"Too much choice" can be as bad as "not enough choice." Ironically, having some choices generally is viewed as a positive by most consumers. But overwhelming choice is paralyzing. Those of you familiar with the Class 5 switch, and the modern business phone system, know something of the matter. Both types of switches offer hundreds to thousands of discrete features. But most end users, business or consumer, use only a handful of features.
You might wonder why suppliers both to add all those generally unused features. The reason is that a few key customers say they "need them." See Choice can be a problem or choice can paralyze
You might wonder why suppliers both to add all those generally unused features. The reason is that a few key customers say they "need them." See Choice can be a problem or choice can paralyze
Apple always has taken one approach to features, while Microsoft and the "open source" communities generally have taken a different approach. For decades, developers have argued for and against unlimited choice or "openness." At the moment, it appears Apple's choices might be winning the argument.
When Google Android developers complain of "fragmentation," that's a downside, or problem, with "open" approaches. Apple always has taken the other view. It limits openness, limits choices, in order to enhance user experience. Where an open source or Microsoft approach is "you can do that," Apple essentially asks "why do you need to do that?"
When Google Android developers complain of "fragmentation," that's a downside, or problem, with "open" approaches. Apple always has taken the other view. It limits openness, limits choices, in order to enhance user experience. Where an open source or Microsoft approach is "you can do that," Apple essentially asks "why do you need to do that?"
With so many projects, if the customer is willing to go without a small subset of the functionality they think they need, it can save a massive amount of effort, cost, and complexity and result in a much more elegant, hassle-free solution that makes them much happier in the long run, some would now argue.
Apple’s customers are often the sort of people willing to make these tradeoffs, because that’s how most of Apple’s products are designed: if you can compromise on some of the features and capabilities you think you need, you can get a product that works better and makes you happier with far less aggravation. And for most people, the benefits will outweigh the missing features.
Granted, there are trade-offs, as there always are in all engineering projects. “We know what’s best for you," Apple essentially says.
People who aren’t willing or able to compromise on their needs regularly are much more likely to be Windows customers. The Windows message is much more palatable to corporate buyers, committees, middlemen, and people who don’t like to be told what’s best for them.
But the world seems to be moving a bit more in Apple's direction.
But the world seems to be moving a bit more in Apple's direction.
