Comments on: Predicting the impact of an innovation http://productvision.org/blog/predicting-innovation/ Articles about Product Vision and Strategy by D. Philip Haine Mon, 05 Apr 2010 20:04:04 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Philip Haine http://productvision.org/blog/predicting-innovation/comment-page-1/#comment-7034 Philip Haine Tue, 08 Dec 2009 07:48:00 +0000 http://productvision.org/blog/?p=579#comment-7034 Thanks, Paul! VHS wasn't actually "inferior". It's true that image quality was not as good as Betamax, but it was good enough for consumers, and that's all that mattered. What customers needed more than an improved image was recording duration, and VHS satisfied that need better than Betamax, which had to scramble to catch up. The overall profile of needs for VHS more closely matched what customers needed than Betamax. Philip Thanks, Paul!

VHS wasn’t actually “inferior”. It’s true that image quality was not as good as Betamax, but it was good enough for consumers, and that’s all that mattered.

What customers needed more than an improved image was recording duration, and VHS satisfied that need better than Betamax, which had to scramble to catch up.

The overall profile of needs for VHS more closely matched what customers needed than Betamax.

Philip

]]> By: Paul W. Homer http://productvision.org/blog/predicting-innovation/comment-page-1/#comment-7021 Paul W. Homer Mon, 07 Dec 2009 19:46:25 +0000 http://productvision.org/blog/?p=579#comment-7021 It's interesting to see how audio is less significant than higher visual resolutions. Perhaps the reason is that we tend to "stare" at audio a lot less than we stare at visual sources. Mostly, if audio is crappy but decipherable, it is good enough. But we almost always re-examine visual elements to try to get more information. It often has multiple levels. So, higher quality provides more. The "table stakes" argument is interesting, but I think it's often incorrect. Markets can choose clearly inferior products (like VHS) because there are some "other" qualities that are rated higher instead (like it being a 'whole' product in the sense meant by Moore's "Crossing the Chasm"). Paul. It’s interesting to see how audio is less significant than higher visual resolutions. Perhaps the reason is that we tend to “stare” at audio a lot less than we stare at visual sources. Mostly, if audio is crappy but decipherable, it is good enough. But we almost always re-examine visual elements to try to get more information. It often has multiple levels. So, higher quality provides more.

The “table stakes” argument is interesting, but I think it’s often incorrect. Markets can choose clearly inferior products (like VHS) because there are some “other” qualities that are rated higher instead (like it being a ‘whole’ product in the sense meant by Moore’s “Crossing the Chasm”).

Paul.

]]>