I would like to follow up on the discussion paying more fore less functionality. Hallberg posted a discussion post on this and gave two statements I would like to comment on.
First quote: “The more you pay the more you get”
Second quote: “being prepared to pay more to actually get less”
I found both of this interesting and important to discuss when questioning what happens with NoPhone. I think there’s one thing we’re missing when concerning NoPhone as products with less functionality. I would like to separate functionality and customer value. Maybe we shouldn’t observe just the functionality of NoPhone when analyzing the product but rather speak in terms of customer value.
The customers pay for the value the product can create for them, and this is not always directly translated with functionality. Often when we talk about technology we regard more functionality as more value. This is not the situation with NoPhone. With NoPhone you pay for simplicity, not just for having fewer functions. In this case, fewer functions is directly related to simplicity but it doesn’t mean the targeted customers get less from the product.
The value of simplicity for customers like elderly overrules having fewer functions. Also, elderly may sometimes not appreciate the value of all those other functions, they just want to call their family easy. That is what NoPhone offers better than competitors.
So by this I mean that they are not per definition paying more and get less. Maybe this can clear out some questions on the subject. But then I wonder, can we see a trend in what customers value on the electronic market?