The Apple Way - Designing The "Whole Widget" Is Best
Quote:
The Apple Way by John Papola
One man's take on the Apple Computer approach. Why designing the "whole widget" is the best way to design computers. I dig in to vertical vs. horizontal integration in the computer industry and why the Windows PC approach has resulted in an inferior and unacceptable consumer experience.
What better place to start the Apple journey than to examine the fundamentals of how Apple delivers its products and why they remain one of the few "whole widget" computer companies.
The Apple Way by John Papola
One man's take on the Apple Computer approach. Why designing the "whole widget" is the best way to design computers. I dig in to vertical vs. horizontal integration in the computer industry and why the Windows PC approach has resulted in an inferior and unacceptable consumer experience.
What better place to start the Apple journey than to examine the fundamentals of how Apple delivers its products and why they remain one of the few "whole widget" computer companies.
The complete article is here.
Comments
The iPod is a classic example of slotting together off-the-shelf parts and partnering with other companies to create a great package.
Dell etc. will rebrand generic pieces of crap, that interface with crappy music apps and crappy music store through their crappy PCs and produce something that is just plainly not as good and it has nothing to do with them not creating the whole widget.
Originally posted by stupider...likeafox
That's just wrong.
He's probably talking about a vertical business model (apple) versus a horizontal one (wintel)
Apple may not make everything, but it's responsible for the whole package.
Originally posted by the cool gut
He's probably talking about a vertical business model (apple) versus a horizontal one (wintel)
Apple may not make everything, but it's responsible for the whole package.
Quite correct. Apple has control over the whole package to a degree that MS does not. This is why their stuff works better, is more reliable, etc.
Originally posted by Yevgeny
Quite correct. Apple has control over the whole package to a degree that MS does not. This is why their stuff works better, is more reliable, etc.
Apple's vertical model may be "better," but it has one disadvantage which continues to limit Apple's success. That disadvantage is choice. The Macintosh is a closed system. If you want to run Apple software, you have to use Apple hardware. The iPod and the iTMS are also a closed system. The only music player that supports the iTMS is the iPod, and the only music service that supports the iPod is the iTMS. While closed systems are nice in that each piece of the system can be designed to work flawlessly with the other pieces, they scare a lot of people. People are afraid if they buy Apple's closed system they'll be locked in it and will be unable to switch to another system, or interface with the rest of the world.
Most businesses and consumers want choice, compatibility, and low-prices. Historically, Apple and the Macintosh have offered none of these. This is why despite it's obvious advantages, the Macintosh remains a niche product which only people who value quality and aesthetics over all other attibutes purchase. While the modern Macintosh is more compatible and open than the old one, it is still closed, and still limited in appeal. "What? If I switch from DELL to Apple, I have to buy all new software too?"
The iPod and iTMS have been more successful because Apple has made them more open. They are not tied to the Mac. They are just tied to each other. The fact that the iTunes software is free doesn't hurt either.
With the Macintosh and Windows, the horizontal model has proved itself to be "better" from a business standpoint. With music, it will be interesting to see if Apple can make it's vertical model win. It's going to be hard as more and more competition enters the arena all using the same competing standard which makes the iPod and iTMS look incompatible. The whole widget approach can sometimes be a very hard sell.
Originally posted by Kecksy
Apple's vertical model may be "better," but it has one disadvantage which continues to limit Apple's success. That disadvantage is choice. The Macintosh is a closed system. If you want to run Apple software, you have to use Apple hardware. The iPod and the iTMS are also a closed system. The only music player that supports the iTMS is the iPod, and the only music service that supports the iPod is the iTMS. While closed systems are nice in that each piece of the system can be designed to work flawlessly with the other pieces, they scare a lot of people. People are afraid if they buy Apple's closed system they'll be locked in it and will be unable to switch to another system, or interface with the rest of the world.
