“Segway will be to the car what the car was to the horse and buggy,” Kamen asserted. Steve Jobs thought the product would be just as important as the PC, while venture capitalist John Doerr predicted that Segway Inc. would be the fastest company in history to make $1 billion in sales.
After that much hype, of course it was a disappointment. If it had been pitched as a mini version of small electric industrial carts, such as the ones seen in big industrial plants, no one would have been excited about it, but it would have been a minor seller.
This is the second article about the Segway which mentions its durability as a minus.
I think there is an interesting generalization to be made here: major innovations cannot be introduced to the market by raising billions to fund aggressive marketing push campaigns. Only minor innovations can follow this route to market, and it’s still risky.
If you define a major innovation as one that will have to challenge the established habits; then first and foremost, diffusion of a major innovation requires time, not money. To be understood, desired and finally accepted by the market/society. That’s why all major innovations I can think of started from very niche applications, and then patiently won neighboring niches, one after the other, slowly improving in the process, till they eventually became mainstream, sometime after several decades. This diffusion process generally spans over the lifetime of several companies. One example here: automobiles, around which our cities were ultimately redesigned.
It’s difficult to rewrite history, but had Segway started small as you suggested … it may have been more successful in the long run, as a concept and maybe as a company. To really change the world with some major innovation, starting small and targeting niche applications is the way to go.
It seems like the ultimate lesson of the Segway is not to over-hype your product. I recall reading quotes from people who had seen the device back when it was just (IIRC) "It" and they said things like "cities will be redesigned around this new invention." When it came out people were unsurprisingly let down and the jokes began.
Uber and Lime didn't create the electric scooter, they created the sharing/distribution model. Segway created the vehicle but failed at the distributing.
It was such a supreme let down - like Kamen did to the World what sociopath parents do wrapping books in a PS4 box for Christmas.
The tech was impressive, but you can't drive it anywhere in UK (illegal on roads, illegal on pavements), costs a lot more than I've ever spent on a car, everyone seemed to crash quite badly riding them. If it had been an affordable, sit-on, road legal vehicle perhaps it could have lived up to some of it's hype as the future of transport.
There's a throughline the author would like us to follow: the fate of the Segway might end up being the fate of Lime/Jump/Bird/etc. This might be true, but a major reason Segway failed was the price tag. $5,000-$10,000 (the price of a Segway) is how much a solid 200-500cc motorcycle would run you.
Scooters look kind of silly, too, but they at least won't break the bank.
Yes, the electric unicycle scene is off the hook [1] and the OneWheel scene is growing too. I personally just did a OneWheel DIY build [2], and it is absolutely great. So, thanks Segway!
I ride mine almost every day and it's amazing. Everyone wants to ask about it, and I just tell them it's a Segway minus a wheel and a handle. For just $1.5k you can get a uni that will travel up to 60 miles.
Segway’s current owner, Beijing-based Ninebot, says the PT sales were hampered by the vehicles’ sheer unkillability: “We have seen an over-saturation of the market for Segway PTs,” the company said in a statement. “They are an extremely durable vehicle, with many that are 10 years or older still on the road.” The Segway PT made up less than 1.5 percent of the company’s revenue last year.
Should there be some sort of subsidy for 'things that last'? Or 'year beyond average lifespan that thing is still in use'?
It feels like companies will actively try to avoid making durable things if there isn't.
By the sound of it, BMW is planning micropaymemts and subscriptions as well, with one example given in the original article being heated seats you only subscribe to in winter months.
As a product it was very interesting, but it had pitfalls. It wasn't exactly clear where to store it. The people who saw it all had houses and garages, but for the everyday user in the city hard to figure out where you would put it after each use. Even bicycles are challenging to store in NYC, which is why Citibike is interesting.
The second problem and much larger was the price point. If you want something to succeed you have to price it so that you can gain mass appeal. The $5,000-10,000 price point is a dead zone. As consumers we almost never spend this amount of money.
We spend hundreds of dollars all the time.
We spend a thousand or two thousand dollars infrequently, but we do it. Computers, vacations, some furniture.
But when you get to $5,000+ that is a price we pay very rarely. It is actually more common to find something more expensive, such as $10,000+ for a car, then to find $5,000. As a result it was hard to figure out where that price fit in.
Also, no one thought of subsidizing the cost. With the iPhone, it's expensive, but you have the carrier to subsidize the cost and more importantly create a monthly payment plan. If you could at least convert $5,000 to some sort of monthly fee that would help.
So what they really failed at is distribution. In fact if they planned around distribution they could have actually jumped on the entire citibike, jump, etc market before it ever existed.
It would also mean that customers wouldn't need to pay $5,000 out of pocket and instead could pay per use or a monthly fee.
Often people discount distribution when it comes to product market fit and failures.
Lastly, riding a bicycle is rather awkward. Think about learning it as a kid. It's counter intuitive. A bike can't stand on it's own, you have to pedal to go, if you stop it falls over. Though it is extremely unintuitive, it is cheap, you can try it, it has a culture, and is a rite of passage. So we learn this behavior even though it doesn't make sense.
The Segway is also counterintuitive in some ways. Looking at people riding them, never gives you a sense of confidence. There are also plenty of videos of people falling off of them, similar to bicycles.
But with a much higher starting point you aren't really tempted to try it, or even have access to one to test it out to see if it becomes intuitive or not.
Lastly, our cities aren't designed for this type of commute. People drive, they can take the subway, but the number of people that commute outside of that on bicycles is small in the US. In Europe like in Amsterdam, the Segway takes up more space in a lane than a comparable bicycle, so it really wasn't an improvement. And since Americans aren't used to bicycles they though oh wow this is great! Europeans were like for $50-$150 one time I can have a bike that lasts forever, doesn't require charging, takes up less space, and I already own it.
Great comment, and insight on what most people spend. Thanks!
Segway should have quickly introduced a low-priced variant under $1000. Kind of like OneWheel has, although there is no shortage of OneWheel crash videos.
Also, standing isn't optimal for humans. Be honest, would you prefer to stand still for 30 minutes (like in a line), or would you rather walk for 30 minutes?
Oil prices are the other key. Around the year 2000, some thought we were at or near peak oil. If oil prices had risen above $200/barrel in the '00s, the Segway might have made its way in the market.
It's a bit like the Chevy Volt, a car that I see criticized on HN and elsewhere occasionally. It was conceived of at a time when future oil prices were uncertain, and, if they'd remained sustainably high, it would have been a huge hit. But Americans have short memories and don't actually care much about the environment, so it was a relative flop.
I wonder why they didn't just create a Volt brand alongside Cadillac and all their others. Then to make the next Hummer an EV seems like a misguided recycle of the brand.
Hmm, how do you then perceive the success of the Prius? It was similarly conceived at a time when oil prices were high and became a huge hit. And then every other manufacturer started producing their own hybrids in response.
I drove a first-gen Volt shortly after they were released. I hated it because of the cap-touch UI, the poor rear visibility, and the poor brake/regen blending. A couple of friends have later generations and love them, but that initial experience poisoned the well for me and I bought an older BMW instead. Given how little I drive, it's going to last at least another fifteen years.
Price was exactly the issues but bigger issue was Chinese copy cats. Segway focused on business deals instead of consumer market and by the time copy cats caught up with them, prices were slashed to 1/10th with no real differentiation.
I was too young to buy into the hype when the Segway was released in 2001. I will never forget the first time I rode one though, I thought it was the most incredibly fun and cool thing. I ended up saving every penny earned from two summer jobs to finally buy one my last year of high school.
It actually ended up being the perfect vehicle for living off campus at university, as I learned first hand watching my friends and roommates struggle with all kinds of other forms of transportation. Cars needed to be parked in expensive and crowded garages, bikes were stolen all the time and uncomfortable to ride in the desert summer (in southern Arizona), busses were unreliable, etc.
The Segway was actually totally rideable in extreme heat as opposed to riding a bike. Something about being vertical made the breeze totally counteract the heat. Obviously the no physical exertion helped with the sweatiness as well.
It has a really good security system built in. When activated, it “locks” the wheels by applying reverse torque in whichever direction you attempt to drag it. The key is also a small device that communicates with the Segway cryptographically (pretty impressive for the early 2000’s!).
But mostly I think it’s because it was really heavy and perhaps novel enough. Nobody ever messed with it, even though the city I was living in was pretty bad in terms of crime rates.
33 comments
[ 3.9 ms ] story [ 74.5 ms ] threadAfter that much hype, of course it was a disappointment. If it had been pitched as a mini version of small electric industrial carts, such as the ones seen in big industrial plants, no one would have been excited about it, but it would have been a minor seller.
This is the second article about the Segway which mentions its durability as a minus.
If you define a major innovation as one that will have to challenge the established habits; then first and foremost, diffusion of a major innovation requires time, not money. To be understood, desired and finally accepted by the market/society. That’s why all major innovations I can think of started from very niche applications, and then patiently won neighboring niches, one after the other, slowly improving in the process, till they eventually became mainstream, sometime after several decades. This diffusion process generally spans over the lifetime of several companies. One example here: automobiles, around which our cities were ultimately redesigned.
