Why Segway failed?

[Citi Wheel]

I saw this article on why the Segway failed. The main points that I could see causing EUCs to not gain market traction are number 1 and 5 (calling it the future of transportation and regulation). I don't think 2, 3 and 4 apply to EUCs (EUCs are a solution for the problem of portable transportation, with a definite market and most people think they're cool). Ease of learning how to ride it is one thing going against EUCs that the Segway didn't have. Cost is something that the article didn't mention, that I think is the probably the most important factor.

 

 

The Segway PT is a two-wheeled, self-balancing battery electric vehicle invented by Dean Kamen. It was launched in 2001 in a blizzard of publicity. Yet it has failed to gain significant market acceptance and is now something of a curiosity. In this article Paul Sloane takes a look at what lessons to be learned from the failure.

The product is very clever. It works well. The company, Segway Inc., had tremendous funding and resources. The level of press and TV exposure was astounding. So what went wrong? What lessons about the success or failure of innovations can we learn?

1. Expectations were too high. The Segway was described as the future of transport. As an innovation it was said to be on a par with the PC or the internet. Inevitably it could not live up to this level of hype. PR exposure is generally useful but this time it was overdone.
2. It was a product not a solution. The product works well but it lacked a support context. Where can you park it? How do you charge it? Do you use it on roads or sidewalks? Our cities are designed for pedestrians or speedy vehicles and this was neither so it had no proper infrastructure to support it.
3. No clear need or target market. Who was the target market? Who really needed this? It was an appealing novelty but there was no compelling need for anyone to buy it – and it was very expensive.
4. It was an invention rather than an innovation. The Segway was patented and kept under wraps until its launch. There was no user feedback or iteration in the process. Its inventors were then surprised when people criticised or ridiculed the design for being ‘dorky’ rather than cool.
5. Regulation. The Segway fell foul of regulation in many countries where it was banned from sidewalks and roads because it did not fit any existing categories. This is a problem for a truly revolutionary product – but it was not properly anticipated.

Most successful innovations involve some degree of iteration, experimentation, openness and collaboration. They need an eco-system to support them. They target users who need the benefits they offer. A radical invention with ample backing still needs to gain market acceptance. It is an uphill path and that path proved too steep for the Segway.

By Paul Sloane

SOURCE: www.innovationmanagement.se/2012/05/02/a-lesson-in-innovation-why-did-the-segway-fail/

[HEC]

14 minutes ago, logos122 said:

I saw this article on why the Segway failed. ---. Cost is something that the article didn't mention, that I think is the probably the most important factor.

Nice find! Cost is BTW referred in point 3.  

[Rehab1]

• 

  A Lesson in Innovation – Why did the Segway Fail?

  May 2, 2012 | By: Paul Sloane

• Very interesting  but 4 years after Sloane wrote the article a plethora of similar Segway self balancing products have evolved and branched off with reduced costs. Thanks Dean for the technology that helped fuel the invention of the  EUC!!!?

•  

[HermanTheGerman]

My opinion is, that by far the biggest factor against the Segway was twofold: It was patented and locked for others, and it was by far to expensive.

Also big companies are doing such mistakes: IBM had TokenRing, which was technically a lot better than Ethernet. It was patented, closed by expensive licensing, and the products were also to expensive. The rest is history. Only a few remember TokenRing nowadays, but even my grandmother has some idea, that Ethernet "is the cable where the Internet comes from".

One of the strengths of Elon Musk is, that he knew this trap, and gave away some patents for free, to lure other vendors into the electric car market - successfully. If he wouldn't have done that, Tesla might be already in big trouble.

Coming back to Segway, taking me as an example: I tested Segways starting from 2005 once a year, and liked it a lot.  But 8500 bucks ? It was just not worth that for me.

Then came the MiniPro:  I bought one immediately after I recognized that such a thing exists, and it was great (at the beginning), I nearly had bought a Ninebot Elite instead, because 3500 bucks were only a little bit above my pain barrier.  Thanks God I didn't, because at the end I landed at a KS16, and will sell the MiniPro again.

All that is only possible because many Companies are creating now one- or twowheeled Segway-like things, and NOW they will get their market.

I hate patents, because from my point of view patents are the enemies of innovation.  An originator-law would be a lot better, where the creator gets his fair share if his innovation is used by another inventor. But patents make it possible to hide new technologies from others, and that is crap which should be given up completely.

