argument to criticism is just plain silly.
You continue to miss the point. The criticism isn't valid. Apple has sold a shitload of iPads on the strength of its simplicity. You're talking about making it less simple. In that case, its success is more than ample refutation of your assertion that adding junk to its spec list is going to somehow improve things.
It's like saying, around 1950 "Hey, turn the automobile into a Rhinoceros – then it'll be able to hit things with its horns."
"But people don't buy cars to do that. Look how well they're selling."
"Sales are not a valid refutation of my criticism that cars have no horns to hit things with!"
etc.
But like I said: Chalking it all up to clever marketing, instead of painstaking investments in software design, hardware fabrication and supply chain optimization is how everyone else keeps dropping the ball while Apple sprints all the way to the bank year after year.
>>My parents aren't Apple fans. They're not nerds. They spend a lot of time frustrated with technology. They're nuts about their iPad because it works really well. That's it. Adding a USB port isn't going to make them like it better. It's going to make it more complex, which is going to degrade their experience in using it.
This is interesting. I'm curious, how do they manage the music/photos/videos in their ipad? Doesn't syncing by cord with the computer a messy thing? Or do you do it for them? How do they use it?
If Apple had added a USB port, the same folks would be singing praises on it. Same thing happened with the G5 to Intel switch. The exact same people who were railing on Intel and praising the G5 for speed/features etc. did a complete aboutface.
You honestly don't believe that most Apple customers just buy Apple products because of the brand name on the box?
Go survey anyone buying the products in the store or online. See how long it takes you to get an answer along the lines of: "I researched all my options and this seemed like the best choice."
> You can't sell 15 million units of a brand new, $500 product in nine months on the strength of TV ads and magazine pieces. It has to actually work well.
The iPad by any other name and company would not have sold close to that amount.
>You honestly don't believe that most Apple customers just buy Apple products because of the brand name on the box?
This is a ridiculous stance. It is dismissive and doesn't explain how Apple turned around from being an almost bankrupt company to what it is today.
You ignore how that brand was built. Esp when Apple was on the verge of death in the late 90's. They couldn't rely on their brand at that point, could they? Apple as a powerhouse is a relatively recent phenomenon.
It's like saying Zappos customers are only loyal to Zappos because of their brand, and not their customer service. Their customer service is how they built their brand. Similarly, Apple built their brand on some really great products.
> The iPad by any other name and company would not have sold close to that amount.
That's definitely true. An iPad by another company would not sell anywhere close to 15 million units in nine months. Why?
* Low standards for overall product quality, along with short term gotta make Wall Street happy this quarter thinking, so products get rushed to market
* Sloppy software/hardware integration
* No access to 20 years of NeXTStep/OS X libraries and tools to build an awesome developer experience, so apps will suck
* No supply chain optimization to provide an outstanding form factor at a compelling price
* No consistent, worldwide retail presence to allow users to experiment with the new product and have questions answered
* No culture of absurd exhaustive prototyping to ensure that the user experience works well once the product is in the hands of customers
> You honestly don't believe that most Apple customers just buy Apple products because of the brand name on the box?
I honestly believe the Apple brand gets people into the store. Once they're in the store, the actual product sells itself. Any further influence of the brand in the purchasing decision comes down to the simple truth that Apple has been consistently making better shit than everyone else for years. But you can't pay a PR firm for that.
You haven't actually tried being an Apple user outside of the first world, have you?
Apple's consistent, worldwide retail presence in Poland consists of two "Apple shops" in Warsaw [1]. Apple's consistent, worldwide retail presence in Trinidad and Tobago consists of not-officially-authorized resellers [2]. These are not the exceptions.
I was in Hong Kong a few months ago. Apple doesn't have any of their own stores there but I was surprised how many third party retailers picked up on doing things their way.
In the IFC, an awesome knockoff of a real Apple store sells Macs and iPads in a bright, open space, letting users kick the tires.
A Fortress store in Macau wasn't nearly as Apple-like as all that, but you could still poke around at a real iPad.
They may not be, themselves, in every single country, but 300 stores on four continents and in eleven countries is a much bigger hands-on presence than other competing tablet manufacturers can claim, without even getting into the third party distributors that cover even more of the globe.
"No wireless. Less space than a nomad. Lame."
This kind of thinking is what has allowed Apple to sweep up so much damn money, along with ownership of the DAP and tablet markets. Give people what they actually need instead of filling out spec lists to appeal to the nerds.