Editor’s note: This article was published in February this year in the public number “Wei Xi chat advertising” article, to explore some cool and useless products. The author believes that this article also applies to yesterday’s hammer conference.
Wen / Wei Xi
There are many products or functions in the field of science and technology. When you first see it, you will be fascinated by its cool and cool operation, the genius of creativity, and even cheers from the bottom of your heart, “Amazing!” This must be the future! “
But the reality is that many of the products that you think will change the world have disappeared in a few years or almost no one is using it. They are lost in the market and forgotten by the world.
This leads to an important topic in the product area: Why are many cool products not popular?
Before we formally discuss this issue, let’s look at some examples of cool but unpopular products.
First, Leap motion – this small, cheap piece of accessories can make the finger instantly have black and tech features – spacetime operation, a sensation at the beginning of the release, the technological circle praised its revolutionary invention, but five years later, this cool and less than 200 yuan product still didn’t go to the public, I They could hardly see the shadow of it.
Second, Google eyeglasses, the future products made by Google’s top innovation company, have already announced an indefinite termination of their consumer version after the limelight.
Third, VR devices – the VR helmet that Goldman Sachs analysts think will be the next generation of computing platforms, and even the most high-end products are currently abandoned by consumers to the corner to eat ash.
This is the only three typical of a large number of technology products. When we really look at it, there are countless cool but unsuccessful products in the history of Technology: Nintendo’s virtual boy, Microsoft’s somatosensory device, 3D TV, Samsung with projector hand machine, balanced electric vehicle, modular cell phone. Yes.
When we look back on these products after Zhu Geliang, every one of us can analyze a lot of specific reasons: Nintendo’s virtual boy is because the picture only supports a picture color; VR is not enough for performance; Google glasses are because of privacy; the projector cell phone is because of the battery capacity. Yes.
When we simply attribute each product to a single cause, we fall into the “low level of interpretation” of the blind, and in fact we should think about an important question from a deeper level – are there any common or rules in these many failures? Are there any general features that can summarize and guide subsequent product development strategies? This article is to discuss the question: