|
|
|
|
|
by PeterisP
3646 days ago
|
|
"If your product's core value prop is UI/UX/ease of use" then you're obviously not entering/creating a new market, nor you are attempting to find a product/market fit, are you? It pretty much implies that you're attempting to overtake existing competitors who have found product/market fit, where people have options to fill their need but do so grudgingly because of their UX quality. Doing that can be a solid business plan, but it's very, very different from the type of new-product-discovery startups that Reif Hoffman was talking about. If the people are paying for an existing crappy product with poor UI/UX, then that illustrates a valid need and building an easier-to-use product can greatly increase the size of that market. However, if currently people are not eager to pay for that need, then I'd wager that simply providing UI/UX/ease of use won't change that. If their need isn't sufficient to put up with the minor bother of sucky UX (at least for 10% of most needy part of the market), then that need isn't also sufficient to put up with the much larger bother of paying you adequately. |
|
Yeah, and if you were entering/creating a new market, usually people do not understand why they need the product you are creating and thus the original analogy still does not work.
Overall I just feel the brick analogy is not great because there are no low hanging fruits anymore. If a problem is so painful, there must exist a competitor OR a home made solution.
Agree with the rest of your statements.