http://www.businessweek.com/innovate/content/oct2005/
id20051017_303716.htm
OCTOBER 17, 2005 • Editions: N. America | Europe | Asia | Edition
Preference
INSIGHT
By John Maeda
Handing Over the Keys
Allowing consumers access to a product's innards is vital to a
lasting relationship, despite companies' desire for lucrative service
contracts
Earlier this year, I bought a Volvo S40 -- a sports sedan billed as
the "simplicity car." The interior lines are clean and completely
seamless. The dashboard looks fantastic. Yet when it recently started
to act up and refused to eject the CD I was playing -- freezing up
all of the central controls -- the love affair quickly ended.
Suddenly the sleek dashboard became an impenetrable shell. And with
no way to open it up, nothing to prod in the hopes of ejecting the
CD, I was left at the mercy of the dealer. As a consumer, such closed
systems are maddening. Can they really be good business?
From a designer's perspective, there's an upside and a downside to
creating a product that can be easily serviced by the customer. The
downside is that the product's case will require removable panels or
some other kind of functional mechanical seam. Translation: It won't
be a sleek, seamless form. The upside is that the object will be
infinitely easier to self-service when problems arise -- and I
guarantee you, problems will arise. From the consumer's perspective,
this is a real added value.
IS THAT ALL THERE IS? At the same time, if consumers are able to
solve their problems themselves, then there's no market for the
lucrative business of service contracts. This leads us to the
fundamental dilemma in the development of technology-based products
and services today: Should companies make open systems that, on the
surface, appear less profitable but put power in the hands of the
consumer? Or should they make closed systems that guarantee service
profits and protect them from competitors?
The cursory answer from a business standpoint is the latter --
closed. After all, you can't measure ROI if you've already made your
R unmeasurable and you've given away your hard-earned I for free. A
successful open system cannot be reduced to a set of quarterly
measures tied to a company's bottom line, and thus the financial
downside is immediately evident. By going the closed route, however,
companies close the door on realizing true, lifelong simplicity.
Short-term simplicity is about creating the immediate moment of
understanding. Having fewer controls translates into having less to
learn. Yet the romance ends when you discover you've figured
everything out and begin to ask yourself, "Is this all there is?"
EVOLUTION CYCLE. The essence of computing technology, especially
networked systems, is that you always have access to more
possibilities. An open system enables you to modify a simple (and now
tired) product just when you're ready to move up to the next phase of
your relationship.
In other words, open systems allow your product to evolve along with
the consumer. So while a closed system creates a monopoly around a
product, an open system creates a free-market economy. Which is the
consumer likely to trust (and love) more?
Now excuse me while I try to pry the CD out of my car.
---
You are currently subscribed to telecom-cities as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To
unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Manage your mail settings at
http://forums.nyu.edu/cgi-bin/nyu.pl?enter=telecom-cities
RSS feed of list traffic:
http://www.mail-archive.com/telecom-cities@forums.nyu.edu/maillist.xml
