I broadly agree with this thesis - I don't think there's a "betrayal" of a vision (and even if there had been, who really cares?) - but I do think Apple's vision has got muddled.

My problem is we're not all talking about the same thing when we talk about "The iPad". Right now, on sale today, there are four iPads to choose from. No, not different colours, or memory sizes - you need to make a choice between the Mini, the Air, the Pro and the regular iPad.

Want a desktop? Cool, you've got the iMac, the Mini, the Studio, and the Pro. Within each of those you have choices on processor, memory, storage and more.

Or maybe you just want a phone. Cool. Want the 16, the 16e, the 16 Pro, or the 15? They're all on the Apple store right now.

None of these have anything on the Watch (Series 10, Ultra 2, SE, Nike or Hermes).

I think it can hard to work out where each device sits in your life, but then there are spectrums and overlaps between them, and this is confusing for the consumer. Should I buy a high-end phone and spend a little less on an iPad and see it as just a bigger screen? Or should I get the last generation phone, splurge on an iPad Pro, and then maybe I don't need as much in the way of a Mac?

When you're selling a lifestyle, you need to be coherent. It used to be the case that Apple was coherent, but this choice is making customers confused.

I'd love to see a paired back offering and have more clarity and delineation. Do that, and this "is an iPad a laptop replacement?" becomes a more redundant question, and this idea of "betrayal" can go away.

▲

saynay 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

The confusing choices are deliberate way to exploit psychology of potential buyers into up-selling themselves. The idea is to entice them by the more reasonable base price, but use the uncertainty on if it will really meet their needs to push them up a ladder of upgrades.

Maybe the 16e sounds good at $599. But, it might be a bit underpowered, so maybe you should just upgrade to the 15 at $699. Then it is only $100 more to just go for the 16 (or 15 Plus), so might as well right? But maybe you want a bigger screen or twice the storage, which are both another $100. Then for another $100, you can get the nicer materials or the extra camera, etc for the 16 Pro...

This is a marketing strategy you see in a lot of the phone market, and has proven to be successful at pushing customers into the higher-margin devices.

▲

JumpCrisscross 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

> confusing choices are deliberate way to exploit psychology of potential buyers into up-selling themselves

There is a lot of consumer research that suggests the opposite: analysis paralysis delays a purchase past the point where impulsivity might have pushed a customer over the line.

▲

kibwen 2 days ago | parent [-]

Apple is a luxury fashion brand, its sales are predicated on people who want to confer social status upon themselves by being seen with something that signals wealth. Apple doesn't care about impulse purchases, because the pressure to purchase comes from marketing and society.

	▲	JumpCrisscross 2 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		> Apple doesn't care about impulse purchases, because the pressure to purchase comes from marketing and society I believe your assumption is bunk, but for sake of argument, let’s assume Apple is solely a fashion brand. Are you really claiming luxury fashion doesn’t revolve around impulse purchases?
	▲	notfromhere 2 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Its also high quality and their products last a long time

▲

yunwal 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> The confusing choices are deliberate way to exploit psychology of potential buyers into up-selling themselves.

I would argue that this is due to a lack of intention, and that the endless upgrade possibilities actually exhaust potential buyers into opting for cheaper options. I have no way to prove it, but it's quite obvious to me that part of Apple's market power is due to their historically simple and intuitive product lineup, and they were able to get away with being the most expensive, high margin products on the market. The more options they give, the more it starts to feel like a commodity product.

▲

ahmeneeroe-v2 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

This is a weird way of saying that Apple offers a phone at every price point.

How is it consumer-hostile to offer upgrades at an increased cost?

▲

saynay 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

It isn't as bad as some practices, for sure. The question is how likely are the 'upgrades' actually upgrading anything for the user? Will the extra camera on the Pro be $100 of utility for the user over the lifetime of the device? Or are they using the uncertainty that the user _might_ get a use out of that camera to push to a higher model.

