What Device Should Apple Conquer Next?
I think most people will agree that Apple, as a whole, makes products that are very well designed. Two of their most elegantly designed products would have to be the iPod and the iMac. Of course the rest of their product line is also sleek and modern. Small features like the placement of ports or the MagSafe powercord combine with larger features like the back-lit keyboard or built-in camera to produce a really stunning bit of design. The end result is a very elegant piece of hardware.
This of course begs the question “what else could Apple improve?” Clearly Apple has a top-notch design team, so wouldn’t it be interesting to speculate on what other current technologies they could improve upon? Here are two very popular electronic devices that need Steve Job’s magic touch.
Cell Phones
The sad fact is that I have used multiple cellphones from several different carriers and each has sucked. Now, what makes this so frustrating, is that each phone has sucked in different ways. One has a speakerphone but a poor screen. One has a great menu but the buttons are difficult to use. The camera functions on many phones are implemented in annoying ways, making what could be a useful feature more of a hassle than it needs to be. Overall, I have yet to find one phone that excells in all areas.
And this state of affairs is rather strange considering how prevelant cellphones have become. One would think an enterprising company would do their best to create the best phone possible in hopes of dominating the market. But instead, something completely different has occurred. Since consumers have the ability to keep their phone number when switching carriers, the main selling point has become price and not ease of use. No one is really trying to make a better product, they are only trying to make one cheaper and with more features. Thus consumers have no reason to stay loyal to any particular company.
Wouldn’t this be a great market for Apple to turn on its head? Now, I am not advocating that they become a carrier themeselves, but rather a producer of cell phones. Nor am I in the camp that feels that all Apple needs to do is turn the iPod into a phone. I am rather against that stupid notion. The iPod works so well because it does one thing very well, playing music. Bolting a phone onto the iPod won’t create a sensation, it will create an embarassment. What I think Apple should do is incoporate the same principles that make the iPod sucessful into a phone. Features such as a very crisp screen, slim form and a minimum number of easy to use buttons. Make it white and incorporate the click wheel only if it adds to the phone, not because the iPod has it too. Apple has a chance here to produce a product that can sell at iPod like prices and yet reach and even larger market.
TVs
How about TVs? If you are an American you probably own several. You also probably have several different remotes, each more confusing than the last. How many buttons are on the average TV now? At least 20 for a cheap one and near 40 or 50 on the most expensive TVs. Isn’t that a bit overkill? Are TVs really that complicated? To put the number of keys on your average remote control into context think about it like this. The most complex of computers, running the most powerful of operating systems only uses a keyboard of about 50 keys. So why should your TV, which isn’t nearly as complex, require an input device with 30 buttons? Much of this complexity could be removed if only an efficient design was chosen in the first place.
Now, I don’t think Apple should drop everything and start making TVs anytime soon. However, if they ever looked around and wondered what market to go after next, then this is the one I would recommend. I want my TV to do more than what is currently is capable of. Apple can put a video camera in the screen of a laptop, why can’t someone add one of those to a TV and turn it into a video phone with a 42” display? Why can’t I use my TV as giant digital picture frame? The technology exist, so why doesn’t any company push the boundries of what a TV can be? It seems like adding color was the last big leap the industry took. Ever since then they have just been trying to make them smaller.
The last great design company might want to consider getting into other markets, if for no other reason than to bring its innovative touch to some industries greatly in need of creativity. Where has all the magic gone? Does it only exist in Cupertino?
Comments
I think whatever Apple delved into next, they should just stick to what they’re good at doing - keeping things simple. I always have mates who either don’t have an iPod or have another MP3 player, and they always ask the same question “why is it that the iPod is the most expensive MP3 player available, the most popular?” I always answer with “Because it’s so simple to use”.
Consumers, whether they are busy business men, students in demand of paying more attention to coursework than anything else, or full time parents, they don’t have time to be reading manuals all day and they certainly don’t have time to pick the device up and spend hours trying to work out how it works - especially if it’s just an MP3 player.
Apple are so popular because they stick to simple - as you’ve pointed out with the T.V remotes situation. There isn’t really the need for those 30+ buttons.
I think whatever Apple decide to get into next, provided they keep things straight forward, simple to work out and easy to use, they’ll succeed.
“Now, what makes this so frustrating, is that each phone has sucked in different ways.”
