Go homepage(回首页)
Upload pictures (上传图片)
Write articles (发文字帖)

The author:(作者)qq
published in(发表于) 2015/6/8 8:46:47
Millet bracelets： I’m ugly， but I’m pretty hot

No matter how you ridicule Millets, its products also are sold a lot. Millet whether you like it or not, there are always so many people consciously or unconsciously became advocates of millet. This understanding was I went back to school to see Spring Festival still using Nokia features clearly felt the teacher. She said to me: "a lot of people say rice is very good, I also want a better phone. "Obviously, whatever you think of millet products are good, but always one millet is full of expectation.

Now, not only is the phone, when millet was fired as "national mobile phone" brand when bracelets made with millet millet became the world's second-largest manufacturer of wearable device. According to the latest IDC data (below) shows that millet used less than a year into a wearable device for second, ranking ahead of Samsung has launched six new wearable device, second only to begin as early as 2009 layout you can wear the Fitbit. Worth noting is that this report does not make Apple Watch statistics.

Why do so many people unwittingly buying the millet bracelet?

First as a is not consciously bought millet bracelet user, my experience in a few months, does not think of millet bracelet is stronger than other products. Even so to speak, millet Bracelet Craft, appearance, features are missed the Fitbit, Samsung Gear and other high-end products. Millet bracelet when main equipment always wear, was squeezed out from the bracelet. Unfortunately, squeeze out, plug in, crowding out, insert after repeatedly on, millet hand operating module is by me in one place. So why millet bracelet will sell so well? Want to answer this question, you want to look at the overall development of the wearable device industry.

For now, wearable device industry recognition is not high for the average consumer. And many manufacturers scrambled for wearable devices, consumers almost enthusiastic. Clearly, smart watches/bracelets/glasses/headphones and other equipment, and did not let the users feel they have to buy. In other words, from wearable device users "don't buy" products.

"Don't buy" usually is now a new field of bud (of course, or it may be they have no future products). User does not have the urge to rush to buy, manufacturers did not take the core functions of an absolutely convincing. In this case, user-enough to buy the products on the order of evaluation standards have changed. When a product becomes "just needed", the user purchasing criteria is this: function > prices > brand. Buying a cell phone, when users in the selection of phones, will first of all consider what features you most want to be, then the prices, and finally is the brand. For a women like self, she is likely to choose beauty cell phones. Beauty cell phones known as strong facial features and publicity targeting, exactly fit her needs. But whether she can meet the need, or to buy used to realize in her.

When a user browses an "optional" product, and because the impulse purchase, exactly the opposite happened to the standard order of rank: price > brands > function. Especially when you present a smart bracelet features pretty much the same, tricking a user into deciding factor is obviously the price. Spent the least amount of money to buy an optional products are the most important. Secondly, the user does not understand when in a new field, brand awareness is very important. In determining several bracelets and millet candidate products for the same price, phone brand began to take effect. Millet tried to become "value for money" synonymous with behavior, became the overwhelming psychological defenses the last straw of the users.

It would appear that the millet bracelet with a low price and promotion of the brand image, makes millet bracelet stand out from the "head".

Smart value is not independent of the bracelet, supporting more easily recognized

Galaxy Gear, Apple Watch and other product launch when, many people choose to badmouth a reason that these wearable devices do not have the independence, so it is not attractive enough to allow users to purchase. But in my opinion, wearable devices, especially wearing bracelets or watches in hand, their true value is not functional, operational independence.

First, the functional overlapping and non-independence is not necessary to prove that a product is there. If compared to smartphones in the hands of PC, desktop and notebook are there are a lot of duplicate in functionality, and some tasks that need to be synchronized to your computer more easily. But now users of smartphones, and has shown the value of this in your hand on the computer.

Secondly, especially the wearable device worn on the wrist, their greatest value is to become the future of human life "helpers". If, as some analysts put it, watch complete replacement for mobile phones, even if Apple found a better way to small screen interaction, or it may be of little value. Smart core value bracelets, for now, is about to become the next networking, data collection and identification of human intelligent life.

As a smart bracelet more easily than the mobile phone close to the body, with the development of sensor technology, more physical and emotional data collected, these data will form the basis of intelligent life conditions. Rely on the bracelet, uses artificial intelligence to analyze the data collected, you can provide a more intelligent service, a better life experience. Secondly, the bracelet also became as a user authentication mechanism. Using a ring to unlock the phone, open smart home became so far the most convenient way.

Therefore, the smart bracelet war who is most likely to be successful?

In a Word, delusion only win by virtue of bracelet product manufacturers will be cannon fodder. The reason is very simple, "remote control" everyone can do it, but not all products can let you "remote control" to "remote". Systems, hardware, terminals, standard, as these three at least master can occupy a favorable terrain in a wearable device wars.

For now, Apple, Google has mastered the system level, Samsung has a traditional hardware terminals (furniture) advantage, Qualcomm began trying to become Internet standards-setters. So, you see lately, whether it is "absolutely do not sell fake" e-commerce giants, or "Lottery entry" seizure of giants, or sale of copyrighted video "chips net", are clamoring to do ecological. Obviously, only mastered the chain or a ring, many of the points to make your layout before, is this whole throughout the chain, value.

Wearable device market needs to develop. Success of a new product, is the extent to which it can affect people's lives, ways of working. And that, not only does a hardware product can achieve.

赞