From the German IFA, Nail Technology has two experiences in the global consumer electronics market: First, Chinese brands are becoming more powerful, Huawei, Lenovo, Midea, Hisense, Skyworth, TCL and other brands have a strong sense of existence; second, disruptive technology Less innovation, mobile phones and home appliances are only iterating in accordance with the conventional path; third is the lack of conceptual frontier products, the giants seem to have left behind.
Regarding the last two points, nail technology analysis believes that it is also a normal phenomenon. On the one hand, whether it is home appliances or mobile phones, it has indeed entered an innovative bottleneck period, technically disruptive innovation is difficult to achieve; on the other hand, some The tech giants may not want to completely break the existing pattern at this stage. They are willing to maintain a stable market and release the existing technology dividends to subvert themselves.
The subversive technology mentioned above refers to the innovative technology that can be mass-produced. It is not a technology that is still in the laboratory stage or difficult to mass-produce.
Understand the above, it is possible to understand why a large number of new technologies in the mobile phone industry in recent years, such as dual-camera, screen fingerprint, full-screen, lift camera and other technologies, are not the benchmark for smart phones and the first application and scale application?
For cutting-edge technology, brands that are applied later will be more aggressive, while brands with larger volumes will be more conservative. However, this does not mean that the latter lacks innovation, in fact the industry is truly disruptive. Innovation often comes from the latter.
Brands with larger volumes are more cautious about the application of cutting-edge technology. One important reason is that they will consider whether the technology can be mass-produced and whether it will bring greater costs after mass production.
If a technology is not mature enough to be rushed to the production line, it will often bring two major hazards: First, the cost is too high, the product is difficult to be competitive in the market; Second, there are hidden dangers, and the product after-sales and corporate brand are both Bringing a great negative drag.
Therefore, the real giants often prefer to be late in the market development rhythm, and will not make market adventures for the sake of a 'starter'. This is one reason why Apple is still competitive in the face of the collective camp of the Android camp. Where.
Not only in the mobile phone industry, but also in the home appliance industry. For example, in the color TV industry, in the case that many brands have already released OLED TVs, Hisense has not launched OLED products.
In fact, logic is not difficult to understand. OLED is clearly a frontier technology, with many technical advantages, but in the early stage of development there are also many technical and mass production defects. For the previous Hisense, do not apply one The technology that is still in development is understandable.
With the gradual maturity of the OLED industry, especially the maturity of panel technology and the stability of production capacity, if Hisense decides to apply this technology at a certain time, it is also a normal business decision.
In fact, in terms of the color TV industry in the past five years, LCD is still the mainstream of the market, occupying more than 90% of the market share. Hisense is based on the current, iterative LCD technology, and ULED is a more pragmatic move. This product technology strategy is successful. After all, it has ranked first in the Chinese color TV market for 14 consecutive years, and the global market can also rank in the top three.
Of course, as a color TV giant, Hisense is not the willingness and ability to have no disruptive innovation. In Hisense's view, OLED will be an option for the high-end market, but OLED technology cannot be regarded as a disruptive technology in the color TV industry. The real disruptive technology is Laser TV.
Whether it is LCD or OLED TV, its form is screened, and it needs to rely heavily on panel technology and related enterprises. This is also the key reason why Japanese and Korean brands have long dominated the color TV industry.
William H. Daviedo, vice president of Intel, once proposed a 'Davido's Law on Innovation: A company must always be the dominant player in the market, so it is the first to develop a new generation of products. The first to eliminate their existing products.
Although Hisense is the winner of screen TV, he hopes to be the terminator of screen TV, no longer rely on upstream panel companies, breaking the industrial control of Japanese and Korean companies, and taking the fate in their hands. This shows the leading enterprises. Responsibility and sense of crisis.
With the efforts of Hisense, the screenless laser TV has realized the independent control of technology and mass production, from 80 inches to 150 inches, from 4K high quality to AI artificial intelligence, laser TV can be easily realized.
In the case of immature OLEDs, while optimizing the liquid crystal market for the stock market, and laying out the laser to seize the future market, Hisense's development strategy is very clear and effective, and doing OLEDs will not affect Hisense's established development strategy.
Apple has not been making a large-size iPhone for a long time, but with the maturity of the market and screen technology, the size of the iPhone is getting bigger and bigger, but this does not affect Apple's absolute king of the smartphone industry. Similar cases In fact, there are still many, and the next generation of products that truly have disruptive innovations, the author is still optimistic about Apple.
In summary, accurately understand what exactly is a subversive technology, and accurately assess the pros and cons of applying a cutting-edge technology. This is the premise for mobile home appliance companies to adopt a correct development strategy, and also whether we evaluate whether a corporate development strategy is scientific. premise.