Cell phones cooler than cars? No way! Way. CNW Marketing Research recently reported that thirty-two percent of today’s 16 to 29-year-olds view Apple’s new cell phone as the hot ticket to campus stardom. Only twenty percent made the same claim for a car. In fact, the survey found that any kid fortunate enough to lift an iPhone to his or her ear was guaranteed a seventy percent popularity rating. If we accept that the iPhone is the King of cool, what does Apple know that has the U.S. automobile industry doesn’t, that allows a nerdy little electronic device to trump the [formerly] ultimate symbol of adult independence?
Apple works to a relatively simple recipe: combine incredibly appealing form with reliable, user-friendly function. As Apple’s former vice president of advanced technology put it, “Attractive things work better. When you wash and wax your car, it drives better, doesn’t it? Or at least it feels like it does.” Warm fuzzies are high on Don Norman’s list of priorities, as he explained in his tome Emotional Design. “Positive emotions are critical to learning, curiosity and creative thought.”
Reflecting this ethos, Apple sweats the small stuff. In 1983, the company adopted a design language with its own “coherent visual vocabulary” to insure continuity across its products. Today, Apple devotes at least 15 percent of its hardware development process to conceptualizing the look, shape, size and feel of a new product. Most companies– in most fields– do not.
The majority of the domestic automobile industry spends precious little time coordinating / obsessing about the look and feel of the entire product (not just the sheetmetal). And that’s just wrong. Although many enthusiasts dismiss mass market motors as “appliances,” all drivers and passengers interact intimately (now, now) with their transportation. And just like computerized gizmos, a car’s design has a huge impact on our mood.
When Toyota launched Lexus, auto aficionados heard tales of ToMoCo engineers sweating minute details, from the placement and feel of the switchgear; to the tone, pitch and volume of the exhaust note; to the suspension’s rebound rate. By contrast, most domestic interior during the late ’80’s were an afterthought– as were exteriors, exhaust systems and handling dynamics.
To a greater or lesser extent, Toyota, Honda, Nissan, Audi and VW have also created handsome, aesthetically coherent products for the mass market. With rare exceptions, Detroit still doesn’t get it. You need only look at the interior of the Chevrolet Corvette to wonder why Lord, why?
Norman also revealed that Apple’s product evaluation process requires a marketing plan, engineering specifications and a user experience document. “Marketing is what people want,” Mark Rolston, senior vice president of creative at Frog Design, adds: “Engineering is what we can do; user experience is ‘Here’s how people like to do things.’”
A coherent evaluation procedure does not guarantee great products. Apple’s product development system was in place during those bleak years when Steve Jobs was in exile. Without Jobs’ presence to steer the ship, Apple’s design-by-committee free-for-all created severely compromised products.
Jobs– whom Norman describes as a “dictator with taste”– restored discipline in the development cycle. Once the concept of the final product crystallized, no deviation was permitted. Period.
How many times have car manufacturers paraded around delicious cutting-edge design concepts at auto shows– only to deliver ridiculously compromised copies in production? Well exactly. Clearly, Detroit lacks the commanders and command structure needed to fully realize its designer’s visions.
“The hardest part of design,” writes Norman “is keeping features out.” Rolston underlines the point: “[Apple] is just as smart about what they don’t do. Great products can be made more beautiful by omitting things.” The iPod, for example, has fewer features than its competitors, but its minimalist elegance makes it a success.
In the automotive arena, feature overload is rampant. In Jay Shoemaker’s recent critique of the Porsche Cayenne Turbo, the TTAC scribe was dismayed by the 39 buttons crowding around the navigation screen on the center console. For the love of the fish, it’s an SUV, not the Space Shuttle! Without a navigation officer, how’s a pilot supposed to operate the nav system while negotiating his way through traffic?
To recapture hearts and minds, automakers need to design elegant vehicles that don’t try to be all things to all people. They need to produce simple, well-engineered cars with tastefully uncomplicated driver interfaces, free from distracting superfluous accessories.
The alternative is unthinkable. Imagine a modern day American Graffiti. Bad boy Bob Falfa (Harrison Ford) sends innocent young Carol (Mackenzie Phillips) into ecstatic delirium each time he whips out his iPhone. While intimidating rival John Milner, Falfa says, “Hey you're s'posed to be the fastest thing in the Valley man, but that can't be your iPhone. It must be your mama's iPhone! I'm sorta' embarrassed to be this close to ya!”
“Clearly, Detroit lacks the commanders and command structure needed to fully realize its designer’s visions.” – Yes! If management had the discipline to make a plan and stick to it, imagine how much shorter Detroit’s production cycles would be! Also, my car gains 3-4 rwhp from a good wash.
Great article!
In all fairness, cars are probably a little harder to design than an iPhone. On the other hand, the Corvette’s interior is a crime.
Something about this whole article doesn’t sit right with me. Steve Jobs re-installed the creativity and passion in their designs which make their products a cut above the rest; yet, the big 2.8 can’t grasp this concept. Well, as much as I love Toyota cars, when were they ever famous for passion and creativity? Yes, they make reliable, good quality workhorses, but I believe they are just as guilty as Detroit for products with no soul.
“Great products can be made more beautiful by omitting things.”
Amen…..in the midst of design excess in the 50’s and 60’s, Lincoln introduced the Continental that absolutely wowed everyone by its simplicity of design. Another case was the original VW Beetle that maintained a very simple design for over 30 years.
Excellent Article.
The domestics are by far the worst offenders of not realizing the merits of a simple, cohesive design language. I swear it seems like their idea of linking the brand through common design stops at the freaking grill…otherwise all bets are off.
It amazes me that the same company that designed the 300…designed the freaking Sebring. One is clean (if a bit “blingy”) while the other is a chimera….like 5 designers were each given a part of the car to design without any communication with the other members of the project.
# KatiePuckrik:
July 17th, 2007 at 8:11 am
Something about this whole article doesn’t sit right with me. Steve Jobs re-installed the creativity and passion in their designs which make their products a cut above the rest; yet, the big 2.8 can’t grasp this concept. Well, as much as I love Toyota cars, when were they ever famous for passion and creativity? Yes, they make reliable, good quality workhorses, but I believe they are just as guilty as Detroit for products with no soul.
Open the hood or trunk of a typical Toyota. Everything fits perfectly and some engineers spent a fair amount of time eliminating unnecessary screws and bolts sticking out, wires and hoses draped all over the place and just a general sense of tidiness.
Maybe the soul isn’t visible but it’s there. It’s the soul of people that care about the finished product and delight in their abilities to do things better than the competition. It’s the hidden things that determine the true passion of a vehicle. I submit Toyota, like Apple, understands this.
I think this article is a bit off base in its comparison of cars to iPhones. The desirability isn’t about the design, it’s about expectations and exclusivity.
