4 ms·

Product 1 never reached the market. Product 2 and 3 are very different.

passwordoops 3y ago
Product 1 - failed (why?) Product 2 - identical use case Product 3 - identical use case I want to be clear - it's awesome they are putting in the effort to work in accessibility. But why will Product #4 prove profitable when it is a rehash of an approach that has been tried for years without gaining much steam above and beyond what is already there. What is the evidence that their tweak in technology will be a major market breakthrough? Is it that much easier to use? Is it that much more comfortable? If the answer is inconclusive, then best to leave this application and find an overlooked problem paraplegics face that really could benefit from a technology solution
- npunt 3y ago
  Agree that learning from past efforts can be helpful, but I think you're shooting things down way too early here. I'm not seeing any specific critique you're making about mouth-based input being a bad pursuit, in fact the three efforts you linked hardly qualify as evidence against the opportunity: GlassOuse - very different form factor, bulky and limited appeal to a narrow set of the most extreme users (quadriplegics). Probably too early to market too (2017). Smart Mouthware - what looks like a crowdfunded two person team, seems more like a brief project than a company. Doesn't seem like a serious enough effort. Quadjoy - completely different, plugged-in product tied to a chair, very expensive ($1400). There's all sorts of reasons for having many separate groups pursue the same idea over a period of time until one 'gets it' and defines a category [1]. This includes market timing, tech timing, component costs, financing, eng & biz talent, how the market opportunity is understood and pursued, the myriad of specific product decisions that make subtle but important differences in UX, etc. Just from a tech timing perspective, a serious company building something in this category today would have a product that is considerably smaller, cheaper, and longer lasting than one launched just a few years ago, due to component & supply chain improvements. A smaller, cheaper device means access to a broader market, including out-of-pocket purchases and selling to users who are in a wider spectrum of disability. [1]: I wrote about this process of getting to category defining products here, in case its of interest: https://nickpunt.com/blog/category-defining-products/ https://nickpunt.com/blog/category-defining-products/

Product 1 - failed (why?) Product 2 - identical use case Product 3 - identical use case I want to be clear - it's awesome they are putting in the effort to work in accessibility. But why will Product #4 prove profitable when it is a rehash of an approach that has been tried for years without gaining much steam above and beyond what is already there. What is the evidence that their tweak in technology will be a major market breakthrough? Is it that much easier to use? Is it that much more comfortable? If the answer is inconclusive, then best to leave this application and find an overlooked problem paraplegics face that really could benefit from a technology solution

npunt 3y ago
Agree that learning from past efforts can be helpful, but I think you're shooting things down way too early here. I'm not seeing any specific critique you're making about mouth-based input being a bad pursuit, in fact the three efforts you linked hardly qualify as evidence against the opportunity: GlassOuse - very different form factor, bulky and limited appeal to a narrow set of the most extreme users (quadriplegics). Probably too early to market too (2017). Smart Mouthware - what looks like a crowdfunded two person team, seems more like a brief project than a company. Doesn't seem like a serious enough effort. Quadjoy - completely different, plugged-in product tied to a chair, very expensive ($1400). There's all sorts of reasons for having many separate groups pursue the same idea over a period of time until one 'gets it' and defines a category [1]. This includes market timing, tech timing, component costs, financing, eng & biz talent, how the market opportunity is understood and pursued, the myriad of specific product decisions that make subtle but important differences in UX, etc. Just from a tech timing perspective, a serious company building something in this category today would have a product that is considerably smaller, cheaper, and longer lasting than one launched just a few years ago, due to component & supply chain improvements. A smaller, cheaper device means access to a broader market, including out-of-pocket purchases and selling to users who are in a wider spectrum of disability. [1]: I wrote about this process of getting to category defining products here, in case its of interest: https://nickpunt.com/blog/category-defining-products/ https://nickpunt.com/blog/category-defining-products/