Product Equilibrium Theory (PET)

[TigerhawkT3]

I just picked the name in the title because it sounded cool. It describes a little phenomenon I've noticed, which is as follows.

Have you ever watched successive releases of new versions in a product line? Oftentimes, they tend to move away from the intentions of the original version.

For example, the original Hummer (or HMMWV) is a monster, radiating pure, dominating power. However, the new "civilian" or "consumer" version, the H2, was slightly smaller and better suited to city driving. The H3 is smaller still.

Coming from the opposite end, take a look at the iPod Nano. The original hook, obviously, was its tiny size. Now, however, it has bulked up to the point where it has a nice little screen. Honda Civics do the same thing - the models from 10-20 years ago were tiny econoboxes, but the '06 model I drive is absolutely expansive.

This also happened, in a sort of way, to Fenix. Their old models were between $30-40 and quite simple. Now, the prices are twice that level and they're packed with features (with some exceptions, like the E0).

What do you think? Is it ultimately futile to design and market a product based on its extremes? Is it more forward-thinking to plan toward real-world intended use?

Also, is there already a name for this?

 

[jzmtl]

Hehe, it's just the american way of bigger is better. My parents just bought a 07 civic, it feels more spacious than their 94 camry. The 08 accord is even bigger, feels almost like a full size inside.

 

[jtr1962]

The problem with designing for the extremes is that you generally only cater to niche markets. I think that's why a lot of mass-produced products tend to gravitate towards some sort of equilibrium in the middle. Either features are removed because it's more than needed by most users, or features are added to expand the consumer base the product will appeal to. Software seems to be an interesting exception. It generally gravitates towards having as many features as the programmers can think of, probably because the marginal cost of adding complexity is close to zero. The same is starting to become true of integrated circuits. The same package can just as easily contain 100,000 gates as 10 for only slightly more marginal cost. For most "tangible" products however, added complexity comes in the form of extra parts (i.e, higher sales price), so the manufacturer seeks a balance between features and sales price. In some cases though the added complexity will expand the consumer base so much that the efficiencies of mass production may enable the cost of the more complex product in higher quantities to equal the less complex one in lower quantities. This may well be what happened with the iPod.

Small manufacturers/individuals can still profitably cater to niche markets on either end of the spectrum. I tend to look for such markets myself since they are too small to interest major players, yet can sometimes be worthwhile (especially true on the simple end of things). Of course, there are also niche markets where the end user wants something enormously complex which nobody is making, but still for the price of a similar mass-produced product. More often than not these markets just aren't worth it for anyone to cater to. The R&D to make something like an iPod just isn't worth it if you only can sell a few thousand.

 

[Lightraven]

Companies will change their products to make them more desirable, but if a name or brand has a strong positive association, they will keep using that name.

Some names go on and on--Mustang--while others don't--Volare. The latest product may have nothing in common with the original except the great name that everybody likes. I read that Wilkinson Sword is a desirable brand of razors because. . . well, it's a SWORD. For manly men to cut down stubble like a horde of Vikings!

With flashlights, Fenix is going after a higher market segment--possibly the police market which is the major market for high end flashlights. Of all the flashlight niche markets, the law enforcement niche seems to have the most expensive (and possibly the most profitable) models.

 

[270winchester]

the cars grow bigger as the target market ages, it's happened with Corollas, CR-Vs, Sentras, etc. The Rav-4 of today is huge compared to the original one, more comfortable for the aging loyal buyers who now may have a family, a dog, etc, no longer the bare-bone-car fan in search of more creature comfort.

the manufacturers just keep introducing new small cars to lure new young buyers(Yaris, Scion, the "Chevy" miniture car) the cycle continues.

 

[flashy bazook]

Good and interesting observation!

For cars, one factor in their getting bigger is the car reviewers, believe it or not. No car can have enough horse-power for most of these reviewers. It's 160, they say, well, it's a nice car and all but it would really do the job if it had 20-30 more.

Next iteration, the car tries to add power, but to the reviewers it's not enough. I've seen reviews complain about mid-size sedans with 250 horses.

And once you get on this path, it's like a kind of treadmill, cars compete with each other and there's always a bigger engine out there.

Of course this is not the only factor, cheap gasoline has contributed a lot. If you go to Europe, you may be surprised how small cars can be (especially in big cities where parking is also a problem). Here in the US, there was some trend toward smaller cars back in the 1970's, but it reversed itself. Politicians are also part of the explanation, since the CAFE standards have lagged.

Now, what does this analogy have to do with flashlights? Well, here, too, we all go on and on about max lumens and criticize those lights that don't offer at least a very powerful max lumen mode. So you get into the lumen arms race.

At least, in our case, we can get more lumens efficiently with better LED technology, whereas cars have a harder time doing it - although it's also true for cars that technology is getting better. In the end, the customer has chosen to get all that improvement in technology to show up in higher HP rather than higher "runtimes."