People in the 16 to 29 age group view a car as an expected necessity. No one is going to impress their friends with something that everyone has and takes for granted. And don’t give most of the non-Detroit car-makers too much credit. As someone in the 16 to 29 age group, let me assure you, no one in this age group is going to impressed by anyone showing up in a Toyota, Honda, Nissan, or VW despite their “handsome, aesthetically coherent products”. Right or wrong, for this age group, cars are viewed as a necessity and not something to brag about.
The iPhone is the biggest item right now because it is in short supply and relatively expensive. Considering you can get an average cell phone for $50, the iPhone is 12 times more expensive than average. With a car, if the Civic is average, I’m sure I could impress my friends with a $200,000 car.
Even the iPod is now common and taken for granted despite it’s once cutting-edge design and desirablity. Though the iPod (26%) still ranked higher than a car (20%), it goes to show that newness and exclusivity is a much bigger factor in desirability than design.
Correct Cowbell, turn up to campus in something like an Audi R8, Ferrari or an Aston Martin and you’d have stories to tell the grandkids for years.
Everyone, be a sheep and get an ipod. Has apple copyrighted the soapbar shape yet?!
The Truth About Design? :)
So what we’re saying is that 2.8 should model themselves on a company who makes overhyped products that’s big on style, short on substance, and has a cult-like fanboy following who will buy any flashy product no matter how ridiculously overpriced. Sorry, but I’ll pass on thinking that’s how cars should be built.
Cowbell: IMHO, there is nothing exclusive about an iPod. They are about as ubiquitous as an electronic appliance can be. Apple is successful with the iPod because either (a) they are better than their competitors, or (b) they project the image of being better than their competitors. This is a formula that can definitely be applied analyzing Toyota, Honda, VW, etc.
Not all things in this world are about exclusivity – mass market success means your product is not exclusive by definition. I don’t think the point of all of this is that car companies need to appeal to 16-29 year olds, but that they need to pay attention to details in their designs.
So what we’re saying is that 2.8 should model themselves on a company who makes overhyped products that’s big on style, short on substance, and has a cult-like fanboy following who will buy any flashy product no matter how ridiculously overpriced. Sorry, but I’ll pass on thinking that’s how cars should be built.
Since 2001, Apple’s stock has grown more than 650% while competing against industry juggernauts such as Microsoft, Dell, et al. That growth didn’t come from selling hype and candy-coated rabbit scat.
Meanwhile, the Ford and GM’s stock is currently valued at less than 1/3 of what it was 5 years ago.
So who should emulate whom?
has a cult-like fanboy following who will buy any flashy product no matter how ridiculously overpriced
Have you ever visited VW Vortex?
Almost no one in the automotive world cares about simplicity and user-based design. At the 2005 NAIAS, I counted that interior light dimmer knobs were labeled differently not only between brands but within brands…Toyota was one of the worst offenders. That is just labeling, but the worst issues are far worse–they are those that require that a driver take their focus off the road and onto the interior controls.
I have been a long-time cheerleader of buying the cheapest car possible if for no other reason than the control interfaces are among the most usable. When features start moving upmarket, then analog knobs that are perfectly suited to a task are no longer “luxurious enough” and are replaced by buttons that are horribly-suited to most tasks that one performs in a vehicle. I hope that attention can be given to making the vehicle safe, usable, and pleasant to use–not just flashy and high-technology.
There is a big disconnect between what sells and what SHOULD sell, and unfortunately, I don’t see this changing anytime before people start viewing usability as a safety and quality-of-driving issue.
That said, having features available is a good thing, but they should be laid out (or sometimes hidden) in a thoughtful and efficient manner.
Also, I agree, my Corolla and Civic are laid out really well for service. I love it. I can change the oil on the Corolla without a jack even though the vehicle rides fairly low to the ground. Those little touches make servicing the vehicle yourself a pleasure.
It’s all about elegance: refined, graceful, concise.
BW, I don’t mean to sound like an Apple fan. I do consider their items to be candy-coated and a bit more simplistic than I can handle. I like to be able to adjust and fiddle a lot. I would hate to own the vehicle equivalent of an iPod. Drive it to the iService store to have proprietary oil installed? No thanks!
“On the other hand, the Corvette’s interior is a crime.”
I don’t think the Corvette would sell any better if it had a Porsche interior. In fact, this obsession on this website with interiors truly astounds me.
The Jeep Wrangler has an awful interior and sells fantastically. The Pontiac GTO had a wonderful interior but was a dud. I have one each of the above cars. The truly gorgeous interior of the GTO is something that I almost never notice, let alone think about. And the Vette’s awful, plastic interior likewise.
Toyotas are for people who hate cars, no muss no fuss no soul – transportation appliances.
the i-pod frenzy only pictures the yearnings of american people to buy american products. ipod is not so popular in europe. IF ONLY AMERICANS NEW that their ipod is actually constructed by many korean and chinese companies, including samsung, and was not techically designed in-house, but assembled by foreign companies from foreign engineered parts, without apple blueprints.you can guys simply buy sony, it doesn`t pretend to be built by sony, because it is.if the same device bore toshiba logo, it wouldn`t be a top seller in usa. the truth is ironical.
what american car companies really need to do, is to start a FAIR game.yes, build your own hydra-matics, build your own engines and platforms. hyundai created a whole new v8 and a rwd platform for the upcoming genesis sedan. and people respect that. you can`t deserve respect and audience by faking, cheating and using borrowed parts of opel or daewoo. mAKING GOOD CARS WON`T CUT IT…. start fair game. make a commitment not to run business, but to run cars, and the business will take care of itself.unless you can honestly relate terms` really american` high quality` and reliable ,you won`t have back your market share……………..ever!
Drive it to the iService store to have proprietary oil installed? No thanks!
I’m not sure what that means, since AAC is no more proprietary than MP3 (cue flamewar).
But as to your previous comment:
When features start moving upmarket, then analog knobs that are perfectly suited to a task are no longer “luxurious enough” and are replaced by buttons that are horribly-suited to most tasks that one performs in a vehicle.
As they say, “less is more,” and part of successful engineering is knowing what not to do. I still recall an (apocryphal?) anecdote from an engineering professor who claimed that one design of an advanced cockpit instrument panel included a button whose sole function was to toggle the cabin lights via computer.
It makes me wonder, these anti-analog crusaders: do they secretly dream of replacing the steering wheel with huge left and right buttons? And what of the pedals?
Personally, I blame Star Trek.
I agree wholeheartedly with the premise that the Detroit automakers need to begin to make a bona fide effort to compete based upon aesthetics and style. Since they can’t win on quality (which has been cornered by Toyota, Honda and, to a lesser extent, Nissan) or cachet (BMW, etc.), they need to do something else.
