Meet the unpopular opinion about electronics product cycles. The author describes a rather revolutionary approach to the modernization of technology, which, in his opinion, can improve the quality of products.
Let us compare a TV and typewriter from the mid-20th century with their counterparts from the 1970s. You can see that the difference is very small. Twenty years later, the keys and control knobs are in the same places, the devices are about the same size, and each of them can continue to perform its function. However, if you compare a modern computer with its twenty-year-old counterpart, the difference is incredible. Over the past few years, the rate of technological innovation has increased significantly.
In today's world, success is measured by device characteristics: speed, size and efficiency in operation, so companies need to constantly release new products to remain competitive. If you refer to the buying guide posted on MacRumors, you can see that it advises caution in the idea of buying a Apple MacBook Pro Retina, arguing that the laptop is at the end of its product cycle, although the new version was released less than half a year ago. We're talking about a thousand-dollar device, but consumers shouldn't expect support for more than a year. In other industries, companies try to design products based on user needs, but digital technology takes a completely different approach that does not benefit either consumers or manufacturers.
Modernization culture and product quality
The novelties of the mobile electronics industry are bursting into the market with fanfare, but at the same time they are short-lived. The latest and greatest smartphones rarely make it to the end of a two-year [carrier] contract. Obviously, this hits the consumer who needs to spend money on an expensive new thing again, but it also harms the product and its ecosystem, preventing them from 'ripening' and developing steadily. Suppose the new iPhone 6S has a touch screen that responds to the pressure of pressing, but the battery, unable to withstand a day, makes the device not so successful. If the device is created for centuries, then its battery only confirms this. Remember the Nokia 3310, it was not only possible not to charge it for days on end, but also not to be afraid that it would not survive another fall. Among modern phones, only a few can boast of such durability.
In addition to negatively impacting battery life on a single charge and the durability of devices, our obsession with the idea of modernization has not at all positively affected the fate of some previously famous companies and products. For example, the first smartphone BlackBerry from RIM was received with a bang. A secure, reliable and easy-to-use communication device has quickly become the mainstream of government and business, not to mention the general public. However, as the popularity of smartphones has grown, functionality BlackBerry has eclipsed the marketing appetite for accessories and countless apps. Consumers needed more and more 'whistles' / 'bells and whistles' and the once ubiquitous BlackBerry rapidly lost popularity.
A similar fate befell OnStar, which has played a leading role in providing connectivity to cars for many years. But after the government decree to switch from analog cellular to 2G wireless, more than half of OnStar's four million customers were confronted with the fact that their vehicles were no longer subject to upgrade.
Is there any alternative?
Instead of continually upgrading, it might be time for companies to focus on core product competencies. Competitive advantage is achieved by focusing on specific aspects. Working with fewer technologies reduces the cost of goods and increases its attractiveness. Project Ara is an example of this approach. The design concept gives phone owners the ability to mix and match phone components the way they want, rather than accepting manufacturer restrictions. The modular nature of the Ara means that manufacturers can focus on company-specific components, and consumers can only retrofit parts without having to buy a new machine. This approach will significantly increase the life cycle of the device.
By abandoning the constant modernization of technology, we can create simpler, cheaper and comparatively better products. The new approach will bring benefits to consumers, profits for companies and the development of the industry.
Original material by John Horn, Ingenu CEO.
Elir: undoubtedly, from the point of view of promoting the cult of consumption, the current cycle of modernization of equipment is very welcome, it is supported by both manufacturers and sellers. The user remains in a situation in which he either uses an allegedly old and irrelevant device (which, in fact, is often not the case), or searches for funds and remains 'in trend' with a new electronic companion in the collection. Of course, the approach described by the author will not become something universally accepted, no one wants to waste their money, however, the described example in the person of Project Ara can serve as a good precedent. Increasing the product cycle should by definition improve the quality of the final products.
Omitting strange passages (like comparing iPhone and Nokia) and turning a blind eye to utopianism, the author's position has a right to exist, some companies would not hurt to be more focused on the needs of users. How often do you upgrade your devices?