Tl;dr: I began pursuing an idea based on research into adding value into an existing type of product. Turns out products similar to my idea have all failed. Did they fail because they didn't deliver on their purpose or because there was no real need?
Since reading Unscripted and TMF , I've been trying to tune myself into noticing and investigating pain points that could be value skewed. One of the first that caught my interest was on the topic of making sure my plants were properly watered. Perhaps like many people, I enjoy looking at my houseplants more than I enjoy actually remembering to take care of them.
After some research, I found that most $10-$15 soil moisture sensors on Amazon are the same $2 Alibaba galvanic-based batteryless "3-in-1" type, which aren't accurate, damages roots, and can't be left in the soil long before corroding. I did some research on a few different methods of determining moisture in soil and I was fairly confident I could design and build a device that would perform better. Such a device could be left in the soil indefinitely and measure moisture more accurately, as well as possibly track trends such as drainage and suggest optimal watering times. As I was working out how best to alert the user to dry soil (tricky given a limited energy budget), I discovered the "trifecta of failed smart garden products"!
It seems that these kinds of products were a fad in 2015ish that has since died off, along with the companies that built them. In terms of value added, my design ideas up to this point was average overall, compared to the failed solutions. This alone wouldn't be so much of a problem - I could probably find technical areas to add more value into. However this sentence in the article was a bit scary:
"Avid gardeners likely didn't need a reminder to water, an none of the options offered enough data for research purposes... the category still banked on those who didn't care enough to water on their own investing $100 on tech that didn't actively fix the problem".
The implication, at least as I interpreted it, was that the products failed not because they didn't operate in the way they were designed to, but instead because they weren't addressing a real need.
I'm working on changing my natural mindset from "this sounds like a cool hobby project to build" to "this sounds like a viable business opportunity to pursue". I don't want to give up on this idea too early, but I'm worried that I've been inventing a need in my head to justify building this cool-sounding project, and would appreciate an outside perspective on the situation. Thanks!
Since reading Unscripted and TMF , I've been trying to tune myself into noticing and investigating pain points that could be value skewed. One of the first that caught my interest was on the topic of making sure my plants were properly watered. Perhaps like many people, I enjoy looking at my houseplants more than I enjoy actually remembering to take care of them.
After some research, I found that most $10-$15 soil moisture sensors on Amazon are the same $2 Alibaba galvanic-based batteryless "3-in-1" type, which aren't accurate, damages roots, and can't be left in the soil long before corroding. I did some research on a few different methods of determining moisture in soil and I was fairly confident I could design and build a device that would perform better. Such a device could be left in the soil indefinitely and measure moisture more accurately, as well as possibly track trends such as drainage and suggest optimal watering times. As I was working out how best to alert the user to dry soil (tricky given a limited energy budget), I discovered the "trifecta of failed smart garden products"!
It seems that these kinds of products were a fad in 2015ish that has since died off, along with the companies that built them. In terms of value added, my design ideas up to this point was average overall, compared to the failed solutions. This alone wouldn't be so much of a problem - I could probably find technical areas to add more value into. However this sentence in the article was a bit scary:
"Avid gardeners likely didn't need a reminder to water, an none of the options offered enough data for research purposes... the category still banked on those who didn't care enough to water on their own investing $100 on tech that didn't actively fix the problem".
The implication, at least as I interpreted it, was that the products failed not because they didn't operate in the way they were designed to, but instead because they weren't addressing a real need.
I'm working on changing my natural mindset from "this sounds like a cool hobby project to build" to "this sounds like a viable business opportunity to pursue". I don't want to give up on this idea too early, but I'm worried that I've been inventing a need in my head to justify building this cool-sounding project, and would appreciate an outside perspective on the situation. Thanks!
Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum:
Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.