That being said, I’d say that Apple is not the ideal role model. Apple is actually a lot more like the Big 2.8 than people might believe. Instead of having a steady, sustainable long-term business model that works most of the time, the company is actually built on a string of one-hit wonders that give it incredible success for a time before it makes huge missteps and the company deteriorates to the brink of failure.
Consider this — once, Apple dominated the consumer PC market with the Apple IIe, it was the GM of the business for a time. But their failure to see how the market was changing and how growing competition would move the market in new directions caught them by such surprise that it declined to become a niche player that has never regained its lead, and has little chance of ever expanding beyond that. The company was close to death as a result of its mistakes.
Apple then created the Lisa, which was a huge flop, but which led them to the MacIntosh. For awhile, it gave the company a lift, until Microsoft figured out how to emulate it with ever-improving versions of Windows. More importantly, MS figured out how to make its product ubiquitous so that Apple would be forever relegated to a tiny corner of the market, even though Apple invented the interface.
Apple is in the same situation today. At the moment, times are very good, and it has found a way to turn its brand into a name that can leverage huge margins. But those same high margins will attract a slew of competitors who want a piece of the action, which will inevitably lead to stiffer competition and, over time, much lower prices.
I believe that you’ll see that Apple will make similar mistakes with the iTunes/I-whatever products that Ford made with the Taurus. The Taurus was a huge hit that was based largely on styling, but over time, others could copy it to the point that styling was no longer enough for it to stand out, and succeeding generations would need something more. Apple has done a lovely job of creating a market for MP3 players and, more importantly, for content distribution, but these can and will be copied by competitors that learn how to develop cool brands and by other distribution channels that will take advantage of the fact that the music industry does not want to be owned by Steve Jobs, and therefore has an incentive to find other outlets.
The real test for Apple will be whether it can take this great brand that it has created during the last few years and extend it into a sustainable space that it can defend and maintain. If Apple falls into its usual habits, then consider the iPhone to be the technology equivalent of the Ford Taurus, rather than its Honda Accord.
The iPhone is the biggest item right now because it is in short supply and relatively expensive. Considering you can get an average cell phone for $50, the iPhone is 12 times more expensive than average. With a car, if the Civic is average, I’m sure I could impress my friends with a $200,000 car.
There are plenty of things that are expensive and rare that kids couldn’t give a rip about. There is a desirability (emotional) factor that must be present for products to be successful (i.e. the demand in the Supply & Demand equation). Right now, Apple is the best company at cultivating desire while the US automakers seem to have forgotten how.
What Detroit needs is another Taurus.
I agree with Mr. Montgomery. Please, put me in a car that doesn’t require playing 20 questions with the owner’s manual to figure out how to turn on the windshield wipers, dim the interior lighting, and load a CD. That is where Apple gets it right — blast their products all you want for being simplistic, but it sells because people don’t want to do battle with their gadget-du-jour in order to do the simple things. No one wants to waste the time on that, and if you do, then you’ve got more free time than I do.
Detroit should take major cues from Apple. Keep it simple, keep it elegant, and keep the manufacturing costs down. Innovate. Do something (at least one thing) better than anyone else with a similar product. Keep everything tightly under wraps until the grand reveal — make people want to see what your next product is, don’t just toss out dozens of concepts that never get made and never fail to disappoint when they do get made. And make people feel like they’re getting their money’s worth.
“It’s not feature-crippled, it’s elegant!”
Yes, well, some of the things Apple leaves out of its products to produce this “elegance” are akin to leaving out air conditioning or power steering in a car design. Will the loyalists complain? No, they’ll sweat and muscle and enjoy the status symbol. After all, it still drives, doesn’t it? Fortunately, the rest of us, who aren’t mesmerized solely at the logo branded on the the gadget du jour, will move to (literally) cooler competitors with fuller feature sets.
Versatility and complexity do not automatically equate to bad design. Nor does simplicity mean superiority. Your Porsche has too many buttons? Well, if they’re going to ruin your driving experience, why don’t you take my nice, simple Toyota. No? That’s what I thought.
Isn’t this a comparison of apples to lemons?
All of this analysis of the iPod/iPhone success is missing a big point about cars.
The number one thing that people care about and the number one thing killing the big 2.71828 is the amount of time the darned thing spends in the shop.
If you want Apple-like ergonomics and form-is-function, the way to go in cars is Volkswagen. The reason VW remains a niche player in the U.S. is those things spend too much time in the shop.
Given that they got consumer gadgets to the point where they are not breaking down all the time, yes, then you can differentiate on ergonomics and Donald Normanish economy of features.
You simply can’t make a clean comparison between the two industries: Apple computers have a loyal following, but only 6.38% marketshare in their main business – personal computers. They have increased their industry marketshare by branching into new product areas where they have either revolutionized the segment (see iPod) or tried to improve upon the best in the existing segment (jury’s still out on the iPhone). If any comparisons can be made, it is to the Toyota Prius which has opened a new segment in the industry, has a small but loyal following, and draws rave reviews from critics; yet still only accounts for a mere 1.4% of U.S. automotive market share. The portion of the article that attempted a comparison of Apple’s passionate design vs. mass production units without soul, again doesn’t equate to Detroit vs. Asian as I would argue that the Mustang, Fusion, Solstice, and 300 have much more to offer in the passionate dept than the Solara, Camry, S2000, and Avalon. Furthermore, Apple’s iPhone is the newest techno-gadget on the market and costs in total as much as two months worth of car payment and insurance. Plus, most college campuses are easy to navigate without a car so why wouldn’t this consumer segment rate it higher?
Plus, most college campuses are easy to navigate without a car so why wouldn’t this consumer segment rate it higher?
If the campus is anything like my alma mater, a car is actually a hindrance. Despite the size, they’ve specifically redesigned it to encourage walking by removing all parking to the edges of campus (placing them conveniently on the campus bus line, for those who absolutely insist on not braving the elements).
Pch101,
There is a lot of truth to what you say. For my Master’s degree I wrote a paper analyzing Apple’s positioning in the product life cycle. Apple’s successes have always been in the high profit margin Introduction and Growth stages. They have never transitioned successfully with a product to the lower profit margin Maturity and Decline stages – when a product becomes a commodity.
I concluded that Apple must innovate (or synthesize and introduce other developer’s innovations) or die – forever a niche player.
However, I might draw a different conclusion today. With the iPod Nano and Shuffle, Apple seems to have transitioned well to lower-margin offerings as the market for personal digital music players matures. Perhaps 30 years of lost opportunities taught them something. We’ll see.
Nonetheless, their ability to surf the turbulent waters of product introduction is amazing. The Big 2.8 would do well to learn a thing or two about how to design and launch their products.