It seems mostly an exercise in price discrimination. You always have a slightly higher price point, and some extra functionality to justify it, and the customer will likely push themselves up to the maximum they are willing to spend instead of settling on the cheapest option that meets their needs.

▲

hbn 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

I think the only one I could agree with exists for upselling is the 16e. I really don't know who that phone is for, it's missing some of the most basic features like MagSafe that will probably disappoint customers who bought it not knowing their iPhone won't work with accessories that previously you could trust work with every iPhone. I guess maybe a grandparent who barely uses their phone it would be fine, but other than that it seems like it just exists so Apple can say the iPhone lineup starts at $599 and then sell you a 15/16.

	▲	ProfessorLayton a day ago \| parent \| next [-]
		My dad uses his phone to answer phone calls, texts, maps to travel to job sites, and play music in his work truck. He might also open a link someone texts him. And that's it. Literally no 3rd party apps on his phone. Once his 11 finally goes, I'm getting him an E.
	▲	Lammy a day ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		> I really don't know who that phone is for That phone isn't “for” any customer, it's for Apple to be able to real-world test their homegrown C1 cellular modem on a non-flagship product.

▲

epistasis 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Could be. But a messy lineup of a bewildering array of products is the result of lazy management, too.

It's far easier to accumulate a wide range of products, without much thought, than it is to accumulate that mess with intention!

▲

jitl 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

And yet is there a device maker with a smaller lineup than Apple’s? Samsung seems to have like a bazillion models in circulation at any given time. Large laptop makers like Lenovo or Dell have a flabbergasting lineup of very overlapping products. At least Microsoft’s lineup is comprehensible.

▲

endemic 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Yeah, I really loved the clarity of the 2x2 product matrix Apple had immediately after Jobs' return: 2 desktops, 2 laptops, one "consumer" and one "pro." Of course there were configuration variations within those broad categories as well. I realize we don't live in that world anymore, though.

▲

JumpCrisscross 2 days ago | parent [-]

> return: 2 desktops, 2 laptops, one "consumer" and one "pro”

Isn’t this 2 x 2 x 2?

	▲	2 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		[deleted]
	▲	endemic 2 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		iMac \| Power Mac ---------------- iBook \| PowerBook

▲

DanielHB 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I don't understand why companies doing hardware do this, surely it is much more expensive to design so many different devices? It dilutes the brand and makes the supply chain more complicated.

Like how much extra market capture really gets from having 4/5 different versions of the same basic segment?

Like I can see a reason to create several different versions based on screen size and upcharge for memory because that is a rather minor change. But otherwise why make them different at all?

Like if they really wanted to make different screen sizes just iPad 16'', iPad 14'', etc. Why make such a fuss with extra design changes besides that.

Like you said, Apple was the one company that didn't (over)do this, but not anymore.

	▲	JumpCrisscross 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		> how much extra market capture really gets from having 4/5 different versions of the same basic segment? Enough, at Apple's scale. The harmonic seems to be upstarts target a niche with a specialised offering and then scale until they can target other niches, perhaps one bigger than the one they initially went after, but all of which muddles the product focus until a paradigm shifts and someone simplifies again.

▲

throwfaraway4 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

I don't see how this is any different from variation/choices in other lifestyle products. Many consumers are sophisticated and appreciate choice.

	▲	zerkten 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		A problem is that these device variations now overlap. Originally when Apple was selling a lifestyle there was a clear choice between available options. The current options often force you into a decision about buying up which affects typical consumers the most. I have a 2018 iPad Pro which I use for Lightroom amongst other things. I'd like to replace it with something new as I need OS support long term and it'll be a fine device to use with our bike trainer. The current iPad Air blows it out of the water, except for the screen downgrade. Do I suck it up and save some money, or go with the latest iPad Pro? There is a lot more thinking involved than there used to be. It's much more challenging for regular consumers because the iPad pricing ceiling has been pushed higher on top of accessory considerations. This pattern repeats across the lines because it's known to generate more revenue.