Why you should not build products people need
github.com
github.com
The author concludes with saying he built something he thought people needed and it fell flat. Obviously the problem was that he was too unsure they needed it, and it turned out they didn't.
A diabetic needs insulin. Should insulin companies shut down because they don't make something people want?
I call bullshit on the OP.
He implies that building a 'want' product is better than a 'need' product by using confirmation bias and focusing on Apple products, vs using concrete opposite examples.
The author concludes with saying he built something he thought people needed and it fell flat. Obviously the problem was that he was too unsure they needed it, and it turned out they didn't.
I have built many things that have fell flat. Too much to count. Such is the reason I have come to understand this. It is not something I'm pulling out of mid-air.
He implies that building a 'want' product is better than a 'need' product by using confirmation bias and focusing on Apple products, vs using concrete opposite examples.
You missed the point. People buy products they want. Not products they need. You should find out what people want and offer it to them. Within all markets you can find niches. Say diabetics who want the insulin. There are also diabetics who do not want insulin, and don't use it even though they need it to stay healthy.
My father in law also did this. He passed away from prostate Cancer. He did not want the treatment (until it was too late (sadly)). He needed it badly, but did not want it. No one could force him to go through with it. We tried, and failed. On the other hand, my father was diagnosed with prostate Cancer, realized he wanted to live, got treatment, and had a positive outcome. He needed the treatment, but also wanted have it.
Firstly, this analysis only applies to consumers. You need to build something a business needs instead of want in order to succeed in the business enterprise. Enterprise is a BIG market. Building medical equipment like MRI scanners are not sexy like the iPod but that is something people need and people will pay lots of money for.
Secondly, you can build a product of need and then transition to wanted product. iPod started with need: to store a thousand songs in one device. This was not possible with other competing products. Soon, it became a symbol of need. People started lining up on the Apple store for new product launches. The iPhone heat is slowing down since Apple did not deliver what consumers wanted: a bigger screen.
Dropbox is another product of solving a need. We had to use our USB or email transfer our documents. As a result, we had many versions of the same document - not knowing which version is the most updated version. Mind you, Dropbox is a billion dollar business.
Dropbox is a want. You can go back to using the old methods. But you don't want that. You want to the ease of transferring files that Dropbox provides. Stop seeing it as a logical argument. Like I said, people are not logical.
Many people need to fix their credit card debt. However, I'd sell NASCAR plates before I sold a product that told people not to buy NASCAR plates on credit. The only person who has really done well in the don't buy unnecessary shit on credit cards space is Chuck Palahnuik, but I don't think his book would have done very if the protagonist went about things in a practical way.
"Wanting" is valid for some portion of consumer products and Need or some others are valid for others. I never wanted an ipod, and it died. I never wanted an iphone, and it is already dying too (check AAPL analysis). So watch out, for "want" products, they die quicker. Ericcson, Nokia and RIMM have experienced this and its Apple's turn.
so clearly what you said and what OP said are different, OP claims ipod success is due to cd-players failures (batteries etc).
I am the OP. The iPod was a success because it was the digital music player people wanted. No more, no less. It evolved into a computing device that changed the way we communicate.
And his book: http://www.amazon.com/Start-Why-Leaders-Inspire-Everyone/dp/...
needs (aka blood on the floor problem) - A person knows what he/she is missing - less risky to build a solution since the problem is more or less well defined
wants (aka cocaine) - A person doesn't realize a better solution can exist unless he/she is exposed to it. Walkman solved the problem of mobile music, but my thoughts are that people would have never been able to think while using a walkman that a device like iPod would come in a few years and the same reason why most of you are not able to think of a better device than iPod today (it needs thinking like Mr Jobs to solve a wants problem).
However, don't fall into the trap of building the solutions that people think suit their needs. In other words, don't let the public do your design work for you. People are very bad at falling victim to "satisficing", going with the easiest and simplest solution that seems to solve their problem. You should avoid that, and be smart enough to come up with solutions that may not have seemed obvious.
For example, falling victim to satisficing can result in trying to breed better horses when the smart move is the automobile. Or building a smarter email based form parser when the smart move is web based applications.
On the other hand, the automobile has been evolving into something that people go broke to buy every day. They do smell, harm the environment, are sometimes slow (they started out to be very slow), require upkeep, and kill many people every year. Yet they still buy it. People want it. Sure, there are other factors at play such as automobile-biased planning to promote the sales of cars. But at the end of the day, the market conditions are the wants that define the want. The problem defines the want, which goes higher up the list than the need.
Tell me, do you own a car? If so, which brand?