Lloyd
Well-known member
Hmmm... Can’t say I entirely agree with that observation to be honest.Like westley says, building a product that answers a question no one asked is not good business, especially if it's butt ugly and a lemon.
Not saying the statement is wrong, but neither is it always the case that new ideas and new designs are bad business. Being a lemon though does make for hard work.
As Anthony Matarese Jr once said (in reference to shooting styles) “if you’re trying something new you’re gonna either turn out to be an innovator or an *****”
**** Fosbury was hailed an ***** until he started to make his “flop” work... now he’s recognised as an innovator.
The company I work for has answered a question nobody asked and it’s getting traction in its market. To be fair, its core product started out butt ugly and a bit on the citric side. R&D has moved it away from that position and as the basic premise is based on sound physics the technology does indeed work despite early teething troubles. How that transition has been managed has been critical to the product and the company’s early successes.
I don’t recall anyone in 2006 asking for touchscreen “smartphones” but Apple asked themselves that question and what they gave us wasn’t (in my opinion) the most beautiful or even the most featured of phones.
The Fiat Multipla was arguably the ugliest car ever made, but it sold plenty.
My son actually likes the look of the 828U (I really don’t). Beauty as they say is in the eye of the beholder.
I won’t argue a product being a lemon is good business, but doesn’t mean a company cannot turn things around.
The question of industrial design and innovation isn’t so black and white in my experience.
If Bennelli get on top of their woes, they may just find themselves with a niche market that in time may grow to dominate. Strange things do happen