No-one has mentioned Apple’s appalling quality problems. Batteries that fade after a year, ipod screens that explode, glued together cases that can’t be upgraded so obsolete almost immediately, and customer service that put you on eternal hold. Maybe Detroit is a little bit like Apple after all.
I shook the hand of the Lexus engineer who was responsible for the control interaction on the dash. I asked him whether it was true that he had glued fake nails to his fingers, in order to test that the push-buttons weren’t too stiff. He could confirm that. He could confirm a lot of things they had sweated out.
When I’m in the US and rent a car, I have this feeling that I want to get out of the car, from the moment I get behind the wheel. Get into a BMW, or Audi – and that’s the last thing on your mind.
My new Alfa Romeo has a really wonderful instant touch and feel, commented upon by all who have been inside it. That doesn’t happen by accident – and is way too rare in GM/Ford/Chrysler products.
@ quasimondo
So what we’re saying is that 2.8 should model themselves on a company who makes overhyped products that’s big on style, short on substance, and has a cult-like fanboy following who will buy any flashy product no matter how ridiculously overpriced. Sorry, but I’ll pass on thinking that’s how cars should be built.
If you think this is what Apple’s all about, then you’re really missing out.
However, I might draw a different conclusion today. With the iPod Nano and Shuffle, Apple seems to have transitioned well to lower-margin offerings as the market for personal digital music players matures.
When Apple has succeeded, high margins have always played a role in its success. Each time they’ve won, it was built on the foundation of flash-in-the-pan home runs.
Apple’s problem is that when it isn’t hitting homers, it’s striking out and ending up on the disabled list. This is the Chrysler 300/ new Mustang/ Taurus problem all over again — great short-term blips that are not carried forward into long-term brand building. They do a great job on occasion of executing on a great idea, but their followthrough sucks.
Apple has done very well with the recent brand building and in identifying a need, but their business model otherwise isn’t necessarily all that terrific. Like the Big 2.8, they prosper when there are no competitors and the margins are high, but fail otherwise.
They all need to learn how to survive in a world with low margins and a lot of competition, because that is more typical of the norm. Perhaps it’s symptomatic of the fact that we in the US live in a glory and hero culture that wants flash and drama, and there’s not much honor any more in slow and steady but continuous success.
I think Mr. Montgomery is spot-on. If I’m reading him right, his piece isn’t only about simplicity of design, which is what most of the posters are reacting to. It’s about *coherence* of design, and more importantly, it’s about the corporate structures and processes that allow a company to achieve that coherence. Apple is able to achieve coherence (whether you’re a fan of their particular style or not) because it’s their central operating principle and because they have a set of process in place to achieve it, ruled over by a benevolent dictator. Toyota has the same structure, to a lesser extent: they a corporate value on design excellence (according to their own definition), and they have a system in place to achieve that goal. I think Mr. Montgomery is saying that the Detroit needs to get itself such a system and, perhaps, such a benevolent dictator.
I think he’s right because of the example of Bob Lutz. Like him or not, he has exerted at least some semblance of centralized control over GM’s design operation. Even if GM’s recent products aren’t world-beaters, they’re undeniably a huge improvement. It seems to me that Lutz operates roughly parallel to Steve Jobs: he’s enforcing a single will on the design operation. Of course, he has a much harder row to hoe than Jobs does, which decades of entrenched bureaucracy, legacy manufacturing systems, and highly damaged brands. I don’t know if GM can be saved, but I think that the example of Lutz pretty much proves Mr. Montgomery’s point.
Jobs has a mixed track record. While obviously a leader when it comes to innovation, his failure in the past to address changing market conditions has also led Apple in its past incarnations to near-bankruptcy. He’s a typical entrepreneur — great at getting things kick-started, but not good at long-term sustainability.
The automakers are in a mature business with a lot of branded competitors. Their issues overlap, but don’t entirely mirror, the technology business. For one, no automaker could hope to hit the types of huge margins that a successful tech firm can earn, because the material costs for cars are much higher, so opportunities for economies of scale are limited once you’ve hit a certain threshold.
Apple provides a great product and branding model, but not a good business model for a mature manufacturer of parts-intensive products such as cars. They should certainly be borrowed from in bits and pieces, but adopting every aspect of Apple’s business would not be viable for the auto industry.
I would say that one difference between Apple’s product successes and the Taurus story is that even Apple’s failures have been interesting, innovative products (Newton anyone?). When the big 2.8 build a good car we all say, “Wow, I can’t believe it!” No one is surprised when Apple builds a nice product.
Maybe Apple~Subaru is the right comparison: a few duds over the years, a few hits, a number of innovations along the way, desirable products overall (until the Tribeca, even the duds were cool in their way), and never more than a sliver of the overall market.
Cowbell,
There are hundreds of products just arriving to the market this summer that are new, exlusive and not generating one percent of the buzz surrounding the iPhone. They simply aren’t as innovative or interesting. How much press the newest Blueray player getting?
When the Mustang hit showrooms in 1964, the crowds were very iPhone like – maybe even bigger. That car was simple, designed for a specific market and executed without feature creep. It can be done. At least, it could be 40 plus years ago.
Like the Big 2.8, they prosper when there are no competitors and the margins are high, but fail otherwise.
No competitors? In which market? Because there is plenty of competition in every market Apple is in. You can get a bigger, cheaper MP3 player than an iPod from a half-dozen different makers, but people don’t… and it isn’t because of ‘exploding’ iPod screens (that is a new one to me… funny how sitting on the screen and making it crack is suddenly equivalent to the screen ‘exploding’).
Apple makes a profit, year after year, despite having fairly low marketshare on desktop and laptop computers. Somehow, not owning the marketplace makes them a failure in some people’s eyes (hmm, there’s another similarity to subaru, again), but they’re obviously doing just fine for themselves. Unlike the big 3-ish. Who could certainly learn something about attracting buyers.
One thing you forgot to mention is after-sale service. When I have a problem with an Apple product, I take it to the Apple store and they fix my problem. I leave smiling. When was the last time you left a dealership service department smiling?
Face it, we live in a world of the cult of personality. Always have ,always will. This article is correct, Apple has hit their crowded market with a winner-why can’t Detroit do the same? Who knows, maybe part of the problem is just the image of the city of Detroit. It is old and decaying with a Gotham-city-feel. Apple’s success is not from one feature or process but the entire image it projects. People want their products. Designing,building and selling cars are more complicated than phones, but you can’t argue with success.
Pch101 has hit the nail on the head with this statement.
“Perhaps it’s symptomatic of the fact that we in the US live in a glory and hero culture that wants flash and drama, and there’s not much honor any more in slow and steady but continuous success.”
This statement embodies the “American Dream”, the rags to riches story that we celebrate and carry with us in our sub-conscious attitudes. Its also what makes us different from the rest of the planet and has lead us to some of the greatest heights in human history. The downside of course are the depths of the troughs between those high levels of achievement.
