It is very early in the game but it seems to me that both Apple iPad and Google Buzz are ugly puppies. No matter how cute the marketers try to make them look, people just aren't going to want to cozy up and play with them.
You'd think that these two brilliant product companies would know better. I did. expected more out of an Apple slate and Google's first real foray into social networking. I've even tried to love--or even like- Buzz and the iPad but I don't.
These are companies whose design teams have understood product simplicity and elegance. They have found demand where conventional wisdom assumed there was none. Yet here they are dragging these ugly puppies to market and they are going to wind up with pee on their feet.
The horridly named iPad seems to me to be no more than a jumbo iPhone, except it doesn't fit in your pocket and it's not that good for talking. It's good for visually impaired people I'm told, but I can see no other compelling use for it. I've asked people on Twitter their views and their is little love and less lust for it.
Google Buzz has an appropriate name. Buzz is the last thing that you hear before getting stung and that is what is about to happen to Google with this intrusive first serious foray into social networking.
This product adds nothing to an already crowded market. Those of us who use Gmail and other Google products have no choice to see it because Google has inserted it on our products and makes it nearly impossible to remove.
I can find no consumer need for Buzz. It duplicates functionality in an already crowded market. I suspect its primary purpose was not technical inspiration but a desire for Google to open a new advertising channel.
Why did these two mistakes happen? How could they have been prevented?
Well, they happened in part because success causes arrogance. Development teams start thinking, "Hey we're Apple. People love our products." So they develop an unlovable product and figure brand and marketing will push it into the marketplace.
But instead of market acceptance, these two mistakes are going to put big zits on the face of the Apple and Google brands.
They could ave been very easily prevented by having the companies join the conversations of social media just like other companies have done. As cool as Google and Apple seem to be, they are among the most traditional of marketing companies.
If they used social media to ask customers then listen and respond, then expensive mistakes like these would happen less often.
Yeah, yeah, I know. They are public companies and they cannot talk about future products that can impact revenue. The workaround are abundant and so are the case studies.
The bottom line is you can ask people what they think. You can say, if we engineer a puppy that looks like the one above, would you take it home with you.
People will tell you.
{ 1 trackback }
{ 17 comments }
BSpolsky,
Yes, I am still reading comments and since I wrote this, the iPad has launched and has a great many people who have tried it and love it. Very few sound disappointed. To it is likely--as I promised Susan in her comment--that I will have to apologize about calling the iPad an ugly puppy.
Funny, so far, no one has told me I was wrong on Google Buzz.
Late to this conversation...
But if you're still reading, Shel, another thought about the iPad...it takes the mobile computing a step further than any previous device and the general format will succeed whether or not Apple or Google or some other party ends up with the lion's share of market. I wish the actual device were a bit lighter (perhaps in time), but the form factor of a tablet is so much more preferred for casual and even some business travel to that of a laptop.
Additionally, the multimedia capabilities of the device, specifically that of being a reader and a viewer (video, photos, etc.), are much more attractive than similar functionality on either the smartphones or laptop alternatives. I cannot read books on my iPhone nor do I like to do so on my laptop. And the reading interface Apple provides is gorgeous and as much a simulacrum to reading a printed book as a virtual device can come today.
Finally, there's the availability now and likely abundance in the future of software for creation and productivity so that the device is not limited to being only a passive receptacle for viewing and reading but can be a mobile productivity tool.
Yes, multitasking is important and it has to be on the horizon. Along with a camera. Along with greater local storage. But this is perhaps the real dawn of cloud computing, device independence, and meaningful digital mobility.
Arrogance is thinking that the iPad was made for your demographic. Also, what exactly did you want in a mythical tablet design? And, once you have figured that out, do you think the target market for such a device is larger than the one Apple is targeting?
If you want use mobile for calling or receiving some one , it is not the right model for you, If you want to use many tech-savvy feature ,you love to use it.
Ryan,
I didn't realize that I sounded touchy. I do not feel that people in general are being disrespectful. And Iregret if I'm being perceived that way.
Looking at the 2 photographs at the top of the article, I can't help thinking there is an uncanny ressemblance between the donkey and you (I swear, just photoshop the donkey ears onto your face!) Please don't take it bad, I love donkeys, even dog donkeys!
shelisrael,
I have nothing to add to the discussion itself as most of the posters have already pointed out what I wanted to say but why so touchy? Most of those who comment have been very respectful so far, even if they do disagree with you. You should see what other writers who disagree with Apple get in the other new sites.
