Dear Packaging, I Hate You

Apple used to have the best packaging in the world, but lately it's been my opinion that they've lost sight of making the packaging functionally nice and are simply focusing on making it nice looking. Case in point, the incident last year where the guy first in line at the Apple store for his iPhone on release day struggled with opening the box and ended up launching his new phone onto the sidewalk in front of a news crew. Incidentally, I watched a friend do exactly the same thing the very next day. And recently, a friend and I both bought some particular apple accessory and separately commented on how difficult it was to figure out how to get it out of the box.

There are a lot of assumptions behind the idea that if you see "bad packaging," which you don't define, then it implies the company doesn't care about the rest of the package.

The author's example of "standard packaging" is not bad packaging, as it does its job well. It protects the product, the reason for the purchase, and it isn't difficult for the user to unpack. It might arguably be more environmentally friendly in its use of corrugated cardboard, and I have no idea about the foam. But it is likely less wasteful on this measure than Apple's packaging when you consider the entire process required.

When you tack on the "customer experience" aspect of this packaging, not caring about creating luxury packaging doesn't mean the company does not think about the user's experience or care about the product itself. In the author's situation, the user is more aware of how wasteful and unnecessary this packaging is, and it doesn't help his experience. It also makes the product unnecessarily expensive.

Apple only has the best packaging in every way if you ignore these negative aspects.

Apple has also used the more standard packaging approach for some of its products, such as laptops, in the recent past, but with white printed cardboard. Does that mean Apple didn't care or pay attention to detail back then?

I'd argue that in Apple's case, a company with a (long) history, they could not afford not to focus on packaging while positioning themselves as the kind of brand they wanted to become. Higher stakes and with Google/Android a potentially dangerous competitor (whose strategy only became very evident later, ie. not wanting to compete on hardware as well). Now however, especially due to the profits they're making, they have little incentive to care about anything else but maintaining status.

Why change something not visibly broken?

I disagree that non-luxury packaging automatically means the company doesn't care about the product contained inside. It's a matter of strategy & costs. I'm not familiar with HP packaging, but you should know that ASUS does offer luxury packaging for its gaming range of products for instance, especially laptops.

My opinion is that it's possible to design thoughtful, non-generic packaging without crossing into luxury materials territory. Experience and loads of creativity are required though. At least this is what I understood from the article (taking into account the Pencil example as well), that startups should bet on resourcefulness instead of throwing money in non-priority directions.

Another aspect to consider: I don't have the specific numbers to back this up, but we live in a world where the general trend is towards minimalism and simplifying our lives, which includes getting rid of no longer necessary stuff, such as a product's temporary home (packaging). Considering it has such a short life, it makes little sense to invest a lot of resources into packaging as a startup, unless you're selling electronics, where at least some consumers have a habit of saving the packaging materials to increase resale value of the product when they decide to upgrade.

There is an entire segment of videos on youtube dedicated to "unboxing" implying great packaging is not "really" important I think would be disingenuous. That's not to say that you need to get to Apple level packaging (I think, the point of the article) and spend $15/box, however thought and user experience need to be taken into consideration. Heck, one of the companies in this YC batch is trying to solve exactly that problem (Pakible)

This is the cart-horse mentality that I see so many startups get wrong. They see services like Pakible and think "oh man, I should build a smartwatch, that packaging is gonna sell itself", or they watch a video at the Apple WWDC and think "I can def do that Jony Ive white background video so easily for my new smartwatch". Then they fail miserably, because their product itself doesn't work.

PS - Did you read the whole article? They're agreeing with you.

I see how you subtly equated boring packaging with being shoddy or bad. The reality is that you can have perfectly good, reliable, strong packaging for cheap, it just isn't necessarily beautiful to look at, but maybe some pink shaped foam that gives 3 inches of crush protection all round and fits inside a double box.

You want the packaging to be part of the aesthetic experience, rather than purely functional. OK, so you like Apple's packaging, but 'best in the world'? Japanese people have been doing that sort of thing for centuries.

I bought a tablet from Asus and the packaging was quite nice.

I wouldn't call it the best packaging in the world across all metrics. It might be the sexiest.

I find it more satisfying when you free a cleverly suspended gadget from an anti-static bag suspended in a molded/origami fiberboard nest. Easily disposed of, light, unobtrusive, recyclable (and possible for mere mortals to re-assemble if RMA is ever required, heaven forbid)

Of course Apple devices never need to be sent returned so maybe that isn't a concern.

It sounds odd, but I absolutely love Apple's packaging. It feels rich. I grab one of their products in its box and I immediately expect a quality product simply because of the box.

Even though we're told from an early age to never judge a book by its cover, first impressions are hard to shake. And handling packaging is the first impression, not actually using whatever is inside the package. It's the first time an end-user actually physically interacts with your company.

So I agree with you. If the customer is interacting with it, it's a part of the customer experience and should be at least considered. Not everyone can have Apple's resources, yes. But everyone can do the very best with what they have.

I'm thinking of Chubbies, that short-shorts company for guys who want to be Magnum PI. They are a small(ish) startup, but their packaging does not feel that way. It feels like their company. Looks preppy, feels rugged, and is over-the-top with nationalistic and company pride.

I haven't opened a recent Apple product, but they tend to have less packaging than a comparable device from many other brands.

>>Generally, I agree. I feel like I'm wasting my money when I unwrap something with overly "beautiful" packaging. It's a tiny fraction of my experience

It may be a tiny fraction of the experience, but it is also the first impression you get of the product.

Presentation matters.

I too feel the sense of waste. It's a box. I'm going to throw it in the trash. To me, a pricey box says, "You just spent an extra X dollars that didn't need to be spent." It's like sending a donation to a charity and they spend it by mailing you every week begging for more money.

> Startups seeking to emulate wasteful and expensive packaging are convincing me they're more concerned with image than substance.

We see this in new restaurants all the time. They go crazy remodeling, throw away too much money, then it opens and they don't get enough customers to pay for the lovely interior. Bye bye restaurant.

Those are all really nice designs. The only criticism I have is with the final one.

Some bagged tea (Celestial Seasonings, etc.) is already available in superior packaging. They use a single unwaxed carboard box for all bags. None of the bags have string or paper, making them completely compostable.

Doubtful. From what a quick scan on Crunchbase says, Bolt did not make any investments in FiftyThree (the makers of Pencil) nor do they share investors.

Bolt has however made a number of investments in hardware companies that gained traction through crowdfunding. This is the audience.

Not all of these companies were founded by people with backgrounds in this space, so the model they resort to when looking for "nice" is to emulate Apple. FiftyThree is a former Microsoft industrial design team so they had knowledge of how to make any kind of packaging. They serve as a great goal post for Bolt to point to as an alternative example of "nice" that's not one of their own investments. The implication here is that they are not self-promoting.

Apple's packaging does not necessarily optimize for recyclable materials (though they do, sometimes). More importantly, they optimize for space efficiency.

The last few generations of iMac come in a box that is sloped on one edge, whereas they used to be a standard rectangular prism. This unusual reduction in size allows them to tessellate the boxes in shipping and fit significantly more boxes on each airplane. This saves the company millions (literally millions of dollars from a seemingly-minor packaging change!) and also reduces the amount of jet fuel being burned to ship them around the world. Everyone wins, environment included.

But yes, it is also true that your lightning cables come wrapped in a little plastic thing. It would be nice to choose a more biodegradable material for that sort of thing.