Too many products.....Apple quadrant

[dukebound85]

Apple is falling back to what they did in the 90s with so many products it’s hard to know the differences

i mean just the iPhone....iPhone 12, iPhone 12 mini, iPhone 12 pro, iPhone 12 pro max, iPhone se 2

what brought clarity was the quadrant system they used to get successful. Pro and consumer levels for their devices

this is too confusing. Do I go with a iPhone se2 or the iPhone 12 mini? or the iPhone 12? Or what?

I miss the days of a SINGLE iPhone

 

[AxiomaticRubric]

I like the simplicity of Steve's need matrix (casual / professional, portable / desktop). But the needs of end users and businesses are a lot more complicated than they used to be.

I appreciate having options even if it means we get a bit of confusion.

 

[glsillygili]

Worse is the iPad range right now. iPad Air and Pro should really be merged into one product.

 

[ApfelKuchen]

As much as people believe Steve did what he did to simplify things for consumers, the fundamental problem was that the company had way too many SKUs that were each selling far too few units. The company was bleeding money, so major surgery was required.

One thing today's Apple is not doing is bleeding. There are certainly far more products and SKUs today than there were in the late '90s, but they're selling in very, very substantial quantities. There is almost always clear separation between product lines within a category, with each occupying a distinctive pricing tier. For the most part, each category has no more than three price tiers - the proverbial Goldilocks and the Three Bears system. One will seem too big/hot, one will seem too small/cold, and one will seem just right. Of course, Papa Bear would not have agreed with Goldilocks as to which chair was too big.

Growth for a company can come in a variety of forms. Sometimes it can grow on the strength of a single blockbuster product like iPhone - the proverbial better mousetrap. However, most of the time a very large company needs to expand into multiple new categories in order to sustain growth - chasing market segments that may seem small when compared to the company as a whole, but which would be huge for a smaller company, such as one the size of late '90s Apple Computer.

Is it hard to distinguish between the current crop of iPad Pros and the new iPad Air on a technical basis? Yes, in most respects other than price, where Air is still clearly occupying the mid-price tier. I expect the next crop of iPad Pros will have new features that justify the pricing gap and make Air seem less like Pro-lite.

Meantime, yes, as fans we wish we could memorize the Apple product catalog as easily as we once could. But I bet if you asked a retailer they'd tell you they love having a wider range of products - both more categories bearing the golden Apple brand name, and variety of pricing tiers within each category in order to not only send value-oriented consumers home with the cheapest Apple-branded product available, but to also send those with deeper pockets home with a product that separates them from a much larger bit of cash.

 

[iDron]

Sorry, but the reason is Apple today is a different company than Apple in 1995.

There are a ton of people who are willing to spend $1400 on a new phone every couple of years. The profit margin on these flagship phones is phenomenal for Apple. But if these are your only customers, the eco system remains quite limited. You'll have less Apps etc, so it gets much less interesting for customers, developers and content providers.

Apple phones are not cheap, but they start at $399 so you'll reach a considerable market of customers. On the other hand they are able to generate a lot of revenue of the Pro iPhone customers.

 

[Unami]

i mean just the iPhone....iPhone 12, iPhone 12 mini, iPhone 12 pro, iPhone 12 pro max, iPhone se 2

you forgot the iphone 11 and iphone Xr - so that‘s 7 devices in that category.


yes, it‘s too much, imho. i miss the old, focused lineup, and I miss the intuitive UI. it‘s no more true that you can give an iDevice to someone and they‘ll find their way around it by themself. e.g. all the swipe from the bottom/top/side/corner functions are hardly - if even - indicated by the UI, and there‘s not really a help function.

i think, we‘ll see a merging of macbooks and ipads in the future, though. With the macs getting the same a14 chips as iDevices and probably losing the dedicated gpu of the higher-end models, and idevices adapting usb-c and moving towards a tolerable amount of ram, there‘s not much difference between an ipad with a keyboard dock and a laptop any more.

 

[nick9191]

I don’t think it’s too convoluted. Even with Steve’s quadrant they still had multiple options for each machine. iMac, iMac DV, iMac DV SE etc.

The difference between Steve’s quadrant/now and say, 1996 is that it’s pretty easy to differentiate between them. You’re looking for an iPhone, do you want to spend $399, $499, $999 etc. The models are all quite different with their own feature set.

The issue in 1996 was multiple models at similar price points that seemed almost identical, and lines that were just rebadged from other products (like Macintosh Performa).

 

[theluggage]

what brought clarity was the quadrant system they used to get successful. Pro and consumer levels for their devices

I wouldn't place too much weight on the "quadrant" system:

The first thing Jobs did was to decide that Apple was making too many, diverse products and should focus on their core strengths - and devised the "quadrant" system to simplify the range.

