What would be the point in marketing to those who don't want or need the product, or even have the aptitude or interest to use it if they did?
Sure. Steve's a brilliant guy. I have no doubt he'd agree with me. He's demonstrated how effective it can be to differentiate your product and market it to the target user. He knows his target market excludes me and millions like me.
I strongly doubt Steve Jobs would question "the point in marketing to those who don't want or need the product, or even have the aptitude or interest to use it if they did." The iPod was designed to play a large quantity of a limited set of music so easily, anyone could use it. Literally, anyone. That's his target audience. Any person able to comprehend and use the product, he very much wants them to purchase one. YOU are his target market. he wants it to be so easy to use that every person is able, therefore, can/will buy it.
If the iPod was not so easy to use, it would not have sold so well, as witnessed by every other product that it competed against at the time. harder to use, fewer sales. yes, it iPod had great marketing, great pop culture excitement, yada, yada, there are many reasons for HUGE success there, but the point is the same, it CAN sell that well BECAUSE it's that easy to use.
iPhone, same thing. so easy, anyone CAN use it. I've watched my friends 17 month old daughter open the case, turn on the iPad, navigate to her videos, play one, get bored, back out, go find a game, play a bit, get bored, and go find something else. 17 months old. it's quite easy to use.
I didn't miss the question. I've argued consistently this is the wrong question! JRiver has an excellent product. Rather than treating potential customers as if they're stupid, they should trust their judgment in deciding whether the product is well suited to their needs. Similarly, they should trust in the ability and willingness of those who do become customers to be willing to make a reasonable effort in learning and implementing it.
I disagree. It IS the question.
IF J River would like to sell to a broader audience than people willing to "make a reasonable effort in learning and implementing it.", then they will, in fact, need to reduce the effort required. This seems elementary to me.
It's not much different than price in many ways. A Ferrari is priced such that a person must have some qualifications to purchase/use one. In this case, money. If they wished to sell to a broader audience, they would lower the price. This is not their target market, so they don't change their price.
IF J River wishes to be the 'Ferrari of media players, that requires a fair amount of effort to begin using' then they can/have effectively limited their audience by computer skill, and level of dedication.
Lowering the computer skill and dedication level requirements would allow more people to enjoy the product, just like lowering the price of a Ferrari would allow a more people to enjoy their product.
I think its clear that this is an important question; DOES J River want to sell to a broader audience? If they do not, then any effort spent on lowering the user requirements goes against their intent, and makes no sense; as you say.
However, if they wish to sell to a broader audience, the requirement must be lowered.
(I was going to add "or the value must go up" and it got me thinking. Any improvements to functionality will increase the value of the product, and this could push some people over the fence, indicating that this could be used as the only method to increase customers, meaning the polish is not required. But, these same improvements to functionality would happen with or without the polish, perhaps just delayed a month or 3, so the above still stands. to sell to more people, it needs to be easier.)
Also, I disagree that it's reasonable to expect the level of knowledge and dedication required to use this software well. it's complicated, it's complex. you point this out every day. But, IF I'm wrong, and IF that is a reasonable expectation, the important question is still DOES J River want to sell to a broader audience?
Apple's success didn't come from trying to convert those who had no potential interest. In fact, they did an excellent job of defining their target market by what they were obviously not—happy Windows users. I think a similar strategy might be very effective for JRiver. Something along the lines of, "There are two types of media manager users. One is satisfied with half-measures and primarily interested in something that "just works" most of the time. The other wants much more. The best possible playback quality. Data management capabilities far more powerful, flexible, robust and powerful than anything else available. [And whatever else differentiates MC from the alternatives...]"
