Guy Kawasaki: What I learned from Steve Jobs
plus.google.com
plus.google.com
Customers don't know what they need? You can't go wrong with big fonts and big graphics? Experts don't know what they are talking about?
These lessons may work sometimes, but to generalize them across all people, companies and scenarios can lead to major mistakes.
Ask a 50+ iPad/iPhone owner what they love about their smart phone or tablet and you will find that ease of use, ease of seeing and low threshold of understanding (or the illusion of) is 90% of the experience.
Conversely, the early adopter/tech-savvy market despises the 'training wheels' that come with a lot of 'farmville' products.
Design your product for the market you are targeting.
If you want the big rewards, you've got to identify a new and radically better way to let the customers achieve whatever it is they're trying to do (in service of which they're buying the products currently on the market). Then you get to invent a new product category that is so obviously useful to people that they'll pay big bucks for it.
(Random anecdote: last week I was on a trans-Atlantic flight. (Premium economy, not economy.) Looking left: guy in the seat to my left had an iPad. Looking at my own lap: an iPad. Looking to my right: another iPad. I reckon of the 7 seats in my row, 4 or more were occupied by travellers with iPads. The iPad might not be a Mac/Windows/Ubuntu PC replacement, but as a gizmo for keeping the long-haul traveller entertained in flight it rocks. But if you'd asked most of those travellers what they wanted for flying a couple of years ago, they'd probably have said "a laptop with a longer battery life".)
Not usually, no. The customers know what needs they have that are not being met - that's not the same.
See also:
The customer lacks the imagination to ask for what they really need. This is often encapsulated in Henry Ford's apocryphal quote: "If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses." Now this is not to say the customer is stupid; it just means that everybody wanted to get from A to B faster, but since they only can imagine doing so on a horse, that is what they ask for. And, had they talked to a horse breeder, that is what he would promise them; and when they got their 10% faster horse, they would have been happy. The "project" would have been a success. But would you rather manage the horse breeding project or the Model T?
http://geekherding.blogspot.com/2010/07/requirements-dont-gr...
</joke>
For the correct individual, all of those statements drive home the importance breaking of mental constructs -- literally. That's the root point.
Again, everything GK was talking about, SJ tries to explain the root of it here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UF8uR6Z6KLc&t=12m33s
wow. i would much rather 'be' xerox parc. i think that they brought infinitely more value to the human race and probably had a lot more fun doing it. the author is nuts.
Xerox PARC's biggest legacy was refining ideas from other people (Douglas Englebart, the folks who created Simula, et al) and then _not shipping them_. Sure, PARC prototyped the iPad but it was really invented by Stanley Kubrick or one of his production designers wasn't it?
If you're in the "Apple stole everything from someone else" camp then at least trace back the origins of everything to Maxwell and Faraday and Ada Lovelace and the medieval monks who invented logic and Euclid and don't just go one step back.
We _all_ stand on giants' shoulders. Not all of us help popularize the personal computer, the graphical user interface, object-oriented programming, computer animation, digital music players that fit in your pocket and hold your entire music library, and pocket-sized always-connected touch-screen computers.
"Customers cannot tell you what they need."
http://video.svb.com/video/12-Lessons-Steve-Jobs-Taught-Gu#c... Lessons Steve Jobs Taught Guy Kawasaki
I think the reason it reads bland is that it is a short summary. I found his talk amusing and better presented than what he listed here.
Am I the only one who would rather be in Xerox PARC than Apple? :)
Also, the ad hominem seems out of place. Is he wrong or uninteresting in this case?
Citing wikipedia: "Gratuitous verbal abuse or "name-calling" itself is not an ad hominem or a logical fallacy.[8][13][14][15][16] In order to become a fallacy, the insult would need to be given as a reason for believing some conclusion. An example would be, "X is idiotically ignorant [of politics], so why should we listen to him now?""
Also, "Is he wrong or uninteresting in this case?" is a false dilemma.