Google Glass and the Segway Paradox

Google Glass

The customer rearely buys what the company thinks it is selling him. — Peter Drucker

Google Glass was finally announced to the public yesterday.

Glass is a solution looking for problems. It’s too hard to say what jobs-to-be-done Glass will be hired to do at this stage, or how widely used it will be. We’ll only know after it’s released.

The lean startup way of thinking heavily emphasizes the reverse sequence: find a problem (job), think of a way(s) to solve that problem, test your hypothesis using a minimum viable product, repeat. This method should work for most startups. It worked well for companies like Microsoft (Problem: I need an Operating System to put on the computers I sell so people can use them. Solution: Build/Buy/Copy Basic/DOS/Windows).

But there are some innovations where the solution=>problem sequence is necessary — anything that requires a lot of R&D and isn’t easily demo’ed on a large scale. Google Glass, Tesla cars, Segway, iPad, Lytro, etc. These are physical, more capital intensive examples, but the same still holds for some smaller software projects. Sometimes you just need to build the full version to see what it’s best used for.

One of the problems of this method is what I call the “Segway Paradox“: a new technology with huge initial interest and possibilities turns out to only be used in a few niche cases.

This may happen for a number of reasons (see Paul Graham’s The Trouble with the Segway). I think Google Glass may fall prey to this problem.

There are a few use cases I can think of that may make Glass worth the cost:

  1. Hands-free sports — biking, skiing, football, climbing
  2. Search & rescue, emergency — alerting the user to visual/audio anomalies
  3. Jobs that require detailed visual instructions (“advanced checklists”)

But it seems from the videos that Google is focusing more on everyday consumer uses, competing more with smartphones.

Why big moats can be bad

Large competitive moats play an important roll in determining the current and future success of a business. Moats are barriers to entry that protect the economic castle—from both new entrants, or expansion by current competitors. So the bigger the moat, the better the business, right? For the current and very near future, yes. But huge competitive advantages can become disadvantages when they lead companies to become complacent about their customers and potential alternatives to their product.

On the one hand, you have Wal-Mart and Coca-Cola—companies where consumer preference plays a large role. Wal-Mart has economies of scale that result in lower costs—probably the biggest competitive advantage in all of retail. But as the old saying goes, “retail is detail” and they still have to work hard to get the customer experience right (at least for their price point). If they don’t, competitors like Target and the dollar stores are more than willing to pick up new business.

Coca-Cola also has seemingly large advantages: a powerful brand name due to strong consumer habit and share of mind, plus large economies of scale in global marketing and distribution. Coca-Cola-owned brands account for 3% of every beverage consumed in the world today. But consumer preference still drives this market share, and a single slip-up (like this) can drive customers to the also-dominate #2 in the market, Pepsi.

On the other hand, you have companies with extremely wide moats like Microsoft and Ebay. They essentially have a lock on most of their customers because of high switching costs or strong network effects. Ten years ago, if you used their products and wanted to switch, it would be very difficult. Among other reasons, I think that led them to skimp on product quality and customer experience. There were product updates and improvements, but little innovation compared to alternatives. Why upset the apple cart when people are essentially forced to use your product?

The details matter!

Having a powerful lock on customers can lull companies into complacency. By the time they realize customers  have a good alternative or their business model is being disrupted, it may be too late. For companies who have big competitors or have to constantly cater to customers, it’s easier not to fall into that trap. So if you have the luxury of running or investing in a business with a strong lock on its customer base, remember to sweat the details. Customers will always eventually have an alternative.