 

[Mono]

Yes, nice find. I don't think 1. is relevant at all. A Segway is fascinating but (paraphrasing points 2. and 3. on the above list) it is expensive, large, and of very limited use. How would I expect success with that? Hoverboards share only the third point on this small list and seem to enjoy quite some success as toys. The Ninebot mini might still be a little bit too large and lacks a little bit of usefulness (on varying surfaces), yet this could become a pretty successful device. I agree that cost is crucial but many EUCs have already passed the price tag for the mass market (which would be the price tag of a mobile phone).

This leaves learning curve and legislation as main culprits. The former, I think, can only be overcome by letting the kids learn. The majority of adults will not invest the time and have the patience to get there. The good news: I don't think legislation is likely to be a problem in the long run: with the comparison/competition of legislators, it will become impossible to insist in outlawing EUCs, if they become life-changingly popular in countries where they are legal. If not, it was not legislation preventing their popularity.

[hyiu00]

Define what is " fail".  It might fail as originally planned as an everyone everyday short distance  transport tool, but it is evolving to be a very successful toy for adults.

[Mono]

2 hours ago, hyiu00 said:

Define what is " fail".  It might fail as originally planned as an everyone everyday short distance  transport tool, but it is evolving to be a very successful toy for adults.

Define what is "success"  Is selling (old style) Segways actually a profitable business? 

[hyiu00]

1 hour ago, MoNo said:

Define what is "success"  Is selling (old style) Segways actually a profitable business? 

Success in selling to the Chinese while it was still hot.

[RenaissanceMan]

On 27.10.2016 at 9:52 PM, MoNo said:

(a) I agree that cost is crucial but many EUCs have already passed the price tag for the mass market (which would be the price tag of a mobile phone).

(b) This leaves learning curve and (c) legislation as main culprits. The former, I think, can only be overcome by letting the kids learn. The majority of adults will not invest the time and have the patience to get there. The good news: I don't think legislation is likely to be a problem in the long run: with the comparison/competition of legislators, it will become impossible to insist in outlawing EUCs, if they become life-changingly popular in countries where they are legal. If not, it was not legislation preventing their popularity.

(a) Well, if you compare the price of a car, motorcycle, or even ebike to the price of an EUC I'd say EUCs are still at the lower end. However, that may change because of ...

(c) ... the legislation. At least in those countries where they are not already allowed. And even there ... but let the sleeping dogs lie. Although "legislation" sounds merely bureaucratic there is the element of road safety, which in the end made the Segway so expensive and difficult to get road approval. In one word: redundancy. Which we currently all miss with our beloved wheels (consider only the number of accidents reported in this forum that might have been prevented by a redundant energy source).

(b) The learning curve. Well, only the young, able or very determined will succeed, but that, as has been said, still leaves a substantial market.

So all in all, yes, EUCs do have a future, but only the next generation of - as redundant, not as fast as possible - wheels may achieve breakthrough with the next/younger generation of riders and current legislators.

[Tilmann]

My 5 Cents worth - heavily biased by personal experience:

Segways found just one niche market, where they appear pretty useful: guided city tours. They appear to be a firm part of any urban touristic infrastructure. Which seems to confirm all the above statements: the tour operator takes all the trouble of high investment, charging and bringing it to the location away from the end user - who in turn can enjoy all the benefits after mere minutes of instruction.

EUCs in Germany suffer from

• threats of criminal prosecution when used in public, accompanied by legislative inertia,
• low media coverage, increasingly in the context of police action against their use,
• the non existence of EUC manufacturing in country combined with the omni-presence of the automotive industry.

3 hours ago, RenaissanceMan said:

<snip>

(b) The learning curve. Well, only the young, able or very determined will succeed, but that, as has been said, still leaves a substantial market.

<snip>

 Exposing my dear colleagues almost daily to my routine of riding an EUC all the way to my office desk, I see 3 typical types of reactions: 1. immediate fascination by the early adopters like me, 2. slow, but steadily growing consideration of using an EUC for their own transportation needs (especially "last mile" use for car drivers), 3. friendly indifference ("fine, but not for me"). About 10 colleagues tried to ride it, 8 mastered it, 4 colleagues now own one. Age? From mid 20's to end 50's (I am 60). Most compare the experience to learning to ride a bicycle in their childhood days.

