Of Segways and Mobile Phones

The media loves anything sensational. And of course, a revolution, by its very definition, is a sensation. And so begins a quest to find the next big thing. The new sensation. A revolutionary product.

The Segway was one such revolutionary product. It was, the wisest informed us, something that "future cities would be designed for." Unfortunately, the Segway failed to perform in the market. Its two motors, “the highest-power motors for their size and weight ever put into mass production", failed to excite the young, outgoing (and rich!) youth that were to be its major clientele. (Did you know that "meshes in the gearbox to produce sound exactly two musical octaves apart."?)

Various authorities have debated why the Segway proved to be a non-starter. I’d like to deposit my own two-cents.

I think the Segway failed precisely for the reasons it created such a hype. It was too revolutionary. Too new, too unknown. There may be various other complicating factors, but I think this is the primary one.

In fact, I’d go so far as to say that revolutions are costly, inefficient, and should altogether be avoided by the aspiring entrepreneur.

1. To start with, you have to create something revolutionary. That costs money. I assume that you’ll have to employ a variety of new technology to achieve your aim. For a Segway, it would mean those amazing motors and battery, for a computer program, it could mean the cutting edge hardware to run it.

(This is where NeXT Computer, Steve Jobs former startup failed. It simply spent too much money.)

2. Then, you have to let people know why the “revolution” is good for them. How is it useful? This is where most “revolutions” fail. A famous example is Sony: when it launched its first tape recorders in post War Japan, very few (rich) people could understand its utility. Of course, that’s where the Court Judges came in, with their shortage of stenogaphers.

3. And then, you might have to set up the infrastructure to support your product. Example? Those fuel-cell cars, which run on hydrogen, and emit water (only)? Where are the filling stations?

4. Then, the competition. This is two-fold. First are the competitors you fight to replace. The second are copycats. They don’t have to incur any of your “innovation costs” and patents help only so much.

Think Apple OS vs. Windows. You got the picture.

It is not surprising therefore; to find a lot of media-favorite “revolutions” fail. Can you think of one revolutionary product that made its inventors a lot of money?

What we need then is evolution. Mobile phones. Not Segways.

I just love the mobile phone example. Sure, it has a lot of revolutionary technology behind it. Many patents. But the end result? “You know your desk phone… how would it be if you could put it in your pocket and carry it anywhere?” Pure evolution.

That, I guess, is how the future ought to be. We must fit what we make in the existing grooves of society. Not require a re-plumbing. Present a simple, friendly, familiar face, and the public will love you more than the media loves its “revolutionaries”.

So, that’s my two-cents. Just one nagging doubt: Could I be wrong? Think credit cards…