Hacker News Reader

Comment by dmlorenzetti | Hacker News Reader

Not that I disagree, but the analogy seems flawed. The "closed consumer" cars and airplanes of today also are more capable than the finicky, esoteric products they replaced. Conversely, the reason many people thought the iPad would fail is that it's less capable than its seeming competition.

View on HN

many people thought the iPad would fail [because] it's less capable than its seeming competition

The success of the iPod and the Flip Video camera seems to demonstrate that mainstream consumers prefer usability to capability.

The iPod wasn't the most capable MP3 player when it came out. But Flip Video is an even more dramatic example. An unknown company came out of nowhere and captured 13% of the video camera market in 6 months. And they were competing against Sony and Canon and Panasonic, some big, well established players. The first Flip had 6 buttons and no onscreen menus. Just 7 features (one button handled zoom while recording and volume during playback). The competition had at least twice as many features.

Features on something that takes pictures or records video is much different from features on a computer, though applications is generally a more common term for the variety of uses a PC can be put to.

The long tail of what a computer can do is infinitely longer than the long tail of features on a camera. Maybe you're an architect and use CAD software, maybe you're a composer and need software that works with your synthesizers, maybe you're a scientist and use a bunch of customized development tools for research, maybe you play high-end video games, maybe you design playbills, maybe you're just a car enthusiast and use different CAD software from the architect I already mentioned. The list goes on.

PCs are incredibly flexible in this way. A device that can't do the one thing you need it to do won't get bought. On cameras, usually the one thing is just: take nice pictures. If the one thing you really need a PC for isn't available from the App Store, usability doesn't matter at all.

Not that I disagree, but the analogy seems flawed.

Your analysis is flawed. See below.

the reason many people thought the iPad would fail is that it's less capable than its seeming competition.

Yes, but the smart money is on the capabilities of the iPad increasing over time. (In fact, we already know this to be true.)

Also note that the consumer-relevant increase in capabilities in cars and airplanes have been quantitative in specific metrics. (More reliable, able to go farther, faster, more efficiently.) The decrease in capability for the iPad was qualitative in terms of tweak-ability, flexibility, and accommodation of user expertise. Those are not the qualities that appeal to the mainstream user.

I'm sure a lot of people complained when automatics came out, because they're less flexible. (You can't push-start them, you can't easily rock them out of ditches, and there's less flexibility in terms of using compression braking.) The flexibility isn't what consumers really cared about.

There are still people who complain that driving an automatic isn't driving, it's steering.

And I'm sure that there will always be people who will want a computing device they can tweak and program. There will also be tremendous profit to be made selling to people who just want the easy utility.

Maybe. Automatic transmissions don't come with built-in political cartoon censorship or remote mass deletion of 1984. Maybe people, if given the choice, would choose convenience over freedom, but they prefer having both, which is why Android sales are zooming past iPhone sales.

Some people don't want Lojack giving someone else the ability to track and remotely deactivate their car. A lot of people do, however.

There's no wrong or right here, just facts about different market segments. They exist. Deal with it.

It's both facts about different market segments and right and wrong. There's also a difference from Lojack here: because of network effects, all of the people get the "government" that some of the people deserve.

Are people really as foolish as you think? I don't know. I hope not.

I entirely disagree.

Enthusiast cars are still based around horsepower, handling, and the "joy of the ride", whereas modern cars are using increasingly smaller yet more efficient motors that, while not as exciting, get out of your way and still get you where you need to go.

But even non-enthusiast cars are still tweakable. You might not be getting the strobe gun out on your timing belt, but you can reflash the chips that control your car's various I/O systems, change out the suspension, do all kinds of nutty things with the interior and exterior.

For example, I bought a Hyundai Elantra back in 2001, and part of the weird appeal to me was that unlike a Honda Civic, there wouldn't be anyone interested in modifying something as pedestrian as an Elantra. Then I joined a Hyundai Elantra forum full of tinkerers - who take full advantage of the fact that Hyundai posts their searchable tech manuals online for free. Because of this open manual and enthusiast community surrounding a car that is unremarkable except in its longevity, I was able to change my own thermostat out, not to mention the dozens of minor suspension and interior tweaks I've made.

It's not that there's less joy in the ride, it's just a different kind of joy.

So you purchased a standard, no-frills car that provides full technical accessibility and used that to make unnecessary modifications to it. Then, you used said tweaked automobile as an example of opaque car design in a discussion about iPad?

Making suspension and interior tweaks are not necessary for piloting your vehicle. Unfortunately, Windows Update and some level of technical sophistication is necessary for running the modern PC. You're arguing against your own point—you don't need technical expertise in any possible way to run and maintain your Hyundai. iPad is arguably one of the first computers to adopt this model.

The problem with the whole thing is that computers are not cars. Cars do one thing: get from a to b. Whether "getting from a to b" is an experience to be enjoyed or endured is a matter of preference, but ultimately the car still serves a single purpose.

The single purpose served by a computer is so abstract that it's not even worth mentioning here. Practically, computers serve hundreds of different purposes, and that is why the analogy fails.

I can tell that you aren't into cars. People that are into cars really get a lot more than the A to B utility. they identify with cars. They drive them for the sake of driving. They race. They accessorize. They like the way driving their car makes them feel. I'm not a car guy myself, so I can't elaborate, however, I know some of these people, and they think computers are mostly "single purpose". It is all about perspective.

You have to be an enthusiast to really get the difference, though. That's not true with computers, and is the whole point. Take enthusiasts out of the picture entirely, and computers still have a variety of uses, cars have essentially one, or maybe two if you live in it.

I wonder which has more enthusiasts. :)

Regardless, I think the analogy still makes sense.

It makes sense as an analogy but it's not valid evidence supporting the argument.

The argument is that usability matters more than capability and that's why the iPad will ultimately win the mainstream. In mainstream use, computers simply have more diverse capability than cars.

(note that this is NOT the case with mobile phones-- while mobile phones have diverse capability and people use them for lots of different things, if all you could do was make calls, send text, email, use GPS and do basic web browsing people would still buy them)

stcredzero compared the iPad to cars. dmlorenzetti said " the analogy seems flawed". kaiuhl said "I entirely disagree," intimating that the analogy was not flawed. My retort further demonstrates how unlike a car an iPad is, in the hope that the reader would also agree that the analogy is in fact flawed.

In your reply, you say "you don't need technical expertise in any possible way to run and maintain your Hyundai" - given that I take my car to a garage for maintenance and oil changes, that's not at all true.

A bad analogy is like a fish.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com