“In fact, the survey found that any kid fortunate enough to lift an iPhone to his or her ear was guaranteed a seventy percent popularity rating.”
Gives a whole new meaning to the phrase “Phone Sex”.
Since 2001, Apple’s stock has grown more than 650% while competing against industry juggernauts such as Microsoft, Dell, et al. That growth didn’t come from selling hype and candy-coated rabbit scat.
Meanwhile, the Ford and GM’s stock is currently valued at less than 1/3 of what it was 5 years ago.
So who should emulate whom?
Apple was in the right place at the right time. What made the iPod popular was the iTunes store, and what made the iTunes store popular was the sweetheart deal they secured from the music industry (a deal they’re kicking themselves over, no doubt) which gave them the most extensive online library free of the cumbersome restrictions other stores had in place. Handcuffing iTunes store users to the iPod was a rather brilliant move, I do admit, but it would be a mistake to pin the iPod’s popularity on its ease of use and good looks.
Image over substance. The 21st century American Way.
I should correct myself to say that they made the right deal at the right time.
Quasimodo’s right. Apple’s success is proof of the mantra that perception is more important than reality. I’m a car writer now, was an IT guy in my “past life”, and I worked on (and now own) both Macs and Windows computers. The perception is that Apple is better, more reliable, more immune to problems. The reality is different, but Mac owners are perfectly willing to explain away the daily crashes that often as not take a great deal of work down the tubes with them as “the nature of the beast”. But when I explain that my PC is more reliable than my Mac (the PC never crashes, the Mac does so infrequently), they say it’s a fluke. Likewise, when I talk about my well-cared-for Accord making it to 120k with only a malfunctioning clock and a distributor that went belly-up at 70 MPH on the freeway, they say that’s typical excellent Honda reliability (which it is). But when I mention my ex-wife’s Plymouth Voyager making it to 140K with not one single problem, or my sis-in-law’s Ford Aerostar making it to 260K with no major problems, both with less-than-average care, that’s a fluke. Yet it would appear that the Chrysler and Ford products have been more reliable than the Honda. Sure, the iPod is wonderful, and the simplified operation is nice, but would someone please explain that to my wife, who’s ready to throw the darn thing against the wall because there’s no easy way to take music off the iPod while leaving it on the computer?
Let’s face it — in the eyes of car fans, Detroit just can’t win.
I have always said that if you see a Golf with a roof rack, you can rest assured it’ll have an Apple sticker. VW and Apple brands attract the same kind of customer, those who are willing to accept some problems/limitations for the sake of standing out and being different. The biggest difference is it’s hard to explain away your VW’s reliability issues when the car’s in the shop every couple of months — but no matter, they are willing to accept problems as part of the cost of ownership, something I can totally agree with. But Apple owners seem reluctant to admit that their products have any flaws. Apple is a cult. I love my iBook — I’m typing on it now — but when I talk about its problems, Apple owners glare at me like I’m talkin’ smack about Christ.
No competitors? In which market? Because there is plenty of competition in every market Apple is in.
Content distribution. Apple didn’t invent music downloading or the MP3, but it married the two in a user-friendly package.
The problem that Apple rightly identified and fixed was that the prospective MP3 customer did not have an easy, convenient or interesting means of obtaining affordable MP3 content. iTunes solved that problem. If Apple had only created a stylish product but provided no gateway to content, it would have been a flop.
Apple is the 300-pound gorilla in content distribution…for now. The problem is that the music industry has a vested interest in trying to eliminate that oligopoly, because Jobs is now effectively helping to run their industry. Meanwhile, customers have learned about downloading from iTunes, and they will be able to translate that knowledge to Apple’s rivals.
So in the long run, this near-monopoly is not sustainable, and Apple can expect to lose its leadership in this as new rivals take advantage of the momentum that Apple created but cannot sustain forever. Hence, the need for brand extension and a long-term plan. Detroit should be learning the same lesson.
I have always said that if you see a Golf with a roof rack, you can rest assured it’ll have an Apple sticker.
Funny you mention that. My brother has an iPod, an iMac, an iBook, and a G5 computer. He also drives a MK IV Jetta.
@Pch101 Apple's fortunes have been on a steady rise since Steve Jobs came back in 1997. My Apple shares have appreciated 98% each of the last 3 years. They are doing a lot better than most other tech companies. And their PC market share is growing every year too. More important, Apple's profits are growing every year. This didn't happen overnight. Apple has been on this path for at least 10 years. With the iPhone, which runs a full version OS X, Apple is going to rapidly grow the number of machines running its best of class OS. Apple sold an estimated 500-700,000 iPhones the first weekend they were available. Microsoft didn't see that coming. As for the iPod being a flash in the pan, yeah that's what Wall Street and the Apple haters said 30 million iPods ago. They were also wrong. Name another company that has introduced a new operating system and 4 major updates to that OS since 2001 and also transitioned to a completely different chip architecture. If Detroit innovated like that we'd all be flying jet cars now. As for those saying Apple's service is not good, my experience does not bear that out. In the rare case when one of my several Macs or iPods have needed service, I received amazingly fast and courteous help, by a person working in America for an American company. And when they need upgrading I do it myself. I could pull and install a hard drive in my G3 Powerbook in 10 minutes. I popped my 3G iPod open and installed a higher capacity battery when the original one tired after 3 years. Macs are built with the same components that HPs, Dells, and Sonys are built with, they are not proprietary. If you want to trash american cars then be my guest. But if you want to trash Apple, you better set aside your obvious prejudices because they are not reality-based.
I have always said that if you see a Golf with a roof rack, you can rest assured it’ll have an Apple sticker.
My VW Golf TDI with a damn roof rack does not have an apple sticker (because I don’t buy their products) and has NEVER been in the shop. Weren’t you just posting about perceptions versus reality?
Remember the Motorola Razor phone? Hottest thing going for a few months when they came out. High prices, waiting lists, etc. By the time I got mine they were giving them away, free, with a 2 year contract.
iPhones more popular than cars? Yeah…I’m not buying it. iphone is the flavor of the week right now but like everything else that will fade.
And I’ll believe an iPhone will be a more popular teen accessory than a car as soon as Apple makes an iPhone with a back seat big enough to have sex in….
As for the iPod being a flash in the pan, yeah that’s what Wall Street and the Apple haters said 30 million iPods ago.
I’m not sure what an “Apple hater” is supposed to be, but I don’t believe that I can be counted among them. (I happen to like Granny Smith’s myself. Oh, and I own an iPod.)
I’m merely pointing out a basic law of economics — when profits are at above equilibrium, rivals will enter in the hopes of getting a piece for themselves. The inevitable result is that the new products create price competition, and the above-average profits evaporate.
