Hacker News Reader

That might be true for b2b, but totally wrong for consumer products. Have you never seen someone polish their car on a beautiful sunday, when they could be doing anything else?

Consumers buy most things because they want to, not because they need to. They desperately want to love your product. Unfortunately most products don't deserve to be loved which a whole other matter.

They don't love the product, they love how it makes them feel. So your product either has to be addictive or confer status.

In the jobs to be done framework one would say they still use your product to get a job done. For example, they might get some stress relief from working on their car. That is a job (get stress relief) that is fufilled by the car. Others might solve that with working on a boat, tinkering with a raspberry pi or working on their garden. Then it isnt because they "love" the car but rather they love the stress relief of working on it.

(This is just an example of if the reason they wash their car is because they destress that way. If it is because a clean car makes them feel pride you can apply the same process. Perhaps fancy clothes or a fancy watch fufills the same desire etc)

One of the reasons I think Apple has been successful at launching new product categories, where those before them trying to launch the same category have floundered, is they really talk up the problem statement and what the product will do for the user. “1,000 songs in your pocket.” As a consumer, I can understand this, I see the value to my life, and I don’t have to care about what technology was needed to make it possible.

Consistently solve problems for customers (even if the problem was made up) and the company will have fans… until they stop solving the consumer’s problems.

MP3 players were already a thing. I couldn't actually tell you at this point why I first bought an iPod (my first Apple purchase) with I think the 4th gen click wheel. Presumably it was at a technology point where I felt I should probably get one of these things and Apple seemed the best choice.

Well the popular story goes that mp3 players were a thing but either had very little flash storage, or had a big bulky hard drive and terrible battery life. Then iPod came out with a newly developed tiny hard drive, plus a flash buffer so it would only have to spin up the hd every 20 minutes, plus a good control scheme plus a fast port for transferring files plus iTunes which was supposedly better than the competing software options. Though I can't personally verify all that, since I never had an early mp3 player

I've had an iRiver h340 mp3 player with 40gb hard drive, not that different from what iPod offered. But when I got an iPod instead, it just felt so much better, even compared to the custom firmware like Rockbox. Same tech specs, but a vastly superior product — a very common thing that I've seen repeated with many other Apple products, like a Nokia 6600 vs first iPhone just a couple of years later.

This is right, but it doesn't support what the GGP said.

Apple have not historically created new product categories. They have turned fledgling product categories with weird and untried technology into popular and mature ones.

The MP3 player, the smartphone, the tablet, the PC, the computer-in-monitor are all examples of these.

This is why I have this line in my comment.

>those before them trying to launch the same category have floundered

Yes, the mp3 player existed, but they either held only a few songs in your pocket, like the Diamond Rio. Or they held a lot, but looked like a Discman for some reason, like the Creative Nomad Jukebox.

The iPod was the best of both worlds, and the iTunes enabled the user to take the library that they managed and curated on their desktop, and mirror it to the iPod. It’s very easy and elegant.

This took the mp3 player from a thing for nerds and some college students who really liked Napster, and made it mainstream. MP3 players went from some products, to a category with a whole industry around it… accessories, repair shops, etc.

The really important lesson from Apple is that they had a cult status in both business and consumer with the Apple II and, in the early days, the Mac. They then lost/squandered it and almost died but astonishingly to all (even to Jobs) were able to recover it via the iPod.

> They want the hole in the wall, not the drill and bit.

Well, it depends. Some people enjoy using high quality tools and would drill an extra hole because they like the tool.

“Landlords hate him!”

Software engineers and drills and holes in the wall: https://xkcd.com/2021/ https://xkcd.com/905/

> I have been intrigued by the phrase “people ‘hire your product’ to get a job done.”

Here’s a good article expanding on that point:

https://hbr.org/2016/09/know-your-customers-jobs-to-be-done

That saying is there because companies are unable to have emotions.

But people are perfectly capable of having them. And while people don't love everything they do, they are perfectly capable of loving you, a product, a store, or anything at all.

So, no, it only applies to your customers if they are companies.

People buy newer Apple products without any need, or perhaps even knowledge of the full feature set.

It's part of their identity, and social display.

I think you massively underestimate the power of and need for good marketing.

The problem to be solved need not be utilitarian, in this case it is status signaling. But note that this is only possible with long-game brand-building, and "good marketing" massively understates what does into achieving this kind of brand positioning. For instance, Apple never would have gotten here is they weren't absolutely obsessed with user experience from day one. The journey from capturing early adopters to mainstream status symbol is not really something that can be planned out, rather it is an emergent phenomenon flowing out of company values that savvy leadership can, at most, capitalize on, but never fully control.

I think tech people vastly overstate how much Apple devices are status symbols to the average consumer.

Most non tech adults I know buy them as low effort ie just works devices. The perception isn’t that they are great just that the other options are worse. It’s a combination of useful defaults, reasonable UI, and few gotchas like a short lifespan or poor battery life. Most of them had multiple phones before the iPhone, but ran into various issues.

Agreed, but I'm just responding to the GPs point, not making a statistical argument about how many people see it as a status symbol (and what subset of those would publicly admit it).

I’m pretty much all in on Apple because they generally suck less, not out of any great enthusiasm.

For certain things I prefer Linux and don’t use Apple.

Eh. I buy a few Apple products and not many others. Ecosystem plays a role as well as, of course, my perception of the functionality of an individual product. I certainly don't have an auto-buy flag for new products as they come out and have never once ordered Day 1.

Just because you buy an Apple product out of desire (perhaps without even knowing the full feature set) does not mean you are buying it for social display. That is one of numerous possible reasons.

If this was the main reason for people to purchase the phone, they would still be buying Nokia Vertu phones instead.

Or because they just fucking work without us having to think or spend time on them getting them to do what we want. And no, I don’t care about the “full feature set”. I know it does what I need it to do without any hassle.