Totally disagree with this article. Talking about startup resource constraints while illustrating with the products of the biggest, most successful company in the world is more than a little disingenuous.
Focusing on a great user experience includes focusing on the packaging. The experience should be totally seamless. For an upscale/luxury consumer goods company (like Apple), shoddy packaging is expensive - far more expensive than the luxury packaging whose costs the author decries. If I want a mediocre experience, I'll go to HP or Asus or something. A continuously delightful user experience buys customer loyalty. The thoughtfulness of good packaging engenders trust.
If I see bad packaging, I trust the the attention to detail less for the company that made the product. If they don't care about the box, they won't care about the buttons, or the software, or the color correctness, or any of the thousands of other details that make a consumer product. Then I stop shopping for quality, and start shopping for a price point and feature list.
When Apple argues that they have the best products in the world, they can point right to their packaging - they have the best packaging in the world. Best in every way.
Is this good logic for a startup? Of course not! No startup has Apple's resources. A startup has to focus on ONE thing. But Apple has to focus on ALL things.
I see how you subtly equated boring packaging with being shoddy or bad. The reality is that you can have perfectly good, reliable, strong packaging for cheap, it just isn't necessarily beautiful to look at, but maybe some pink shaped foam that gives 3 inches of crush protection all round and fits inside a double box.
You want the packaging to be part of the aesthetic experience, rather than purely functional. OK, so you like Apple's packaging, but 'best in the world'? Japanese people have been doing that sort of thing for centuries.
>I see how you subtly equated boring packaging with being shoddy or bad.
I saw it, too, but it was his opinion to make. Nothing wrong with it, subtle or otherwise.
Also, standard foam is terrible for the environment, something the article doesn't bother to mention, while implying the standard packaging with foam is fine (while mentioning environmental friendliness should be a goal).
Apple used to have the best packaging in the world, but lately it's been my opinion that they've lost sight of making the packaging functionally nice and are simply focusing on making it nice looking. Case in point, the incident last year where the guy first in line at the Apple store for his iPhone on release day struggled with opening the box and ended up launching his new phone onto the sidewalk in front of a news crew. Incidentally, I watched a friend do exactly the same thing the very next day. And recently, a friend and I both bought some particular apple accessory and separately commented on how difficult it was to figure out how to get it out of the box.
You may be right. I think there are other handling flaws in the iPhone 6 as well - enough so that it's the first iPhone I've had since my first one (iPhone 2) that I've liked less than its predecessor.
I blame losing Steve Jobs and his ridiculous sensitivity to such details.
Motorola used a similar packaging for the Moto X. Ironically, the cheaper Moto G packaging uses simple deeper cardboard folds and thus is a lot more 'secure'. See: http://imgur.com/XTNbTr7
"Being rich demands fine motor skills."
-- a high end smartphone owner
One of the article's points is that elaborate packaging is an embarrassing display of consumerism. I guess camping in front of a store to be the first, and being interviewed opening the box is kind of sad in that way too.
I think they've sadly lost some sight in many areas. Perhaps I'm a bit nostalgic, but I miss their simple and beautiful designs from the OS X Tiger era. Their current function follows form ethos is horribly broken. Flat design is just a proof of this. Packaging might be another.
There are a lot of assumptions behind the idea that if you see "bad packaging," which you don't define, then it implies the company doesn't care about the rest of the package.
The author's example of "standard packaging" is not bad packaging, as it does its job well. It protects the product, the reason for the purchase, and it isn't difficult for the user to unpack. It might arguably be more environmentally friendly in its use of corrugated cardboard, and I have no idea about the foam. But it is likely less wasteful on this measure than Apple's packaging when you consider the entire process required.
When you tack on the "customer experience" aspect of this packaging, not caring about creating luxury packaging doesn't mean the company does not think about the user's experience or care about the product itself. In the author's situation, the user is more aware of how wasteful and unnecessary this packaging is, and it doesn't help his experience. It also makes the product unnecessarily expensive.
Apple only has the best packaging in every way if you ignore these negative aspects.
Apple has also used the more standard packaging approach for some of its products, such as laptops, in the recent past, but with white printed cardboard. Does that mean Apple didn't care or pay attention to detail back then?
It sounds odd, but I absolutely love Apple's packaging. It feels rich. I grab one of their products in its box and I immediately expect a quality product simply because of the box.
