The Apple Difference?

[icecrystal23]

I was trying to prioritize my tasks at work today. We have a lot of bugs to work on, but the customer seems really concerned about "fit and finish". This got me thinking... maybe it is better to have a really good-looking application with some bugs rather than an application that appears buggy.

I bet that's part of the Apple philosophy. It looks like it works most of the time, even if there are some minor functional issues here and there.

What do you think?

 

[notjustjay]

I don't think the two should be mutually exclusive. All software will have minor bugs, but you should still make every effort to test as thoroughly as possible. But, yes, software that is clearly designed well and looks good is much more pleasant to use, and it's easier to excuse the odd bug or two if your users are generally more productive and happier to use the software.

 

[icecrystal23]

Haha... well yes, you should have good looking and good working software I suppose I'm talking about the general case where there isn't time to make it perfect in every way.

 

[maflynn]

I bet that's part of the Apple philosophy. It looks like it works most of the time, even if there are some minor functional issues here and there.

My opinion is that apple has a zealous attitude towards details which shows up as great looking devices (and apps) that have minimal problems. I think you have it wrong by making something look great but has issues, or something that looks ok but has less bugs.

Many people buy apple products because they just work, now nothing is perfect and bugs do creep into their products but the overall philosophy is an incredible focus on details.

So if you want to follow Apple's example you need to make a great looking app that has little to none bugs.

 

[KnightWRX]

All software will have minor bugs

now nothing is perfect

I guess not everyone knows about Donald Knuth and TeX then... (I kid of course, even that has/had bugs, but it's one of the most perfect and bug free program out there and Don is probably one of the best minds in programming out there).

 

[notjustjay]

Haha... well yes, you should have good looking and good working software I suppose I'm talking about the general case where there isn't time to make it perfect in every way.

I don't have any actual figures on how Apple stands against their competitors in terms of time-to-release or time between releases, but it always feels like they're slow to release upgrades or new software (certainly, MacRumors folks are always clamoring for the next update, now). If they are truly slower than the competition, then I like to think this is their way of making time to try and iron out the experience as much as possible.

Then there are the stories of Steve forcing teams to scrap what they've got and start over again. Multiple times, even. He's not interested in patching up something that's "close enough". That's a pretty gutsy approach.

 

[Charlie Sheen]

I think if the app looks good then it gives the impression that it also works well.

 

[Nightarchaon]

I think the phlosopy is :

Old tech (compared to the PCs its competeing with, OS notwithstading) , Repackaged to look pretty, sold at a premium with as closed an ecosystem as possible = no one notices the shortcommings and we make tons of $$$$.

it doesnt matter whats under the hood with apple, as long as it looks pretty, does the job, and makes them money,

 

[grawk]

Yah, their being the first to market with almost every recent intel chipset certainly suggests they're trying to make money by selling repackaged old technology...

 

[tkermit]

This got me thinking... maybe it is better to have a really good-looking application with some bugs rather than an application that appears buggy.

Certainly one would be more tolerant of bugs with a well-designed application.

Reminds me of this article:

Do attractive products actually work better? This idea was tested in a study conducted in 1995 (and then again in 1997). Donald Norman describes it in detail in his book Emotional Design.

Researchers in Japan setup two ATMs, “identical in function, the number of buttons, and how they worked.” The only difference was that one machine’s buttons and screens were arranged more attractively than the other. In both Japan and Israel (where this study was repeated) researchers observed that subjects encountered fewer difficulties with the more attractive machine. The attractive machine actually worked better.

So now we’re left with this question: why did the more attractive but otherwise identical ATM perform better?

Norman offers an explanation, citing evolutionary biology and what we know about how our brains work. Basically, when we are relaxed, our brains are more flexible and more likely to find workarounds to difficult problems. In contrast, when we are frustrated and tense, our brains get a sort of tunnel vision where we only see the problem in front of us. How many times, in a fit of frustration, have you tried the same thing over and over again, hoping it would somehow work the seventeenth time around?

Another explanation: We want those things we find pleasing to succeed. We’re more tolerant of problems with things that we find attractive.

 

[Paulywauly]

I always figured the Apple difference boiled down to this; they concentrate more on the user experience than competing head to head with other manufacturers in raw device spec.

You go into a computer shop and there are a dozen box manufacturers competing on a spec/price basis, the majority of people will look at the spec of one they like then weigh it against others around the same price range and the manufacturers know this. Apple wont compete in this manner, they'll release attractive devices which are fashionable then add functions which they are happy are implemented properly (most of the time anyway)

Good examples of this are the iPod/iPhone. Before these music players and phones were sold mainly on spec alone with second rate software. Apple came in selling a better user experience, e.g. the best ipod/email/intranet on a phone, rather than putting more megapixels in its built in camera and more internal memory