Back to the car biz, I don’t see GM or Ford gaining a near-exclusive distribution deal that facilitates their comeback, as did Apple with iTunes. It’s also not possible for them to hit a critical mass that would permit them to sell cars at the same markups as an iPod, because cars have a lot more costly parts than an MP3 player. So it’s tough to apply all of the lessons to the car industry. But Mr. Montgomery is spot on when he notes the importance of style, functionality and finesse, and that’s where the lessons can be best applied to the Big Two Point Whatever.
“Daily crashes”? Who experiences daily crashes on a Mac or PC anymore? What the Hell are you people doing to your computers?!
Also, I’d say marrying iPod to iTunes was the plan from Day One. Apple is a hardware company; the software is just there to get you to buy the hardware.
If Detroit operated like Apple, RF wouldn’t be writing Deathwatch articles, he’d be writing requiems. Just Google up ‘Failed Apple Products’ and you’ll see a long line of products and programs that were a phenomenal flop, including the Newton and Cube. Apple’s success (and salvation) comes from devices: iPods and iBooks. For all this talk of how they’re a great company, they still hold less than 10% of the market in PC sales, lagging far behind Dell and Hewlett-Packard.
How Apple operates is something that many TTAC writers have criticized Detroit for doing: Placing all of their eggs in one basket hoping the next car they produce is the one that can pull them back from the brink.
Apple’s a great company, but Detroit shoudn’t be dancing to the beat of their drums.
Look at the people defending Apple, it feels like Ford vs Chevy 20 years sgo. This is what makes the Apple story so important. They have tapped deep into people’s psyche so far that they become emotional about their ownership of the product. Now just get Detroit to squeeze that ownership endownment out of some old Apple product and spray that on their cars.
Pch101: The Taurus was a huge hit that was based largely on styling, but over time, others could copy it to the point that styling was no longer enough for it to stand out, and succeeding generations would need something more.
I think you’re giving the original Taurus too little credit here. The Taurus also featured interior ergonomics, along with some thoughtful touches, that were miles ahead of anything coming out of Detroit at that time. Its ride-and-handling combination earned raves. The workmanship was also much better than the typical Detroit vehicle. Ford built a vehicle that showed care and thought in its overall design.
But you’re right about the larger point, that Ford didn’t bother to build on the Taurus’s good points to keep it ahead of the rapidly evolving Japanese competition. Once the Taurus turned out to be a hit, Ford reverted back to its old (bad) habits.
Detroit does need to embrace a complete approach to design and engineering, and pay special attention to how its products “feel” to both drivers and passengers. But the Apple method of product development and business operations is not the one to follow.
quasimondo: I’m not sure I get your point, are you saying if detroit made some bad products like apple did then they would already be out of business? What exactly do you call the products the 2.8 have been making for the last 20 years if not phenominal flops?
Newton wasn’t a flop, just early to the party and then axed when there was a regime change. Not like that’s ever happened in cars…..
I’m saying that if Detroit is hoping for a miracle to turn their fortunes around like what the iPod did for Apple, then they aren’t going to be here for long. If that iTunes deal with the record industry didn’t happen, we wouldn’t be singing the praises of Apple, would we?
If that iTunes deal with the record industry didn’t happen, we wouldn’t be singing the praises of Apple, would we?
Well, it’s not like that was some random happenstance. Remember: the iPod came out a year and a half before the iTunes Music Store. Prior to that, people were filling their iPods with music that was either bootlegged or from their personal CD collections. It was only because the iPod became a hit that Apple was even in a position to sell its “flat price, relatively lenient DRM” to the record labels in the first place.
It is strange that the last two e-mails I have received were Apple related,the first informing about a new store opening. This was the second.
APPLE ANNOUNCEMENT ITIT
Apple computer announced today that it has developed a computer chip that can store and play high fidelity music in women’s breast implants.
The iTit will cost $499 or $599 depending on speaker size.
This is considered to be a major breakthrough because women have always complained about men staring at their breasts and not listening to them.
( sorry if this offends but I thought it was worth a chuckle,delete if inappropriate)
Terrific article, great insight and arguments.
“Clearly, Detroit lacks the commanders and command structure needed to fully realize its designer’s visions.”
Design managers must realise that 24 inch wheels with paint for tires and no suspension movement are not fairly representative of the final product’s aesthetics. That’s fine for brainstorming but then these ideas should be redrawn as close to final spec as possible before committing down a design path, otherwise they are setting themselves up for failure (or at least compromise).
It all comes back to design and the human machine interface. This is nothing new. Apple succeeds in this because it runs as a Monarchy. Except for Porsche and some other small manufacturers no company has given any one person that level of control. Not even sure if Porsche runs this way but it was the closest I could think of.
To get things done you need one person in charge. Its why if you truly want to accomplish something you don’t go into politics.
Could one of you people who are saying that Apple products are too simplistic give some examples? I’m mostly thinking about OS X, here. Have you used it?
OS X is a Unix operating system with a nice, easy-to-use GUI. If you want complexity and configurability, open a shell window and use Unix apps. OS X ships with rsync, chron, grep, pine, perl, etc. Literally hundreds of Unix apps, and of course you can install more. You can write scripts that link these apps together and automate as much as you want.
OS X combines the best of two worlds: an elegant GUI for day-to-day web surfing, emailing, and word processing, and a Unix box for the serious work of a developer, sys admin, engineer, or scientist. Windows has nothing on the GUI or on Unix.
one salient aspect that seems to have been completely overlooked in this conversation is that of ‘human nature.’ and human nature plays a huge roll in the success or failure of every product.
humans are, by their very nature, curious creatures. humans require physical, mental and emotional stimulation in order to thrive, and so, they tend to respond positively to it. and humans practically demand an element of ‘change’ in almost every scenario, in order to remain engaged.
product designers and marketers must recognize this reality in order to succeed. apple certainly does, and you can see the evidence of this truth for yourself within each new or updated product release they announce.
it rarely involves change, simply for the sake of offering ’something different.’ most of the changes apple makes in their products tend to improve the funtionality, and therefore, the desirability, of their products – in ways that apple’s targeted audiences find truly meaningful and valuable. and to the degree apple is successful in doing this, they are rewarded handsomely by their customers, for their efforts.
in all honesty, when was the last time anyone could make a similar statement about our domestic automobile manufacturers?
Yes, well, some of the things Apple leaves out of its products to produce this “elegance” are akin to leaving out air conditioning or power steering in a car design.
It’s not the AC I want out. It’s getting into a rental GM sedan with about 20 buttons of HVAC selectitude and pulling over to the side of the road because I can’t find how to run the defogger. (And this was pre-touchscreen, ~15 years ago.)
