His conclusions seem correct, but this is how I see the general anti-pattern: - Envision a product that seems great in fantasy and on paper, and the product ca

His conclusions seem correct, but this is how I see the general anti-pattern: - Envision a product that seems great in fantasy and on paper, and the product category is still undefined - Invest into realizing this product before sufficient technology is available to meet expectations Arguably, Apple Watch is also not "good enough" to fulfil the fantasy of what a smartwatch could be, but their brand is strong enough to define the market. People want to wear something that fulfils the image of "Apple Watch", and that is enough. A product without brand power built from cheap and premature technology will be niche, and not enough to "define the category". The valuable question is "what do people expect from our brand", rather than "what fantasy products can we imagine". Until it's realistic to build something that fulfils the expectation of an Apple product, they will not attempt it. The iPod vs mp3 players is a similar story. Thinking that Pebble "defined a product category" is a misunderstanding of the mechanisms. The fantasy of what a smartwatch can be is obvious. The question is how to realize to the standard required to meet expectations. Understanding these expectations is the valuable insight.