John Gruber: design quality and enjoyment of the consumer as a guarantee of survival
Makradar Technologies / / December 19, 2019
"Apple" blogger John Gruber is known, including, and concise articles in his blog. However, from time to time it "breaks" in the long thorough reflection on any topic. The following text - the translation is just one of these articles, which is devoted to the arguments of those who He believes that Apple is still moribund, and what does Apple really need business to thrive and future.
* * *
For the past two weeks I think of Ben Thompson's article, "What's wrong Clayton Christensen with his theory of the budget of destruction."
For corporate buyers, of course, the experience of interaction completely irrelevant. They are not users, so that their decision-making process does not affect all sorts of details that define the feeling of use of the device or remove any annoying little things.
Although, again, research Christensen refers to corporate buyers. It is particularly important that these line items and personal computers. Virtually all the time of their existence, the overwhelming majority of customer PCs were just companies that are oriented primarily on price. […]
The most important quality for users - if we assume that the product is at least in a general approach meets their needs - is ease of use. It is not only important quality (although the performance of the urgent tasks is still the highest priority), but all things being equal consumers prefer a great experience of interaction.
The most interesting thing in this capacity that it is impossible to go beyond any limits.
In a sense, one can discern two "bear" argument against Apple (bears called speculators, who sell shares to reduce their rate - approx. Ed.). The first is that Apple could create a bunch of high-quality products with excellent experience of interaction - but cost competitors in spite of everything reach a certain "reasonable" point when they can break the business Apple. I think this fragment Thompson gave a good argument that this logic does not apply to consumer markets, especially those with a greater role played by the fashion, style and design. A fashion and design have always been essential attributes of mobile phones.
The analogy with the automotive industry has always been used in disputes about Apple, but it seems to me, only because it is well suited. The automotive market has long resist him a century of history, in which there were also periods of "breaking the budget Clayton": an increase in imports Japanese cars in the 70-80s and the associated end of collective dominance in the market of the companies Ford, GM and Chrysler - good example. But it is also undeniable fact that there is a stable and profitable premium segment of the market, with which BMW, Mercedes-Benz and Porche. Point to this fact, and someone will argue, saying, of course, these companies are flourishing, but the market share they are too small.
Thompson articulates this perfectly:
The problem that I had with this analysis of vertical integration - what I was teaching the people in business school - is here considered as a cost only monetary facilities. But there are other types of costs, the volume of which is much more difficult to calculate. Modularization entails the design of cost and experience in the use of these products, which can not be formulated and, therefore, one can not measure. Corporate buyers - and watching them intelligence - simply ignore such costs, but not consumers. Some consumers, by definition, know and appreciate the quality, appearance, attention to detail, and therefore willing to pay for a premium product is much more than the financial cost of the vertical integration.
How you measure Delight?
The second "bear" argument against Apple leads those who believe that Apple already lost its advantages in the design and experience of interaction: devices from Samsung, Amazon, Google and others have caught up with and surpassed Apple products, while they cost much cheaper. According to the logic of the critics, the nine million people who bought a new iPhone in the first weekend of sales, just have not woken up. And I? I believe that the second group is wrong about the benefits of Apple design. But what they are right, it is in Apple's strategic needs. For Apple, the only way to continue its success remains the same as it has been the past 30 years: to produce superior products and interfaces that exceed those of their competitors.
As I understand, the first group of "bears" is mistaken about the possibility of high-quality design to be a life-sustaining advantage in the phone market, and tablets. The second group is wrong is that Apple products do not exceed the design of its competitors. These two arguments are not only different in themselves - they also contradict each other. But if to outline the whole situation schematically, many of those who prefer to look at the prospects of Apple in a negative light - those who, in the words of Horace Dediu, Apple sees «as a company in an endless free fall "- mixing the two" bear "flow, resulting in the fact that the Samsung as the liquid argument, LG and others lead to the iPhone and iPad of death. For these people, a huge market share of Android - irrefutable proof of correctness of one or the other (or both at once) subspecies "bears."
* * *
However, there is a third for "apple bear", whose philosophy is perhaps the best, and that most often supported by Henry Blodget (site Business Insider editor, known for its critical attitude to Apple - approx. trans.). According to this philosophy, in one way or another, a good design can be a determining quality only in some areas, but it does not define the entire software platform. As soon as the software platform occupies a large part of the market, developers will inevitably be drawn to it, relying solely on its market share, while neglecting its technical and / or aesthetic imperfection. For example, BMW is thriving because its cars run on petrol and also go through the same roads that other cars, but the iPhone will inevitably wither as soon as the developers throw it in favor Android.