I'll be first in line to give you a big "I told you so." ;)
S
Susan,
Thanks for saying that you respect me. It happens that so far, almost everyone thinks I'm either premature or dead wrong. In fact, I'll be happy to admit it if the market proves me wrong.
We shall see.
Shel, I have so much respect for you but this time I think you missed the call. The magic of iPad is yet to be discovered and I'm betting on it. I already know clever business people and delelopers ready to launch clever, and large scale, uses for the product. Horribly named? Think about it... iPod, iPhone, iPad, if we branded everything to avoid ridicule by the lowest common denominator, where would Twitter be? Off to the grocery with my pad and pen, or need I say spiral-bound sheets of paper manufactured for the purpose of assisting my aging memory. Hey, I might get an iPad just for those lists! Much easier than this little tiny phone. Best! SL
I can tell you've never seen, touched or used an iPad in person. It's tough evaluating hardware from a picture, written description or brief demo movie. We sympathize.
Let's just say that 95% of the people on earth cannot set up and use a PC out of the box with no IT aid whatsoever. Most of those people could figure out the iPad, on their own, in their own language, if they were near a free WiFi site. That's the iPad's secret weapon. It will work in any language and it will operate without the ownership of a second computer.
That's why the iPad will be BIG and your naysaying will fall upon deaf ears.
you declare the iPad a failure before it's even out? don't you care to wait and see what happens once the product can actually be bought? did you happen to say the same things about the iPod and the iPhone before or when they came out, respectively? because a lot of people said the same things about them then as you do now, and a lot of people were very wrong about it. I predict the iPad (p.s.: look up the word "pad" in a dictionary - you'll be surprised) will be a very successful product. people like you just don't get it, and that's fine. this product is not for you. but by claiming it will be a terrible mistake, you kind of look foolish.
In my opinion, you have your theory completely backward. If you ask people what they want, and try to please everyone, you will end up with the above puppy. Asking people what they want and then trying to give it to them is easy (and bad) way to design something. What good designers try to do is to figure out the problems people are having, and then find the best solution to those problems (which is usually not what they initially ask for).
You prove that you are not in the iPad's target market.
Apple has been underestimated before by people like you. The iPhone was dismissed as a woefully deficient Smart Phone. Pundits, world wide, said that no one would buy it because it was too expensive initially and the Smart Phone market was already saturated. But, Apple sold tens of millions of them by creating its own market.
The iPhone's customers came mostly from feature phones. Why hadn't these people bought a Smart Phone before? It was because the other Smart Phones had data plans which were too expensive and the phone, itself, was too hard to use. Apple solved both of those problems and turned the mobile phone market upside down.
Apple is doing the same thing now with the iPad. It is creating a market for an easy-to-use computer appliance for people who hate computers. Its target market is the young, the old and the technically incompetent.
This market segment is immense. Over 50% of Americans do not use computers. Why? Because computers are geeky and too hard-to-use. The iPad is designed to solve this problem and it will be a huge success.
Meanwhile, you can stand over in the corner looking perplexed. It is what they did with the iPhone.
It's not a phone, so why would anyone buying it be bothered about not being able to make phone calls? 3G connectivity is about data access anywhere, while those not taking their iPad on the road will only want WiFi. It just doesn't seem that complicated to me. Anyone that has an iTouch probably gets the idea that a bigger device with more capability, which reading the specs and guessing what more screen real estate and power will bring and seeing what the office-like aps will mean, will be a total win-win situation. Those trapped in the mindset that it's supposed to be a phone or a "Jesus device" seem clueless.
While I guess your analysis might turn out to be correct, I think it is a pretty big call to be making before the products have even gone on sale. Just remember that just because something does not fit your needs or requirements, that doesn't mean the same applies to everybody else. Furthermore, I'm guessing that you haven't used either device yet - your statement would be more meaningful if you had used the products and found them to be dogs. While I own plenty of Apple products, I won't be rushing out to buy an iPad on day one - but I will be having a good look at them once they are released and I can have a look, and play with, the actual device. Perhaps then I will come to the same conclusion as you already have - or maybe not.
Your analysis seems a bit premature. If the iPad is simply a big iPhone or big iPod Touch, then your analysis is likely correct. However, I for one am holding off on such analyses till after using these devices. Many people underestimated the iPhone because they approached the product analysis within the context of the smartphone market at the time, or worse the general cell phone market at the time. Likewise, we may be wrong to analyze the iPad using iPhone criteria. The iPad will live or die based on applications and functions. [One simple example: I suspect the Citrix receiver app will be significantly more useful on an iPad versus an iPhone.]
Comments on this entry are closed.