I appreciated my Toyota (4 slider knobs, 1 button) much more when I got home.
I disagree that the Big three should compete on style. Style can be copied – with enough changes that it doesn’t seem like stealing.
Even when a whole new vehicle concept is invented – e.g. the minivan, (let’s not quible, let’s just run with the cliche that Chrysler invented the minivan) it gets copied, and perhaps improved, by others. Chrysler is currently having to offer $4k in incentives to push what it invented.
No one is buying Camcords for their style. The Japanese have figured out what we really want – rolling appliances. If you ask me whether I’d prefer to drive my wife’s Honda CRV or do a load of laundry with the new front loading washer, I’d have to check my underwear drawer before deciding. Neither is any fun at all to use, but both are really useful utilitarian appliances. I like having clean undies, and I like being able to get to work, to the store, etc.
I will not get into the Mac/PC debate, except to say that my latest computer is a Mac, and it’s far more reliable and easy to use than my previous PCs. (If you want to tell me the reliability gap is only a perception gap, well, that’s what GM tells me too, but using is believing) To me, it’s just an appliance. I really don’t want to know how it works. I don’t want to learn much about computers, I just want to turn it on and surf the net and type my drivel on various forums, and check the weather, etc. Mac allows me to do that stuff, and just that stuff. I don’t have to learn how the OS works in order to know how to get it -er, working, again. It’s been running continuously for 2 years w/o crashing. (Except when my ISP fails) I’m not excited by Macs, nor by Hondas, but I own both because they make my life simple.
Detroit should compete on quality. If they compete in other ways, in addition to quality, good on them. If they compete in other ways instead of quality, they will not be around in 20 years.
@seffer:
“Could one of you people who are saying that Apple products are too simplistic give some examples? I’m mostly thinking about OS X, here. Have you used it?”
Exactly. The people who say Apple builds simplistic devices ignore that Apple builds the most versatile and advanced OS on the planet. I’d venture to say that they don’t know that OS X is built on the BSD Unix kernel, because they have never used OS X. It has a command line shell and supports all Unix services and apps. It also runs Windows. Oh, and it almost never crashes, which is also mostly true of WinXP. Whoever thinks that Macs crash daily has never used one. OS X has been in service since 2001. It’s time for some folks to get themselves up to date.
If they followed the iPhone model, then a car manufacturer would release a vehicle that you could only fill up at a BP station.
Also, they’d have to change their service departments to ‘genius centers’ and somehow convince customers it was cool to sit around for twice as long as necessary for an oil change while they watched the resident ‘geniuses’ teach other owners which button to push to lower the window.
I’m just not sure that letting a teenager’s or 20-something’s definition of what’s ‘cool’ be your guiding principle is such a great idea.
You need only look at the interior of the Chevrolet Corvette to wonder why Lord, why?
If it helps, I think the outside is a crime, but I’ve never liked any Corvette.
Der Rote: OSX does not “run windows”; it can run a number of virtualizing solutions that will run windows, but the same is true of windows; it can run Linux or BSD in a virtual machine just as well as OSX can. (It can’t normally run OSX in a VM, but that’s because Apple only wants OSX to run on Apple hardware.)
OSX has many sterling qualities, but “running virtual machines” just isn’t special, unique, or for that matter even built in to OSX. It doesn’t come with a virtual machine; you have to but Parallels or some equivalent.
(Are you perhaps thinking of Intel Macs’ ability to run Windows natively and directly?
And I’d say that people who think Macs crash daily might well have used one… before OSX, with a lot of unstable software or extensions. Pre-OSX MacOS was as crashworthy as Windows 95.
Been there, done that, still have the IIsi.)
Here’s an interesting thing.
My previous car was a 1997 Toyota Tercel.
My current car is a 2006 Scion xA.
Basically, my current car is a five-door version of my previous two-door car, updated after nine model years-and you can tell.
Yes, the Scion has a lot more toys (heck, the Tercel had a 3 speed auto and no intermittent wipers). But everything is more or less in the same place (well, except the speedometer, which moved to the center, of course). The wiper stalk, although it now has an intermittent setting and a rear wiper to boot, is in the same place and feels the same on both cars. The buttons for the emergency flashers and rear window defogger are in the same basic place in the middle of the dash, with the defogger button having a light in the middle of it on each that lights up when in use (although the button moved over enough on the Scion to no longer be blocked by the steering wheel (making said light hard to see, so sometimes I left it on by mistake-a flaw in the Tercel corrected in the Scion)). The climate control has exact the same icons and settings, although sliders were replaced by dials.
You can tell they are made by the same company-there’s a design DNA that is very consistant, even after a decade. Now, this doesn’t mean the Scion is outdated-quite the contrary. You can tell that the evolution between the two was slow, gradual, consistant, and constant.
Now take, say, a 1997 Taurus and a 2006 Fusion, or a 1997 Lumina and a 2006 Impala. I’ll bet (having never sat in said cars, I can’t say for sure) that if there were logos on the cars, you wouldn’t be able to tell they were related.
@ Larry P2:
Toyotas are for people who hate cars, no muss no fuss no soul – transportation appliances.
I’ve purchased 2 Toyotas this decade because at the time they had class-leading safety features at reasonable prices. Not exciting, but the kids come first. Fortunately, my daily driver remains a Mazda.
One way to product elegance: the new Rolls Royce Drophead Coupe has many of its features hidden away behind wooden panels, leaving just the basic instruments visible. Can’t hide too much, though, as the Lexus GS’s power mirror switches ended up on a hideaway panel, and shouldn’t have been.
Dynamic 88 – “Detroit should compete on quality. If they compete in other ways, in addition to quality, good on them. If they compete in other ways instead of quality, they will not be around in 20 years”
Based on recent quality surveys I believe Ford is on the right track quality wise–Mullaley gets it.
This conversation has mainly turned into an Apple forum (not that there is anything wrong with that), but the article was about the importance of design, and the, more importantly, how critical one command individual can be in the creation of an entire corporate design. Interestingly, the young twenty somethings around my daughter have a couple of things in common: lots of Ipod stuff – in spite of the fact they have all suffered failures at some point – and, um a whole lot of Jettas and Golfs. Sure Ipods crash, but so did my Zen, so what? And frankly her Ipod was a lot neater looking. So while we all fret about cars going 200k without a breakdown, they look at the cars and how they “feel”. You think that TTAC spends too much time on the interior? Pshaw, I’ve got news for you, it REALLY matters, especially to the next generation…. You can believe if you wish that if GM could just convince everyone that their vehicles could go 200k w/o mishap, everybody would be happy? Not even close….
Sigivald:
OS X (Tiger) does run Windows natively, via Apple’s own BootCamp software. Windows is installed on its own partition and you boot into it. It is not a VM like Parallels or VMWare.