So, what's the possible target market after word has gotten around and average education moves self balancing vehicles out of the "pure witchcraft" category? Annual sales of bicycles in Germany (population ≈ 80 mill.) is ≈4.5 mill. of which >500k are e-bikes. I would assume, the potential market rivals at least that of e-bikes, so annual sales anywhere between 500k and 1 mill. units are easily imaginable for Germany.

Prerequisites for that to happen:

• Legalization of EUCs for public use, including the option to ride on sidewalks at appropriate speed and a max. speed limit not significantly below the present "Mofa" limits (the smallest category of motor bikes with a legal limit of 25kph, but pretty much all of them run about 30kph). Mandatory insurance will not be much of a deterrence. Price range for legit entry models should not exceed 1000 Euro.
• A visible dealer infrastructure and presence in malls and electronics markets (in addition to the already present online shops).
• Training offering for newbies in public and in private (some of my colleagues were pretty shy with their first attempts...).

And, especially for the car crazy German market: Partnerships with the all so dominant automotive industry! For many years, you can buy (over prized) Mercedes or BMW branded bicycles along with special car transport solutions. I could well imagine a VW or Audi branded EUC as a bundle option for their "eco friendly" cars (an image, that suffered a bit lately ). In terms of design, ninebot, inmotion or IPS are not that far away from qualifying for such an option. Add a convenient storage option and a safe charger to the car and - viola - you just improved the utility of that transport immensely, sell Merc-branded ninebots for 2.899 Euro and the image of EUCs will skyrock (and normal people will buy ninebot branded ninebots for 800 Euro, charge it at home and throw it in the trunk of the car they already have ). So much for pipe dreams - I bet 10:1 that Toyota or Mitsubishi will be first...sigh.

In short: I believe, Segways found their narrow niche and will not grow significantly beyond that. EUCs represent an annual revenue potential around 1 bill. for Germany, but will not take off until competitive pressure from less automotive-dominated markets force it to follow. After all, the mere suggestion of a "car free Sunday" puts you in the enemy-of-the-state corner in today's political landscape.

 

[Mono]

15 hours ago, RenaissanceMan said:

(consider only the number of accidents reported in this forum that might have been prevented by a redundant energy source).

None? Some would have been prevented by larger batteries, some by stronger motors. Or maybe the accidents would have even been worse with larger batteries and/or stronger motors? Not unlikely, actually. I can't remember to have seen an accident which would have been prevented by a redundant energy source only, but I am happy to learn if I missed the report.

[Mono]

17 minutes ago, Tilmann said:

For many years, you can buy (over prized) Mercedes or BMW branded bicycles along with special car transport solutions.

Did this have any (even marginal) influence on sales of bicycles? I don't think so. They are only there to give Mercedes and BMW brand and owners a clear conscience.

[MetricUSA]

Yep, I wanted one, and would had, but the price killed it for me, and it never came down! I am pretty sure they tried marketing everywhere, it should have been more successful in biking communitie, with biking infersturctures like in Europe, the Netherland, Finland and such and maybe bigger America cities that supposed bikes, as most of America don't, but the cost over a bike was again too high... But these same cities made laws banning it almost before it came out or soon after...

So it's 2016 and I now have two minis, an Asian and Pro model... only one other person in my area has a mini, no privately owned Segways, but we have a summer beach bike renter that has a small fleet of Segways...

Besides the Segways are too big for buses, and what if you also needed to do grocery shopping on top of it? I can carry the mini on bus and slide most of it underneath seat! Works great...

But Segway was looking to replace cars! And yes it can, if it was allowed... We do not need a 2000+ tonne vehicle just to get one person to work and back!

[Tilmann]

8 minutes ago, MoNo said:

None? Some would have been prevented by larger batteries, some by stronger motors. Or maybe the accidents would have even been worse with larger batteries and/or stronger motors? Not unlikely, actually. But I can't remember to have seen an accident which would have prevented by a redundant energy source, but I am happy to learn if I missed the report.

I only know of one involuntary dismount (not really "accident") due to blown MOSFET (1st gen. Gotway ACM) and another due to a blown fuse (Kingsong 16) - both could have been prevented by redundency. But: Fear of the new and unknown dramatizes the perception. More dramatic to me: in 2016 alone, we counted 11 fatal bicycle accidents inside the city limits of Berlin.

