What these products have in common is at their current levels they are like fancy designer cases for existing technology. They seem to have a unique form factor which is (perhaps) necessary but unfortunately not sufficient to truly disrupt the smartphone. It's like buying an expensive watch that can also tell time – a feature your smartphone in your pocket already offers.
Solid read! However I’d say these are genuinely bad products and shouldn’t have been shipped. We can’t expect users to pay for unfinished hardware. A good question I always like to ask is what genuine problem does this product solve? And if it does, does it present a desirable solution ?
Glad you enjoyed it. While I may agree those questions are pertinent for most products, I think they lose relevance when it comes to v1 products in new categories. I think these companies need to first figure that out, through customer feedback. And then perfect later.
I definitely see where you’re coming from but that’s not what a v1 product is supposed to be. V1 according to Tony Fadell is supposed to be the grand vision, home run version of your product line. You use it for market feedback yes, but to see which features work and to tweak, key word tweak future generations while maintaining core elements.
See V1 iPhone, Apple Vision Pro, and Apple Watch for example, these are complete, solid products, they provided a beautiful user experience. When later gens of iPhone SE and watch SE came out they were incremental improvements.
Humane AI pin and rabbit R1 are fundamentally flawed products with severely lacking user experience. These types of products should have been scrapped at prototype stage after alpha/beta testing. We cannot rely on customers paying for such poor user experience as an excuse to iterate for the future when the main premise of the product is lacking.
Should we expect two startups launching their first products to have the same level of finish that a trillion dollar 40 year old company has? I don't think so. Your comparisons are not like for like. More apt comparisons exist in the 70s and 80s in the really early days of computing.
I also fundamentally disagree that the products should've been scrapped at beta phase. No way. These devices are capable of things that are no where else on the market, despite how shoddy the rest of the execution has been. If they can get enough feedback to focus on their killer use cases, then the world would be greatly served by what they deliver next.
Brilliant read! would be very interesting to see how if these companies improve the quality + durability of their products to rival the current status quo. Hopefully they use harsh criticism from someone like a Marques Brownlee to create a more groundbreaking product, we need more players at the top of the tech industry for our benefit!
What these products have in common is at their current levels they are like fancy designer cases for existing technology. They seem to have a unique form factor which is (perhaps) necessary but unfortunately not sufficient to truly disrupt the smartphone. It's like buying an expensive watch that can also tell time – a feature your smartphone in your pocket already offers.
Solid read! However I’d say these are genuinely bad products and shouldn’t have been shipped. We can’t expect users to pay for unfinished hardware. A good question I always like to ask is what genuine problem does this product solve? And if it does, does it present a desirable solution ?
Glad you enjoyed it. While I may agree those questions are pertinent for most products, I think they lose relevance when it comes to v1 products in new categories. I think these companies need to first figure that out, through customer feedback. And then perfect later.
I definitely see where you’re coming from but that’s not what a v1 product is supposed to be. V1 according to Tony Fadell is supposed to be the grand vision, home run version of your product line. You use it for market feedback yes, but to see which features work and to tweak, key word tweak future generations while maintaining core elements.
See V1 iPhone, Apple Vision Pro, and Apple Watch for example, these are complete, solid products, they provided a beautiful user experience. When later gens of iPhone SE and watch SE came out they were incremental improvements.
Humane AI pin and rabbit R1 are fundamentally flawed products with severely lacking user experience. These types of products should have been scrapped at prototype stage after alpha/beta testing. We cannot rely on customers paying for such poor user experience as an excuse to iterate for the future when the main premise of the product is lacking.
Should we expect two startups launching their first products to have the same level of finish that a trillion dollar 40 year old company has? I don't think so. Your comparisons are not like for like. More apt comparisons exist in the 70s and 80s in the really early days of computing.
I also fundamentally disagree that the products should've been scrapped at beta phase. No way. These devices are capable of things that are no where else on the market, despite how shoddy the rest of the execution has been. If they can get enough feedback to focus on their killer use cases, then the world would be greatly served by what they deliver next.
Brilliant read! would be very interesting to see how if these companies improve the quality + durability of their products to rival the current status quo. Hopefully they use harsh criticism from someone like a Marques Brownlee to create a more groundbreaking product, we need more players at the top of the tech industry for our benefit!
Glad you enjoyed it brother! We’re in the same boat. I want to see innovation and the giants challenged. Because ultimately the consumers benefit.