| > My entire point is about a different market with different needs. This whole line of discussion started with: >>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. My point is that said market doesn't have those characteristics. My evidence is that I participate in said market. If you have evidence about a different market, great - let's see it. If you're just imagining a market .... > And all I have is anecdotal evidence that the market exists. What, exactly, are those anecdotes? > 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 can conceive of them. My point is that they're not a significant part of the current segway tourism market. Moreover, said market is already significantly larger than the population you're talking about, so a segway alternative that served them can't significantly increase the size of that market. > 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. Great, but as I pointed out, irrelevant to the segway tourism market. Moreover, it's going to be smaller than the current segway tourism market. It's good to come up with ways to serve an underserved market. However, that doesn't imply that an existing market is going to adjust to satisfy that underserved market. |