> The Million Dollar Homepage is a website conceived in 2005 by Alex Tew, a student from Wiltshire, England, to raise money for his university education. The home page consists of a million pixels arranged in a 1000 × 1000 pixel grid; the image-based links on it were sold for US$1 per pixel in 10 × 10 blocks. The purchasers of these pixel blocks provided tiny images to be displayed on them, a URL to which the images were linked, and a slogan to be displayed when hovering a cursor over the link. The aim of the website was to sell all of the pixels in the image, thus generating a million dollars for the creator.
The sheer "internet"-ness of the idea at the time was brilliant. It also seems like the kind of thing you can only really pull off once. And it was funny watching it slowly fill up, discovering what kind of businesses turned out to spend on something like this, what colours they attempted to choose to stand out, and how the result was a chaotic mess with everyone fighting for attention. Subtle commentary and somewhat prophetic of the current situation with ads...
Huh, interesting to be in such blunt terms. Any product really is a testament to someone's bank account. That's pretty much the point of ~most~ of branding. The Ralph Lauren jacket is charging you an extra 1k for Absolutely Nothing, as well.
I disagree with this assertion at least as pertains to RL.
Some brands (like Apple) invest considerably more in doing things "properly" as opposed to "just enough", and a fairly large and wealthy market exists that is both less price-sensitive, and more quality-sensitive than those who purchase the "just enough".
Especially with the higher quality from RL (e.g. Purple Label), I would say the buyers are more concerned about being certain that the product will be of a good enough quality, and less concerned about the price tag and RL's profit margin.
RL also sells "taste", that is, it is a "safe" choice if you are trying to dress conservatively. This is also monetized.
(I personally would rather go to a tailor at that price point, and I do. This has a fairly heavy knowledge and time cost though.)
I would argue that Apple creates products with "just enough" functionality.
It took them decades to get around to letting users resize a window properly. Their maps product was steering people into lakes. They sell a computer that looks like a trash can. I mean, there are plenty of examples to show Apple doing things improperly.
Normal people buy Apple because it's a status symbol, hackers buy Apple because it's Unix and we all know the deal with graphics designers. If it weren't Unix though, nobody here would be using an Apple computer and they'd probably be making fun of how annoying OS X is (well, they still do that but hey, it's Unix!).
Apple today makes products which are the "whole package", a well built tool for power users that isn't the absolute top shelf most amazing product available but in its niche is a solid choice well worth the investment where nothing is broken (great battery life, solid metal shell that can take a bump, SSD, quiet and stays cool, components that don't break after 2 years, BSD-based OS with a wrapper that allows you never to reboot, brilliant screen...). It costs a lot of money to go from '95% of products don't break' to '99% of products don't break AND the 1% is replaced at the shop immediately, with the defective unit fixed, next day free shipping, etc.' Apple gets that no, it's not worth squeezing an extra $10 margin off the battery by halving its effective life or $2 by buying crappy hinges that will break after a while (since the warranty is over in a year anyway).
"Just enough" isn't a MacBook Pro or even an Air, it's a 3-4 year old machine you pick up for $150 on eBay or maybe that $200 netbook you picked up on a sale at your local supermarket. Could be the machine you got for free when your neighbour updated. This machine can go on the internet, display your emails, show you the occasional movie (and if you're a particularly sharp average user, allow you to download them illegally) without crashing too often. That's the world normal people live in, in the first world. In the third world, a crappy no name 4" Android that takes 30 seconds to load any web page over the local 3G is what you deal with and a branded phablet is "luxury" (and an iPhone is like a Ferrari Italia).
In clothing, "just enough" is Primark or H&M - cheap, replaceable stuff without much thinking behind it. Uniqlo is doing very well because it's offering (much) better quality in that range at the same price point, especially regarding "taste". In cars, it's the Camry or the Accord, which can last a good 20 years with little servicing, gets you from A to B with decent fuel economy, and can be had second hand for a few thousand dollars. Car guys will think that a 3-series is "normal", but it isn't - it's the 5% as seen by those in the 0.5%.
I agree that they make hardware that most people consider to be of a good quality. I agree that they do some things really well. I do not agree that they do everything well though.
You're conflating brand position and hardware build quality with functionality. Yes, Apple is considered the BMW of computers. But, it's not because the give the user all of the features that they actually need.
Apple is known for skimping on features and options. They'd rather give you one button instead of two and then try and convince you that that choice is actually better somehow. They'd rather leave out a feature that everybody needs than do it in a way that they cannot capitalize on. They make all of their money by selling devices that are mechanically simple as possible because less moving parts cost less to make. Same thing with their software. Less features, less options, easier to maintain...but users are often left without actual features.
I thought the purple label indicated much finer work. Hand stitched lapels, full canvass, etc. Sort of the last stage of off the rack, then it's all handmade from there.
I always thought it disappointing that Apple took the App down. It really was classic, and I disagreed that it wasn't functional, knowing someone had that App on their iPhone was very useful to me in terms of understanding how little they valued money :-)
