A Grand Unified Theory of Apple Products
aboveavalon.com
aboveavalon.com
I'm not seeing so much of that here.
What's the concrete benefit of something that's smaller but not quite as useful as the next product in the range?
What does "challenges what a computer can do" really mean? (In what sense is it true of any recent iMac?)
It's not that the concrete benefits aren't there. The iPad Pro has obvious practical appeal for certain kinds of users. So does the iPhone. Etc.
But this seems worryingly like a muddle where everything is seen from the viewpoint of a rather contrived Grand Strategy, and not from clear specific user benefits for each item in the line.
Once upon a time apple wanted you to walk into an Apple Store and walk out with something useful, now they want you to consider where you side in the "personal vs power" debate.
In his quote about the iMac* I think the strategy is essentially laid bare that they expect the top end to continue to drive appeal by being powerful and cutting edge - letting consumers continue to drive new experiences and productivity with that form factor
And the waterfall model will, as such, continue as innovation / component miniturization collapses features downward.
Look to the soon arrival of full ar/VR for a "desktop best" example.
Eg VR is best via Oculus rift on a high power PC.
There are translated experiences via Samsungvr and goog glass but nothing like the experience of say assetto corsa racing or elite dangerous on a 2x980gtx system.
Naturally and over time this quality / set will roll downwards to mobile.
* iMac: "It's job is to challenge what we think a computer can do and do things that no computer has ever done before, be more and more powerful and capable so that we need a desktop because of its capabilities. Because if all it's doing is competing with the notebook and being thinner and lighter, then it doesn't need to be."
the proof is in the pudding, regardless of what the theory is, from iPhone plus to iPad mini 2 to iPad mini 4 to iPad Air to iPad Air 2 to iPad Pro to the new MacBook to the MacBook Air to the MacBook Pro (all distinct products), I get some vague sense that I want two, but I'm not really sure which two. And my decision feels like I'm always going to leave something on the table, and unfortunate trade off (like lacking a pen device vs a natural trade off like performance)
Instead you go there, try out a few options, go home, think about it, make a decision, then order.
So I actually think it was the original approach that was muddled. If customers are coming to your store with research under their belt, you'd better have a product right for them.
But when I look at things like iTunes or the Music app on iOS app, it sure feels like they have tacked feature upon feature overloading things in a big way.
With the latest redesign of the iOS Music app, I can't figure how to just shuffle the tunes I have installed on my phone. ARGH.
The older I get, and the more writing I do rather than software development, the more I gravitate to smaller devices. It amazes me how easy it is to edit and write manuscripts on small devices. Same as for doing research by web browsing, taking notes, etc.
For some people, they can skip device size levels. For example, some people might only need a phone, a phone + laptop, or perhaps just a tablet with 4g.
I think Apple is making the right decision spreading their product lines to more device types and sizes inside types.
It's also amusing because that business plan (and it's last page) was published before Osborne Computing suffered from the Osborne effect...
Apple at one point made (developed or rebranded), PDA's, printers, CTI Hardware (computer telephony integration), networking hardware, Modems, Microphones, Speakers, Monitors, a Confusing array of computers, and other stuff. The problem with this strategy, is in very few cases they were market leaders - many of their non-computer products (and arguably even in their computer products) they were an also-ran.
Instead Apple is targeting a much narrower breadth of products and going instead after deep category penetration:
Need an Phone? we've got three sizes and price points.
Need an Tablet? we've got 3 sizes, and four price points.
Need a Laptop? we've got 3 sizes, and four price points.
Need a Desktop? we've got 3 form factors, and eight price points.
Each of these things is just a computer however, not a whole new category like CTI and printers. Apple still sells mostly computers (counted by SKU).
So while they sell networking hardware, and infotainment hardware, IMO, they exist because specifically they offer compelling features not available elsewhere to work with their computers, not like the days of yore where an Apple Printer was often just a rebranded HP or Cannon Inkjet with a Mac serial port on it.
Now, I stare at the internet for hours, worry about which one will work best for me. Go to store, worry more, walk out without buying.
And with the 5S being fast enough for most things, the main reason to upgrade is camera (but I have a Canon S100). And with carriers going to up-front retail pricing, what used to look and feel like a $99 purchase (pocket-change, even if it wasn't) is now a $700 purchase (def. not pocket-change - I can take a short vacation for that).
Same with the iPads. It doesn't help that my iPad Mini Retina still works fine for it's primary use (reading), so no compelling reason to upgrade.
I'm being serious, because of apples return policy, there is no great loss in choosing wrong.
Buying cars is awful. I will literally spend a year researching. And if a new model is released in that period, it really screw up the process. And regardless of what I buy, I second guess myself for months afterwards. No joke.
I'm currently shopping for a compact system camera (micro 4/3 or similar). Same thing. Hours upon hours of research, can't decide.
Grocery store, not a big deal. Cost is low and I'm not stuck with the items for years.
Admittedly, this is a personal problem, and not one of Apple's creation.
Buying computers used to be awful, back when hard drives cost $1/MB, sound cards were a thing (Gravis UltraSound or SoundBlaster?), and Moore's Law was going full speed (even CD-ROM drives regularly became twice as fast). I spent months agonizing over when to pull the trigger and buy that Pentium 133. Nowadays almost any computer is fast enough to make you happy: buy an SSD, max out the RAM, and you'll be set for years. Unless you're doing high-end gaming or HPC, performance mostly doesn't matter.
I'd argue that cameras are at that point now, too. Even a high-end smartphone takes pretty good pictures, and the compact system cameras are well into the realm of diminishing returns unless you're making your living off of wall-sized prints. Seriously, just flip a coin whether you want to go APS-C or micro 4/3 (lenses still matter), and buy whatever's on sale.
Especially assuming you're already in the Apple ecosystem, whether you buy a given model of X to last for the next few or even five years is less of a big deal.
On the Fujifilm X series I mostly use the 18-55mm (~28-90mm equivalent) plus the pancake. I also have a wider angle lens. You go much more telephoto and you start to lose the benefit of the smaller camera.
The goals as I understand it were several fold, to tell stories in a universe with no baggage, and to have less age restrictions (the Ultimate Hulk likes to eat people, there's lots of other darker stuff).
I actually didn't think that content was particularly useful to the story, it was more in the vein of we-are-so-edgy-it's-awesome, a sort of stunt that is common in popular media these days.
DC and Marvel in particular seem stuck to their existing aging fan market and universes, but independent graphic novels and Japanese comics with no shared universes outsell them constantly. Their reaction was to get themselves a separate category in the bestseller lists so they could go back to just ignoring them.
ref. http://otakuusamagazine.com/Anime/News1/As-Geek-Culture-Assi...
Apple makes personal computers, and that's just about it.