I also like his approach on saying no, from this interview in Fortune,

I’m actually as proud of many of the things we haven’t done as the things we have done.

nice research …

having read both biographies of Woz and Jobs, it also sounds like markets can evolve from strong visions… not shuffling around with consultancies… still consultancies pay good money for bored academics…

Does Apple have a strong cultural belief that they know what users want? Absolutely, and I know they do less research than many companies. But like many aspects of the Apple myth, the statement that they do NO research isn’t entirely true. I know designers at Apple who do design research, and as a user, I’ve been asked to participate in both telephone and online market research surveys by Apple.

“Make the very best products. Business will follow” is too simplistic. In fact, it is a common hacker fallacy. Even if your product is the best in the world, nobody will buy it unless they hear about it.
The fact is, Apple has great PR, advertising, and product placement, which is all essential to their success. That is why, in addition to designing and developing, Jonathan Ive says how Apple strives to “bring to market good products.”

Perhaps we could all take a leaf from Steve’s book. Very often I think people hire consulatnts to tell them what they already know (and C.Y.A. if you pardon the expression.)

Apple certainly create very desirable products and the users do all the marketing for them.

Finbarr

Not so hidden message: UCD isn’t what it’s cracked up to be. If I had asked my customers … faster horse … nudge nudge wink wink?

Perhaps, but don’t forget – Apple have had their share of misses.

While word-of-mouth definitely figures into the marketing/PR equation, it is almost never enough. A formal PR campaign was hugely important to Paul Graham’s own Viaweb startup (http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html), and 37 Signals would not have been nearly as successful without their blog and RoR giving them so much good press and good will. And don’t forget the very effective Mac vs. PC ads that Apple has been running for years.

Now, all of this does reinforce word-of-mouth. But it also reaches a lot of new users who haven’t yet been blessed to hear about your cool product from a friend.

I worked for Field Research in San Francisco in 1993. Apple was at that time a client. As this was 16 years ago, it is perhaps a bit out of date, and I don’t know whether Field still does market research for them.

without market research Apple cannot know how customers can be satisfied, this means the “great products” he said may not be great in the customers’ eyes because they are not getting what they want, honestly.

Are we taking Steve’s quote out of context? He says they don’t do *Market* Research. He could quite easily be referring to traditional market research, i.e. focus groups, customer opinion, “I-want-a-pony-ism” and all that sort of stuff.

But are they doing *Design* Research? Personally, I find it hard to believe that they aren’t. Just because they happen to have a load of their target users employed in house, doesn’t mean it’s not Design Research. (Although I admit this does boil down to how strict your definition is.)

Another thing that makes me slightly suspicious about the value of these quotes is that it’s only natural for a company to weave it’s stories into the most compelling form possible. A complex series of events has to be simplified into a sticky soundbite.

What makes a more compelling story? To focus on 99% perspiration (boring) or the 1% inspiration (amazing)?

I don’t think we’re much closer to understanding the design process used behind closed doors at Apple. They are amazingly talented at maintaining secrecy and managing public perceptions.

Tell me if I’m missing the point here…

A mild refutation:

http://bit.ly/2MQXYg

Ok, Josh – maybe one last thing: Aren’t you a consultant? Can’t, in some cases, the same yet parallel notion apply to UI Designers? I’m with Harry on this one!

Kurt Griffiths above said:

Make the very best products. Business will follow is too simplistic. In fact, it is a common hacker fallacy. Even if your product is the best in the world, nobody will buy it unless they hear about it.
The fact is, Apple has great PR, advertising, and product placement, which is all essential to their success. That is why, in addition to designing and developing, Jonathan Ive says how Apple strives to bring to market good products.

But Apple’s PR, advertising, and placement *are* all part of the product. You imagine that “product” is just what you leave the store with, but customers don’t see it that way.

And of course Apple doesn’t do market research: why would they when they are not designing products for or selling to markets? They design products for and sell to *people*. You can figure out what people like and do pretty accurately if you set your mind to it and can ignore the bean counters.

