People complaining about new models
 

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57...ipad-obsolete/

So, already, people are complaining that a new model of Apple's stuff makes their previous stuff, somehow and magically, "obsolete".

I don't understand why people feel this way.

You were perfectly happy with your iPad 3 yesterday. How can you be dissatisfied with it just because a new one came out today? Sure, it's no longer the latest and greatest, but so what? It performs just as well today as it did yesterday.

I bought a mid-2012 MBP 13 in June. I don't feel the slightest bit of "anger" (or whatever) that they came out with a new one only 4 months later. Why should I? I still got what I paid for.

People need to get over their whole "Keeping up with someone else" business and quit complaining over such senseless things. IMHO, of course (:

If you want the latest and greatest, then just go buy it every time it comes out. If you can't afford it, then maybe you should get a hobby that you CAN afford.

Of course, you're absolutely correct with what you're saying. But if you would like some insight into why people might feel that way, along with an enormous dose of hyperbole, maybe this will help:

What it's like to own an Apple product

Trevor

I don't worry in the slightest about newer and fancier Apple products making what I've got "obsolete".

I do worry about my future as an Apple customer when I see that the company has once again dropped technologies that I've got investments in

I'd say it's more accurate to call that funny piece, "What it's like to be a moron obsessed with owning the latest and greatest, while having poor decision-making skills".

One man's "dropped technology" is another man's "updated technology". But yeah, I feel ya. The move away from SCSI hurt me. The impending move away from FW800 didn't make me happy either - but I'm managing it. All the whining about the new lightning connector is just uncalled for though - the old connector has been around a LONG time. Still - it would have been NICE if Apple had been putting out some kind of notice, "Hey, just so you know, we're going to be changing this thing..." but that's not how the company operates. Anyone not living under a rock KNOWS the company thrives on secrecy, and if you buy its stuff anyway, you don't have much room to complain when it bites you.

I'd be more concerned about long product cycles. Consider, for example, the Macintosh IIci. I owned this machine - and I find it to be one of the best products ever produced by Apple. It was also on the market for almost three and a half years. That's a long time! You could never get by with that kind of product life today. So, then, what is so magical about, for example, a 1 year cycle? What's better about 1 year than 2? or 2 than 3? Or 1 than 6 months for that matter? It's just an arbitrary number. What if Apple updated its entire product line every month - slow, gradual improvements - with "major changes" on a completely unpredictable cycle?

If nothing else, a "regular cycle" promotes an Osbourne effect - people in Q4 of a known 1 year cycle may just delay purchase until Q1 of the next cycle. You see it on the boards all the time - "should I buy now, or wait for the new machine coming out soon?" The answer is really, it doesn't matter when you buy, something better will come out eventually. I think it would be better for everyone if products were updated in a much more rapid fashion, and without all the fanfare unless there is some really dramatic change. I also think that with the way manufacturing is going, we will see more of this. Hardware production cycles are becoming like software production cycles, and embracing the notion, "Release Early, Release Often" .

On that last comment - just came across this:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technolog...Pad-sales.html

Your "everyone" includes Apple I presume.
So you are suggesting that Apple could make more profit by changing the way it does things?
Apple's recent history would seem to show that it is the world's expert on how to make a profit selling hardware.

That's not "my" everyone, that's a quote from TC.

Yes...but not just Apple.

There's always room for more.

So, who is going to decide what is a "really dramatic change", and what is not?

"dramatic change" would be in the eyes of the product announcement/advertising team, and the potential customer isn't usually offered the opportunity to decide on how dramatic something is ahead of time - at least in my limited experience...

My vote would be the people involved in releasing whatever the product is.

iPhone 4 has been on the market for over two years, and should make it to a little over three years before it is out of production.
iPad 2: 1.5 years so far, may make it to 2.5.
iPod touch 4G, iPod shuffle: 2 years so far.

Tooling up for a new model costs a lot of money. Adding parts to inventory costs money. Retraining tech support and maintenance people costs money. Keeping the high end model from previous years to fill out the midrange and low end saves a ton of money.

None of which are computers.

The only device in your quoted list that would not qualify as a computer is the Shuffle. The others even have voice recognition.

After reading this I got curious about how things really stacked up.

Apple's net sales last year was US$108 Billion. That's with a "B". That amount by itself is larger than 160 countries' GDP and in the Fortune-50 class beside various conglomerates and global oil companies in addition to being ahead of Nissan and IBM* . If we add in the $81B cash in the bank it ends up well into first-world country category in addition to bigger then General Motors (with zero debt and significantly better credit ratings).

And this is with a product line that basically consists of 2 major groups and under a dozen distinct products**.

It would appear that the Osbourne Effect isn't significant and that it's making literal boatloads*** of money as-is, so lets say the present method is working pretty well and no one in their right mind would consider messing with it.



* Microsoft didn't make the top-50 list

** the software products are not counted as they are completely dependent on the hardware.

*** 1,890 metric tons if withdrawn in $100s. You'll need 88 TEU containers to haul it.

For anyone wishing to follow up on this, Asymco.com is a good source for information. The "Apple Revenues by Product Line" graph in this post is telling:

http://www.asymco.com/2012/08/21/the-interlopers/

Note that most of Apple's revenue is coming from iPhone and iPad.

I find a lot of entertainment value in this thread.

You're right. There is no way Apple can improve its business processes or practices. It has reached perfection.

Is it not the same with all manufacturers products? Particularly when buying them for your children. Its a sad fact of life you think you are buying the 'greatest' only for them to come home from school 2 days later wailing that Little Johnny is showing off the latest model.

I come from the age where no kids at you school had a mobile (or Ipad) now they are considered freaks if they dont have one :(

Yeah, see, that's the problem right there.

People need to be buying their kids a LOT less stuff. Period.

That's called "being greedy". Their process works very well as-is.


Couldn't agree more. 7 year-olds have mobile phones over here. I don't recall ever needing a mobile phone when I was 7.

Yes, optimizing your processes so that you can sell products for less, or pay your workers more (all without sacrificing margins or quality), or invest more in R&D, or invest in other ways is definitely all about being greedy.

None of those points were mentioned earlier - your comments in #4 are solely concerned with the consumer end. They already optimize the manufacturing process as the product ages but those internals are of no interest to the end user.

The employees seem to be paid fairly well - I haven't heard of staff quitting over compensation.

Given the $80B cash in the bank the R&D budget is likely on the "healthy" side.

The Japanese mobile phone industry has steadily reduced their product cycle time to the point where new models last about 6 months. It's not doing them any good as the new models don't have enough differences to distinguish them from the one consumers already have, thus removing the desire to buy. The industry's bottom line reflects this consumer attitude, with people hanging on to regular phones for longer than they used to.