I counsel most clients to get through product testing on production units before promising delivery. I’ve heard many times that delay would be too costly to allow, but the cost of rushing is almost always higher than the cost of delay.
Often, rushing to market causes more delays than a more deliberate, measured approach. Other times, the release is rushed with little apparent impact….until the product gets into the hands of consumers.
I couldn’t have asked for a better example of the cost of rushing than Apple’s recent iPhone 4 release. The phone can lose reception when held in the lower left corner. Now, I would consider this one a serious, though easily solvable flaw. Seems like they should have known about a problem like that. Apparently, Apple did know about the problem.
The pressure to release a much-anticipated product is always high. Especially with the Droid phones out there gaining serious traction, Apple was under tremendous pressure to get their cutting edge out there slicing back some market share, especially with all the hype around the iPhone’s new release.
It’s not for me to second-guess Apple. Apple did about $50 billion over the last year and has managed to build an unparalleled, cult-like brand loyalty. I would have expected this serious of an issue to impact that loyalty, but apparently I would be surprised. Even with this latest problem, iPhone 4 returns are at reportedly a modest 1.7%. Apple is now shipping free covers that fix the problem. To be fair, while some users say it happens every time, others find the problem difficult to replicate. And Apple did test the product before full release; it’s just that their test was shorter than the industry standard. It makes me wonder wheterh the production may have been committed before the results were in.
A shortcut is often the longest distance between two points. If your name isn’t Steve Jobs, you might not be able to afford shortcuts. Test, test, and test before launching your latest product. If you don’t like the results, delay the lauch, or better yet, leave time to fix problems in your launch schedule, and accelerate the launch if tests are good. You may never realize how many problems you will be avoiding.
What an excellent example! We’ve all ‘been there, done that’ when a decision needs to be made of meeting a project launch deadline or pausing to get something fixed. Sometimes it’s with incomplete information or we take a risk on getting it fixed between now and then. Perhaps that’s what happened here. There’s always a bucket list of ‘stuff’ and so when do you decide to go versus pause? Case-by-case?
Daviid, I said for years that “when conclusions do not match reality, we must question the premises we started from”. You are surprised at the few returns of iphone4 due to antennagate: are you starting from the presumption that people would buy 1) a phone (it makes calls reliably) 2) a smart phone that connects reliably to whatever web site was intended 3) an object that has some style and eye appeal and reflects the buyer’s smart and good taste – in that order. In reality in the cult of Apple the priorities may be reversed.: With the originally stated priorities you’d buy an Android phone that works subsantially like an iphone4 is 1) connected to a network that delivers reliable calls virtually anywhere (at least in the US) 2) connects to the web reliably as a smart phone and has nearly every major app the iphone has and 3) has a slick glass face and a sharper screen visible anywhere.
If on the other hand if 1) you want to be seen with the newest and slickest look (Gucci of tech) regardless of reliable function 2) you want to carry something impressive because so hard to get 3) value looks over function (as Jobs apparently does or thinks customers ought to), then you may be willing to redial your calls as needed, apologize to your callers for lost connections, take “phone holding” lessons, improve its looks with attractive bumpers (a new fad coming?) and accept to be spoken to with contempt by the manufacturer.
There is always A value proposition that customers use, but is not the same for all customers. Apple has nurtured a niche where a value proposition favorable to Apple seems to reign regardless of logic. But the only logic that matters is what makes each customer happy.
For a while, in a fad-driven looks-infatuated market the Apple strategy may work, but I would not bet on that forever. Fads change as quickly as they were strong, and people cannot be had indefinitely.
They would have been in a much better position if their drunken tech hadn’t left the thing at a bar for Gizmodo to get ahold of… ruining their chance to do further testing on the unit before final release.
You can bet that Apple knew about the problem and still chose to manage the fallout in order to get the product to market sooner.
Apple has its strong proponents and opponents. I’m more of a disinterested observer. They make great user interface; no question. There is no doubt that Apple will fix the problem.
I don’t know why some people have the problem all the time and others can’t replicate it, but that is why that test period is so important.
I suspect that they did know exactly what they were doing, and that they believed–apparently correctly (based on the return rate)–that the benefits of releasing as is would outweigh the potential benefits of waiting, and the risk of losing market share that waiting could pose.
I’m rarely an early adopter of new hardware or software–even though I would like to be. I just don’t have the time to spend on technical support. Most breakthrough phones from most every major brand will have some problems. The real measure of companies and people is how they deal with their problems.
Cutting Edge technology will always have launch risks, no matter how much testing is performed, because it is very difficult and expensive to pretend test market to a million users in a global geography.
That being said, product testing should be part of a comprehensive launch plan and not overlooked.
I feel that to be an innovator who pushes all product boundaries, implies risk, which a company has to assume, along with their loyal early adopters. As with risk, there is shared reward and it is important to reward your loyal fans with perks and upgrades that the lagging majority will never see. In away this could be a form of field testing among the fan base which could not be emulated.
I am not a fan or foe of Apple, but I admire their ability to continue to be Front and Center, after all these years. Kind of like the Rolling Stones of High Tech.
If you look at this from a marketing perspective, this might not have been such a bad move for Apple. They continued with the release knowing that there was a “possibility” for a problem. Steve Jobs is a smart man, we all know that. I’m sure he understands the concept of “any media is good media”. Could this have been planned?
Their product had a flaw (which is not uncommon with technology) and they addressed it promptly without requiring a recall. Apple was able to come to the rescue without terribly inconveniencing their loyal customer base .The PR and media created around the event might not have been positive, but it does keep their names in the headlines that much longer.
What Apple does so well is find something cool and make us want it. The mouse, windows, and phones that are really internet interfaces. Creating that desire overcomes other shortcomings, like AT&T. However, even when you are as good at it as Apple, their will be occasional problems.
Disclaimer: I just got my iPhone 4 yesterday, and one for my wife. I thought long and hard about an Android phone, but have a discount with AT&T from my days at Motorola and just don’t see any of their Android phones as powerful enough. Side note: Very interesting to me that I am now evaluating cell phones based on processor performance.
David: I want to go to your original question and take the iPhone out of it. At Motorola, we had a terrible time with testing because we were making general embedded computing products. We very rarely knew how all of our customers were going to exercise the board and thus our testing came down to seeing if we could devise ways to break products. Once we did, we had very little context around how serious a problem was because we didn’t know if a customer would ever use the product in that specific way. In other words, our testing efforts were very good but because we didn’t know enough about our customers, our testing requirements were very poor.
Coming back to the iPhone, I agree with you about the pressures associated with the launch date. In contrast to my previous point, Apple should have incredible knowledge around how the end user will use something and with time should be able to head off problems like this.
One other point, as a new iPhone owner, I am wondering how bad the problem really is. My guess is that it is real, but perhaps not worth all the attention it has been getting. BTW: If you don’t hear from me, it’s because I am holding the darn thing wrong.
While I really like a physical keyboard, after managing the Samsung Captivate for approximately 15 minutes, it is laborious to move back. At this time I’m debating whether to go to Verizon for the Droid X, move to Dash for the EVO, or stay with AT&T for the Captivate…selections, decisions.