It’s difficult to rewrite history, but had Segway started small as you suggested … it may have been more successful in the long run, as a concept and maybe as a company. To really change the world with some major innovation, starting small and targeting niche applications is the way to go.
The tech was impressive, but you can't drive it anywhere in UK (illegal on roads, illegal on pavements), costs a lot more than I've ever spent on a car, everyone seemed to crash quite badly riding them. If it had been an affordable, sit-on, road legal vehicle perhaps it could have lived up to some of it's hype as the future of transport.
Scooters look kind of silly, too, but they at least won't break the bank.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q98raEtSgqs [2] https://dammfine.com/projects/funwheel/
Should there be some sort of subsidy for 'things that last'? Or 'year beyond average lifespan that thing is still in use'?
It feels like companies will actively try to avoid making durable things if there isn't.
When you bought Adobe Photoshop, you never needed to update it.
Likewise, if you buy a Honda or other well-engineered car, you'll be able to get a decade or more out of it.
Thinkpads used to last forever and were user upgradable.
Tesla is introducing micro-payments and unlockables. I think other auto makers will follow suit.
Why can't farmers repair their own John Deere equipment that they "own"?
Everything is turning into recurring revenue.
As a product it was very interesting, but it had pitfalls. It wasn't exactly clear where to store it. The people who saw it all had houses and garages, but for the everyday user in the city hard to figure out where you would put it after each use. Even bicycles are challenging to store in NYC, which is why Citibike is interesting.
The second problem and much larger was the price point. If you want something to succeed you have to price it so that you can gain mass appeal. The $5,000-10,000 price point is a dead zone. As consumers we almost never spend this amount of money.
We spend hundreds of dollars all the time.
We spend a thousand or two thousand dollars infrequently, but we do it. Computers, vacations, some furniture.
But when you get to $5,000+ that is a price we pay very rarely. It is actually more common to find something more expensive, such as $10,000+ for a car, then to find $5,000. As a result it was hard to figure out where that price fit in.
Also, no one thought of subsidizing the cost. With the iPhone, it's expensive, but you have the carrier to subsidize the cost and more importantly create a monthly payment plan. If you could at least convert $5,000 to some sort of monthly fee that would help.
So what they really failed at is distribution. In fact if they planned around distribution they could have actually jumped on the entire citibike, jump, etc market before it ever existed.
It would also mean that customers wouldn't need to pay $5,000 out of pocket and instead could pay per use or a monthly fee.
Often people discount distribution when it comes to product market fit and failures.
Lastly, riding a bicycle is rather awkward. Think about learning it as a kid. It's counter intuitive. A bike can't stand on it's own, you have to pedal to go, if you stop it falls over. Though it is extremely unintuitive, it is cheap, you can try it, it has a culture, and is a rite of passage. So we learn this behavior even though it doesn't make sense.
The Segway is also counterintuitive in some ways. Looking at people riding them, never gives you a sense of confidence. There are also plenty of videos of people falling off of them, similar to bicycles.
But with a much higher starting point you aren't really tempted to try it, or even have access to one to test it out to see if it becomes intuitive or not.
Lastly, our cities aren't designed for this type of commute. People drive, they can take the subway, but the number of people that commute outside of that on bicycles is small in the US. In Europe like in Amsterdam, the Segway takes up more space in a lane than a comparable bicycle, so it really wasn't an improvement. And since Americans aren't used to bicycles they though oh wow this is great! Europeans were like for $50-$150 one time I can have a bike that lasts forever, doesn't require charging, takes up less space, and I already own it.
Segway should have quickly introduced a low-priced variant under $1000. Kind of like OneWheel has, although there is no shortage of OneWheel crash videos.
It's a bit like the Chevy Volt, a car that I see criticized on HN and elsewhere occasionally. It was conceived of at a time when future oil prices were uncertain, and, if they'd remained sustainably high, it would have been a huge hit. But Americans have short memories and don't actually care much about the environment, so it was a relative flop.
That GOB, always on his Segway.
https://i.imgur.com/PVKh2Hd.jpg
It actually ended up being the perfect vehicle for living off campus at university, as I learned first hand watching my friends and roommates struggle with all kinds of other forms of transportation. Cars needed to be parked in expensive and crowded garages, bikes were stolen all the time and uncomfortable to ride in the desert summer (in southern Arizona), busses were unreliable, etc.
The Segway was actually totally rideable in extreme heat as opposed to riding a bike. Something about being vertical made the breeze totally counteract the heat. Obviously the no physical exertion helped with the sweatiness as well.
Did anyone use motorized bikes?
But mostly I think it’s because it was really heavy and perhaps novel enough. Nobody ever messed with it, even though the city I was living in was pretty bad in terms of crime rates.