The second thing Jobs did was to turn that on its head and go off on a complete tangent with a portable music player and online music store...

The first of those may have kept the company clinging on, but it's the second one that it on course for its current success. Unfortunately, "do something crazy and inspired" doesn't fit so well on the MBA curriculum as a nice boring Powerpoint slide showing product quadrants...

That said, the only defence of the current iPhone/iPad lineup is that the competition is far, far worse in terms of a bewildering range of overlapping products. I've just looked at the iPhone section of the Apple website and, frankly wuh?! (the trendy scrolling+animation web design is enough to condemn it in my book...)

The key problem, though, is not the 12/12 Pro/mini/max choice, it is that the SE, 11 and Xr are still hanging around (I'm guessing the Xr will disappear, but the 11 and SE look like they're part of the furniture for now) - and something similar has happened each year for a long time now: perpetuating old models instead of releasing new entry-level phones (this year is slightly better in that the current SE is only 1 year-old tech) . I'm sorry but $400-$600 is not a cheap phone and last-year's tech is not acceptable at that price. A trillion-dollar company ought to be able to come up with a new range of phones every year.

What this is really about is Apple trying to ratchet up the price of phones.

Of course, none of this matters while Apple continues to make money hand-over-fist - but the tide could very easily turn on the iPhone, which is partially a fashion item, and it could be in trouble if it finds itself having to compete on merit.

The Mac lineup is in reasonable shape at the moment (except maybe the iMac Pro which is looking increasingly like abandonware - but then it probably won't have a reason to exist in the Apple Silicon world) - but it has suffered in the past from Apple's inability to update more than 1-2 models at a time, with models/price-points taking turns to be the one that is years out of date (the Air, the Mac Pro and the Mini have taken turns in recent years).

 

[AxiomaticRubric]

The Mac lineup is in reasonable shape at the moment (except maybe the iMac Pro which is looking increasingly like abandonware - but then it probably won't have a reason to exist in the Apple Silicon world) - but it has suffered in the past from Apple's inability to update more than 1-2 models at a time, with models/price-points taking turns to be the one that is years out of date (the Air, the Mac Pro and the Mini have taken turns in recent years).

The transition to Apple Silicon will help a lot with Mac updates. Apple will no longer be trapped by Intel’s faltering chip release schedules.

On the other hand the Mac lineup will be a bit more confusing for the next two years with both Apple Silicon and Intel models available.

 

[PlayUltimate]

As "theLuggage" alluded to, these are different times. The simplicity of the quadrant made sense when the Mac was the primary product in a US-centric market. Apple is now in a global market competing in some countries with products that are much less expensive. The challenge is offering a premier & expensive product in certain markets while also allowing a lower priced product in other markets. Apple's approach seems to be working, despite the perceived confusion.

 

[theluggage]

The transition to Apple Silicon will help a lot with Mac updates. Apple will no longer be trapped by Intel’s faltering chip release schedules.

Potentially - but not if they apply the "entry level" = "old tech" principle (where "entry level" is still a premium price) and try to ratchet up the price as they have with iPhone.

On the other hand the Mac lineup will be a bit more confusing for the next two years with both Apple Silicon and Intel models available.

That's where they need to move quickly to a fairly complete lineup on Apple Silicon so they can demote Intel to a "click here if you really need Intel" backwater. They absolutely need to support Intel (which includes selling Intel Macs) for a few years to come, but they shouldn't be needing to promote them...

The PPC->Intel rollout took about 6 months from the launch of the MBP to the MacPro/XServe that completed the range, and ISTR they didn't make any PPC machines after that. However, that switch was driven by the pro market needing more horesepower, where as this one is driven by low-end power consumption/performance and high-end users might need a workflow re-think to take advantage of Apple Silicon. Then, they picked up the Windows compatibility tar baby in 2006, so putting it down is going to be tricky. On top of that, they rather carelessly launched a completely new Intel Mac Pro just 6 months before announcing the shift to Apple Silicon...

My guess is that the Intel Mac Pro will have to stay for the foreseeable future (maybe with Apple Silicon "accelerator" cards in MPX form?) but fortunately it doesn't really overlap with the other Macs (if only because of the price...)

 

[Tech198]

Apple is falling back to what they did in the 90s with so many products it’s hard to know the differences

i mean just the iPhone....iPhone 12, iPhone 12 mini, iPhone 12 pro, iPhone 12 pro max, iPhone se 2

what brought clarity was the quadrant system they used to get successful. Pro and consumer levels for their devices

this is too confusing. Do I go with a iPhone se2 or the iPhone 12 mini? or the iPhone 12? Or what?

