produce desirable hardware that people buy for non-technical reasons instead of raw figures
Of late I've been contending that specs are excuses admitting inadequacy.
Until recently, every new computer (broadly defined) was listed with a proliferation of specifications (_.__MHz CPU _GB RAM ___GB HD ...). Now, in particular with the iPad and trending with other machines, no specifications (beyond what amounts to "small, medium, or large") are given. Why? specifications are needed to convince buyers the product is good enough when it isn't.
Most users just want something that's capable enough that they don't have to think about the technical limitations. Most users glaze over at random-looking numbers associated with meaningless abbreviations denoting implementation details they don't understand; their question isn't "how many gigahertz is the processor?" it's "if I click something will I be annoyed by the delay?" The real answer to the latter question is "yes, you will". To obscure that dissatisfying answer, sellers toss out the profusion of specifications in an attempt to convince buyers that the product is good enough to buy anyway. Users, able to at least evaluate whether X > Y, compare the numbers and convince themselves that those numbers are as large as they can be and still have an affordable package.
Apple's goal is to sell hardware. With the onset of "retina" displays, flash memory, multi-core processors, iCloud, etc. all those specifications transition from confusion to "good enough". Doesn't matter what the number of pixels are, you can't discern them so it's good enough. Doesn't matter what the storage capacity is, between terabytes local and near-bottomless cloud behind it you won't run out. Flash is so fast you mostly won't care. Processor speeds equal supercomputers of recent past. It's all "good enough" - making the comparison between Apple products and "lots of incomprehensible random numbers & abbreviations" easy.
PC makers still flaunting specifications are saying "no, really, it's good enough - see?" making customers hesitate their purchase. Apple is going for "details are irrelevant, it's good enough - period."
I disagree with you here - PC makers list specs because it is technical specs, rather than user experience, that set their product apart from competing PC makers.
I mean, you compare a Dell laptop to an HP laptop, or a $500 Dell laptop to an $800 Dell laptop for that matter, they're all running Windows 7. How would you market one product over another without admitting their differences?
Admittedly, PC makers might be wise to stop fighting one another for market share and instead focus on fighting Apple for market share.
How would you market one product over another without admitting their differences?
Subjective experience. Most people don't compare horsepower & engine volume & torque & etc. in cars, they just walk into a showroom, try out a few, and go "I'll take that one."
Apple is winning despite not "admitting their differences" in speed, capacity, etc. vs HP vs Dell vs Dell. Apple's opposition have to resort to mutual fights over specifications precisely because they don't have anything better to appeal to; give the user specifications so good they don't care, refine the end-to-end experience, cut costs without cutting quality & experience, and buyers will flock.
Anecdote: I loved Sony products. Raved about them for years. Finally gave up because enough corners (hardware, software, UX) were cut that my enthusiasm was shredded.
Let me put it another way: Ignore Apple for a minute, consider just the market for Windows laptops. The subjective experience will always be, at its core, the experience of using a vanilla install of Windows 7.
To use a car analogy, imagine all car makers built their car on a Toyota Camry chassis. They can put in any engine they like (that's your CPU and whatnot), they can paint it and add aftermarket body kits (that's your keyboard, trackpad and plastic screen bezel) and they can hang an air freshener from the rear view mirror (that's your preinstalled software like the 30 day McAfee trial). The Toyota Camry chassis is Windows.
Ultimately, all those Camry-based cars are going to have a very similar driver experience because, at it's core, it's a Camry. When one Camry-based-car maker is competing with another they talk about paint job and engine because the paint and the engine are the only differences between their products.
Apple, in this analogy, is the only major car maker that isn't building on a Toyota Camry chassis.
Of late I've been contending that specs are excuses admitting inadequacy.
Until recently, every new computer (broadly defined) was listed with a proliferation of specifications (_.__MHz CPU _GB RAM ___GB HD ...). Now, in particular with the iPad and trending with other machines, no specifications (beyond what amounts to "small, medium, or large") are given. Why? specifications are needed to convince buyers the product is good enough when it isn't.
Most users just want something that's capable enough that they don't have to think about the technical limitations. Most users glaze over at random-looking numbers associated with meaningless abbreviations denoting implementation details they don't understand; their question isn't "how many gigahertz is the processor?" it's "if I click something will I be annoyed by the delay?" The real answer to the latter question is "yes, you will". To obscure that dissatisfying answer, sellers toss out the profusion of specifications in an attempt to convince buyers that the product is good enough to buy anyway. Users, able to at least evaluate whether X > Y, compare the numbers and convince themselves that those numbers are as large as they can be and still have an affordable package.
Apple's goal is to sell hardware. With the onset of "retina" displays, flash memory, multi-core processors, iCloud, etc. all those specifications transition from confusion to "good enough". Doesn't matter what the number of pixels are, you can't discern them so it's good enough. Doesn't matter what the storage capacity is, between terabytes local and near-bottomless cloud behind it you won't run out. Flash is so fast you mostly won't care. Processor speeds equal supercomputers of recent past. It's all "good enough" - making the comparison between Apple products and "lots of incomprehensible random numbers & abbreviations" easy.
PC makers still flaunting specifications are saying "no, really, it's good enough - see?" making customers hesitate their purchase. Apple is going for "details are irrelevant, it's good enough - period."