See http://www.macwindows.com/winintelmac.html#parallels
I am well aware of pre-X MacOSes and their tendency to lock up and take all of my work with them. I wasn’t referring to anything other than OS X. Been there done that, not going back. OS X is the s@#$.
Detroit should compete on quality. If they compete in other ways, in addition to quality, good on them. If they compete in other ways instead of quality, they will not be around in 20 years.
It’s not an either/or. At this point, quality isn’t a strategy, just a bare minimum for staying in the game. If they try to compete solely on quality, they will fail because they could never possibly measure up to or surpass the quality leaders based upon quality alone, or beat them by a wide enough margin to make much difference. In 1987, that might have been true, but in 2007, it’s too late for just that.
The Big 2.8 must compete on style, uniqueness, service and/ or cachet, as they really have nowhere else to go. Attempting to copy the Camry or Accord is a losing proposition — when given a choice, most consumers will just choose the real thing. The goal is to get customers to switch, but they will need compelling reasons to take the risk. A sexy package, innovative body style and/or better service are about the only options remaining that could accomplish this.
The editorial cited 4 “success factors” for Apples which can be translated directly to the auto manufacturers. 1) Continuity across its products 2) Sweats the small stuff 3) Attractive things work better 4) Once the concept of the final product crystallized, no deviation was permitted. Period.
If you grade all the car makers on those 4 criteria, is it really any suprise which companies are gaining market share and which are loosing.
a simple, but undeniable, observation: as enterprises go, apple is still ascending while ‘the big whatever’ are definitely descending.
OS X (Tiger) does run Windows natively, via Apple’s own BootCamp software. Windows is installed on its own partition and you boot into it.
No it doesn’t. What you meant to say is that Intel based Mac’s can run Windows natively with using Bootcamp. This has nothing to do with OSX.
any japanese manufacturer can name at least 50 products they make. can you name real tangible 50 apple products? is this ipod iphone and notebook representing the whole `plethora` of products. sounds more like warm-up. nice ice breaker, apple. now start some serious job and launch real amount of hardware not just one huge idea around which orbits a couple of overadvertized products.
jurisb: Having too many products was one of Apple’s major problems in the ’90s, and it would be a disaster to return to that kind of thinking. GM still stuffers from the same malaise with too many overlapping brands and models.
I’m a huge supporter of a company having a few stellar and profitable products rather than 50 mediocre break-even products.
yankinwaoz: “No it doesn’t. What you meant to say is that Intel based Mac’s can run Windows natively with using Bootcamp. This has nothing to do with OSX.”
Actually, no I didn’t mean to say that, nor did I want to engage in a pissing match, but let the streams flow: Intel based Macs run OS X Tiger, right? Yes the chip architecture is what allows you to run Windows, PowerPC Macs could not run Windows natively. Apple had to make extensive revisions to the OS X kernel before Tiger would work properly on the new hardware. You have to be running Tiger v.4.6 on that hardware. They cannot be separated. I noted in a previous post that you needed BootCamp to run Windows on a Mac. But nice job on the hair splitting.
It’s amazing about all the misconceptions regarding the iPod and other non-apple products that are flying about.
I can synch my ipod with software other than iTunes. I can even synch it in Linux if I desire. iTunes just happens to present one helluva nice and convenient way to view and organize my music, photos, and videos. Apple made it easy. I don’t care that my iPod doesn’t have a radio tuner (I don’t listen to the radio that much, and I don’t see a need for one in a portable player). It plays my music and videos just fine, with very simple and intuitive controls.
Which is what all automakers need to learn – make it easy to use, make it coherent, and give it a little bit of style and people will come back.
Hyundai (and now Kia) are really getting consistent across the board. The gauge layouts are the same (Tach on the left, speedo in the center, temp on top right, fuel on lower right), the hvac controls are the same in all models that I have been in so far. It makes it easy to go from one model to the other and just get in and go (Tiburon, Santa Fe, Elantra, Kia Spectra, etc). The radios can vary slightly, but everything else is the same, and has been for a few years now. I’ve owned a Tiburon, wife had a Santa Fe, I’ve been in a few Elantras, and my last rental was a Spectra. All of them were laid out the same, albeit the vents and dash boards are different.
Do you want simplicity in design???Harely-Davison.Still able to produce and grow.Do you want an Appliance???Toyota and Honda.I dont care what the media says about these vehicles,the last thing they produce is passion.Detriot can at least muster this,Japanese Manufactures can only copy such designs to present them before an American public that is slowly lossing touch with its past.
mike frederick – “Do you want an Appliance???Toyota and Honda.I dont care what the media says about these vehicles,the last thing they produce is passion”
I have to disagree with this. Some of the most “appliance like” vehicles have the most passionate owners. Civics, Prius, and Pickup Trucks from just about every manufacturer come to mind.
Lets face it. Cars are appliances. nothing more.
People highly concerned with performance driving characteristics are a small minority, and most importantly NOT being highly concerned with performance does not preclude you from being passionate about your car or an auto enthusiast in general. That is what can be gained from the Apple story. There are other ways to induce passion. From an audiophile persective, the Ipod and MP3/MP4 are not very good. But they are more than good enough for most people. So instead of focusing their resources on building an audio device that sounds better, they focused on improving the overal ‘music listening experience’.
Job well done. I now listen to more music on my Ipod and through my Computer via Itunes than I do on my multi thousand dollar home audio system.
I’m suprised that nobody has made a witty comment about BMW iDrive.
I remember reading that Apple builds what consumers want, as opposed to their rivals at Microsoft, Dell, etc. who build something that consumers must accecpt. It works pretty well.
Simplicity in design – continual improvement. Hallmarks of design for the iPod, Instant Messenger and had been of BMW until they Bangled design. Yet that last example doesn’t seem to have affected sales negatively. Hmmmm.
Perhaps a decent comparison to the iPhone phenomenon was the first generation Audi TT, which was a big success for Audi. I’m not sure what kind of profit the car generated, but it certainly created a lot of mindshare and put the company on the map as having built something cool.
The underlying technology wasn’t revolutionary or even unique to the car. But the package was brilliant. Both the interior and exterior were clean and simplistic.
It wasn’t the best car for the money, not the fastest, not the nimblest, kind of heavy, maybe underpowered, shared underpinnings with much less expensive cars, assembled in Hungary (gasp!) etc. etc.
But you know what? People wanted to buy it.
So yes, design matters. If Detroit could just design cars that people actually want to buy, instead of the generic transportation that no one feels a positive emotion about, people gladly throw money at it.
Someone else already said it earlier. If they would actually build the concept models they show, the number one selling feature wouldn’t be how much factory incentive a buyer can get.
Apropos of nothing in particular:
Apple Third in PC Market Share
With sales up significantly.