"I" don't want one, so it should not have one.

Discussion in 'iPad' started by Piggie, Dec 30, 2010.

  1. Piggie macrumors G3


    Feb 23, 2010
    Why do we seem to get this type of reply so much in Apple forums?

    I've never seen it on other forums generally with other products.

    It's like a viewpoint that if something is not fitted to an Apple product, then it should not be fitted to an Apple product.

    Also, if the poster personally does not see a need for him/her self to use a feature/function then under no circumstances should that be added to the product.

    It's weird isn't it?

    I suppose as soon as Apple do fit whatever it is, then suddenly it becomes correct that it's been fitted?
  2. MacDawg macrumors Core


    Mar 20, 2004
    "Between the Hedges"
    It cuts both ways

    Just because someone wants a new feature or capability, that doesn't mean everyone should hop on the bandwagon. Other may not feel the need for it, or want to pay for it.
  3. ucfgrad93 macrumors P6


    Aug 17, 2007
    Agreed. Too many people fail to realize that not everyone has the same needs or wants.
  4. Zcott macrumors 68020

    Oct 18, 2009
    Belfast, Ireland
    Apple have a history of only adding features everyone will use. Think 3G, LED flash, upgraded display. They don't go in for adding features that not everyone will use due to clashing with existing features (no HDMI port because of AirPlay) or because it'd be redundant (USB ports, etc).

    I don't want a phone with a thousand features i'll never use, I want it to have useful features I will use.
  5. sinsin07 macrumors 68040

    Mar 28, 2009
    Hmm like Facetime? How many "loyal" Apple fans chewed that one up as useless. How many people on these boards say the never user it? Or like the 2009 MMS debate? Or the great debates on here how Apple will never have multitask or whatever you want to call it?

    OP I get your point, but you probably won't get a good answer here.
  6. Piggie thread starter macrumors G3


    Feb 23, 2010
    I appreciate posting this here is like setting up a healthy vegetable stand in the middle of a meat market. :D

    It's funny as some of the postings so far are exactly doing what I'm pointing out.

    "I don't want a lot of features I'm not going to use"

    Well, I have new for you, different people who buy the same product may have different things they wish to use. It does not take a brain much larger than a peanut to realise that one.

    Any computing device could be thought of as a ready made toolbox.
    what we have are some people who love hammers and don't see why anyone needs a saw. But there will be other people who love saws and never need a hammer.

    I for one don't want, and will never use facetime.
    It does not mean I will jump up and down like a gorilla and say Apple should not fit facetime as I don't see the need for video calls as in general people don't use it. No, I can see it's a good feature to have, even though I personally would not fit it, and deem other things more useful to me.

    I suppose it comes across as incredibly selfish. I don't want it, so you should not have it either.

    My take on this is that Apple should fit as many useful things as technically possible to the iPad without doing any damage to portability or battery life. Everyone then can decide which of the things the device can do, they want to use.

    Everyone will have different needs and different requirements.

    I just can't grasp how anyone could be so dim as to not understand this and the world does not revolve around only their personal needs.
  7. AuburnApple, Dec 30, 2010
    Last edited: Dec 30, 2010

    AuburnApple macrumors member

    Jul 18, 2008
    Bottom line is Apple makes products for the masses, not geeks on internet message boards. If Apple thinks adding a feature will help them sell more products, they will add it eventually. Similarly if they think the general consumer won't care about their product not having a certain feature, they could care less if tech geeks are screaming for it. The usefulness of Facetime is debatable, but those emotional Facetime commercials help sell a lot of iPhones, even if most people will never use Facetime.
  8. Night Spring macrumors G5

    Night Spring

    Jul 17, 2008
    On the one hand, yes, refusing to see that a feature that is useless or unwanted by *me* might be useful, needed or desirable to others is self-centered and short-sighted.

    But I think the reason why people tend to make that kind of comments in relation to Apple products is that Apple itself is ruthless in editing out features it deems unnecessary. Apple, of course, edit features by the criteria of whether the target audience for their product would need that feature. Sometimes they edit features with a view to encourage their users to move on to a new technology, as in leaving out floppy disks when they decided the world should move on to optical drives, and now leaving out optical drives since we should be moving on to cloud computing.