10 minutes ago, MoNo said:

Did this [car branded bicycles] have any (even marginal) influence on sales of bicycles? I don't think so. They are only there to give Mercedes and BMW brand and owners a clear conscience.

Fully agree. But todays typical adult grew up with a bike and later advanced to motorbikes and cars. With the casual observer of EUC riding, its a long process until it gets out of the "artistic toy" perception trap and people realize the full utility potential. Branded car-bundle offerings could help to speed up this mind shift tremendously.

[Mono]

36 minutes ago, Tilmann said:

I only know of one involuntary dismount (not really "accident") due to blown MOSFET (1st gen. Gotway ACM) and another due to a blown fuse (Kingsong 16) - both could have been prevented by redundency.

Then it wasn't even the energy source in these cases  Fuses which can blow while the wheel is driving are in my head still an utter design failure and it would seem to contradict their very role to make them redundant, or was the fuse failing?

Quote

But: Fear of the new and unknown dramatizes the perception. More dramatic to me: in 2016 alone, we counted 11 fatal bicycle accidents inside the city limits of Berlin.

Right, definitely, and I guess most were related to cars or trucks. 

Quote

Fully agree. But todays typical adult grew up with a bike and later advanced to motorbikes and cars. With the casual observer of EUC riding, its a long process until it gets out of the "artistic toy" perception trap and people realize the full utility potential. Branded car-bundle offerings could help to speed up this mind shift tremendously.

I can't imagine that. Perception change is usually initiated from people in the peer group, not from bundled products, or it comes with kids growing up replacing the common perception with their perception  In any case, I do see the same potentials as you suggested, say, twice the size of the market of e-bikes, which is huge. 

[hyiu00]

2 hours ago, MoNo said:

None? Some would have been prevented by larger batteries, some by stronger motors. Or maybe the accidents would have even been worse with larger batteries and/or stronger motors? Not unlikely, actually. But I can't remember to have seen an accident which would have prevented by a redundant energy source, but I am happy to learn if I missed the report.

The euc community has not reach the mass market yet, so most euc riders know some physics and hardware capabilities behind it.  Therefore, most euc riders will constantly check their battery and they are already aware of the potential problem of a failing energy source.  But I believe if and when the euc reaches the mass market, there won't be so many riders have interests in knowing the physics and checking the battery everyday.  They will just ride when they like to.  If the hardware does not give an accurate warning of a failing energy source, or there is no redundant energy source, I am sure there will be accidents.  The legislation will need design which is scientifically proven by theory, and extensively tested under all adverse environmental conditions, not by checking accident statistics from a forum.

But you can still check the comment from EU_commuter below:

 

[Mono]

14 minutes ago, hyiu00 said:

They will just ride when they like to.

That's what I do, despite my interests in physics. I definitely don't "constantly check my battery". I charge before I go and when the battery becomes de-charged I notice, because the wheel becomes sluggish and slow. That an electric device needs to be charged to work properly, this everybody in this world knows from experience, I mean everybody who has a few hundred bugs to spend on an EUC.

[hyiu00]

3 minutes ago, MoNo said:

That's what I do, despite my interests in physics. I definitely don't "constantly check my battery". I charge before I go and when the battery becomes de-charged I notice, because the wheel becomes sluggish and slow. That an electric device needs to be charged to work properly, this everybody in this world knows from experience, I mean everybody who has a few hundred bugs to spend on an EUC.

The legislation will not accept terms like "sluggish and slow".  They need quantifiable values.

[Mono]

2 minutes ago, hyiu00 said:

The legislation will not accept terms like "sluggish and slow".  They need quantifiable values.

EUCs are legal in many countries already.

I was not aware that legislation is planing to deal with low battery status which obviously is inevitable to happen whatever the number of builtin redundancies might be. Please let me know what I was missing.

[hyiu00]

9 minutes ago, MoNo said:

EUCs are legal in many countries already.

I was not aware that legislation is planing to deal with low battery status which obviously is inevitable to happen whatever the number of builtin redundancies might be. Please let me know what I was missing.

Yes, if it is legal then it does not matter.  But just for those that are still not, I think it is a concern.  For me I just feel not safe to ride on something that I do not have full visibility of.  I think if I am in a hurry, and my wheel has on 10% juice and I have to go up a hill.  It should tell me whether it is safe to do so, I should not be the one to decide.

