Hacker News Reader

Comment by usrusr | Hacker News Reader

Google's handset portfolio is starting to get a bit messy. Ignoring any earlier but still available models you have a 4 in 64GB and 128GB versions, a 4a without a 64GB option, a 4a 5G that also differs from the regular 4a in some other specs, no 4 5G, an announced straight 5 and presumably everything in regular and XL versions that may or may not differ in other specs as well. Reminds me of how Motorola made people completely oblivious to new models because there were just too many of them.

Hint: if you make it too hard for customers to feel well-informed about your devices all but the most casual buyers will simply avoid your brand.

View on HN

Wow, they are actually reducing models, and simplifying the range, but you make it sound as if they are increasing confusion by increasing the choices.

Having just a 128GB version is a good thing.

The thing that finally made me jump ship to Macbooks about 10 years ago was the fact that I needed a week and a spreadsheet to choose a PC laptop.

So if the specification weren't important for you, why did you bother?

I think it's quite nice to have the choice, upgradability, price range, etc.

> So if the specification weren't important for you

That's not what OP said.

I understood it that way.

What did you understand?

Menu fatigue is real, I experienced it only a few weeks ago. PC laptops often differ just enough in things like build quality processor version, RAM amounts, screen quality that you are constantly trying to balance "best" or compare A vs B vs Q, and if you care a lot about maximizing value for your budget, you end up spending hours looking at reviews, benchmarks, etc.

In contrast, with a Macbook, I know it's not perfect, but there's a clear differentiation of qualities (air, macbook, pro), and only a couple differences within those categories, so it's a lot easier to decide based on budget, or based on your needs.

> there's a clear differentiation of qualities (air, macbook, pro)

There's a lot of overlap between the airs and the non-pro macbooks, IMHO

There was, but they got rid of the non-pro macbooks years ago to fix that.

I don't really get that logic.

Sure you can better decide on budget with Apple but only if you compare within Apple products. But you are not really comparing anything that makes sense at that point.

So you either care about comparing or you don't. If you care, having a wide range of choices is the optimum. And even if you don't care, you can still outsource your comparing job to the salesperson or your favourite pc part picker page, test magazine, etc.

There is no real upside to just go for Apple because you're overwhelmed with the possibilities of the alternative.

You ever tried to buy an IBM Thinkpad? There are like 20,000 configurations displayed on the same single website page. It’s a disaster shopping for pre-assembled PC’s.

First, IBM doesn't make thinkpads and hasn't for close to a decade.

Second, this is just because they know who their market is. They're deliberately not marketing their laptops to people who don't want to have to handle a little bit of complexity in exchange for flexibility.

Apple is the Sony rx100; good but not great sensor, good but not great lens, good but not great audio. Everything is fixed and you can only make superficial changes.

Thinkpad is the Red Komodo; everything is optional, but it doesn't even include vital components in the box unless you know to order them.

You can get decent results with the former, and it requires very little thought or experience to buy and use. There is a much higher ceiling for getting exactly what you want with the latter, but it requires you to know exactly what you're doing and be willing to do some work on your setup.

Neither option is objectively better.

Also, thinkpads are still a bussiness line of laptops aimed at the corporate market.

having a ton of options makes a lot of sense when it allows you to bring the price down. Making a change that saves you 50$ of a 1000$ laptop might not seem like a big deal, but it adds up if you buy a couple of hundred of them.

I'm sorry, I am just unable to see the disaster in having a choice.

You also don't have to make the choice yourself. Ask somebody who knows what he/she's talking about...like people who sell those things or look up opinions online. This is the 21st century. There are ways. If you care...but as I said: I have the feeling many don't care and that's ok. If you have the extra money and don't care, go for it. That's the great thing about capitalism but please don't try to sell the possibility of choice as something bad. It just doesn't make any sense at all.

> So if the specification weren't important for you, why did you bother?

I never said that. The Macbook Air (at the time) was as close as any of the other models I'd shortlisted. I just got tired of micro-optimizing.

Most PC manufacturers have dozens of different laptops and about 70% of them should be avoided (bad screen, still using a HDD, etc). I dislike a lot about Apple including the pricing per spec and the arrogance (it took you how long to fix your broken keyboard?) but one thing they usually get right is the simplified selection process within a few categories.

If Apple price is in your budget, then most all manufacturers have a premium line that you can narrow it down to.

For Dell, it's the XPS line. For HP, it's Envy. For Microsoft, it's the Surface Laptop or surface book if you want 2-in-1.

There's last year's model, the 4, with two storage options and it comes in big and less-big.

There's a cheap new 4a model, with two radio options and less-big is the only size.

There's an unspecified 5 which is an update to the 4.

What's messy about that? Is there a phone manufacturer who makes fewer models than Google in 2020?

Going to Samsung's mobile phone model page they currently list 24 models. The most recent data I can find says they lead the market with 22% market share.

I think that empirically it's fine to have a bunch of different models. Market segmentation is a thing.

vs... Apple?

You have an iPhone XR: 64 or 128GB

iPhone SE: 64, 128, 256GB

iPhone 11: 64, 128, 256GB

iPhone 11 Pro: 64, 256, 512GB

iPhone 11 Pro Max: 64, 256, 512GB

If you make it too hard for customers to feel well-informed about your devices, all but the most casual buyers will simply avoid your brand. Sales and revenue prove this out, Apple is on the verge of bankruptcy... what?

All of that is ignoring that literally every other android handset maker has dozens of phones on the market.

It's important to point out that the vast majority of phones are sold through the channel - carriers will probably choose to sell their own subset of all the options based on their own market research.

Do you have a cite for this? Amazon, Best Buy, and Apple.com alone make up 42% of overall smartphone sales[0]. Verizon is the largest carrier, at only 11% of total sales.

And internationally the picture is even worse for carrier channels.

[0] https://www.counterpointresearch.com/amazon-leads-online-sma...

The article you posted is a good citation:

> According to the latest research from the Counterpoint Smartphone Channel Share Tracker service, the share of the online smartphone channels grew to 12% share of the total US smartphone sales in Q1 2018. Despite US consumers being massive online consumers, brick and mortar establishments remain king when it comes to purchasing smartphones.

>Carriers and national retailers have large store counts that they are leveraging to get consumers to physically touch and test high-end devices, so they know what they are buying. Stores also provide a better opportunity to up-sell accessories and insurance.

Amazon makes up 42% of online sales, which is only 12% of sales overall.

If you have ever been inside of a Verizon or AT&T or T-Mobile store, you would be interested to see how their selections compare.

I have long suspected that the uncontrolled growth of phone models with some manufacturers (particularly Motorola and occasionally Sony) was mainly caused by carrier desires. A downward spiral where weak manufacturers were strongarmed by carriers into polluting their portfolio while stronger manufacturers could maintain a clean lineup. But is Google in that situation? Are they even selling through carriers? (honestly, I have no idea, where I live the carrier channel was already in steep decline before the iPhone hit)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com