The facebook phone was a handheld device meant primarily for using Facebook.
As I hear the chatter in tech circles about the Rabbit R1, I can’t help but see parallels to the Facebook and Fire phones.
The Rabbit R1 founder tries to articulate the problem they are trying to solve.
So, why is the Rabbit R1 trying to solve a problem that nobody has in the first place?
To summarize, I think Rabbit R1 will serve as a cautionary tale of the pitfalls of prioritizing novelty over utility in technology.
By Saurabh Gupta
Remember the Facebook phone? Let me refresh your memory. The facebook phone was a handheld device meant primarily for using Facebook. Sounds bizarre right? Back in 2013, facebook thought that this was a great idea. However, the question users asked themselves was: why should I buy this hardware when I already have access to the facebook app on my regular phone? Obviously the Facebook phone was a disaster and bombed big time. Amazon’s Fire phone was a similar failure. Its primary objective was to encourage people to shop more on Amazon. Both devices failed as a result of not being able to answer one fundamental question: what problem does this device solve for me? Looking back at these two examples would probably make you think, how could the really smart people at Facebook and Amazon launch these whimsical products. It should have been obvious to them that these devices offer no additional value whatsoever to the end user. Actually these type of failures happens more often than you might think. The tech landscape with its “move fast and break things” mindset has a long list of failed products some of which defy common sense.
As I hear the chatter in tech circles about the Rabbit R1, I can’t help but see parallels to the Facebook and Fire phones. The AI nerds and tech geeks will hate me for saying this but from my UX vantage point, I believe that history is about to repeat itself and Rabbit R1 is going to join the tech disasters hall of fame soon. Before I get into why I think that will happen, for those of you who haven’t heard of it already, let me take a stab at explaining what Rabbit R1 is or at least what I think it is, as simply as I can.
Also Read Retik Finance price prediction 2024-2030: How much can RETIK grow? Best crypto leaders worldwide making cryptocurrency mainstream Securing the future: A deep dive into cybersecurity and transformative potential of Gen AI From code to conduct: The role of regulation in responsible AI development
The Rabbit R1 is a handheld generative AI device, similar in size and shape to a phone. It has a small touch screen and a button, which needs to be pushed to give voice commands to the device. It can answer questions (just like ChatGPT) but unlike ChatGPT it can also play music, book a cab, order food, etc, provided you link R1 to the various services you use on your phone. That’s mostly it. Now, let’s peel back the layers of fancy technology and slick copy generously sprinkled with generative AI lingo, and do a UX sanity check.
The Rabbit R1 founder tries to articulate the problem they are trying to solve. According to him: “People have too many apps on their phone, navigating through so many apps is cumbersome and confusing. So we must move away from apps”. Yes, people have a lot of apps on their phone but people use only 20% of these apps 80% of the times. More importantly, using these 20% apps is not a problem for users. Most of the established apps have really simplified their UX and provide an easy and intuitive experience. Users don’t have any trouble tapping a few times to book a cab, order food or play music. Also, most people are so used to performing these daily tasks on their phone that navigating these app interfaces has become muscle memory. So, why is the Rabbit R1 trying to solve a problem that nobody has in the first place?
Even if I was convinced of the merits of doing everything from one place instead of going to different apps, why should I talk, when I can tap the screen? Tapping on a screen offers a discreet and efficient means of interaction. Voice commands, on the other hand, necessitate vocalization, which can be intrusive and cumbersome in certain contexts. For most people, the simplicity of tapping on a screen will far outweigh the effort of articulating commands aloud.
The R1 is being positioned as a companion device, not a replacement for smartphones. However, in a world where most people are already tethered to their phones, what is the compelling use case for carrying an additional AI device in my pocket? R1 would have been much better off being an app than a piece of hardware. The LAM (Large Action Model) developed by them definitely has potential and does seem to be a more powerful gen AI tool than the likes of ChatGPT especially in its ability to perform actions. In my opinion, Rabbit could have focused on optimizing the software user experience, thereby reaching a broader audience instead of trying to navigate the complexities of hardware production. Seems to me that R1’s foray into hardware may be more of a publicity stunt than a strategic endeavour.
To summarize, I think Rabbit R1 will serve as a cautionary tale of the pitfalls of prioritizing novelty over utility in technology. While the allure of voice-controlled AI tools (aka Jarvis in Iron Man) is undeniable, success hinges on addressing genuine user needs and seamlessly integrating into existing ecosystems. Ultimately, the true measure of success lies not in generating hype but in enriching users’ lives through intuitive and impactful solutions.
The author is co-founder, ZEUX Innovation
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn
