Technologies like fashion and new fashion like technology
"Entelligence" is a column of strategic analyst Michael Gartenberg. In his notes, Michael explains at what stage of development is the modern electronics industry and where it moves.
Being engaged in analytics of industrial technologies, I came to the conclusion that in order to assess the level of analysis, it is necessary to pay attention to the quality of recommendations that you give, based on experience in predicting trends. During my career, our team had more than once to make mistakes. Let me tell you a little secret - there is one thing that we predicted is completely wrong.
')
One manufacturer, whose name I will not mention, informed us at the end of the 90s about the desire to develop a line of personal computers that would be targeted at the mass buyer. Moreover, special emphasis in new PCs will be placed on female consumers. The company planned to make computers of various configurations and advertise them in publications like Cosmopolitan and not in thematic computer monthly, as the rest did. We decided to analyze this idea and I, with some disdain, replied that it was the dumbest concept I had ever heard (of course, it was presented more carefully, as analysts often do). Then I said that there is not a single buyer who will buy computers only for the fact that they are available in different colors. Then the developer abandoned his plans, and our prediction was considered correct. True until Steve Jobs appeared with his iMac. To put it another way - until technology became part of the style.
Previously, all computers were similar. The computer was just a computer. If you needed a server, you turned the boxes to the side, if you needed a workstation, you painted the case black or white, if you needed a mobile system, it was enough to stick the handle to the case. Today technologies are becoming the subject of fashion and style. Companies like Apple trumpet not only about the functionality of their systems, but also offer as a accessory covers of fine-grained leather. The overwhelming majority of the gadgets that you hear about today are created with more emphasis on design, and not on functionality. This involuntarily makes us recall the classical axiom: “Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder” (that is, the concept of beauty is not contained in the object itself, but in the mind of the one who looks at the object or imagines it). Using the example of socially-oriented KIN communicators, one can clearly see how the developer took care of not only the functionality, but also how this functionality is presented.
Why technologies go to the background, if there is a question about style? Firstly, Moore's law lost its former relevance, developers need to differentiate their devices in all possible ways [and not only by the criterion of powerful / medium / weak]. Secondly, the markup for accessories is huge. Markup for some iPhone cases is more than the cost of the iPhone itself. Third, as in all markets, old platforms tend to be fragmented. That is why we now have 500 different brands of toothpaste, which has the same capabilities. And again, this is precisely why many devices are now emerging that are focused on solving specific tasks or executed in a certain form factor that meets the specific requirements of a certain group of consumers.
I do not think this is a bad trend. My wristwatches and automobiles were chosen more for aesthetic reasons than for rich functionality. So why not choose the same principle phone, desktop computer or laptop? In fact, the more a vendor spends time developing the design and features of his device, the more chance consumers have of this device, the more such innovations the developer will be able to sell.
Just ask yourself if color, shape and material are important for you or is it all about functions?
Being engaged in analytics of industrial technologies, I came to the conclusion that in order to assess the level of analysis, it is necessary to pay attention to the quality of recommendations that you give, based on experience in predicting trends. During my career, our team had more than once to make mistakes. Let me tell you a little secret - there is one thing that we predicted is completely wrong.
')
One manufacturer, whose name I will not mention, informed us at the end of the 90s about the desire to develop a line of personal computers that would be targeted at the mass buyer. Moreover, special emphasis in new PCs will be placed on female consumers. The company planned to make computers of various configurations and advertise them in publications like Cosmopolitan and not in thematic computer monthly, as the rest did. We decided to analyze this idea and I, with some disdain, replied that it was the dumbest concept I had ever heard (of course, it was presented more carefully, as analysts often do). Then I said that there is not a single buyer who will buy computers only for the fact that they are available in different colors. Then the developer abandoned his plans, and our prediction was considered correct. True until Steve Jobs appeared with his iMac. To put it another way - until technology became part of the style.
Previously, all computers were similar. The computer was just a computer. If you needed a server, you turned the boxes to the side, if you needed a workstation, you painted the case black or white, if you needed a mobile system, it was enough to stick the handle to the case. Today technologies are becoming the subject of fashion and style. Companies like Apple trumpet not only about the functionality of their systems, but also offer as a accessory covers of fine-grained leather. The overwhelming majority of the gadgets that you hear about today are created with more emphasis on design, and not on functionality. This involuntarily makes us recall the classical axiom: “Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder” (that is, the concept of beauty is not contained in the object itself, but in the mind of the one who looks at the object or imagines it). Using the example of socially-oriented KIN communicators, one can clearly see how the developer took care of not only the functionality, but also how this functionality is presented.
Why technologies go to the background, if there is a question about style? Firstly, Moore's law lost its former relevance, developers need to differentiate their devices in all possible ways [and not only by the criterion of powerful / medium / weak]. Secondly, the markup for accessories is huge. Markup for some iPhone cases is more than the cost of the iPhone itself. Third, as in all markets, old platforms tend to be fragmented. That is why we now have 500 different brands of toothpaste, which has the same capabilities. And again, this is precisely why many devices are now emerging that are focused on solving specific tasks or executed in a certain form factor that meets the specific requirements of a certain group of consumers.
I do not think this is a bad trend. My wristwatches and automobiles were chosen more for aesthetic reasons than for rich functionality. So why not choose the same principle phone, desktop computer or laptop? In fact, the more a vendor spends time developing the design and features of his device, the more chance consumers have of this device, the more such innovations the developer will be able to sell.
Just ask yourself if color, shape and material are important for you or is it all about functions?
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/92729/
All Articles