You know what's so great about Apple? They have the entire recipe down pat. The come up with a concept, and create a drop-dead simple way to do the top 10% of user-requested features. They create that 10%, however, with 100% reliability. They really do very little from a feature standpoint, but they do it very, very well. They make sure the HW and SW play together flawlessly, and not just in the demo, but for every customer.
I agree.
I'll take a product that delivers 10% of the featureset 100% of the time, over a product that delivers 100% only 10% of the time. Companies fail because they cannot focus on the critical few elements of success, and simply nail them.
We know that demos can be compelling. But if you buy on the demo without knowing anything about real-world performance, you are taking a big risk. Don't be a lemming, and unless you have a ton on money to waste or are an early adopter [aka "a ton of money to waste"] or a reviewer [aka "willing to waste a ton of other people's money" - boy I want that job!] you absolutely MUST know something about the robustness of the product you are going to buy.
You either trust others or look at the data yourself. Problem with simply reading reviews, most reviewers don't give a rip about robustness. They are only into what is cool and new and can get copy read and get page views. Robustness is boring. But boy does it cost. Not necessarily today, or tomorrow. But believe me it will cost YOU eventually if you don't do your homework.
Is a product worth buying? Check it out. Simple math is your friend. Divide the total cost [buyin plus maintenance] over the lifetime, minus the buyout[if you sell it] by the total time you used the product. That will give you your cost per unit time. IF most people did this calculation for their cell phones, including contract, they would be appalled to see they are spending over $150-200 a MONTH so they can tweet, surf, and chat. Thats a lot of cash to do little more than waste theirs and other people's time.
Do the math, think, and by all means don't buy into the fanboy excitement. Unless you can really afford it.
What do you think? Is reliability important? Or would you rather just have something cool? Comment and let me know....
Agreed. Do a few things very well.
ReplyDeleteI have no objection to paying a lot of money for toys, as long as I've done the math, and know I'm spending it. We do indeed trick ourselves into thinking that we can solve business problems with more technology. Instead, we end up spending more time, money and frustration on the geek toys, and still haven't addressed the human origins of the problems.
ReplyDeleteThin slicing. Do one thing better than anyone else, or do a very small set of things absolutely flawlessly.
We're already used to this in other areas. How many things does that pricey knife in the kitchen do? Exactly one, really. But there is nothing that thrills a chef more than a perfectly balanced finely honed properly shaped knife.
Nobody in their right mind uses a Swiss Army Knife in the kitchen. As much as I'd love a little digital 'Swiss Army Knife' that was a phone, mp3 player, web browser, calendar, contact manager, voice recorder, video recorder, etc., I do not want it to do most of these things half-heartedly.
I think your right on with this one
ReplyDeleteThanks for the comments. As always, feel free to suggest topics, post comments, opinions, rants, etc!
ReplyDeletetom
Spinhead, you have it exactly right. It is very rare [if ever] that a "multi-purpose] device does any one thing better than something targetted specifically at the main task.
ReplyDeleteFor instance, when phones need to be more than simply phones [like "smartphones"]...is when the real challenges begin, right?
iPhone is pretty good - but if it were not a good phone to begin with, I doubt it would be as successful as it is.
tom
I agree 10% of the critical feature set working reliably is more important to users than all of the features working well only part of the time. But what about software companies that already have a reliable feature set but then make it worse in the name of progress by "updating" their features, or simply resting on their laurels and not updating at all? (I'm thinking particularly of Adobe's graphic programs for the Mac here.) Apple is indeed admirable by knowing what to change and, more importantly, know what NOT to change.
ReplyDeleteGreat point Eric,
ReplyDeleteNew or updated features should always be driven by a legitimate customer need, otherwise they are nothing but marketing tactics. For example, why completely change a UX unless the current one is somehow substandard? [I'm thinking about MS Office].
The new reality should always be better than the old...and you need concrete metrics to tell that. If you don't have such metrics...you are literally flying blind.
Agree Apple, again, seems to have the right mix here too.
There is indeed a massive amount of change for the sake of change. I like the concept the 37 Signals folks put in their book 'Getting Real'—ignore users' feature requests because they're generally submitted by the vocal minority. Changes should be improvements. Should be obvious, but it's not.
ReplyDeleteBarry Schwartz's 'Paradox of Change' covers it all in great detail—more choices, more options, more everything—it usually makes things worse, harder, less satisfying.
I may have crossed the Fanboy line with the iPhone. Such a great device. Expensive, but it does deliver huge value. The easy touch-controlled interface to Google maps w/ GPS is one example. No more maps in the car, or getting lost when you make a wrong turn. Yay!
ReplyDeleteYep I know what you mean! Palm Pre is exciting...but I want something I KNOW will work for the next 2years [I'm not one of those guys that eats the contract cost early], has a ton of app support, and is cool also! Cool is not first, but it is required!
ReplyDeleteSo I guess you and I are both heading off to the Apple store on June 19!
Thanks for the comment.