Most businesses and consumers want choice, compatibility, and low-prices. Historically, Apple and the Macintosh have offered none of these. This is why despite it's obvious advantages, the Macintosh remains a niche product which only people who value quality and aesthetics over all other attibutes purchase. While the modern Macintosh is more compatible and open than the old one, it is still closed, and still limited in appeal. "What? If I switch from DELL to Apple, I have to buy all new software too?"
The iPod and iTMS have been more successful because Apple has made them more open. They are not tied to the Mac. They are just tied to each other. The fact that the iTunes software is free doesn't hurt either.
With the Macintosh and Windows, the horizontal model has proved itself to be "better" from a business standpoint. With music, it will be interesting to see if Apple can make it's vertical model win. It's going to be hard as more and more competition enters the arena all using the same competing standard which makes the iPod and iTMS look incompatible. The whole widget approach can sometimes be a very hard sell.
The closer you get to end users, the more they like vertical solutions. Why? It just works and it is consistent. When it comes to consumer electronics, most people prefer a package by the same company over buying individual pieces and stringing them together.
The problem with choice is that it leads to integration problems. Getting part A to work with part B is actually very difficult if the manufacturers of A and B did not get together in advance to work out how they will work together. Right now, the integration between iTMS clones and iPod clones is pretty poor. MusicMatch is really bad software and all those brick sized jukeboxes are really bad products. Apple has the best overall product in all the areas, so why do you need choice? One solution is clearly better. Do people really want choice if it means they can only choose second rate solutions to their problems? Choice only becomes meaningful when one solution is marginably better than another solution (I am here not discussing the issue of if choice makes for a better marketplace).
As an aside, the iPod is not tied to iTMS. You can use an iPod for all your MP3's without any iTMS involvement.
Also, I would disagree that the horizontal model is better for business. A partially horizontal model is better for business. For example, when I look at my desk here at work, I see three Dell machines. My work didn't buy some HD's, some video cards, some MOBO's, etc and have our tech guys assemble computers for us. We went to a company that has a vertical soultion (i.e. Dell) and bought from them. Only gamers really care about a truly horizontal market because they want to mix and match all their parts and spend hours (of their obviously cheap time) making things work. Further, when you get into serious servers, business dislikes the horizontal model and goes more for the purely vertical model because businesses greatly value the relaibility and usability of these vertical systems. This is why Sun and IBM make so much money.
You can't compare Apple to Microsoft because Microsoft don't sell computer systems, they sell operating systems that are a major component of computer systems, just like the hard drive manufactures, RAM manufacturers, laptop subcontractors (I believe basically every laptop in the world--including Apple's--is made by one of 3 or 4 companies) etc.
Compared to Dell, Sony etc. Apple is in the same business, and the differences are not because Apple builds/designs/controls the whole widget because A) on an absolute scale they don't, and
The whole widget thing is a total red herring: my bluetooth phone isn't made/controlled/designed etc. by Apple, neither are the Linux and Windows boxes I network with, my mouse, my camera, my external hardrive, my printer, my router, my airport *is* in an Apple designed candy-coated shell but it's just a rebrand of Lucent's Orinoco technology, panasonic DVD-R burner. And it all works *beautifully* together.
On the software level you've got the Mach kernel (carnegie melon though probably highly tweaked) with a FreeBSD sourced userland. Printing is thanks to a dual licensed CUPS server combined with the Gimp-Print drivers, PDF (adobe) based display, gnu compiler toolchain, KHTML-based browser. Again great integration.
How can Apple string all this crazy stuff together and Dell and Sony can't even integrate with a single OS revision that's been a sitting target for years?
Saying it's because they don't build the whole widget is just giving these guys an excuse for incompetence.
Originally posted by stupider...likeafox
No, it's still wrong.
I agree.
I often see the Apple only makes great stuff because they control the whole package argument all the time.
It is true that Apple doesn't have to deal with the nightmare world of x86 hardware. But that doesn't begin to explain why Apple can consistently put out such high quality hardware and software products year after year.
Apple has no control over Microsoft's OSes or x86 hardware manufacturers, yet iTunes has gotten fantastic reviews from all but the most die-hard wintel fanatics.
