Normally I think "Product X Killer" is kind of a ridiculous statement to make, but in the case of the Segway I would double that. For a competitor to kill another product implies that product is wildly successful and without any real competition. The Segway was hyped as "as big a deal as the PC" and "more important than the Internet". Instead it's fairly useless and banned in the places it would be most useful (ignoring the medical devices using gyroscopic technology). The Segway Killer is called your legs and a bicycle.
The Ryno isn't even a Segway competitor. You might make the bold claim that it would be a motorcycle killer, but even then... I mean, it's a one-wheeled motorcycle. Let's be practical here: the Ryno goes 20mph with a 20 mile range, can't be used on sidewalks or pedestrian areas, and only really exists to draw attention. It's not competing with the Segway, it's not competing with motorcycles, it's barely competing with scooters or bicycles. Hype it up because it looks interesting and has some neat tech, but don't make the claim that it will revolutionize transport just because it can stand up on its own.
I agree. At first I wondered if the claim was a joke or if it was supposed to be a mercy killing of something that was barely alive anyway. But now I see that the inventors of an different product are trying to ride upon the brand name recognition of another product, without clearly thinking through how badly this approach might backfire.
Clearly this is a motorized unicycle being marketed, through pictures of tough and hip looking riders with leather jackets, to motorcycle enthusiasts who are also wealthy and interested in high tech gizmos. It's a very different marketing approach from the green and easy approach that Segway attempted. Distancing themselves from the Segway market segment rather than trying to "take it over" might be a better approach.
Exactly. No way is this competing with legs or a bicycle. Legs can go on sidewalks and are free. Bikes are way more portable, cheaper, have a higher top speed (for most people), don't make you look like a goober (depending on your lycra addiction) and have no range issues.
The best part about a bike is, you can go 25mph to the city center, and when you get to the pedestrian area, you just get off and walk. Park the bike or don't, it won't keep you from getting through the walkway. If you're too tired to get home, just put it on the front of a bus and ride home.
To call product X a killer of product Y, Y must have a substantial presence in the market. Segway does not. Even in Ryno delivers, killing the segway is not going to make headlines.
A better comparision IMO is to the mini-farthing YikeBike (www.yikebike.com), but I don't think that product has set the market on fire either
"So there may be a way to capture more of the market Segway hoped to reach: make a version that doesn't look so easy for the rider. It would also be helpful if the styling was in the tradition of skateboards or bicycles rather than medical devices."
I thought the Segway killer was the cost and confusion about how to integrate it with traffic codes. The Ryno doesn't appear to solve either of these problems.
The Segway gets a lot of flack, but it's actually catching on as a tourist device. People who would normally exhaust themselves completely - or who wouldn't be able to do a tour of a place at all - now have the option of purchasing so-called guided tours on Segways.
The problem with the Segway was and is that it felt like an answer to a question no one had asked. We might still see a lot of Segways - or their equivalent.
Dean Kamen was looking for a way to give those who were chair bound the ability to 'be taller' so they could reach items on shelves. It also allowed the user to go up and down stairs and even the ability to go over sand, if I recall. It seemed like it was on the path to allowing those with disabilities the ability to gain some freedom back. Sadly, and probably due to the cost of the chair, it looks like they are no longer being produced.
The real problem with the Segway are two primary things you're glossing over:
1. Gee-whiz technology, with non-trivial downsides, that could be obviated with a third wheel. [1]
2. Everyone-will-want-one marketing for a device with deal-breaker-level problems that are trivial to identify. [2]
The Segway was pitched as solving a problem that was clear and known: bicycles are great, but they're only appropriate and convenient for a certain range of riders and situations. And, in short, the Segway just doesn't present a better solution for most of those situations or riders.
[1] You mention people taking assisted tours. But how much larger would even that market be, if it included people who could stand, but couldn't risk going over the handlebars while learning to ride?
[2] A device of most interest in relatively population-dense settings that not only has no solution to, but actually amplifies the problems of a bicycle?
e.g. stairs, parking. (by being massively more expensive and heavier)
> You mention people taking assisted tours. But how much larger would even that market be, if it included people who could stand, but couldn't risk going over the handlebars while learning to ride?
It wouldn't be significantly larger. The vast majority of people taking those tours aren't disabled, they're just looking for an easy way to do things. There aren't that many people who can stand but can't operate a segway and they're significantly dwarfed by the number of folks who can operate a segway.
Then again, I take segway tours whenever I can. What experience do you have with this market?
> "There aren't that many people who can stand but can't operate a segway"
I think this is where we're disagreeing. I've met plenty of people who can stand, but couldn't handle a walking tour and simply cannot take the risk of a spill from a bicycle, Segway or scooter.
And while they're definitely dwarfed by people who can use a Segway, I believe they make up a significant fraction of those people for whom an electronically-assisted, yet-more-stable tour holds a natural appeal over a bicycle, walk, or scooter tour.
> And while they're definitely dwarfed by people who can use a Segway, I believe they make up a significant fraction of those people for whom an electronically-assisted, yet-more-stable tour holds a natural appeal over a bicycle, walk, or scooter tour.
