Why do companies, and often BIG companies, make seemingly useless products just because they can? Recently, Lenovo released a transparent laptop with a transparent screen. While transparent screens are popular in science fiction, where main characters use sophisticated equipment to drag objects around, I’ve never seen the practical point of having one. Unless you need to draw an object on the screen that is in front of you (in which case, a photo would suffice), this “feature” seems to exist solely because it’s possible. Yes, some users might find it “sexy” and use their transparent laptop to show off, but its practical value is questionable.
Another example is the Dyson V15 vacuum cleaner, which comes with a display showing graphs and statistics about the sizes of dust particles it catches. Personally, I would prefer if Dyson invested their development budget in something more useful. However, no doubt, some customers might find this feature interesting “just because” it’s possible.
Who doesn’t remember the famous OLED Touch Bar on Apple laptops a few years back? I have such a computer, but I did not buy it for the Touch Bar, which, in my opinion, is more of an annoyance compared to real physical keyboard buttons. Apple eventually changed their mind about this feature as well.
Sometimes, tech-dominated product companies seem to disregard the important “why” when developing features that support a value proposition purely because they can, without real use cases behind them. So, why do they do it? Is it because they don’t know what they are doing, or their product managers are useless? In my opinion, actually, “no.” It can make sense to launch purely tech-driven features to demonstrate new technology, even if the use cases are weak or non-existent. This can be seen as part of a larger “Product Discovery” process. Even if there is no immediate use case for the current feature or product, feedback and ideas from the market can provide valuable insights for next-generation products that use the same technology in a clever fashion that supports strong use cases.
Consider examples like the hated “Clippy” in Microsoft Word, which was a predecessor to well-functioning AI-driven contextual guidance. Similarly, the Segway’s self-balancing technology paved the way for more practical and widely adopted electric scooters and hoverboards, now popular for short-distance urban commuting.
So, “yes,” it sometimes makes sense to launch almost useless features that are purely technology-driven because “playing” is often a fundamental action that potentially leads to disruptive product breakthroughs.
Leave a Reply