    In any case, that Apple itself tends to leave out features instead of throwing in everything but the kitchen sink makes discussion of whether a feature is truly needed or not more relevant to Apple products than to products from other manufacturers. The problem is many posters comflate the needs of the target audience with their own personal needs/wants.

    So yes, I agree with the OP that there is a problem, but there's a reason for why it happens.
  9. ReallyBigFeet macrumors 68030


    Apr 15, 2010
    Its because Apple customers in general, but specifically on these forums, tend to deeply "identify" with the brand and products. If they don't like something, then the product shouldn't have it as that product is an extension of their own value system.

    Which is a WONDERFUL problem to have for Apple I'm sure. Chevy/Ford car/truck owners are similar if you ever hang out on those kinds of forums. Fierce brand loyalty is worth a ton.
  10. Kissaragi macrumors 68020

    Nov 16, 2006
    A lot of people think that their opinion is far more important than other peoples too.
  11. rhett7660 macrumors G4


    Jan 9, 2008
    Sunny, Southern California
    Easy there....you mean not ever person who owns an Apple product wants the same thing!!!!!???? :)

    I couldn't agree more.
  12. Mad Mac Maniac macrumors 601

    Mad Mac Maniac

    Oct 4, 2007
    A little bit of here and a little bit of there.
    this could be a large part of it.

    But I think also people don't want features that they don't need because A) causes the product to cost more and B) takes away time and resources that could have been used to adding a feature that they actually want.

    When a person says that they don't want a feature on X iDevice because they don't want it... simply means they don't want it!! it doesn't mean they will throw a fit if the feature gets added, just in their opinion or their needs they don't want it.
  13. chrono1081 macrumors 604


    Jan 26, 2008
    Isla Nublar
    Apple is smart to keep things this way too. I used to work in Circuit City years ago (when they still were on commission) and if a product looked way too complicated, it either A: Was never bought or B: Bought and returned and the sales guy lost his commission.

    The products that didn't have every bell and whistle and feature and whos functions could be explained in a few sentences were the ones bought the most often.
  14. bilboa macrumors regular

    Jan 16, 2008
    I agree with your general premise, and also find it annoying when people post arguments like "I personally don't need feature X, therefore feature X is stupid." It doesn't make any more sense to me than if I said prescription eyeglasses are stupid because I personally don't need glasses.

    However I think there are some big disadvantages to the approach you recommend here, of packing as many features as possible into a product. In fact I would go as far as to say that a large part of the reason for Apple's success with the iPod and iPhone lines is precisely because they DON'T follow this design approach.

    Take iPods as an example. From fairly early on in the MP3 player era, there have been competing MP3 players which had many more features than the iPod, like builtin FM radios, ability to create playlists right on the device, ability to view more track metadata, rearange files right on the device, etc. Yet, while these devices made geeks like me happier, what I saw is that many other people just found these devices more intimidating and harder to use, because there were so many options, and often more than one way to do things, etc. Sure, they could have just ignored the features they didn't need, but often to a non-geek it's not completely obvious which features you should ignore even. These same people pick up an iPod and it would be dead-easy to figure out, and they weren't geeky enough to miss additional features anyway.

    If you look at most of Apple's products, they seem to consistently follow the approach of not adding features unless they think it's a feature with wide appeal. While this may disappoint power users, it's also part of what makes the devices seem intuitive and easy to use for many users, which in turn is a big part of why Apple has been so successful.
  15. MacDawg macrumors Core


    Mar 20, 2004
    "Between the Hedges"
    As I said, it cuts both ways...

    "I find it annoying when people post arguments like 'I personally want feature X, therefore if you don't see the value of feature X you are stupid.' It doesn't make any more sense to me than if I said people without glasses are stupid because I personally need glasses."

    Why should people who don't want or need a feature feel compelled to lobby for the addition of features they will likely never use?
  16. vant macrumors 65816

    Jul 1, 2009
    Bingo. Simplicity.

    Less is more for Apple.

    With regards to Facetime, it doesn't have any effect on the phone's exterior. Except arguably the front camera.

    If we had everything everyone wanted, we'd be stuck with a iPad with a microSD slot, USB, hdmi, infared, toslink, etc.

