“There is much debate and intrigue regarding how Apple’s expanding product line fits together. The addition of an entirely new product category with Apple Watch and new models such as iPad Pro have led some to wonder if Apple is losing focus or is unsure as to where the technology puck is headed,” Neil Cybart writes for Above Avalon. “However, in a somewhat unpublicized interview for the new iMacs this past October, Phil Schiller, Apple SVP of Marketing, described a new theory for Apple’s product line, which I am calling ‘The Grand Unified Theory of Apple Products.’ This theory provides a glimpse into how Apple looks at the world and more importantly, some clues as to where Apple product categories are likely headed over the next few years.”
“One theme that has come to represent the Tim Cook era is product line expansion. Over the past four years, Apple has doubled its product lineup from 12 distinct models to more than 24, including a new product category,” Cybart writes. “Much of this product expansion has come in the form of additional models reaching lower price ranges. Apple followed a similar method with the iPod in the early and mid-2000s. The difference now is we are seeing this occur with multiple product categories at the same time.”
“This past October, Phil Schiller, in a rare interview with Steven Levy, talked about the new iMac. He took the opportunity to discuss a new way of thinking about the Apple product line, and I found it to be most revealing from a strategic perspective,” Cybart writes. “Instead of describing how each product has a new unique role in our lives or simply placing Apple’s entire product category on the same spectrum with an Apple Watch on one end and an iMac on the other, Schiller gave each product a job: make consumers feel like they don’t need a larger, more powerful, Apple device in their lives.”
There are three major takeaways from Schiller’s new product theory:
1) The Apple Watch is a classic Apple bet
2) Greater iPhone differentiation is coming
3) Don’t expect an iPad/Mac hybrid
Much more in the full article – recommended – here.
MacDailyNews Take: Taking Schiller’s comments applying them to each product category (see full article) illustrates Apple’s motivations and goals very clearly.
An excellent article. Cybart has a knack for making things understandable and enjoyable to read. My question is, does this Grand Unified Product Theory point to a Grand Unified SoC / OS architecture?
There was one visionary at Apple, Steve Jobs.
Going forward, Apple will continue to lose focus and try to force fans to go down a road too alien to care about.
Apple Watch, Apple Pay and Apple Music, all flops. You can excuse anything away, but they’re flops. Even the iPad which started off as a phenomena is cracking and the iPhone 7 better deliver the goods or it will be game over for Apple.
Cook and team are just so boring. With Jimmy Iovine sounding like a retard about women and Dr. Dre beating on women in the past. It’s a group of have-been’s riding on the last of the magic carpet Steve Jobs rode. The thrill is gone and it ain’t coming back.
You sound like such a fool. Apple Watch and Apple Pay are massive successes. Tools like you should go pound sand. You didn’t make one good point.
Apple needs to offer better products more than just more products.
Good article..
But an adaptable os on a hybrid device would not go against the theory…
It will simply offer a product that can function in two modes !
At the end i see A single OS that adapts itself to the way its being utilized.
That said i have a question for Phil.
Why not allow file management in iOS.. Why have such crude and abstract way of handling files ( and in many cases inconsistent )
Example… Try recording a voice memo.. And importing it into Garageband as an audio track, using iOS only… U will see what i mean . Or try iCloud drive interaction..
Is Apple limiting the functionality of iOS just to distinguish Mac/OSX
That is a poor approach.
iOS should be as powerful as technology allows.. not watered down to make the mac/osx look good.
Mac/osx should be able to distinguish themselves with functionality that is not possible with other products.. Legitimatly.. Not through forced limitations on other products..
That forced part is what i find to be incoherent and wrong in This grand Theory approach .
It would be better described as Grand unified theory of Product and Marketing .
Limitations imposed for marketing reasons… In long run i feel it will hurt ……
Leaves a gap where the competition thrive .
It is an interesting point … but the timescale needs to be pushed back to be retrospective for a full decade. What one will then find is that the Mac has been essentially flat – – no real expansion in models – – for a full decade.
And more importantly, such a review needs to include the software as part of the ecosystem, because no one pays for a machine just to stare at the OS … and what one finds here is that things like the “iLife” ecosystem (and Pro apps) have SHRUNK.
Bottom line is that Apple has allowed themselves to be distracted into other categories and has done so at the peril of abandoning through neglect their traditional core business line.
Now has the iPhone been a huge asset to the corporate bottom line? Yes, it most certainly has … but just how “sticky” are those customers really? Are they as faithful as repeat customers as Mac buyers have been? No? Then that also means that that huge upsurge in popularity is a higher risk of being fickle … and gone like any other fad. Ask Nokia. Or Sony.
-hh
Apples core buisness is computing devices and services..
But Is Apple limiting the functionality of iOS just to distinguish Mac/OSX
That is a poor approach.
iOS should be as powerful as technology allows.. not watered down to make the mac/osx look good.
Mac/osx should be able to distinguish themselves with functionality that is not possible with other products.. Legitimatly.. Not through forced limitations on other products..
That forced part is what i find to be incoherent and wrong in This grand Theory approach .
It would be better described as Grand unified theory of Product and Marketing .
Limitations imposed for marketing reasons… In long run i feel it will hurt ……
Leaves a gap where the competition can thrive .
You make great points. Apple could make an excellent hybrid device, but why when they can get people to buy both a Macbook and an iPad (not to mention an iPhone). If Apple really wanted to they could make a Phone that plugged into a screen/keyboard to become a full laptop, negating the need for 3, totally separate devices, but as you said, this is marketing and bottom line strategy. If it comes back to bite them, good, they should create what customers want, not what they can milk people for.
Understood, but if this really were the case, then software applications like Aperture wouldn’t have been abandoned/killed. Ditto the rest of the dumbing-down of OS X.
You have a point…im dumbfounded on those..
To me the hole philosophy has a lot of incoherence and holes in it .
If Macs are supposed to show what cutting edge computing is.. Why dumb the software down…why restrict customization …?
Maybe in the long run we will see how these comes together..
For now many are unhappy.. Specially with the software end if things….
Wasn’t Steve Jobs’ initial action of reducing the number of distinct products Apple produced a big reason Apple was able to turn itself around and succeed as fast as it did? Will Apple go back to those days now?