Great post and discussion. Just wanted to chime in and say that Jobs’ attitude and perspective are more important that analyzing Apple. Apple is a brand, and Apple has changed and will always change, and is a magic show. Steve is a person, and a person we can absorb and learn from.

Although it may not classify directly as Market Research, Jobs has said in keynotes, numerous times, “We’ve spoken to a lot of our customers and we think we’ve come up with something you’ll like.”

Usually this is about second or third attempts at something – iPod/iPhone earphones, and Apple TV 2.0 spring to mind, but they’ve also listened to feedback about batteries, about design, about glossy screens (although not so much there!) and more.

I don’t think it’s as black and white as you’re making out.

One more quick comment… I came across this video where Seth Godin makes the case for marketing vs. just having a great product.

Can’t knock Jobs’ philosophy. Apple’s success speaks for itself. But the idea that a select few can nail down what most people want without any outreach is the exception, not the rule IMO.

I heard Brian Solis present a couple of months back and he talked about the “magic middle” — that group of passionate, early adopters who serve as ambassadors for a certain product.

Apple has an army of these folks — we call them fanboys — based solely on the products and experience they create. They do very little outreach, as Jobs details, from what I’ve seen But the “secrecy” and “inspiration” Harry mentions go right along with their brand experience. IOW, people almost expect them to go behind the curtain, consult the wizard and deliver the next great tech toy. So they play to that, right?

Most companies would be better off to engage with their customers and ask them what they want in a product versus relying on a few people in a room with a whiteboard.

The strategy Jobs details may work once in a while, but engaging can never hurt and will most likely help a brand find that magic middle it wants to spend time engaging with.

Good read! Thanks for the link to the interview.

Besides design research and defining very well the product core purpose (to fulfil the main user’s goal) there is a lot of PR involved to *convince* people and create a social status, which makes one to want an Apple product. Don’t forget a lot of prototyping & testing.

You can read many online discussions where far too many people state that they want more of a product. That’s why other brands are also ’successful’ in the market. But this also shows that people tend to want more than what they can handle which makes many companies making too complex products with millions of features that people use once or never ：（
As Dale says “Jobs’ attitude and perspective” are what most companies miss resulting in no focus on their products.

This is what makes Steve Jobs a visionary leader and Apple such an innovative company. They have a mission, it’s focused on products and customers, and they execute that vision at retail better than any other retailer out there.

Apple are by no means ‘unique’ in the approach of ‘make the best products and business will follow’. Google do the same and many other companies (think about up market car brands and so on).

Apple’s main ‘attraction’ is their design (and I mean that visually for most part), which many non-technical people fall for as they judge things based on the looks, as they do not know much about IT or whatever.

Apple products (deep down) aren’t ‘great quality’, they are for most part great design, and there are massive differences between the two.

If you are comparing laptops for example an IBM ThinkPad from 5 years ago kicks any today’s Apple laptop’s ass any time, but ThinkPad no longer exists as such, as most things are made to fail after about 2 years nowadays, so you are forced to buy a new product and keep the bottom line of the likes of Apple and so on strong.

You can also argue that iTunes is a worse approach to business than Microsoft Windows is (because of its lock-in policy), but do people care? Is that a ‘great product’? iTunes are in my Top 10 of worst pieces of software ever made under the Sun.

It’s all relative. It also depends on how you judge ‘quality’. I can have 2 great PC laptops for the price of one cheapest Apple model. I could rant on.

Market research plays an important role in a company’s operation. It involves the study of customers’ satisfaction in which you can use as a basis for their product innovation.

It might just be me but doesn’t this sounds a bit like the 37 Signals approach? Basically design for ourselves and the rest will follow. It seems a bit insular but I think if we’re talking about extracting common user denominators and if you make up part of the key user group it obviously could work.

I think the real question is what happens when you’re designing for an unfamiliar domain. Also there’s the designing within company vs. designing as a consultancy POV meaning each respective perspective sometimes (most times) warrants the approach, methodology and depth of both.

Just my .02 – Fritz