This week’s announcements at the WWDC2017, especially regarding the HomePod have got me thinking about the nature of Apple and the future of its products. As a creative professional across multiple fields and an avid Apple user, I feel a certain sense of urgency when I think on the recent releases, innovations, and blunders of a company whose products I have come to rely on so completely. I’d like to take a few minutes, then, to take up the pro and con perspectives regarding the future of Apple.
Point
In recent years (some may argue since the passing of Steve Jobs), Apple seems to be backsliding into a pre-Jobsian state. As you may remember, before Jobs returned to Apple, their product line was in the double digits. One of the most important things Jobs did was to streamline their product line to just those devices they already made exceptionally well. This way, the company could continue to refine and innovate instead of choosing which new shapes, sizes, and colors to produce the next MacBooks in.
Line creep
By the time of Jobs’s death in 2011, the flagship Apple line was tersely divided into desktop and mobile. There was MacBook Pro and iMac (powerful, enterprise-class computers), and iPhone, iPad, and iPod (indispensible portables). Looking for colors? Better like brushed aluminum; otherwise just get yourself an iPod (a line that was being pared down itself in favor of the iPhone).
Currently, we’ve got three flavors of MacBook (Air, Pro, and eponymous, in various sizes), two different iMacs (standard and Pro), Mac Mini and Mac Pro (somehow these are still on the market), iPads in Mini, Air, and (3 sizes of) Pro varieties; iPhones in big, small, and “vintage”; and a couple versions of the Apple Watch, depending on how much you want to spend. There’s new device colors all the time, even for the computers. There’s also the recent foray into what we’ll call “Home” for lack of a better term: the Apple TV and the aforementioned HomePod. That’s a lot of stuff!
When I transitioned to iOS from Android, one of the huge advantages I saw was that I didn’t need to spend forever choosing a phone manufacturer with the right features and trendy bells and whistles (most of the time, I ended up with duds). Samsung seemed to make a new phone each week and the app ecosystem was similarly un-curated. The way I saw it, with Apple, you got one product that did its job extremely well and didn’t call much attention to itself. Their devices seemed to blend seamlessly into your life and the focus was on what they did instead of what they looked like.
Now it seems as if their product line is meant to size up or down by tiny increments. It’s some kind of “tweener” philosophy that (in the web design world) we’re trying to move away from in our media queries. The price points and features of each machine aren’t really all that different from each other. It begs the question: what’s the point?
When my trusty MBP13″ took a bath and I was faced with the prospect of getting a new one, it was a frightening landscape, indeed. Which model suited my needs? Which of a handful of different specs would do the job for the least money? Which chassis color suits my personality best?
Luckily my lappy was able to be repaired and I spared myself the anxiety of computer shopping. I realized through this experience that I was in the position I had turned to Apple over Windows to get away from: choosing the wrong machine and feeling taken advantage of.
Chasing waterfalls
Which brings us to the HomePod. It seems that I can’t read anything about Apple (from evangelists and detractors alike) without running across the words “finally” or “throws its hat into” or “foray” or “Apple version of…”. And that kind of hurts.
It seems that by offering such a vast and varied product line, Apple has moved away from one of the pillars that make them great: focus and intention. They’ve stopped asking what the best way to do something is and started doing things because other companies already have.
Microsoft released a tablet computer so Apple released a tablet that’s not quite a computer. Google and Amazon released voice-controlled speakers so Apple made one too. Hell, even my beloved iPhones have started looking more like Samsung Galaxy phones (at the expense of some hand comfort, I might add).
In the midst of all of this confusion, Apple has begun to depart from catering to creative professionals, one of their historical target audiences. Adding a “touch-ticker” to a Pro machine is a move away from actual usability and toward flashy trends. The Touch Bar does have some interesting capabilities but, upon release, the new MBP was the first Apple laptop to not be recommended by Consumer Reports.
Conclusion:
Rather than reinventing the wheel and playing catch-up, Apple should work with other companies to make their products compatible. This places the focus back on Apple’s own innovation. So, other companies have speakers you can talk to. Why not make Siri available on them the way Microsoft has with Cortana? Reach across the aisle a bit and embrace the possibility (or remember the fact) that less is more.
Counterpoint
Apple still makes some of the finest electronics available. The face of computing has changed drastically in a short period of time (thanks in a large part to Apple). Consumer demand worldwide is at an all-time high. It’s kind of like the Wild West for electronics as we try to discover how deep of a role they will play in our everyday lives.
Immersive experience
I think a huge part of what Siri means to do is once again create that seamless bond between technology and the human experience. Apple has worked hard to craft its ecosystem; it stands very well to reason that they would create their own proprietary devices to immerse their customers in.
Think of it this way: you can run Windows on a Mac. But getting MacOS to run on a windows machine… it’s tricky. That’s because Apple’s software and hardware are designed for each other. That’s the kind of beauty and efficiency you get when you make everything yourself.
By creating their own line of home products, Apple grants their customers the same experience they’ve come to rely on, as well as ensuring that everything will “just work.”
“We make a lot of the products you buy… better.”
I remember the first MP3 players. they were small and expensive. They had horrible sound quality and very limited storage and battery life. Figuring out how to convert and load music onto them was a nightmare. I thought they would go the way of the 8-track and that would be that. That’s why I was so surprised that Steve Jobs championed the iPod.
What Apple did for the MP3 player was realize the potential in the technology and unlock its capabilities for users. Steve Jobs didn’t invent the MP3 player; he made it better.
Apple does this kind of stuff all the time. Cell phones. Tablets. Fitness trackers. Computers. Hell, even headphones. They take existing technology and craft it into an experience.
Don’t hate the player
There’s a downside to producing well-made electronics that actually have a resale value: people don’t have to buy them as often. I know, I know: no one wants their computer to break. But companies have to make money.
Branching out into new venues is a great way for Apple to build their brand and integrate their products even deeper into people’s lives. By extension, offering higher-quality products than those currently available advances the technology and makes things better for everyone.
By not being the sole innovators of a given piece of tech (i.e. by hanging back a bit), Apple can observe the pitfalls of early adoption, gauge market reaction, and ultimately see if something is a passing trend or something worth putting their formidable weight behind. Because when Apple makes something, people buy it.
Conclusion:
In an increasingly handheld world, it’s ridiculous to expect a company to continue to just make computers. Technology is all about life-integration anymore. Apple should experiment and help shape these new ecosystems or risk falling behind. One of the things they do best is riff on and refine existing ideas.