Scott - Part II
Thanks in advance for your perspective on these issues. My Agora post:
geekhead -
Wouldn't disagree with much of what you say. I do, however, think that the kind of basic downloading glitch described in the article was a surprise, particularly in light of the XYBR tech group's inability to resolve it, and points to some pretty fundamental problems. The failure of POMA to interface and exchange data/programs w/ standard PC architecture restricts its usefulness.
The thrust of your observations, highlighting that POMA is still a developmental stage product, also serves to bring into focus once again the habitual error of this company in over-promising and under-delivering. While no one would argue that the development of product prototypes in technology brings with it a number of hurdles, XYBR has not been touting the unit as a prototype but as being ready-for-market. OQO and Antelope have been more circumspect, for example, in positioning their products as being ready for the market in the near-future. While we will have to wait to see how successful they are once there is a full-scale product release, XYBR (for first-to-market reasons that are understandable, if still regretable) has habitually used the market itself as the basic proving ground for their products. You may recall MadronaSteve pointing out almost a year ago that the MAV was in its 17th BIOS revision in 3 months. This kind of ''ship it now and worry about how it works later'' kind of approach can kill a company. Prospective customers won't have to read it in Scientific American to get the idea that a company's product is stamped w/ caveat emptor just beneath its logo.
So much of every criticism we might care to recall (or not) has to do w/ the rush to being first to market while standing alone and w/ limited resources. It has always been a very risky strategy and over-promising/under-delivering is a direct consequence of the dilemma it creates. All I'm saying is that the dilemma is a real one and one that may, in the end, prove to be this company's undoing. But the bedrock of success - even more than the pricing - is product reliability and good tech support, particularly when you're going where no tech company has gone before. What this article says is that POMA is nowhere near suitable for mass marketing at any price. And we (or someone - the shadow?) talk about selling through a discount retailer like Sam's Club? If the products can't keep up w/ the company's promises for it, the market will simply leave both behind.
This Scientific American article would not, in itself, worry me too much if it didn't bring to mind (mine, anyway) what has long been a very basic concern that XYBR's products simply don't work well enough to create a comfort zone for prospective buyers, regardless of the ROI figures that result from performance within specific testing protocols. I suspect that those ROI numbers may only tell the best part of the story.
FYI, I'm going to copy/paste this post along w/ the early one on the SA article to Scott Lemon's board on SI. He's involved directly w/ the development, marketing, sales of wearable technology (including as a VAR for XYBR). Thusfar, he's been a great source for primary information on both the technology and the market. I'll be interested to read his response to these thoughts and opinions.
Here's the link: Subject 53114 |
