New York Times had an article on The Risk of Innovation: Will Anyone Embrace It?. Overall, I think the article made some excellent points on how people embrace or resist innovations. It is a great read for people who try to sell new technology solutions to the general public.

However, I think the primary example used in the article was all wrong: The article talks about how the controls in Toyota Prius are un-intuitive (e.g., tap twice to start the car), and customers embrace the inconvenience anyway since Prius represents the kind of “green” innovation people want to be part of. Well, as a Prius owner, I can tell you that the “un-conventional” control is exactly what prompted me to buy a Prius. If I want conventional controls, I would have bought a Camery Hybrid or a Civic Hybrid — neither of those hybrids are sold nearly as hot as the Prius. Why?

The Prius has a rather large price premium over a comparable Corolla. Even with gas price at $3 per gallon, it still makes little economic sense to buy a Prius over a Corolla. The Prius is a “statement car” or a “fashion car”. People buy it for the same reason they pay extra for a low end luxury car. It is hence essential for Toyota to distinguish the Prius from the Corolla — to make people feel that they are driving a totally different car, not only in gas milage but also in “look and feel.” I think the “feel” of an “futuristic” car is what made a lot people forking over the extra cash.

The “usability barrier” here accelerates the adoption of innovation rather than impeding it. I think this is lesson we could also learn in designing a consumer mobile application. :)