The Ryno: Why two wheels when you need just one?(solidsmack.com) |
The Ryno: Why two wheels when you need just one?(solidsmack.com) |
The Ryno isn't even a Segway competitor. You might make the bold claim that it would be a motorcycle killer, but even then... I mean, it's a one-wheeled motorcycle. Let's be practical here: the Ryno goes 20mph with a 20 mile range, can't be used on sidewalks or pedestrian areas, and only really exists to draw attention. It's not competing with the Segway, it's not competing with motorcycles, it's barely competing with scooters or bicycles. Hype it up because it looks interesting and has some neat tech, but don't make the claim that it will revolutionize transport just because it can stand up on its own.
Clearly this is a motorized unicycle being marketed, through pictures of tough and hip looking riders with leather jackets, to motorcycle enthusiasts who are also wealthy and interested in high tech gizmos. It's a very different marketing approach from the green and easy approach that Segway attempted. Distancing themselves from the Segway market segment rather than trying to "take it over" might be a better approach.
Problem is, bikes aren't cool.
A better comparision IMO is to the mini-farthing YikeBike (www.yikebike.com), but I don't think that product has set the market on fire either
Also, the Segway was always pitched as a _walking_ replacement, not a _driving_ replacement.
http://www.paulgraham.com/segway.html
"So there may be a way to capture more of the market Segway hoped to reach: make a version that doesn't look so easy for the rider. It would also be helpful if the styling was in the tradition of skateboards or bicycles rather than medical devices."
The problem with the Segway was and is that it felt like an answer to a question no one had asked. We might still see a lot of Segways - or their equivalent.
Take my money already!
ps: Couldn't open the link by OP - maybe there is one. (seems down)
I guess the Ryno looks interesting, although I failed to find the price (or availability information). I'm not at all sure about all the revolutionary talk, that sounds a bit too much like the pre-Segway hype with talk about how city planners will adopt this, and how it will help get people do more face-to-face communication.
That would work if it were an energy drink - but this thing will be in traffic, which really is a major cause of death.
I mean it doesn't exactly say stability and easy of riding, does it? (Which are the main reasons that people who aren't being gimmicky don't choose unicycles over bicycles.)
With a name like this it would attract a suicidal/desperado crowd, which usually doesn't invest in its future long enough to have much money at any one time. (i.e. you can't target early adopters at a premium price with this naming/branding, which is usually the key to marketing something like this successfully and getting it adopted widely as you learn how to make it better and roll out on scale.)
I would change the name.
I mean, it won't appeal to the sort that will buy something that only goes 20mph, but you just wrote the advertising campaign for the thing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1YoCfm7nxU&t=4m0s
It's a great tagline - if you're 15-19. Who wouldn't want to show their daring trying to ride a Ryno!
Answer: any of the people that would be actual early adopter buyers for this expensive new product. (Middle aged rich people.) Segway did it a lot better here, and Ryno needs to do like them.
Dean Kamen was looking for a way to give those who were chair bound the ability to 'be taller' so they could reach items on shelves. It also allowed the user to go up and down stairs and even the ability to go over sand, if I recall. It seemed like it was on the path to allowing those with disabilities the ability to gain some freedom back. Sadly, and probably due to the cost of the chair, it looks like they are no longer being produced.
1. Gee-whiz technology, with non-trivial downsides, that could be obviated with a third wheel. [1]
2. Everyone-will-want-one marketing for a device with deal-breaker-level problems that are trivial to identify. [2]
The Segway was pitched as solving a problem that was clear and known: bicycles are great, but they're only appropriate and convenient for a certain range of riders and situations. And, in short, the Segway just doesn't present a better solution for most of those situations or riders.
[1] You mention people taking assisted tours. But how much larger would even that market be, if it included people who could stand, but couldn't risk going over the handlebars while learning to ride?
[2] A device of most interest in relatively population-dense settings that not only has no solution to, but actually amplifies the problems of a bicycle? e.g. stairs, parking. (by being massively more expensive and heavier)
It wouldn't be significantly larger. The vast majority of people taking those tours aren't disabled, they're just looking for an easy way to do things. There aren't that many people who can stand but can't operate a segway and they're significantly dwarfed by the number of folks who can operate a segway.
Then again, I take segway tours whenever I can. What experience do you have with this market?
Now, put an electric engine and a joystick on a La-Z-boy and you got a winner.
You're just living in an uncool place.
I think this is where we're disagreeing. I've met plenty of people who can stand, but couldn't handle a walking tour and simply cannot take the risk of a spill from a bicycle, Segway or scooter.
And while they're definitely dwarfed by people who can use a Segway, I believe they make up a significant fraction of those people for whom an electronically-assisted, yet-more-stable tour holds a natural appeal over a bicycle, walk, or scooter tour.
Like I wrote, I've been on lots of Segway tours. Almost everyone on them is physically capable of doing walking, biking, or scooter tours, yet they do Segway tours. (In fact, I've seen those same people doing other kinds of tours as well.)
Your entire argument for assumes otherwise. What's your supporting evidence?
It's like we're both standing at an amusement park and we're looking at an electric go-kart racing ride.
I'm suggesting the general concept, an electric mini-car, holds a natural appeal for a different market. A market for whom a relatively quick and nimble electric mini-car would be great, and for more than just racing their friends in circles.
So I'm suggesting it's odd that one would create a company to deliver electric mini-cars but stick to the racing go-kart form-factor to the exclusion of, really, any other market where the general technology is appealing, but the existing form factor is inappropriate.
And you're replying that this other market doesn't exist, because you've done a lot of go-kart racing and you've only seen fit people in line. And they get in line, even though they could hold a bicycle or foot race. So why would I think anyone else is interested?
And do see how the motivations of fit people choosing go-kart racing are wholly irrelevant to my hypothesis? Even if I'm right, the mini-cars I'm talking about likely wouldn't ever replace the existing karts for racing. Even if the older and moderately disabled folks use their devices for racing amongst themselves, that has no necessary bearing on what other people would prefer.
I'm talking about something wholly different.
And all I have is anecdotal evidence that the market exists. 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'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.
Do you have any specific examples like that from BMW and HD? This wuold be like, I don't know, calling a plane "freefall". Sure there's a danger mystique - but should that be in the name?
The Ryno, on the other hand, has no such statistics. For all I know, it's as safe as a segwey. And, if the problem they are trying to overcome is the nerd factor of the segway, and if, in fact, it isn't dangerous (I have no idea) then I think making the name sound a bit more dangerous might make sense, in the same way that putting a HD logo and some 'iron cross' accessories on a pickup makes it easier to sell.
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.
