Looking at these three products, I think the interesting thing is that they weren’t necessarily bad ideas. The companies just seemed to assume that because their products were innovative, people would actually want to use them. I think some pretty simple tests could have saved them a lot of money.
1. Quibi
We believe: People are willing to pay $5 a month to watch short videos on their phones when platforms like YouTube and TikTok are free.
To verify, we will: Create a landing page showing trailers for upcoming shows and ask people to sign up for a $5 subscription.
And measure: How many people actually pay instead of just clicking around.
We are right if: At least 50 out of 1,000 visitors subscribe.
2. Humane AI Pin
We believe: People would prefer using a wearable AI assistant over their phones for everyday tasks.
To verify, we will: Give 15 people a basic prototype connected to their phones and let them use it for a week.
And measure: How often they choose the AI Pin over their phones.
We are right if: They use the prototype for at least 60% of tasks it can handle.
3. Juicero
We believe: People are willing to spend $400 on a machine to squeeze juice packs instead of squeezing them by hand.
To verify, we will: Show 20 people both ways of squeezing the juice and then offer them the option to preorder the machine.
And measure: How many actually place a preorder.
We are right if: At least 5 out of 20 people preorder.
I think Juicero is the funniest example because imagine spending $400 on something you could literally do with your hands. But all three show why testing assumptions matters. Just because something sounds cool or solves a problem doesn’t mean people are willing to pay for it.
