Inspired by Parasites

There are many instances in which an industry has arisen to solve customer experience problems with a product.  The original manufacturers consider these firms to be parasites, but it is actually their own negligence that created an opportunity for other firms.  What’s surprising is that it does not serve as a wake-up call to the manufacturers of deficient products.

Consider the software industry, for example.   Computer manufacturers produce a device that doesn’t do anything useful on its own because it requires programs to be written.   The original manufacturers left it to users to create their own software, which was asking too much: and so, the software industry arose in order to provide the value that customers needed.  And today, software firms are far more numerous and profitable than computer manufacturers.

Even Apple, which is hailed as a paragon of user experience, has made a number of very obvious failures with its iPhone device.   In addition to failing to provide software so that their device delivers value to users, it also made (and continues to make) some fundamental mistakes with the device itself.   The iPhone’s screen was easily scratched, so other firms created a simple solution (a small piece of clear plastic film).  The device itself is very fragile, so other firms created protective cases.   Had Apple made its device sufficiently useful and durable, there would have been no need for these other firms to step in to provide solutions – and Apple itself would have retained the revenue that these other firms have won.

There can be little argument that the need for other firms to customize and accessorize a product means that the original manufacturer failed to consider the needs of its users.   Perhaps in some instances it can be justified as risk mitigation – if a firm doesn’t know what its users want, it can allow other firms to attempt to solve the problems and take on the risk that their solutions will not be desirable to the market.   But when parasitic firms draw large markets and reap significant profits, it should be clear to the original manufacturer that their product is not delivering the value users desire.

Sometimes, manufacturers do make amends – but this tends to be rare.  Of the three problems with the iPhone (and there may be many more), Apple has chosen to address the most negligible and least profitable: it has improved the screen to make it more scratch resistant.  It seems rather callow and uninspired, given that this was the least profitable problem to address – the firms that made the small sheet of clear plastic to address this problem are far less profitable than manufacturers of cases and software.

And so rather than viewing the customization/accessories firms as unwanted parasites, manufacturers should be grateful to them for saving a flawed product, and perhaps inspired by them to make their own products more useful.   For example, consider the way in which Microsoft handles its parasites: they recognize the value that software enhancements provide to user, and their approach is to buy out their parasites and include the functionality in the next version upgrade.