Even though we're told from an early age to never judge a book by its cover, first impressions are hard to shake. And handling packaging is the first impression, not actually using whatever is inside the package. It's the first time an end-user actually physically interacts with your company.
So I agree with you. If the customer is interacting with it, it's a part of the customer experience and should be at least considered. Not everyone can have Apple's resources, yes. But everyone can do the very best with what they have.
I'm thinking of Chubbies, that short-shorts company for guys who want to be Magnum PI. They are a small(ish) startup, but their packaging does not feel that way. It feels like their company. Looks preppy, feels rugged, and is over-the-top with nationalistic and company pride.
I'd argue that in Apple's case, a company with a (long) history, they could not afford not to focus on packaging while positioning themselves as the kind of brand they wanted to become. Higher stakes and with Google/Android a potentially dangerous competitor (whose strategy only became very evident later, ie. not wanting to compete on hardware as well). Now however, especially due to the profits they're making, they have little incentive to care about anything else but maintaining status.
Why change something not visibly broken?
I disagree that non-luxury packaging automatically means the company doesn't care about the product contained inside. It's a matter of strategy & costs. I'm not familiar with HP packaging, but you should know that ASUS does offer luxury packaging for its gaming range of products for instance, especially laptops.
My opinion is that it's possible to design thoughtful, non-generic packaging without crossing into luxury materials territory. Experience and loads of creativity are required though. At least this is what I understood from the article (taking into account the Pencil example as well), that startups should bet on resourcefulness instead of throwing money in non-priority directions.
Another aspect to consider: I don't have the specific numbers to back this up, but we live in a world where the general trend is towards minimalism and simplifying our lives, which includes getting rid of no longer necessary stuff, such as a product's temporary home (packaging). Considering it has such a short life, it makes little sense to invest a lot of resources into packaging as a startup, unless you're selling electronics, where at least some consumers have a habit of saving the packaging materials to increase resale value of the product when they decide to upgrade.
Refined doesn't necessarily mean expensive. This reminds me of my favorite love-to-hate restaurant, the Crave chain (dunno if they're national or regional). They're the masters of putting expensive-sounding, fancy ingredients into truly bland, pedestrian food. The marketing goal is to make people with no taste think they're eating more upscale than they actually are. Meanwhile, my town is filled with little ethnic restaurants that don't serve bragworthy ingredients, but instead conjure magical flavors through their exquisite attention to detail.
So yeah, a company could package very simply, in an environmentally sound manner, and still make the unwrapping itself a positive aesthetic experience, rather than just an inconvenience on the way to using the product.
Apple could do that as well. They probably will do that, if they start seeing a more positive RoI in simple rather than elaborate packaging. But they'll still do it with the same obvious attention to detail.
So I should have been more clear... it's not non-luxury packaging that makes me distrust a maker. It's careless packaging, or packaging where the attention to detail is clearly focused on reducing cost (or worse, theft) rather than my experience as a consumer.
The packaging has a customer. Who's the customer? The end user, or the accountants?
I'm not sure what you mean by "(Apple) could not afford not to focus on packaging while positioning themselves as the kind of brand they wanted to become"
When do you perceive that Apple decided to become the kind of brand that focused on its packaging? Because I'm going to say I think Apple have ALWAYS had a weird interest in packaging. You go back to the Mac Plus, it shipped in a glossy white box with full four-color printing on the sides showing a happy mac and a huge Apple logo, with all the components beautifully subpackaged up inside. That was not the norm in the 1980s (I've still got, for example, an Atari ST in its original box and it was matte white with blue printing all over, mostly shipping codes and handle with care signage).
This is a company which, remember, had the signatures of every designer of the original mac molded onto the inside surface of the case.
There is an entire segment of videos on youtube dedicated to "unboxing" implying great packaging is not "really" important I think would be disingenuous. That's not to say that you need to get to Apple level packaging (I think, the point of the article) and spend $15/box, however thought and user experience need to be taken into consideration. Heck, one of the companies in this YC batch is trying to solve exactly that problem (Pakible)
You summed up much better what I was trying to say in so many words. Resourcefulness and creativity can be used to ensure a great unpackaging experience, while still being sensible about costs.
