Why Most Smart Gadgets Fail: The Real Need for Pain Points and Frequency

Many products miss the mark because they address pseudo‑demand rather than real user pain points; the author stresses that a product’s biggest limitation is not poor experience, which can be improved, but the lack of a genuine need.

The next trend is the Internet of Things (IoT), turning physical devices into smart, cloud‑connected objects that collect data, make decisions, and feed results back to the cloud for further analysis.

Using a “smart mouse trap” as an example, the author describes a device with many functions—remote control via phone, electric kill, loud noise—but points out that it still requires a mouse to be placed inside, which is not a real need for most users.

The piece repeatedly emphasizes that experience is secondary to finding a user’s core need (pain point) and ensuring the solution is used frequently enough to retain users.

Other examples of pseudo‑demand include a smart water cup that tracks drinking habits and a virtual girlfriend that reminds you to drink water—both solving problems that users don’t actually have.

The author differentiates between “pain points” (high‑frequency, essential needs) and “itch points” (low‑frequency or optional features). A successful product must target a medium‑or‑higher frequency pain point that users cannot live without.

Illustrating with Xiaomi, the author notes that the company succeeded by first solving the most essential need—an affordable, high‑frequency smartphone—before expanding into accessories like power banks and smart plugs.

The key takeaway is that adding countless features to a product that does not address a real, frequent pain point is futile; product strategy should start from the user’s perspective, identify a genuine need, and then focus on delivering a simple, high‑frequency solution.