The state of Apple Hardware and a Product Portfolio Proposal
In the midst of 2015 Apple rode high in public appreciation, the stock reached an all-time high. But the sky became cloudy again soon.
- Apple is hardware seller first, which means the smartphone slowdown hit hard
- (Maybe because of its hardware-centric approach) Apple has shown a lot of shortcomings in the software & services department
- Visionary leadership of Tim Cook got into question
- And, most recently, Apple got attacked for what’s supposed to be their key strength: hardware products
There have been a lot of recaps of Apples “Hello again” event, but the overall majority of commentators at least feel disregarded.
It boils down to the question “Who is the audience for Apple today?” Is it still with the creative, the artsy, the performance-hungry developer? Or is it with the “normal people”, “translating” technical advances in everyday use cases?
I would guess Apple sees itself catering for both audiences, but for me it’s as clear as it can be, that they don’t have the capacity to satisfy both. Apple of course does not want to alienate its best customers — but their products get neglected automatically by treating products with money flowing in (iPhone) first.
As a product manager myself, the current line-up of macOS computers hurts my eyes: I am counting 9 different laptop models alone. Leaving aside the question when does the MacBook end and where does the iPad begin. Then there are signs pointing in the direction of no new Desktop Macs whatsoever, which would be dangerous on many levels.
The next “construction site” is around peripherals: No love for AirPorts (while even Google gets into the game), an asymmetric monitor made by LG and Thunderbolt adapters/docks made by Belkin only?
Over at iOS I have a different kind of problem: Apple differentiates features based on display size. Do you want an iPhone SE-shaped design with the zoom (portrait) lens? No luck for you. Same goes for an iPad mini regarding the Apple Pencil or the TrueTone display. If you pick a factor by which you sort features — why should it be display size, where people are still arguing which size is best?
I don’t blame anybody for this, all products base their existence on something historical, meeting a certain price point, holding Apple margins up, and so on… But some of these reasons are very frightening for Apple, a company that praised itself to only act in the customers interest, financials aside. Put another way: For Apple to justify their high margins, they have to create the best possible product. Period. This mantra is showing first cracks for a while now.
I tried to take my complaining one step further: Designing an alternative Apple product portfolio.
Simplicity has great power. When Jobs came back to Apple, he famously cut the portfolio from 13 lines to only 4. I think in 2017 it is time for another radical cut.
My theoretical Apple portfolio had three goals:
- Don’t let too much customer needs or whole target groups behind,
- reduce the amount of variants to a manageable degree,
- by orienting at todays lineup (and not some unrealistic dream scenario).
The result: One logic rolled out across all major products.
For every category you can choose which size you want and which feature-set. You get to say if you need the Basic, Plus or Pro variant. Higher versions differ in performance, storage size and/or exclusive features.
If you combine the feature-sets with the available sizes you get only 36 variants for the above shown categories. Not too bad, compared to todays confusing lineup.
Apple did such a line-up regarding the Apple Watch. They introduced two new versions, Series 1 and Series 2. Yesteryears model (“Series 0”, the naming is confusing people) is still around, for a cheap entry-point. All variants can be combined with both sizes (38mm & 42mm).
Additional details
- Simplicity in naming is important as well. Product names should be $category $modifier $releaseyear, e.g. MacBook Plus ’17. (iPhone 82S sounds silly in comparison.)
- Hardware in a certain category should be renewed every year round about the same time. Having the same price for 1,000 days (and counting) is ridiculing the fundamentals of tech.
- To release pressure in internal roadmaps, Apple OS software could move to a Rolling Release distribution model like some UNIX siblings practice it. Since Apple seldomly does revolutionary overhauls and updates are free for quite some time now, this outweighs the loss of marketing shows.
- I’m aware that offering the same feature-set in a smaller casing is not always technically feasible, but it’s still a fundamentally different model than offering new tech only in big casings. It should be about choice, not compromises.
- New hardware should replace the old one, selling old stuff should be reserved for emerging markets (e.g. India). If you want a cheap entry level model, then build one. People don’t care if the interior is a year old, but nobody likes buying fashion (the exterior) from last season.
- There are also certain hardware features Apple needs to bring to the entry level model sooner than later. Examples would be TouchID on macOS (for enabling a PayPal competitor) or the new TouchBar (you want developers to have a large addressable user base). For these strategic reasons Apple should forego a slice of their margin.
- Apple should keep the directly related peripherals in house. This is an important strength of their vertically integrated strategy, see iPad Smart Cover or AirPods. But: If you do a certain hardware, you need commitment. So no more 3 year old AirPort Extremes or Battery Cases for just one size of iPhone.
- There would be no reason for Apple to ditch the Mac. You just need two rectangle boxes with the latest and greatest Intel Chipset etc.. And while Apple would never sell something with the marketing claim that one could upgrade the interior parts, they did sell Macs in the past where you could do so. (You lost the warranty, but people were still eager to do it.)
- The iMac is absent from the lineup: People can buy the small Mac and slap it behind the Apple display (with a special mount), making the system interchangeable. And really nobody cares about the added thickness.
- The other product category I’m worried about is the iPad, caught between a big iPhone and a small MacBook. But the fix is relatively easy: Give the iPad OS its own software capabilities. Split View is a very humble start, what about input device support or Homescreen organisation?.
- I cut down the available MacBooks to nine variants. It’s only when the iPad is a solid laptop alternative on its own, that this lineup makes sense. Everybody who buys a MacBook One today because it’s small and light, should be better off with an iPad & keyboard combination.
- Focus would also mean to let go of certain categories Apple can’t fit in their schedule. The iPod comes to mind. Also (and I dislike the thought of it) the Apple TV. Of course the living room has great potential. Apple could have blown Amazon Echo out of the water by integrating Siri. But this place needs attention — either you do it wholeheartedly or you do nothing at all, there is no place for hobbies.
- Product Engineering is and will ever be in search of the best trade-off between form and function. While the rest of the industry errs on the side of putting features and technical specs first, Apple is on the other side of the spectrum, putting form over function in way too many cases.
- It is important for all the pundits out there: I know it hurts that the company you love wouldn’t do all the flavours you like anymore. But I rather would get fewer variants with a verbal commitment that these products are sure to stay relevant in the midterm, than a puzzled portfolio where you hope from year to year that eventually something’s coming.
You can argue with me if the proposed plan has rough edges and hiccups. This post got way too long anyway.
The bottom line is this: Apple isn’t the sympathetic underdog anymore. They need to structure their portfolio in some way or another to regain simplicity (internally and externally) and customer trust by delivering the best product in a foreseeable logic.