Like I wrote, I've been on lots of Segway tours. Almost everyone on them is physically capable of doing walking, biking, or scooter tours, yet they do Segway tours. (In fact, I've seen those same people doing other kinds of tours as well.)
Your entire argument for assumes otherwise. What's your supporting evidence?
My entire point is about a different market with different needs.
It's like we're both standing at an amusement park and we're looking at an electric go-kart racing ride.
I'm suggesting the general concept, an electric mini-car, holds a natural appeal for a different market. A market for whom a relatively quick and nimble electric mini-car would be great, and for more than just racing their friends in circles.
So I'm suggesting it's odd that one would create a company to deliver electric mini-cars but stick to the racing go-kart form-factor to the exclusion of, really, any other market where the general technology is appealing, but the existing form factor is inappropriate.
And you're replying that this other market doesn't exist, because you've done a lot of go-kart racing and you've only seen fit people in line. And they get in line, even though they could hold a bicycle or foot race. So why would I think anyone else is interested?
And do see how the motivations of fit people choosing go-kart racing are wholly irrelevant to my hypothesis? Even if I'm right, the mini-cars I'm talking about likely wouldn't ever replace the existing karts for racing. Even if the older and moderately disabled folks use their devices for racing amongst themselves, that has no necessary bearing on what other people would prefer.
I'm talking about something wholly different.
And all I have is anecdotal evidence that the market exists. But I find it hard to believe you don't know, or can't even conceive of, any older or moderately disabled people for whom a more-stable device that retained the quickness and agility of a Segway would hold an appeal.
I've spent quite a bit of time with older and moderately disabled people, working in and around healthcare, and there is no shortage of these people who express a simultaneous interest in something that mobile, and a disappointment that it doesn't exist in a more stable variety.
Lots of haters here, just because the OP said Segway Killer in the title. I think this could have a legitimate market to replace things like gas powered scooters. Details seem thin right now, but if it works well and the price is right they could definitely sell these beyond the high end consumer market.
I do not see anything silly on this. It is not the "Segway killer" but, for many, a nice alternative. If it sells at the foresee price it will have good market.
Yeah, not impossible, of course. I was being a bit silly. I don't feel that the Segway has been a huge success that "needs" to be killed. Granted, the way that verb is commonly used in tech writing is a bit ... weird.
I guess the Ryno looks interesting, although I failed to find the price (or availability information). I'm not at all sure about all the revolutionary talk, that sounds a bit too much like the pre-Segway hype with talk about how city planners will adopt this, and how it will help get people do more face-to-face communication.
This is some pretty risky naming. It makes me think, "Cause of death: thrown trying to ride a Ryno."
That would work if it were an energy drink - but this thing will be in traffic, which really is a major cause of death.
I mean it doesn't exactly say stability and easy of riding, does it? (Which are the main reasons that people who aren't being gimmicky don't choose unicycles over bicycles.)
With a name like this it would attract a suicidal/desperado crowd, which usually doesn't invest in its future long enough to have much money at any one time. (i.e. you can't target early adopters at a premium price with this naming/branding, which is usually the key to marketing something like this successfully and getting it adopted widely as you learn how to make it better and roll out on scale.)
It's a great tagline - if you're 15-19. Who wouldn't want to show their daring trying to ride a Ryno!
Answer: any of the people that would be actual early adopter buyers for this expensive new product. (Middle aged rich people.) Segway did it a lot better here, and Ryno needs to do like them.
meh, look at who buys the high end BMW and HD brand motorcycles. They are almost entirely limited to the over 40 crowd. I mean, that's mostly due to the expense (just like the Ryno) but clearly, The 'death machine' mystique isn't limited to the young.
my entire comment is about the name Ryno, which I assume is a homonym for "Rhino". And you ride it, even though it obviously looks dangerous and unstable.
Do you have any specific examples like that from BMW and HD? This wuold be like, I don't know, calling a plane "freefall". Sure there's a danger mystique - but should that be in the name?
eh, I think naming a motorcycle "death machine" would be... redundant? silly? I mean, the statistics show pretty clearly that it's one of the most dangerous ways to travel. Even so, you do see people dressing up motorcycles with skulls and German military decorations, as if the fact that it is by it's nature a dangerous machine was not enough by itself.
The Ryno, on the other hand, has no such statistics. For all I know, it's as safe as a segwey. And, if the problem they are trying to overcome is the nerd factor of the segway, and if, in fact, it isn't dangerous (I have no idea) then I think making the name sound a bit more dangerous might make sense, in the same way that putting a HD logo and some 'iron cross' accessories on a pickup makes it easier to sell.
The Ryno isn't even a Segway competitor. You might make the bold claim that it would be a motorcycle killer, but even then... I mean, it's a one-wheeled motorcycle. Let's be practical here: the Ryno goes 20mph with a 20 mile range, can't be used on sidewalks or pedestrian areas, and only really exists to draw attention. It's not competing with the Segway, it's not competing with motorcycles, it's barely competing with scooters or bicycles. Hype it up because it looks interesting and has some neat tech, but don't make the claim that it will revolutionize transport just because it can stand up on its own.