The Battle for Mobile Phone Holders: Who Misunderstands Innovation?

Text | Common sense of innovation

Recently, the question of whether a mobile phone holder is still needed has been taken as a hot topic: in the driving situation, why has the car machine system not replaced the mobile phone?

Behind the controversy, it reflects the erroneous perception of innovation by some enterprises and technicians: the "creative destruction" of old things by new products based on advanced technology should be resolved quickly. This concept will lead to a seedling-fueling action: increase investment in promotion and make it spread quickly. This line of thinking is actually quite dangerous.

The diffusion of high-tech technology is relatively slow

Many technicians firmly believe that only technological innovation is innovation, and technological innovation is to create new products based on high, refined, cutting-edge and new technologies.

This perception of innovation is quite narrow.

Innovation is neither customer-centric, nor user-centric, nor technology-centric, but customer-centric.

Customer value, as the name suggests, is the customer and the value provided to the customer. Customer value is the benefit that the customer receives from using the product minus the cost paid for it. Theodore Levitt, a well-known marketing professor at Harvard University, famously said, "People don't buy a drill bit, they buy a hole." ”（ “People don’t want to buy a quarter-inch drill. They want a quarter-inch hole!” The person who needs to punch the hole is the customer, the hole is the customer's benefit, and the price and use cost of the drill bit is the customer's price. It can be seen that innovation should be centered on the matter of punching, and diamond diamonds may be high-tech, but customers may not need or afford them.

Therefore, the diffusion of innovation is actually the evolution of customer value, specifically, including three interrelated dimensions: first, the switching and diffusion of customer groups, second, the adjustment, improvement and reset of the customer's interest structure, and third, reducing the cost of customers to purchase and use innovative products.

The proliferation of new products based on high technology is usually relatively slow. Because innovators must not only continue to explore who is the real customer and which application scenario is the real use, but also gradually understand what the customer's interest structure is, but also find ways to reduce costs and prices. As a result, the replacement of old things by such products usually doesn't happen quickly – at least much slower than the media predicts. Innovators should survive in niche but more purchasing power segments until a "Model T" product is developed, and disruption will gradually detonate.

A classic case is the destruction of traditional film processing technology and products by digital imaging technology. As we all know, the digital camera was invented as early as 1975 and began to be commercialized in 1981. However, the film market did not shrink immediately, and its demand did not peak until 2000, after which it plummeted at a rate of 30% per year. In other words, disruptive technologies, products, and the targets of their disruption have coexisted for at least 20 years ("Interview with Former Kodak Chairman and CEO Anthony Peng: "Subtraction" Transformation", Harvard Business Review (Chinese edition), April 2014 issue). Therefore, if we are in a hurry to promote high-tech products to the public, regardless of the reliability of the technology, its high price, the lack of supporting facilities, and the inefficiency will inevitably become a serious constraint. Apple's Newton, Google Glass, etc. are undoubtedly lessons from the past.

The development of products for the relative public is not to provide a low-profile version of niche market products, but to clarify the real use and main demands of mass customers, boldly delete the functions that are valued by niche customers but are inconsequential to the public, and greatly reduce unnecessary high performance, which not only adapts to new needs, but also greatly reduces costs.

This often means designing a humble product with some low-end but mature technology. Technology innovators and their adherents are both hard to accept and disdainful. However, technological breakthroughs have never been the truth of innovation, or even a necessary condition for it. In the early days of the computer industry, both IBM and UNIVAC had products costing around $1 million, competing with defense contractors, large financial institutions, and other "good money" customers, but IBM succeeded in developing a much simpler, cheaper product priced at only $200,000. It was this product that allowed IBM to surpass UNIVAC, an industry pioneer, and grow into a leader.

Some analysts believe that the key to the low utilization rate of the vehicle machine system is the poor experience. It is true that the "user experience" gene of car manufacturers is insufficient, and the systems developed by car manufacturers are not flattering, but why are the systems developed by major Internet manufacturers still not very popular? This is because experience does not necessarily equal ease of use, and for many products, experience is closely related to price - the better the experience, the higher the price. So, what really limits the speed of adoption is the high price, and it also shows that developers still have some way to go in terms of understanding the benefits of customers. Failing to define exactly what the customer's interests are, and talking about the experience is meaningless babbling.

To be a large phone is to go in the wrong direction

For the mobile phone holder, the car machine system is of course high-tech, but for the mobile phone, whether the technology applied in the car machine system is higher, I am afraid there is a certain debate. If this is not the case, it is difficult for the in-vehicle system to replace the mobile phone with a better experience in the driving situation.

In the early stages of an industry, it is the supply that determines and creates demand, because most customers only know that they only know "a faster horse", not "a carriage without a horse"; however, when the market has a certain size, customers begin to increase their influence in supply and demand, hoping that product development can adapt to them, rather than the other way around. Of course, this doesn't mean that customers know exactly what they want, but they probably know what they don't want.

A large, removable phone with a larger screen is probably not what the driver and passengers want. The functions of mobile phones have become so powerful that they span entertainment, office, communication, social networking, information, shopping, learning, and so on. Even if the car machine system replicates these functions to the car and provides the same or even better experience, it cannot realize the vision of replacing the mobile phone, and there will naturally be a living space for the mobile phone holder.

This is because there is a big difference in the meaning of mobile phones and car machine systems. In-vehicle systems should help people drive vehicles better, rather than turning cars into another place or device for entertainment, work, socializing, obtaining information, shopping, and learning.

Better driving of vehicles has different meanings for different market segments, and the main demands of consumers are naturally different. For example, for office workers, the commute should be punctual, so don't leave the house too early or too late, and the process can be a bit boring, after all, the same route, the same time. For example, long-distance driving, first, the environment and road conditions are unfamiliar, complex and changeable, which hide safety risks, and the other is the monotony, boring, fatigue and discomfort in the itinerary, which need to be adjusted. Moreover, the mobile phone is a private property with a lot of privacy, and the car is basically a small public space, and the car system must make the driver and passengers respect each other and not disturb each other.

Only by understanding what the customer wants to accomplish can we truly develop a product that the customer wants to pay for. Of course, car manufacturers can take intelligent driving and autonomous driving as a strategic priority, but if these high-tech products cannot create enough customers, they should also put aside their obsession or arrogance, calmly face customers to adopt low-end technologies such as mobile phone holders, and respect the manufacturers who provide these technologies and products. More importantly, the real maturity of intelligent driving and autonomous driving is probably still a long way to go, and rushing to promote it is not only irresponsible to the enterprise, but also an improper guide to customers.