me & her

Paul Thurrott “Simplifies” the iPad Lineup

has ideas about how Apple could “fix” the iPad. Could? Nay! NEEDS TO. Because the iPad is broken. STOP LOOKING UP IPAD SALES NUMBERS! THE IPAD IS BROKEN!

Consumers don’t seem to be having problems, but Thurrott believes the current iPad lineup ought to be simplified anyway, success be damned:

Lower prices are a given, but there is one aspect of the iPad product lineup that is uniquely un-Apple: There are just too many product versions. Apple currently sells 6 different iPads, three with Wi-Fi only and three with 3G wireless networking as well.

Nevermind that the current lineup really only requires a consumer to make two choices — 1) “Do you want 3G?” and 2) “How much storage do you want?” — Thurrot believes that consumers must make 6 incredibly confusing choices. Like this:

(To be fair, price also plays a role: These models are $499, $629, $599, $729, $699 and $829, which isn’t as daunting if you put it this way: “Add $129 if you want 3G connectivity and then add $100 each time you step up the storage.”)

The fear, I guess, is that a consumer will decide on the 16GB WI-FI (only) model, only to realize that there’s a 16GB WI-FI + 3G model. Uh oh! Decision time. But wait! Then, there’s a 32GB model (“Does it ever end!?”) and even though the customer already decided that he didn’t want WI-FI + 3G when he was considering the lowly 16GB model, he’ll have to weigh that decision all. over. again. now that there’s the option of more storage space. Rinse and repeat for the 64GB model.

It’s all terribly confusing in the same way that people who appear in infomercials can’t ever seem to perform normal everyday tasks without a lot of fumbling about. 

So, okay. Thurrott has the following idea:

…my advice is to simplify the lineup to 2 or 3 models only, differentiated only by storage capacities. In today’s product line, that would be a 32 GB version selling for $299 and a 64 GB version for $399. Simple.

Even though the iPad is currently selling like hotcakes, Thurrott wants to drop the low-end model altogether and cut the price of the mid-range model by half while retaining the 3G connectivity. (Also, he’s simultaneously dreaming up the 2nd generation iPad, so this EVERYTHING MUST GO! pricing will include front and rear-facing cameras. Well, duh.)

Throw logic out the window. Don’t worry that Apple would be cutting deep into the iPad’s profit margins. Needlessly. Pretend that any other company has been able to match the iPad’s CURRENT selling price, let alone undercut it. With all those caveats, Thurrott is right. His idea WOULD simplify the iPad lineup:

First, ignore that this is the sort of too-limited lineup that anti-Apple pundits like Thurrott are usually bitching about, when it comes to Apple’s products. It’s probably asking too much to expect consistency, at this point.

In a perfect world — a consumer Utopia — this makes a lot of sense. You get the possibility of 3G whether you’ll ever use it or not (because Apple is now bundling it for free) and you choose between 32 and 64GB. Boom. Done.

Except Thurrott isn’t done. In the very next paragraph, he says:

The current iPad is too big and too heavy, and any refresh should use Amazon’s Kindle as a guide: In fact, it should be the exact same size and weight as Amazon’s device if possible. Granted, not everyone is going to want a 7-inch iPad. But this model, positioned squarely between the iPod touch and currently 10-inch iPad…

Emphasis mine.

Without the portion I’ve emphasized, it seems as though Thurrott just wants to drop the iPad down to a single 7” model. (In this fantasy world, the market hasn’t spoken out in favor of a 10” tablet.) But there’s that pesky “but this model” portion where he says that the 7” model would accompany a 10” model.

So, now the product lineup looks a bit more like this:

(Not only that, but he’s also saying that the 7” model sits BETWEEN the 10” iPad and the iPod Touch. Adding a device to the lineup with a different name that doesn’t include even the option of 3G would be incredibly confusing and nonsensical, though, so I won’t do it, even though it’d make Thurrott look even crazier.)

Thurrott ditched the WI-FI only model but has replaced the need to make that decision with a size/weight factor: “Do I want a 7” model, or a 10” model? With 32 or 64 GB of storage space?” Which means we’re right back at square one, especially if you go with his idea that there could be three storage configurations. Because, even though he earlier thought that two might be enough, he’s gone ahead — in the next paragraph — and tacked on a 3rd configuration:

The iPad’s current storage allotments are simply too small. Apple should use its iPod touch as a guide and offer 32 GB, 64 GB, and even 128 GB versions of the device.

The lineup is getting crowded, again:

Paul “Less is More” Thurrott isn’t done yet, folks. We’re literally back to the same number of choices Apple was offering before he fired up the simplificator, and he’s gone ahead and added yet another configuration. Act now, and he’ll DOUBLE the current lineup:

My advice here is simple: Apple needs to make a non-glossy screen available as an option, even an added cost option, as it does with some of its notebook computers.

Which means that every single option must now also include the option of a matte screen — maybe even at another price point — so that people can choose between a glossy and matte screen. After they’ve chosen between a 10” or a 7” screen. After they’ve chosen between a 32GB or a 64GB or a 128 GB hard drive. 

Which looks like this:

In order to simplify the iPad lineup, Thurrott has swapped one choice for another, added a choice, and shifted the storage capacities higher. Pricing is now more confusing, as well. 

I made the assumption that he’d offer a matte version for each of the configurations, but, frankly, things would only be worse if (say) only the high-end configurations offered matte screens as an option — even though there would be fewer total configurations.

For example, when buying a shirt, people often have to choose between small, medium and large. Now, in some cases, a large would still fit okay, but it wouldn’t look as good as a medium. But what if the best design is only available in a large? At that point, you have to weigh factors like comfort versus style. If every size had the same design, that wouldn’t be an issue, even though there would technically be more choices. It’s an easier choice to have to make.

Similarly, Apple’s current lineup doesn’t force anyone to make any difficult choices whereas Thurrott’s “simplified” lineup would 1) involve more configurations at best and 2) hard decisions regarding feature trade-offs at worst.

That’s pretty amazing given that it only took a few paragraphs to get there, from this:

…my advice is to simplify the lineup to 2 or 3 models only, differentiated only by storage capacities.

Which is an incredibly long way of saying Thurrott isn’t even trying to make sense, these days.