Time and again Apple puts out products that have people ecstatic about how 'it just works.'
There is a long culture at Apple to get things right. The Apple employees I've met have always had a fanatical drive to make fantastic products. They take pride in the product itself regardless of it sales.
While every MS employee I've talked to has the mindset of winning at all costs and could care less if their product works right as long as they manage to ram it down consumers throats.
Give MS or Dell complete control over the OS and hardware and I'm sure their systems would look very much like today's peecees. It is absurd to think that the cultures at either of those two companies could every come up with the quality and refinement of Apple's products.
The problem appears to be that, no matter how seamlessly Apple has been able to integrate its products, (to the point where even Apple users believe that to be the case because Apple has created all of its hardware as well as software), most of the planet continues to use Wintel machines running an inferior Windows systems.
Apple continues to 'enjoy' niche status and appears to be staying in that market. Apple sales have increased by 461%. My local Apple store manager states that about 4 switchers come in every day. So, how is it that Apple still only has between 3-4% of the computer market? I suggest it is fear that Windows users feel if they switch entirely over to the Mac platform. Fear of what? I don't know...
I suggest it is fear that Windows users feel if they switch entirely over to the Mac platform. Fear of what? I don't know...
|
Fear of picking the losing team. Remember Sony's Betamax. A lot of people got burned. Electronics is very intimidating. Many vcrs still flash 12:00. Since 90% of the world uses Windows, they can't be wrong. It's a safe comfortable bet.
Originally posted by stupider...likeafox
No, it's still wrong.
You can't compare Apple to Microsoft
That's because Apple is a vertical business model, and Microsoft is horizontal.
You can forget about bringing any other company into the discussion (like Dell or HP) because they don't make the OS, so they can't do jack sh*t.
Your proving yourself wrong ... quite well really.
It's more than the whole widget theory though, Apple and Microsoft have different angles of attack. Apple is trying to get market share, so they base their OS on open standards, Microsoft is trying to keep market share, and is trying to re-write standards to their propriety software.
Originally posted by the cool gut
That's because Apple is a vertical business model, and Microsoft is horizontal.
You can forget about bringing any other company into the discussion (like Dell or HP) because they don't make the OS, so they can't do jack sh*t.
Your proving yourself wrong ... quite well really.
I see you only made it halfway through my second paragraph. The Microsoft OS is just a component of Dell, Sony and HP's vertical business model, just as Motorola chips, Panasonic DVD-drives and BSD unix etc. are part of Apple's.
Dude, you're getting a Dell, not 'a Microsoft' and HP and Dell are crippled by Windows in *exactly* the same way that Apple was held back by Motorola. Therefore the whole widget is just a soundbite gone astray and taken too seriously, just like the holy 4 product matrix.
The Microsoft OS is just a component of Dell, Sony and HP's vertical business model, just as Motorola chips, Panasonic DVD-drives and BSD unix etc. are part of Apple's.
Dell, sony and Hp are horizontal business models. I don't know what else to say ... that is a fact, not what I think. You can have an opinion that Apple's business model is horizontal, but that thinking would be held by a very slim minority.
Dude, you're getting a Dell, not 'a Microsoft' and HP and Dell are crippled by Windows in *exactly* the same way that Apple was held back by Motorola.
Completely different. Dell has absolutely NO control over it's product,other than the BIOS and the color of plastic they use. Microsoft gives them the OS, and they combine components which work best with the OS and ship it. They don't even have a say in what goes on the desktop.
The G4 chips from motorola are made for Apple - no one else. When motorola dropped the ball, Apple turned to IBM, and was able to keep the velocity engine - they had the option to move to Intel if they chose - they have control and can do whatever they want.
The problem with motorola is actually another perfect arguement which proves you wrong. If anything goes wrong with Apple's logic board or CPU - they are screwed because they can't swap anything else in because it's all custom. If Intel fell on it's face, Dell could move to AMD. Dell has a larger selection of hardware, but the downside is that compatability is a wild card - not for Apple.