I miss the days of a SINGLE iPhone

At least its not Android..

The argument with too many models/products would be "just gving poeple a choice" but you can do THAT forever.. When does it start to being "too much" ? Is there a limit ?

The transition to Apple Silicon will help a lot with Mac updates. Apple will no longer be trapped by Intel’s faltering chip release schedules.

That's true, now we can breath a sigh of relief and concentrate blame on Apple instead... lol..

 

[Abazigal]

Apple is falling back to what they did in the 90s with so many products it’s hard to know the differences

i mean just the iPhone....iPhone 12, iPhone 12 mini, iPhone 12 pro, iPhone 12 pro max, iPhone se 2

what brought clarity was the quadrant system they used to get successful. Pro and consumer levels for their devices

this is too confusing. Do I go with a iPhone se2 or the iPhone 12 mini? or the iPhone 12? Or what?

I miss the days of a SINGLE iPhone

Apple now serves a much larger market than it did before, and so it has more product variants with differing price points to cater to as many customers as possible.

Apple did what worked for it back then, just as it is doing what works for it now.

 

[theluggage]

The argument with too many models/products would be "just gving poeple a choice" but you can do THAT forever.. When does it start to being "too much" ? Is there a limit ?

The real problem comes when your main competitor becomes you rather than the competition and that starts to distort your product range.

That's most obvious in the Mac lineup, where (e.g.) there's no viable mid-range desktop option that might erode sales of the iMac (which forces you to buy an expensive display whether or not you want one) or the stratospherically-priced Mac Pro (which nobody who isn't already committed to a MacOS-based workflow would look twice at). Apple's website doesn't even try to compare Apple's products with the competition.

The iPhone range has - for years - been based on trying to push up the price of the flagship phone by always making the entry level a warmed-over version of an old model. Again, they're relying on the fact that you already decided to buy an iPhone, whatever.

 

[ruka.snow]

Apple indeed need to big time simplify the range of products. Thankfully though they aren't Microsoft/Dell levels, but they are edging into it with mini, max, air lines. We have a MacBook Air but no MacBook??

Macbook -> Macbook Pro
Mac mini -> Mac -> Mac Pro
Pad mini -> Pad -> Pad Pro
Phone -> Phone pro (instead of a max you can use screen size like the watch)

It is also a wee bit past time to drop i from the titles.

 

[dasmb]

The landscape has changed a bit since 1997. Apple used to be an underdog who did their own manufacturing; having too many products was bleeding them dry. They're now a top player who outsources manufacturing -- meaning that even the least popular option can sell profitably, and the cost of keeping around last year's unit is very low. Now, having more products is an asset -- your low end product doesn't need a redesign or any new manufacturing as it's just last year's product, so you can keep it around to woo "price conscious consumers" (i.e. tightwads).

I look at the iPhone landscape, and while it seems complex there are really three questions that identify the exact phone you want:
- Am I willing to pay for the newest model? (If no: iPhone 11 or SE)
- If so, am I willing to pay for the greatest camera? (If so: iPhone 12 Pro or Pro Max, if not, 12 or 12 Mini)
- Finally: am I willing to pay for a physically larger phone?

And frankly, the naming scheme here isn't that bad. It seems daunting when you list them, but as a decision tree the names are brilliant.

 

[opiapr]

People will always find a reason to complain. When Apple had just one iPhone people were complaining about the lack of choices. Some wanted more storage, others larger screen etc etc. So Apple is providing a range. Just look at that range and pick what you like on your budget. How is that confusing?

 

[skaertus]

The way I see it, Apple today is a different company as it was in the 2000s, which was, in turn, different from what was in the 1990s. And that basically results from fundamental differences between Steve Jobs and Tim Cook.

Steve Jobs was a product guy. Steve Jobs returned to Apple in 1997 and left in 2011. During this time, Apple drastically simplified its line-up of products. In addition, it would launch some products that would truly revolutionize the industry, such as the iMac, the iPod, the Apple TV, the iPhone, the MacBook Air, and the iPad. Each of these products delivered great value and experience to users and were game-changers. It was clear that the focus of Steve Jobs was to deliver good products, and he made partnerships with third-party companies, such as Microsoft, Google and Intel, to make that happen.

Tim Cook is not a product guy. Since he took over Apple, in 2011, he introduced products such as the AirPods, the Apple Watch, and the Home Pod. While some of them have been successful, they were far from being game-changers like the iPod, the iPhone, or the iPad. Tim Cook's main contribution seems to be streamlining the production process, to ensure maximum efficiency, while not being too concerned with the consistency of the product line over time. Tim Cook is fine with putting names such as "new iPad"; launching the iPhone 5c only to forever discontinue the "c" line; and bringing a 12-inch MacBook to market only to discontinue it. Tim Cook created differentiation and segmentation between product lines, which is something Steve Jobs was never concerned with. Segmentation may be a necessity for today's Apple. As Apple is no longer launching groundbreaking products every couple of years, it has to keep up with the competition. And Tim Cook's innovations seem to be behind the curtains. He is a master of production lines and in keeping it very efficient. Under Tim Cook, Apple's products are better, although less innovative.