I disagree, see above about apple's success.
one problem with your 2 media manager user types comparison, is that MC falls into the first category in some places. TV being one of them. it's also finickey. it "just works" most of the time, but not always.
another problem is that your other choice is not the opposite of the first 'half-measures' choice. best quality, more powerful is not necessarily the only alternative to option one. In fact, they are quite often one in the same. a fantastic quality, super powerful, mostly just works most of the time, if you're willing to tinker. that's both of your 'options' in one thing.
a better choice 2 is, always works, so easily anyone can use it. that's the opposite of 'half-measures'
MC could play all music so well that it all sounded like angels playing it live directly wired into your brain, better than anything you could ever have imagined and the normal person would not put forth the effort required to make that happen. they will not do it. no matter how super-duper-fantastical-realistic-great you make it, the average person will NOT buy or even use something if it's too difficult to use. it's not worth it to them.
IF J River wants to cater to the HTPC geeks that are willing to put forth the effort, they will eventually end up with a large portion of them, the product is great. I think HTPC geeks is a small portion of the population that would like to get more enjoyment out of the ever-increasing digital media collections.
I was not expressing an opinion, and this is not something you can disagree with.
I beg to differ. This is actually the reason I chose to respond to this at all. A Fact is something that can be proven true or false. '72 degrees Fahrenheit is the boiling point of water' is a fact. 'MC TV recording capabilities are top of the line' is an opinion. Both are false.
Trying to convince {those who are fundamentally not interested, and never will be} otherwise is a waste of time" is an obvious fact, not an opinion.
No, it is not quantifiable, trying is an uncertain term, and cannot be measured, what does "otherwise" mean, to what degree? How exactly is wasted time measured, is there a chemical signature?
None of that sentence is fact, it's entirely opinion. That you believe in in strongly does not turn it into fact. It is just your strong opinion. Many religions do not share your strong opinion, and spend a great quantity of time and money "Trying to convince {those who are fundamentally not interested, and never will be} otherwise." I doubt they find it a waste of time or money. If this statement were a fact, they would not spend time or money trying...
What I'm saying is, differentiate the product, and then let the customer decide. Or to put it another way, your opinion or mine on what another person should decide is best for them is irrelevant.
I disagree here also. The product could hardly be more differentiated, it is, hands-down THE best audio player around, the best video player, the best data manager I've used, including on some projects it was never designed for. It plays any file, on any zone, from nearly any hand held device. it's outstanding, or differentiated already. the customer has decided (to what degree I do not know, I have no idea of J River sales numbers) that they cannot see enough value within 30 days with the tools available to them to justify a purchase. If it were easier for them to see the value, I suggest that more would purchase the software. I do not think that the software can be made THAT much better to overcome this hurdle to the vast majority of potential buyers. This is my opinion.
Additionally, I think that the developers actually "should decide {what} is best for them" to get them started off on the right foot. How can one expect the new potential buyer to know what's "best for them" in the first 5 minutes of seeing this VAST software? how could you possibly expect them to want that badly to figure it out. a lot of people still watch DVD because its just easier. blu-ray, shmu-ray, 1080 whatever. if you don't care about those people, fine, at what point between them and Glynor or jmone (and many others) does J River become interested in them as customers? Wherever it is, is that level of dedication currently being served by this product today?
I also believe there's a subtle—but very real—negative consequence of any measure primarily intended to ease an objection to adopting a product. It implies a lack of confidence by the creator and suggests the objection is well founded. "If a bunch of wizards and instructional videos and manuals are necessary for use of this program, it must be unnecessarily complicated. Why would I want to use something like that?" I'm not saying that none of these things should be used. But care has to taken to ensure they're not compensating for deficiencies in design, or likely to be perceived as such.
I agree with this in general, but think it's effect is minimal
My experience with WMC is that it did reliably and quickly work. But after hours of frustrating investigation, it became apparent it had taken me to the classic Microsoft dead end. It did not allow me to do the things I knew I wanted to do. As I've already said, JRiver would do much better in using WMC as an indication of what MC is not and promises never to be. Just like what Steve would do. 
I take the opposite away (surprise!), I think it's great that it worked reliably and quickly. its unfortunate (i guess) that it's a "Microsoft dead end", by which i assume you mean not powerful enough.
But, isn't that a much better first few days experience than "now, how do I play a TV show, 'Drives and Devices'?!?!?, What?!?!?"
I think that IF a company wishes to expand their customer base, they should make a product easier for more people to use.