This is the cart-horse mentality that I see so many startups get wrong. They see services like Pakible and think "oh man, I should build a smartwatch, that packaging is gonna sell itself", or they watch a video at the Apple WWDC and think "I can def do that Jony Ive white background video so easily for my new smartwatch". Then they fail miserably, because their product itself doesn't work.
PS - Did you read the whole article? They're agreeing with you.
I wouldn't call it the best packaging in the world across all metrics. It might be the sexiest.
I find it more satisfying when you free a cleverly suspended gadget from an anti-static bag suspended in a molded/origami fiberboard nest. Easily disposed of, light, unobtrusive, recyclable (and possible for mere mortals to re-assemble if RMA is ever required, heaven forbid)
Of course Apple devices never need to be sent returned so maybe that isn't a concern.
Generally, I agree. I feel like I'm wasting my money when I unwrap something with overly "beautiful" packaging. It's a tiny fraction of my experience, I've already bought it at this point and figuring out all the nested little components hidden away and all the custom printing is just adding to the price with expensive trash.
I know it's heresy, but I hate Apple packaging for exactly this reason. Startups seeking to emulate wasteful and expensive packaging are convincing me they're more concerned with image than substance.
I too feel the sense of waste. It's a box. I'm going to throw it in the trash. To me, a pricey box says, "You just spent an extra X dollars that didn't need to be spent." It's like sending a donation to a charity and they spend it by mailing you every week begging for more money.
> Startups seeking to emulate wasteful and expensive packaging are convincing me they're more concerned with image than substance.
We see this in new restaurants all the time. They go crazy remodeling, throw away too much money, then it opens and they don't get enough customers to pay for the lovely interior. Bye bye restaurant.
>>Generally, I agree. I feel like I'm wasting my money when I unwrap something with overly "beautiful" packaging. It's a tiny fraction of my experience
It may be a tiny fraction of the experience, but it is also the first impression you get of the product.
Every time this topic pops up, I'm reminded of the scene from Continuum (I checked it out recently, it's in the third episode of the first season). There, a time traveller from the future buys a bluetooth headset and reflects on the 'ridiculous amount of packaging for something so small'. "No wonder you had a trash problem [in 20th century]".
(I recommend the show strongly, btw. While often more "fi" than "sci", it has an extremely good discussion of the interaction between people, government and private interests. In the show's universe, corporations have bailed out the failing government and formed a Corporate Congress...).
I thought this was going to a humorous article about wrap rage, which is a pretty interesting topic. This article sounded a bit whiny to me - "I can't compete with Apple's packaging! Waah!" I don't think anyone expects a startup's packaging to be at the level of Apple, so I'm not sure the topic is all that valid.
I might be alone in this, but I have an alternative problem with really nice packaging... The "don't waste stuff" mentality my parents instilled in me makes it really hard to throw the stuff out. I often find when I'm moving, and downsizing stuff, I'll have ignored an empty product box because it was too nice to toss when I started using the product.. the product of which, I may have long since given up on.
As a result, sometimes I feel like I'm hoarding the crap, as if it's a necessity later if I want to sell it, or I'm gonna make some warranty claim on it?
Packaging = Marketing. It's expensive, but it makes your product seem better to the end user. Yes, Apple has more money to spend on marketing, and your small startup can't compete on that front.
I think the author focuses too much on outlier examples (Apple, Oculus).
Great packaging and branding has a serious impact for companies today than previous years. More people sell online then ever before (shopify, etsy, etc) and there's no longer that brick-n-mortar experience you typically go through when buying your products in a physical shop. You buy online now and then that item is shipped to you.
In many ways, the packaging IS the brick-n-mortar experience for customers when they receive your product. No one gets excited about seeing a generic brown box on their doorstep. They get excited about the fact it has Amazon Prime printed on the side with the branded tape. "Yes! My what-you-call-it just arrived!".
This is the same experience that companies like Bonobos, Birchbox, Naturebox, Teespring, etc deliver. Its branded extremely well and they all care very much about delivering an extension of their brand to someones doorstep. In the case of a lot of subscription box companies, the products inside are relatively cheap to source. A large cost IS the packaging because they are delivering on an experience.
Try the World's box is fucking amazing (www.trytheworld.com). It feels good opening and seeing what's in store for you this month. I'm sure the products inside cost next to nothing, but its not just about that.
