Apple's Shifting Differentiation

The problem is as a “normal user” you can’t go to your ‘tech friend’ and get a straight answer — there are too many considerations now to direct someone to one phone over another.

It’s not ‘yeah, the new iPhone is great! You gotta have it.’ It’s “so what do you want to do mostly?” — no one knows.

That is what I believe the 90s curse really means — your evangelists are no longer as effective because they give potential customers an overwhelming amount of information that slows down, and sometimes prevents, a sale.

—- Your point is exactly right - Apple has decided to harvest the demand curve over making something undeniably great.

Edit: let me clarify, watch and homepod mini are currently in the category of 'just get it' products. This is only a critique of the iPhone line.

> The problem is as a “normal user” you can’t go to your ‘tech friend’ and get a straight answer

Uh, it's 3 options.

Small size, best camera option, remaining option.

I didn't know this - I just went to Apple's website, clicked iPhone and it has a single page that presents all this very clearly.

So um, yeah. This is by the way how I do 'tech advice' to anyone who ever needs it - I open google, I type in the question and the first link has the answer 95% of the time.

Phones haven't been in 'gotta have it' category since iPhone 6 when they released a bigger size that a lot of people wanted. Since then, it has been 'better camera' yearly releases, oh and 'better chip', as if anyone needs a supercomputer to browse Instagram.

Cameras (and the associated computational photography power) have the advantage (for Apple and other manufacturers) of simultaneously still being on a fairly rapid improvement curve and being something a lot of people really care about. It's no coincidence that Apple really hits hard on the photography angle.

There is clearly a difference between my iPhone 6 and iPhone X but I've never been on a particularly frequent upgrade cadence. Under normal circumstances, I'd probably upgrade to this year's model but there's not a lot of point until I get out and about a lot again.

It's four options. Two of them different:

- iPhone 12 Mini, the small one

- iPhone 12 Pro Max, the huge one

And then there are these two: iPhone 12, iPhone 12 Pro.

They are the exactly same phone in every regard that a "regular" user cares about. They are so identical that Gruber lumped them together in benchmarks in his review at Daring Fireball.

The only difference is the difference in cameras which is important to a very small number of people. And even then it doesn't make sense to make two different models instead of one, with the new camera setup.

I think you underestimate how many people care about cameras a lot--or at least think they do. Personally, I'm inclined to give Apple the benefit of the doubt that it knows what it's doing by having a cheaper mid-size model and a more expensive one with a better camera.

Ah ok I've had to do a few more clicks.

So the 'latest' options on Apple's website are presented as iPhone 12 Pro (best camera) and iPhone 12 (not best camera) - 2 options.

Then each option has 2 sizes, that makes it a total of 4.

I guess they could've named things better - it's still same old 'best camera = more expensive' formula from years prior, with an addition of 'smaller size' to the mix.

A curious critique of Apple's product line given the strategy of the competition: https://gadgets.ndtv.com/mobiles/samsung-phones

(I would argue it's very simple: "Get the iPhone 12 in the size and colour you like", the Pro models are an up-sale for the people who want different screen-size or slightly better cameras)

[Edit] I just re-read your comment... "remaining option" ...

I'd argue if you're comparing to your competition, you have no idea what you want to build.

[Edit] Apple is specifically doing this frayed product line to harvest the demand curve, lower supply costs, and amortize R&D across a large unit base... they are playing to the current low interest rate world in this product line. It's an intentional business choice, not a product choice.

I like how Gruber put it:

“Pro”, in Apple’s parlance, also simply means “more expensive”.

Think the issue is Jobs era Apple wouldn't do this, it would just be one great phone and one budget phone which would usually be last years good phone.

New Tim Cook Apple philosophy is doing what Apple fans used to criticise other tech companies of which is needlessly fragmenting their product line to try and milk more money out of it.

It's things like this that make the difference between ok and good and good and great.

Apple's revenue has gone from 65.2 billion dollars under the last year under Jobs to 275 billion dollars in 2019. It's easy to say that "Jobs would never!" but Jobs never ran a company almost 5x bigger. It's entirely possible that he would have. It's equally possible that Apple never grows to these heights with him at the helm. It's just an impossible comparison to be making.

To the lovely downvotes, do we have to talk about how this plays perfectly into the tiny form factors required for all day AR?

However I still believe it’s a bit more aggressive than necessary.

Yeah I also notice there are a ton of MBA preferred jobs for aapl now too