It’s called diversity. ;-] Would you like them better if they all sucked in the same way? ;-]
Sure cellphones are a problem. We need Apple to solve it!
“Wouldn’t this be a great market for Apple to turn on its head? Now, I am not advocating that they become a carrier themeselves, but rather a producer of cell phones.”
It makes no sense. Apple likes controlling all parts of “user experience”. So if they control only phones people will suffer from frustrating tariffs, poor service quality etc. Apple definitely will become an MVNO if they release the iPhone.
“Features such as a very crisp screen, slim form and a minimum number of easy to use buttons.”“How many buttons are on the average TV now? At least 20 for a cheap one and near 40 or 50 on the most expensive TVs. Isn’t that a bit overkill? “
So your main “wish” for phones and TVs is “less buttons”? I probably think the same. But some modern phones have few buttons, if buttons with numbers don’t count. ;-] Click wheel seems to be the only way of text/number input that can be as convenient as standard buttons. So Apple will have to use click wheel to “reinvent the cell phone”. And they’ll have to do the same with TV remotes.
However, I don’t think Apple will (and should) make TVs. IPods don’t have FM radio for a reason. A few reasons, actually. The same reasons work for TV shows. And, in my opinion, watching TV is faux pas. Uhm…I mean mauvais ton… ;-]
“The most complex of computers, running the most powerful of operating systems only uses a keyboard of about 50 keys.”
??? What do you mean? ;-] Sure you can say “about 50 keys” about 100 keys… or is it a “special” computer? ;-]
They need to produce an iPhone, and they need to start advertising on TV in Europe (Ireland), much much more. If they made a TV that would be mega cool too! And I second the keep things simple, thought.
Uh… James, Apple already make TVs: http://www.apple.com/displays/
Tell me the difference between a 30” Apple LCD and a 30” Sony LCD TV.
Disappointing article James. No thought, this time, it seems. I was expecting you were about to speculate on something like, “the next ipod” product, or “the next groundbreaking innovation”, but the article went downhill after the opening paragraph. < Just some constructive criticism.
Apple is in the business of selling hardware not service - aka multi-year mobile phone contracts, recurring customer complaints, expensive technical support and capital infrastructures, etc. is too much trouble for a very innovative company.
Case in point, iTunes is a service that does not make more than a dime from each sell. That dime is barely enough to support the site, staff, and content that is available. But iTunes sells not just millions of ‘Pods. I assumes it sells tons of PCs - Mac and XP both. It is the best out there.
What Apple need and will do is leverage their advantage - simplicity. Simplicity = Innovative yet Cool. Simplicity = Must Have…
So, we know most of their products have Bluetooth built-in (laptops in particular). And we know iChat is a very capable communications protocol using a commodity medium we call the Internet. Now, all Apple needs to make 2 + 2 = Insane Great product is to produce a bluetooth handset that integrates…nah, takes advantage of what is already in everyones computers. Now, I did not say use 802.11x air interface. How that may be enticing since it is ubiquitous is beyond my technical knowledge of the air protocol. It was meant to be point-to-point data interface not a mobile-to-point. Without getting into details, yes it can be used as such but not very efficient. Remember, all your neighbors are using 802.11x and you have a very limited channeling options to begin with. In a word - you have interference - and more so as we enter the 802.11n mesh era, blah…blah…
Bluetooth was designed for coexistence in a personal space (WPAN) of ~10-20 meters. That is good enough even in a very big room or hotel lobby. And Bluetooth in its rev 2 will adopt UWB as its air interface. That means if Apple adopts Bluetooth now in its media products - iPods, iPhone, etc. it will have a media-centric (massive data rates - mind you) products now and into the forseeable future.
How such a product help sell hardware. Simple. A product such as a Bluetooth handset that ties in with iChat or some other great app that Steve is brewing, would jump-start the usage of what’s already in most G4 and G5 products. Then the snowball effect rolls as friends of friends starts hearing the “coolness” of the device for not much more than, say $50.
I understand that most people would want to call a landland or a mobile phone at the other end. This is where the partnership with other carriers like the PSTNs and wireless carriers come in. Apple should not provide the service itself. It is not their forte. This gives incentives to other third parties in supporting the medium and infrastructure .
And lastly, yes, Apple is not the first to market with this kind of device but remember, neither was the iPod. Case close.