[RenaissanceMan]

9 hours ago, MoNo said:

None? Some would have been prevented by larger batteries, some by stronger motors. Or maybe the accidents would have even been worse with larger batteries and/or stronger motors? Not unlikely, actually. But I can't remember to have seen an accident which would have prevented by a redundant energy source, but I am happy to learn if I missed the report.

What about those cases where either the BMS or control board decided to give up for lack of energy, say when you overlean while accelerating or when hitting a bump? There an "emergency energy source" (does not have to be a second battery) on top of the primary battery would have come in handy. The normal operational limits would still have to be conservatively based on the primary battery only.

[cloudust]

10 hours ago, Tilmann said:

, especially for the car crazy German market: Partnerships with the all so dominant automotive industry! For many years, you can buy (over prized) Mercedes or BMW branded bicycles along with special car transport solutions. I could well imagine a VW or Audi branded EUC as a bundle option for their "eco friendly" cars (an image, that suffered a bit lately ). In terms of design, ninebot, inmotion or IPS are not that far away from qualifying for such an option. Add a convenient storage option and a safe charger to the car and - viola - you just improved the utility of that transport immensely, sell Merc-branded ninebots for 2.899 Euro and the image of EUCs will skyrock (and normal people will buy ninebot branded ninebots for 800 Euro, charge it at home and throw it in the trunk of the car they already have ). So much for pipe dreams - I bet 10:1 that Toyota or Mitsubishi will be first...sigh.

It is a good picture of the future. But I think kick e-scooter may be more likely to be built-in to the cars than EUC.

[Mono]

3 hours ago, RenaissanceMan said:

What about those cases where either the BMS or control board decided to give up for lack of energy, say when you overlean while accelerating or when hitting a bump? There an "emergency energy source" (does not have to be a second battery) on top of the primary battery would have come in handy. The normal operational limits would still have to be conservatively based on the primary battery only.

For this scenario I don't see any advantage of an "emergency energy source" over a larger battery, only disadvantages. 

Running out of energy and redundancy, which is meant for the case of one component unexpectedly failing, are two different things. However many secondary battery sources we have, they will eventually run out of juice. Whether it is the primary or the secondary battery, the controller always needs to adapt the available operating conditions, in particular max speed, to the available juice left. Under low battery I prefer a weak and slow wheel which can limp home to one that just turns off. 

A controller board that decides to give up (i.e. cut off) under high demand and low battery is just terribly bad design. On the other hand, it is hard to conceive a wheel one cannot outlean (even if it doesn't cut off) under any circumstances, irrespectively of redundancy. 

[RenaissanceMan]

6 hours ago, MoNo said:

For this scenario I don't see any advantage of an "emergency energy source" over a larger battery, only disadvantages. 

Running out of energy and redundancy, which is meant for the case of one component unexpectedly failing, are two different things. However many secondary battery sources we have, they will eventually run out of juice. Whether it is the primary or the secondary battery, the controller always needs to adapt the available operating conditions, in particular max speed, to the available juice left. Under low battery I prefer a weak and slow wheel which can limp home to one that just turns off. 

A controller board that decides to give up (i.e. cut off) under high demand and low battery is just terribly bad design. On the other hand, it is hard to conceive a wheel one cannot outlean (even if it doesn't cut off) under any circumstances, irrespectively of redundancy. 

You did not read my comment thoroughly .

I said " The normal operational limits would still have to be conservatively based on the primary battery only." which is a completely different scenario than what you describe.

[Mono]

26 minutes ago, RenaissanceMan said:

You did not read my comment thoroughly .

that's possible 

26 minutes ago, RenaissanceMan said:

I said " The normal operational limits would still have to be conservatively based on the primary battery only." which is a completely different scenario than what you describe.

My point was that this is equivalent with the single-but-larger-battery-scenario, where " The normal operational limits would still have to be conservatively based on 66% of the capacity of the only single battery." (assuming your secondary source gives 50% of your primary source which is 33% of the battery in this single-battery-scenario). On paper it doesn't make any difference unless the primary source actually fails unexpectedly. However to all I know, a single larger battery has more reserve than two batteries which are switched when the primary goes low.