The author seems to make a case that Apple spends way too much on packaging (not surprising considering Steve Jobs cared about every detail inside and out). Then he uses Oculus as an example of really generic packaging that people go amazeballs for. Uh, yea we're talking about a 1 in a million type product that sold for billions, and did you see their DK1 packaging? It came in a freaking suitcase basically.
I think these are both pretty outlier cases, and the norm is that great packaging can really polish a company and expand their brand and product.
This is what we care about deeply at Pakible (www.pakible.com), the company I founded to help any company make beautiful packaging for their brands.
Yes, typically it takes a long time to create packaging and is very costly, and that part I will admit is true. But that is also one of the things we are changing about the industry with Pakible. To not have to worry about the construction, sourcing it, designing it. We help people do that so they can focus on the rest of their business.
In addition to cost we have significant waste. A young designer named Aaron Mickelson created a 'packaging-less' product line that was consumed as part of the product itself. Certainly, there are going to be practical concerns - but it's not a bad direction to be turning our focus.
Those are all really nice designs. The only criticism I have is with the final one.
Some bagged tea (Celestial Seasonings, etc.) is already available in superior packaging. They use a single unwaxed carboard box for all bags. None of the bags have string or paper, making them completely compostable.
Doubtful. From what a quick scan on Crunchbase says, Bolt did not make any investments in FiftyThree (the makers of Pencil) nor do they share investors.
Bolt has however made a number of investments in hardware companies that gained traction through crowdfunding. This is the audience.
Not all of these companies were founded by people with backgrounds in this space, so the model they resort to when looking for "nice" is to emulate Apple. FiftyThree is a former Microsoft industrial design team so they had knowledge of how to make any kind of packaging. They serve as a great goal post for Bolt to point to as an alternative example of "nice" that's not one of their own investments. The implication here is that they are not self-promoting.
The author is implying that startups are Cargo-culting great design by merely copying high end packaging but not ensuring their product is actually excellent and useful.
I agree to an extent, but really why not both. A great product should be a FIRST priority, then a great on boarding experience should follow just after.
But maybe, just maybe -- focus on making that onboarding experience as minimal as possible, not full of needless packaging and long animated videos.
I like how they show the DK2 as boring. I got the DK1, and it came in a hard plastic case with custom foam cutout. That thing had to be fairly expensive...
That one had a lot less anger, and just suggested that you should not compete with Apple in their areas of expertise, which would probably be a good idea in the field of packaging as well.
Packaging is the real world analogue of an app icon. Your product has to grab and retain my attention within two seconds for me to give it any consideration at all. Does Apple packaging have that effect? You bet it does! Do nicely packaged Kickstarters pique my curiosity more than cardbord-box prototypes? Yes, by far.
The worst thing about Apple packaging is the environmental impact. There is no need for so much plastic. I know they could design a recycled cardboard insert which would achieve the same design sensibilities and be a selling point to environmentally conscious consumers. STOP POISONING THE EARTH AND OCEANS!
Apple's packaging does not necessarily optimize for recyclable materials (though they do, sometimes). More importantly, they optimize for space efficiency.
The last few generations of iMac come in a box that is sloped on one edge, whereas they used to be a standard rectangular prism. This unusual reduction in size allows them to tessellate the boxes in shipping and fit significantly more boxes on each airplane. This saves the company millions (literally millions of dollars from a seemingly-minor packaging change!) and also reduces the amount of jet fuel being burned to ship them around the world. Everyone wins, environment included.
But yes, it is also true that your lightning cables come wrapped in a little plastic thing. It would be nice to choose a more biodegradable material for that sort of thing.
Focusing on a great user experience includes focusing on the packaging. The experience should be totally seamless. For an upscale/luxury consumer goods company (like Apple), shoddy packaging is expensive - far more expensive than the luxury packaging whose costs the author decries. If I want a mediocre experience, I'll go to HP or Asus or something. A continuously delightful user experience buys customer loyalty. The thoughtfulness of good packaging engenders trust.
If I see bad packaging, I trust the the attention to detail less for the company that made the product. If they don't care about the box, they won't care about the buttons, or the software, or the color correctness, or any of the thousands of other details that make a consumer product. Then I stop shopping for quality, and start shopping for a price point and feature list.
When Apple argues that they have the best products in the world, they can point right to their packaging - they have the best packaging in the world. Best in every way.
Is this good logic for a startup? Of course not! No startup has Apple's resources. A startup has to focus on ONE thing. But Apple has to focus on ALL things.