Here is an excerpt from the article Blodgett «Apple myopia, which can lead to the collapse of the company":
If smartphones and tablets were not the platform - if only product quality and the reason for its purchase was the gadget itself - Apple's market share loss would have amounted to no difference. The "apple" fans would be right, arrogantly claiming that Apple is only important "profit share", and not "market share."
However, smartphones and tablets - it is a platform.
Others companies are building applications and services that run on smartphones and tablets. In turn, these applications and services make the platform more valuable. Customers build their lives around the applications and services that run on their smartphones and tablets. And it is precisely because of these "network effects" on the platform market share of the dominant is a huge competitive advantage.
On the platform market - both at the time showed often hated, but always incredibly powerful Microsoft in the market personal computers - the lion's share of power and profitability eventually accumulated in the hands of the companies with the largest market share.
In other words, the "apple Bears' third subtype adhere to the theory that iOS acts as Macs, Android - a new Windows, and Apple will soon be back to their 1990s.
I agree with Blodget only on one point: Mac and its long-standing rivalry with Windows in particular, and the PC-industry in general, are a good example. But I do not agree with the conclusion Predozheniye.
For me, Mac is the platform that has experienced their darkest times is not so much because of its small market share, but because of the loss of supremacy in terms of design and technology. Market share decline was the result of Mac problems, and not vice versa. In the 90s and the hardware and software of the Apple products is poor. Aesthetically, Maki were simply a more likeable beige boxes that were sold in more than confusing array of products (more article on "Wikipedia" on the Performa series you can not see). Apple is constantly fighting for something that its processors are comparable to the Intel x86-chips. If we talk about software, Mac OS hopelessly out of date, and Apple trying to create an operating system of the new generation with a bang failed one after another. Then came Windows 95.
Their computers were ugly, slow, and sold by a strange pattern. Their operating system was technically imperfect (remember cooperative multitasking?) And on the background of Windows 95 looked just old-fashioned. In short, design Apple on all fronts was limping on both legs.
However, with the market share they have all been fairly evenly: 12% peak in 1993, something around 10% in the ensuing dark years (in the US).
Skip to 2003, six years after Jobs and his fellow NeXT returned to Apple and took control of the company itself - a situation already looked different. With the range of devices from different colored aimag to titanium G4 PowerBook and the successful transition to a technically and aesthetically improved Mac OS X (Which embraced warmly and users, and developers), only neproshibaemy "bear" might continue to see in Macs (and in most Apple) living corpse.
However, in 2003 the market share of the Mac accounted for only 2.3% - much less than what it was in 1996, when Apple was one step away from bankruptcy.
Restoring the Mac platform gave the reverse effect and resulted in a decrease in the market share of Macs. The only solution that occurred to the steering dying Apple, - to license the Mac OS to use third-party "Mac clones." This decision was motivated by one desire - to increase the market share for the sake of increasing the market share. However, throughout the history of the Macintosh its success in fact has always been related to the fact that the design characteristics - hardware and software, engineering and Aesthetics - were built in the superlative degree, so valued by consumers market premium segment.
Finally, the drum "network effects," in which Blodget beat years away - a real and important factor. But today's computers - PCs, phones, tablets, taken together - are in fact only a single universal client platform - the Internet. In the 90s, while the Mac and Apple went to the bottom, compatibility Excange meant to connect to servers, reading and editing Microsoft Word, Excel, and PowerPoint. Today, the word compatibility It was extremely succinct. Twitter, Facebook, email and, on a lower level, HTTP available on all platforms.
Jean-Louis Gasse, a few days after the article Blodzhera well formulated this argument:
Interpret the story as you wish, but the facts show a very different. Yes, Redmond Death Star swept 90% PC market, but to take over all the resources in the ecosystem it failed. Space for the survival of Mac was more than enough, in spite of its small market share.
