Gadgets have worked a certain way for as long as anyone can remember.
You, the company, publish That’s good, but it’s not perfect. No gadget is perfect! So they do market research and focus groups. See who’s buying. They find out what they like and what they don’t like. fine. you solve the problem
Next year you will release an objectively and specifically superior version of this device. This is the next generation device, Device 2.0. They call this device an “upgrade”. Tell your customer to recycle their device 1.0 and replace it with a device 2.0. Some of them do. “Should I upgrade?” tech bloggers write, weighing the pros and cons.
I know, I know, that’s a huge oversimplification of how consumer technology works. Many of us following the gadget industry, I would like to explain that we have common assumptions about how products work.
The product has improved over the years. Its next-gen gadget is better than the gadget it replaced.
But not all technology works that way. And it’s time for all of us, businesses and consumers alike, to stop this behavior.
No contraption is perfect
The ‘upgrade’ mindset makes sense for new product categories that explore what customers want. The smart home space of the mid-2010s was a great example. It wasn’t exactly clear how people would use Alexa, Google Assistant, and the various hardware that included them. It has been refined to better serve these use cases. Google Homes got louder sounds and more features without big sacrifices.
However, many prominent gadget categories (especially smartphones, laptops, and TVs) are now completely out of this space. These are mature markets full of established players and products already doing well. This makes “upgrading” in the traditional sense a difficult task.
Just look at the laptop market this year and you’ll see how it’s shaping up: there are very few laptop releases that are absolutely better than the predecessors they replace. The examples that come to mind all come from games, and some rigs have seen significant improvements in graphics quality due to hardware and software improvements.
Some were radically different in both design and function. Take his XPS 13 2-in-1 from Dell, for example. Since 2017, the device has been a standard convertible. In other words, a normal-looking laptop that can be randomly folded 360 degrees. But this year, Dell changed that design to a Surface Pro-like form factor. It’s still sold as the XPS 13 2-in-1 and replaces the older one in the Dell Store. This year his 2-in-1 is essentially a Windows tablet with a magnetic keyboard case. This form factor isn’t necessarily better or worse, but it’s difficult to conceptualize as an “upgrade” from the previous form factor. It’s perfect for different use cases and aimed at different customers. Just not.