Archive for November 17th, 2011

This is a predicament I have found myself  in previously on various occasions. A product that you have been using for quite some time – learned it, used it, become quite fond of it, gotten attached to it – has reached it’s end-of-life; and you have the darnedest time trying to select a replacement. What might be so challenging? Part of the problem might be shifting feature sets, but there’s also the issue of build quality (eg, workmanship) and greater complexity (eg, feature-overflow). There are a couple of examples worth mentioning here:

1. Cable Television. When cable television first became available, it was quite straightforward to understand and a good value (compared to getting free over-the-air signals). Things got better as television sets got built-in cable tuners and larger and flatter screens. Next, value began to decline with higher subscription rates and the addition of undesired channels (polluted packages). The polluted packages also led to a decline in user experience and overall user-friendliness. The downswing has recently reached a new low with the switch from analog to digital service. Suddenly, the disadvantages of satellite television were thrown in with cable, and value plunged.  User experience was also impacted. But despite this horrible odyssey, a bright clearing has revealed itself – nothing terribly new, but it feels so pure and innocent. Digital Over-The-Air (OTA) signals! The old rooftop antennas miraculously have become of state-of-the-art utility again, and televisions with built-in tuners are no longer handicapped. With a little support from internet television, we find ourselves freed from polluted packages. Sanity has also returned with channels within the two-digit realm and quite straightforward to remember – and it’s generally QUALITY programming. Oh, and it’s subscription fee-free! Simplicity returns!

2. Clothing. What is the matter with the clothing industry? Low cost generally equates with low quality (workmanship and durability) and sometimes, high cost is unjustified by low quality. There are a few high cost-high quality options out there (Timberland comes to mind) but not enough. Lands’ End used to be the model for low cost-high quality but they have lost their edge and are hindered by limited choices. Tailor-made is available but quite set apart from mainstream. Why do low cost clothes have to be ill-fitting?

Not all products have gone through this plunge back to earth. I think digital cameras have been hugely positive (but the addition of HD video makes me wince, and I am saddened by the disappearing art of film developing) and automobile choices are generally on the right track (except the Hummer).

So back to the impetus for this entry…cell phones. There have been several tremendous advancements…most notably miniaturization, but also lower SAR readings. Competing digital technologies such as GSM vs CDMA has also been interesting with neither presently looking to be pushed out (ie, Betamax’d). Sure, GSM is more popular in general around the world, but phone to tower connections are relatively poor (and therefore require more unsightly cell phone towers). And cell phone plans (in the US) also have gone the way of cable television rates with poor value and lack of simple and affordable options. Hardware has also suffered with divergence to low-cost, poor quality units or high-cost, feature-excessive models. If we think about the quadrants model, there certainly is a lack of low-cost pro, and premium consumer models (ie, ones that work well but are not overly complicated).

So, for YCISL this may be a good way to introduce and discuss the use of the quadrants model to identify opportunities. For the hands-on part, we might be able to have students bring their cell phones and we would try different approaches to categorizing to quadrants. Then we could discuss how a model in a presently populated quadrant might be modified to fit into an empty quadrant, and see if that makes market sense.