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

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.

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.

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.

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.