 

[Tech198]

People will always find a reason to complain. When Apple had just one iPhone people were complaining about the lack of choices. Some wanted more storage, others larger screen etc etc. So Apple is providing a range. Just look at that range and pick what you like on your budget. How is that confusing?

Its not, just as long you don't have 30+ models to choose from

 

[johannnn]

Apple is falling back to what they did in the 90s with so many products it’s hard to know the differences

i mean just the iPhone....iPhone 12, iPhone 12 mini, iPhone 12 pro, iPhone 12 pro max, iPhone se 2

what brought clarity was the quadrant system they used to get successful. Pro and consumer levels for their devices

this is too confusing. Do I go with a iPhone se2 or the iPhone 12 mini? or the iPhone 12? Or what?

I miss the days of a SINGLE iPhone

LOL good luck satisfying 1 billion people with a single phone. That is something Jobs could do simple due to the much fewer people using the product.

 

[skaertus]

Apple is falling back to what they did in the 90s with so many products it’s hard to know the differences

i mean just the iPhone....iPhone 12, iPhone 12 mini, iPhone 12 pro, iPhone 12 pro max, iPhone se 2

what brought clarity was the quadrant system they used to get successful. Pro and consumer levels for their devices

this is too confusing. Do I go with a iPhone se2 or the iPhone 12 mini? or the iPhone 12? Or what?

I miss the days of a SINGLE iPhone

Tim Cook's approach is definitely different from Steve Job's.

When the iPhone was introduced, in 2007, it was a revolutionary product, a brand new device that did not fit in any pre-existing category. It did not have physical buttons (like all the smartphones at the time) and not even 3G. Instead, it had a large screen and provided a great experience. And, although it was priced at the high-end of the market, it was not the most expensive phone. The deals with carriers only sweetened the price. Apple provided one single new product, with no competitors, with great value.

The iPhone was everything a revolutionary product should be to redefine a market. Apple cut off all the superfluous and unnecessary stuff, focused on the basics, added an unmatched experience, and priced accordingly to attract people. Just one product to appeal to the masses. And it took the world by storm.

Now, things are different. The iPhone 12 is no longer such a revolutionary product. The iPhone has competition. The market is flooded with large-screen smartphones from many different manufacturers providing similar features. Apple clings to its proprietary iOS, to its faster A-series processors, to its polished experience, to market gimmicks, and so on, to convince customers to remain faithful to the iPhone.

But the truth is, there is little to differentiate the iPhone from a Samsung Galaxy or a Google Pixel or an ASUS Zenfone. Of course, one manufacturer can provide a better experience and more features, but they are basically the same product: a smartphone with a large touchscreen providing more or less the same functionality. Every year, they are more similar to each other and the differences become more and more irrelevant. A Retina screen is no longer a factor to consider when all smartphones have resolutions superior to Full HD; smoothness is hardly an issue when all of them seem to migrate to 120 Hz screens; differences in speed become negligible when many of them are already faster than laptops; and even a good OS experience seems to be in line as most manufacturers are engaged in streamlining their interfaces.

So, Apple has to play the same game as the competition. A single iPhone, in these days of a flooded market, might not cut it. And Tim Cook seems to be keen to adhere to competition standards and to market segmentation. Instead of again revolutionizing the market, Apple is playing the game of matching competitors for features: adding features such as wireless charging and increasing screen sizes and resolutions.

And the result is that there is certain confusion. Twelve years ago, there was the iPhone and little else. Today, there is iPhone 12 Mini, 12, 12 Pro, 12 Pro Max, and SE. But not just that: when I consider the iPhone 12, I should also take a look at all the competitors from Samsung, Google, Motorola, ASUS, Xiaomi, LG...

 

[SchrodingersMartian]

Apple is doing fine its not their fault that people have ADD and cannot understand the differences between products. I suspect at least two people are Samsung fans trying to just create drama and if we want to talk about Too many products? Look at Samsung where there are at least 7 versions of their A series phones. No one complains about that so this is just clickbait.

 

[MacGizmo]

Worse is the iPad range right now. iPad Air and Pro should really be merged into one product.

Agreed. The iPad has to be the worst of the bunch - particularly since the new lower end ones can be as powerful, or nearly as powerful and have more features than the high-end Pro models.