    But what Apple did here was reduce it to two ports. Audio and Dock connector. Simple. They knew that if there was a market for other ports, they would do fine without them.

    So if you do want those ports, feel free to go to the Playbook or Galaxy Tab.
  17. MrWillie macrumors 65816


    Apr 29, 2010
    Starlite Starbrite Trailer Court
    Well I don't want it so it shouldn't have it because the WORLD REVOLVES AROUND ME... That's right. Didn't you see the latest news flash last night ?

    Now, I get fed up paying for stupid features that I will never use. Every device in my A/V system, to include video game consoles has the ability to steam Netflix. My TV has 80 inputs (and does Netflix) I need one HDMI input and a good tuner, but noooo, gotta have a bunch of crap. Gotta pay extra. (Everything is hooked into an A/V receiver.)

    For all of yall that scream about the lack of HDMI output on the iWhatever, Android devices have them, but if you read the fine print, they don't output protected content. So in my opinion (and the world revolves around me, remember;) ) it is a useless feature.

    Sorry for the rant, but I think most people will understand where I am coming from.:)
  18. bilboa macrumors regular

    Jan 16, 2008
    I think I agree with you, though your post seems to be mixing up several complaints.

    I've never seen anyone on here say or imply that people who don't care about feature X should nevertheless feel compelled to lobby for feature X. So this seems to be a bit of a straw man.

    As for the glasses example, let's substite "video calling" for glasses, since it's more relevant. I would completely agree that it would be dumb of me to say that people who don't value video calling are stupid, just because I do value video calling. However I do feel pretty justified in saying that even people who don't personally want video calling should pretty easily be able to understand that it's a valuable feature to many people. So I do think it's pretty dumb when someone criticizes the whole concept of video calling, and says phones shouldn't have it, based solely on the fact that they personally wouldn't use it. That's not to say someone couldn't make a good argument against phones supporting it, but the argument would need to be based on more than just one's personal preference. For instance a case might be made that hardly anyone would actually use it, or that it doesn't work well on existing cellular networks, or something like that.
  19. Liquorpuki macrumors 68020


    Jun 18, 2009
    City of Angels
    What about cost? Each thing you add bumps up the MFG cost, and in turn the retail cost
  20. MacDawg macrumors Core


    Mar 20, 2004
    "Between the Hedges"
    I was merely using the example provided

    Take the example of a back camera on the iPad
    I don't care if it has one or not

    But for one side to say "no, there is no use for it and it should never be included" doesn't take into account those that do have a legitimate use for it

    But for the other side to say "yes, it absolutely has to be there or it is a fail" doesn't take into account the fact that most will probably never use it, and they don't want to pay for it

    People have different needs, and they need to learn that they don't speak for everyone when they voice their preferences
  21. Piggie thread starter macrumors G3


    Feb 23, 2010
    Might this be a great example of a point I have made some time ago.

    There need to be, and probably will be if they have any sense, more than one Tablet from Apple.

    As I said in the past, Apple don't make one iMac or one MP3 player or one Laptop so it's kinda daft to think that one Tablet is enough.

    Some people may want a business tablet, perhaps no camera, they are not interested in sound that much, but battery life is a must in business.

    Other people may want something for the home/entertainment side, with better speakers, better 3D gaming, camera's etc. But they don't mind a little shorter batter life.

    Whilst someone else may just want the cheapest most basic device they can get, they want to read books, send emails, browse the web and take some notes. They are not into playing games or watching movies.

    Whilst of course you can't have 101 different designs, you could offer 2 or 3 models with differing options, designs and price tags.

    That sounds perfectly reasonable as a realistic path to take over the next few years.

    It also kills the argument about what should and should not be in the device as you can then freely pick from say 3 different designs/price options that best fits your needs.

    I'm not saying Apple has plans now to go down this route, as they would like a "One gadget fits all" device. But it does seem to natural and logical way to go, well, unless you are happy for other companies to take customers away from your product as they would like to buy from you, but you don't make what they want.

    Probably be a good few years before we see how this pans out.
  22. nemanjaj macrumors newbie

    Dec 31, 2010
    If I want to buy a pocket knife I don't want to buy a pocket knife with too many other features that don't have any value for me. If Apple starts adding stuff that is not needed - it might look and cost like the attached product, and also probably have the customer base as the mentioned product.