And, of course, the market saturation of PC clones played the role of a powerful equalizer and means of price suppression. Microsoft has had the lion's share of the funds, which it seized by de facto monopoly doublet Windows + Office, while hardware manufacturers are fighting over crumbs from the royal table (on the mind come netbooks). Current revenue, HP Personal Systems Group - still the world's largest PC maker - was just some pathetic 3% in the last quarter. In contrast, Apple's market share in the PC market is about 10%, but the share of Mac in the United States accounted for 90 % Segment computers cost from $ 1000, and the company boasts a margin of 25 to 35 %.
Surviving after a hard birth, relentless pressure platforms Windows + Office and comprehensive competition from large and small PC manufacturers, Macs were viable and profitable business. Why not just watch and ah-device - like a small, but profitable market share?
The emphasis on the fact that the revenue share Apple obscenely disproportionate to her own share of the market, is not an argument in favor of the fact that the revenue share has a value, and market share - no. But the point is that Apple consumers in other demographic sense. Today on the Mac accounted for about 10% of the PC market, but it's not the 10% that are sold in a chaotic manner. Quite the opposite - 10% Apple market completely cover the premium segment. Mac users are consciously willing to pay more for a product that they think excellent.
Ben Bajarin showed that the iPhone's market share in the United States takes about the same amount of space in the phone market:
As you can see, iPhone reigns in the premium segment of the market. These estimates were before the iPhone 5c and iPhone 5s. That is why I have included a unit cost of $ 400, while the average price of iPhone 5c reaches $ 549. I have included this price mark, because I am convinced that the iPhone 5c will continue to take away market share from other devices - even those that are sold for $ 400 - which are mostly available through operators is free. Also, I am convinced, and that it happens in many regions outside the United States.
If I take into account the device at a price just above $ 500 (or that a contract worth $ 99-199), iPhone's market share amounted to approximately 70%. As you can see, on the iPhone bypasses Samsung sales in the ratio of about 3: 1, and in relation to other producers, the figure is 5: 1 or higher.
The irony is that the battle against iOS Android (or, if you prefer, iPhone and iPad vs. all other smartphones and tablets) in fact Mac is a repetition game against Windows - but not in the sense that most people think fans of this comparison. Judging by its actions, Apple has learned well the lessons learned from it 20 years ago. That is, the company has no reason to focus on pure market share, but there is every reason to continue to pay maximum attention to design and quality. If these fronts Apple will retain its leadership, Macs will show that Apple could take a dominant, stable, long-term position in terms of profits and in the mobile market - a market that already has surpassed the size of the PC market in his best years, and which, unlike the PC market continues grow.
* * *
So:
Bear argument №1: Great design does not play a role in the long term, the mobile market is sated with "good enough" competitors.
Bear argument №2: Quality is important, but the iOS-devices already lost its former luster and is not superior to competing devices from Samsung, Google or Amazon. iOS-devices simply cost more.
Bear argument №3: Design does not matter, application developers and manufacturers of peripherals switch on Android simply because of the pure market share, even if it falls primarily on the budget segment.
What is interesting, arguments 1 and 3 position refutes Macs formed on the PC market. I can bet that most of those who resort to the argument 2, - these are the same people who have long proven that Macs are no better than Windows-based computers, and just sold at a higher price and bought boobs, fallen victim to "marketing machine» Apple, if Apple advertising effects similar to telepathic tricks Jedi.
Of the three most common it seems to me the argument №1. Like any other market, the mobile market really saturated. But the point is that as the consumer market fully he will never be satisfied[1]. As I previously quoted Ben Thompson:
Some consumers, by definition, know and appreciate the quality, appearance, attention to detail, and therefore willing to pay for a premium product is much more than the financial cost of the vertical integration.
That Apple could occupy a favorable position, with a minimum number of devices and maximum profit, the number of "some" need not be even remotely commensurate with the number of the "majority."
The only catch here is what: Apple must continue to delight their customers.
— John Gruber, Daring Fireball
- It should be noted, perhaps, only the largest, historically, the difference between the Mac and the iPhone with iPad: ah-gadgets It is popular not only as a personal or educational devices, but they prefer and at the corporate market. Just try to imagine some guy who 15 years ago would have campaigned in favor of the Mac as hot as he is now praising iOS today. Many attribute the success of iOS corporate BYOD-rising popularity of policies (Bring Your Own Device - «bring their device"). In fact, BYOD means that you can use what you like, and people like iPhones and iPads. It is the triumph of admiration. ↩