Sure you can micro-analyze the situation and say that Apple uses stock hard drives and graphics cards - but the economic benefits of alternatives are just too great.
[B]Therefore the whole widget is just a soundbite gone astray and taken too seriously, just like the holy 4 product matrix.
Microsoft is releasing software for MP3 players in an attempt to offer better competition to the iPod. Again, company's who make Mp3 players can only do so much on the software side because they don't have intimate knowledge of the Microsoft OS. Furthermore, Microsoft is offering incentives next year for computer maker to use "certified" hardware approved my Microsoft in an attempt to offer Apple style integration.
The "whole widget" may not be 100% litteral, but it can be used to describe Apple's business model accurately.
That's just nonsensical. There's plenty of 'concept car' style AIO units or tiny laptops etc. in Windows land. Not everything is just a standard box with a big name behind it, and even if it was theres still plenty of choices to be made.
You claim they can't even choose what appears on the desktop yet my VIAO was heavily customized, with SONY i.Link ports (though no MemoryStick port) and a variety of Sony media apps built in. AOL is shipping a PC with StarOffice installed and there have been various other distribution deals done.
Sure you can micro-analyze the situation and say that Apple uses stock hard drives and graphics cards
Apple uses pretty much 'stock' everything. The technologies you obviously think are unique to Apple were all developed as part of Industry Consortia. Custom motherboards for the iMac might be unusual for a desktop but it's standard practice for laptops.
Microsoft is releasing software for MP3 players in an attempt to offer better competition to the iPod.
So are Sony, Dell and HP amongst others, except they are also releasing the actual players.
Again, company's who make Mp3 players can only do so much on the software side because they don't have intimate knowledge of the Microsoft OS.
It's a sodding mp3 player! How much intimate knowledge of the OS do you need? Windows iTunes seems to be getting on fine despite competing on a completely level playing field with respect to control of the whole widget (if it is not actually tilted *against* Apple).
The "whole widget" may not be 100% litteral, but it can be used to describe Apple's business model accurately.
I'll tell you what can be used to accurately describe Apple's approach. Two words: Digital Hub with emphasis on the Hub.
By using this strategy Apple is shouting from the rooftops that it doesn't make the whole 'widget' but does make an excellent component of a bigger picture, but it seems no-one is listening.
I also find it mildly amusing that for the forseeable future the most commonly used apps on the Mac will be produced by Microsoft (Office and IE to be precise) and the only other big player famous for taking the whole widget line, namely SUN, is getting barracked for this very approach and has recently caved by announced high end servers based on AMD processors and a desktop line based on Linux. Yet here we are celebrating this rather dubious claim to fame that suggests the only reason a Mac is better than a VIAO is because Apple makes (parts of) the OS.
That's just nonsensical. There's plenty of 'concept car' style AIO units or tiny laptops etc. in Windows land. Not everything is just a standard box with a big name behind it, and even if it was theres still plenty of choices to be made.
This is not what I was talking about. The components in a Dell or Sony or whatever are not designed to work together seemlessly with each other or the OS, Apples components are. Horizontal vs Vertical.
You claim they can't even choose what appears on the desktop
Things are different now ... under pressure, M$ is starting to release some of it's grip.
Apple uses pretty much 'stock' everything.
No, the only stock items in an Apple are the hard drive and graphics card. They design their ASIC and motherboard as well as invest in the development of the G5.
Dell designs nothing, and that's how they will always win on price.
So are Sony, Dell and HP amongst others, except they are also releasing the actual players. It's a sodding mp3 player! How much intimate knowledge of the OS do you need?
Currently, you can't download DRM music on any type of MP3 player other than an iPod .... this is because Apple makes the OS, iTunes and the software on the iPod. The Apple experience is do to all the control Apple has over their products. The reason iTunes works so well on the Windows platform is that Apple owns quicktime giving them the control they need on the Windows platform.
I'll tell you what can be used to accurately describe Apple's approach. Two words: Digital Hub with emphasis on the Hub.
That is the result of Apples tight integration, not the reason for it.