The Truth Behind Apple’s Most Unpopular Decisions: It’s Not About You

Twelve years ago, my former igamesnews colleague Lex Friedman and I were at an Apple conference where we gave a talk called “Apple Is Huge Now (And It Sucks For You).” In short, the Apple of 2012 was not the same as the Apple of the 1980s, 1990s, or even the 2000s: Apple was now a giant corporation that could less afford to worry about you as an individual.

More than a decade later, it’s hard to believe that Apple has become even bigger and that, fundamentally, each of us means a lot less to it, but it’s undoubtedly true. Simply put, it’s a question of scale: the company simply can’t afford to spend as much time caring about its customers as it did 20 years ago, because there are simply more of them.

As one of the world’s largest technology providers, Apple has no choice but to adopt a perspective of scale. It comes into play in all kinds of decisions the company makes, from the biggest of the big to the smallest of the small.

Input-output

Consider, for example, the issue of hardware modifications, even those that may seem inconsequential. Apple released new versions of its Mac input devices this week: the Magic Keyboard, Magic Mouse, and Magic Trackpad. These new revisions were virtually identical to the older models, except for replacing the Lightning port from previous versions with a USB-C port. This was a long-awaited change by most Apple watchers, for no other reason than that the Lightning port has already been phased out on most of the company’s other devices. (The ones that remain are older products still on sale, like the iPhone 14, and those likely to be replaced in the near future, like the iPhone SE.)

Foundry

But the big question on many minds is: why is this the only thing that has changed? It’s not like these products are perfect. The Magic Mouse has long been ridiculed for its inefficient charging port at the bottom; The Magic Keyboard retained its odd arrow key layout, in defiance of the rest of Apple’s keyboards adopting the classic “inverted T” design. Why haven’t any of these “problems” been resolved?

While John Gruber gave a vehement defense of the Magic Mouse that largely rings true, I think you can’t ignore the impact of scale. These devices are some of the most specialized Apple products. Not only are these accessories primarily (but not exclusively) used with the Mac, a product line that regularly accounts for a single-digit percentage of the company’s overall revenue, but they are also (again primarily) intended to customers of desktop computerswhich themselves constitute the minority of Macs sold. Additionally, I would guess that a high percentage of the devices Apple ships are those included with a computer, such as an iMac, rather than purchasing separately.

Making changes to any of these devices would have required redesign and re-engineering efforts; changes that to those of us on the outside may seem minor, but when compared to the number of these devices actually sold, they simply cannot translate: how much does changing the process cost existing manufacturing, how much does it cost? it costs to test these products to make sure they work properly, and how many of these devices does Apple have to sell to pay that upfront cost?

On top of all this, there is another cost to consider: the cost of what you not TO DO.

Opportunity cost

Over the past few years, Apple has made several attempts to add additional models to its iPhone lineup. This came first in the iPhone 12/13 mini version, followed by the iPhone 14/15/16 Plus. If rumors are to be believed, the Plus model could follow the mini into obscurity next year, while a new, slimmer iPhone 17 will take a place at the top of the range.

I know many people who lament Apple’s abandonment of the mini form factor. It is clear that the products were not successful sellers. If they had been, there is no doubt that Apple would have continued to produce more of them. But I’ve also heard the argument that these sales shouldn’t be the be-all and end-all. Namely: “If Apple can keep the iPad mini and the Mac mini, despite surely lower sales, why not the iPhone mini?

Foundry

The simple answer? Opportunity cost. The iPhone is by far Apple’s most valuable product line. This represents half of the company’s turnover. Apple sells tens of millions of them every quarter. Neither the Mac nor the iPad ranges come close.

The problem is that the iPhone mini doesn’t exist in a vacuum. The watchword is growth, and if the mini doesn’t generate more sales for the company, it’s too expensive. Apple can only make a limited number of iPhones in total; he doesn’t have the luxury of spending time and effort investing in a product that isn’t selling as well, especially if it could generate considerable success. different type of iPhone that could sell better. There is a cost to maintaining an underperforming product, especially in your best-selling product line: components, assembly, marketing, etc. must always be devoted to this product, even if it does not meet its end.

That’s why Apple shifted gears to the Plus phone: to see if it could succeed where the mini couldn’t, in terms of sales. And if that also fails, as these rumors suggest, he will be next on the chopping block.

Climb every mountain

Too often, Apple’s decisions can seem personal. Trust me: I was ready to buy a new Magic Keyboard, but the lack of that inverted-T arrow key layout made me hesitate. Why would Apple do this to Me? The problem is that ultimately, with the number of Apple customers, each of us is, at one point or another, a borderline case. An exception to the rule.

Ultimately, everything Apple does these days needs to be considered at scale. Given the size of the company, the number of products it makes, and its global reach, small decisions can quickly become big decisions. A battleship turns slowly, as the old adage goes, and that means it’s even more critical for the person steering it to be sure they’re achieving their goal. RIGHT take turns – and that doesn’t always mean that each of us can join in on the journey.