  23. Piggie thread starter macrumors G3


    Feb 23, 2010
    So that is a photo of Mac OS X Snow Leopard is it?

    Actually the reason why it's silly to use joke photo's like the one above is that it's down to the user to decide.

    That photo could just as easily represent a current iPad, Over priced and over complicated etc, to someone who just wants a simple Kindle device.
  24. craig1410 macrumors 65816


    Mar 22, 2007
    Not sure why you would say that. Snow Leopard is very "clean" in terms of design compared with every other OS I have ever used (and I've used a few over 30 years of computing).

    Getting back to your original point, my take on Apple's ethos is that it comes down to cost, value and usability/consistency.

    Firstly, it is much cheaper to make 100 million of the same product than to make 1 million of each of 100 different products. This allows you to make more profit (keeps company financially healthy and allows R&D spend), improve quality of materials and make the devices cheaper to buy. Apple do all three of these things to some extent. Nobody else can currently make a true iPad rival which combines cost, quality and profit margins!

    However, not everyone wants the same device, I agree. Some things are cheap/easy to change such as memory capacity but other things either compromise economies of scale or compromise product vision. In this situation Apple will only produce a minimal number of well differentiated products to satisfy the market but without significantly compromising economies of scale or product vision. They won't allow their product to morph into a different product from what they designed it to be. They will insist on remaining true to the vision and maintaining consistency.

    For some, this is a problem because they want the product to do X and Y and Z and it only does A and B and C. Speaking as an electronics design engineer, I hope this never changes because there are too many products on the market already with very poor design focus which were clearly designed by committee and the result is just a whole bunch of compromises in my opinion. Apple have said in the past that the really difficult decisions are deciding what NOT to put in a product. This is very true and takes a combination of good vision and strength of conviction. Apple have shown time and again that they have both.

    Having a product that does more than you need it to may seem like you are not losing anything but in fact you almost certainly will be. You will either be paying for features you don't use (often because those features are not well designed or implemented but were simply thrown in to satisfy the checklist of committee design requirements), or you will be reducing battery life by powering those extra features, or you will have a heavier device than necessary, or thicker, or less secure.

    If a device does less than you need it to then you need to decide if you can live without the missing features. This will depend on how important they are to you and whether you can find an alternate device which can either supplement the Apple device or replace it. This is where Apple's judgement will come into it. If Apple have done their job right then most people will buy their products and if they haven't then they won't! Apple products will never suit 100% of the people out there and nor will the products from any other vendor. However, Apple products will be suitable for the vast majority of consumers and those who fall through the gaps will no doubt criticise Apple and will probably find some other device which they feel is a closer fit.

    I don't think it comes down to blind fanboi-ism in most cases, and certainly not in my case. I just find that I prefer to have a product which excels at doing 90% of what I need and completely misses the other 10% than to have a product which does an "Ok" job of doing 95% of what I need. That extra 5% requirements coverage is simply not worth the pain of having a product designed by committee, or worse still, designed by customers! Of course, if any part of the 10% missing functionality is crucial to you, or if you are someone who is unable or unwilling to compromise then you are unlikely to buy that product.
  25. Carouser macrumors 65816

    Feb 1, 2010
    Well, the differences among their computers are largely quantitative (bigger screens, speed, HD size) not, for the most part, qualitative. In other words, they are very similar, especially in terms of their function. What functions does their most expensive laptop have that their least expensive doesn't? They really do make one 'kind' of computer; differentiation is minimal.

    They already do this with the iPad. Or do you mean that they will have something like the following options (just for example):
    (1) a model with a high-speed processor and graphics for games
    (2) a model with cameras and facetime
    (3) a bare-bones model, or something with extended battery life

    This will confuse consumers; instead of offering them something cool, they are now in the position of having to make tradeoffs when they buy something - instead of seeing all the great things they get, they have to think about the things they are foregoing. Others will ask 'why didn't they just put everything in one device?' whether possible or not. This question is posed every day on these forums; see: 'why doesn't the iPad have a camera, OSX, a slide-out keyboard, more storage, more RAM, come pre-jailbreaked, bla bla bla'.

Share This Page