“反向创新“(Reverse innovation)不应和“逆向工程“(reverse engineering)混淆。以下我们将讨论它们的不同之处，以及像联发科(MediaTek)这样的公司如何善用它们来与诺基亚(Nokia)等对手竞争。
我们来看看”反向创新”和”逆向工程”的差异。
首先，我们要了解一些背景。
本月初，当我与中国无晶圆厂半导体公司瑞芯微(Rockchip)副总裁陈锋(Feng Chen)吃早餐时，他突然问我是否知道“80-3-2规则”。我从来没有听说过。
提到“80-3-2规则”是因为我们正在讨论全球媒体平板电脑市场。陈锋说，这是他的个人理论，不是瑞芯微的。他解释道：如果你设计一款系统(或芯片)，性能可与市场上80%最好的产品相比，并能以三分之一的价格供货，你就可以让你的系统(芯片)销售量呈倍数成长。
陈锋以媒体平板电脑市场为例指出，许多Android平板电脑的性能都比苹果(Apple) iPad略为逊色，但最终它们的销售量将超过 iPad 。
换句话说，就是不要过度设计。
具备可外包设计及更快产品周期等特色的Android阵营，为“80-3-2规则”的可行性提供了左证。该规则同时提供了如何让产品抵达消费者手中的机制。
Source：IHS iSupplirmEesmc
“80-3-2规则”是否真有意义？
上图说明了该理论的缺陷：苹果获得iPad产生的所有利润，而Android阵营的销售收入则由许多Android平板电脑和芯片供货商瓜分。所有这些包含在”80-3-2规则”范围内的企业都彼此激烈竞争，进一步降低了他们的利润。
因此，“80-3-2规则”本身虽然很简单，但看起来它无法持续。
陈锋的理论让我想起另一件事。《经济学人》(The Economist)曾刊登了一篇名为”节俭创新”(frugal innovation)的文章。该篇文章中提到了诸如通用电气(General Electric)和印度Tata Consultancy Services (TCS)等开发新型手持式心电图(GE)和水过滤器(TCS)的公司。
“与其开发更花俏的产品，他们选择回归基本，从”节俭创新”开始，有时这也被称为”反向创新”，”经济学人解释道。
本文授权编译自EE Times，版权所有，谢绝转载
本文下一页：如何进行反向创新工程
相关阅读：
• 模仿苹果就能获得成功吗？不见得
• 调查：用户吐槽对iPhone 5失望的N种理由
• 图文报道：IDF上的百变超极本和平板rmEesmc
{pagination}
如何进行反向创新工程
据《经济学人》文章所称，“节俭创新不只是重新设计产品，它还涉及到重新思考整个生产流程和商业模式。企业必须节省成本，以便让他们获得更多客户，赚取微薄的利润、冲高销售量......”
其中的某些论点可用来与陈锋的理论连接。他的“80-3-2规则”解决了一家公司如何找到一种在压缩成本情况下开发出产品的业务流程和方法，并获得上百万的新客户。
联发科已经从根本上改变了芯片产业，特别是智能手机和平板电脑领域。与联发科竞争的智能手机和平板电脑芯片供货商都不得不类似的“turnkey systems”，而不再仅提供参考设计。
技术的演进，特别是在电子产业，向来都是呈现单一面向的一维发展。这一切几乎都落在工程团队身上，包括如何让系统运作速度更快、可执行更多应用程序和功能，而且功耗还要降低。
rmEesmc
节俭式，或是反向、创新和“80-3-2规则”都表明，重新思考多维创新的时刻到了。
我想到了两个很好的例子，可以说明忽略反向创新会对一家公司造成多大影响。
过 去已经有很多文章谈到了手机制造商诺基亚的衰落。很多人将之归咎于诺基亚进入智能手机市场时间点太晚。但我不同意这个观点。诺基亚的失败，与其无法在该公司曾经主导的全球功能手机市场击败对手有关。你必须知道，诺基亚拥有极优良的产品，而且几乎都外包生产。但尽管如此，诺基亚并未注意到只要开发出”足够好”的产品，而且也没有开发出更多创新和更具想象力的产品。
这同样适用于日本液晶电视厂商，如夏普(Sharp)，该公司坚持建造大型工厂，以生产超薄、大尺寸LCD面板。夏普代表着日本制造业的最高“制造”水准，相当令人钦佩，但最终，这不过是浪费力气罢了。夏普的工作是制造电视，而不是创造艺术品。
中国公司不断重复尝试逆向工程，很可能很快就会在市场上推出他们别出心裁的反向创新成果。如果成功，他们就可以顺利赢得地球上至今仍常被忽视的“60亿人口”市场。
但在此同时，中国的竞争者们──特别是许多仍沉浸一维技术创新的公司们，仍将争先恐后地在拥有10亿消费者在已开发国家中激烈竞争。
本文授权编译自EE Times，版权所有，谢绝转载
编译： Joy Teng
参考原文：Yoshida in China: How Nokia failed, MediaTek won ，by Junko Yoshida
相关阅读：
• 模仿苹果就能获得成功吗？不见得
• 调查：用户吐槽对iPhone 5失望的N种理由
• 图文报道：IDF上的百变超极本和平板rmEesmc
{pagination}
Yoshida in China: How Nokia failed, MediaTek won
Junko Yoshida
"Reverse innovation" shouldn't be confused with "reverse engineering." Here's how they differ, and how companies like MediaTek used it to run circles around rivals like Nokia.
SHANGHAI – "Reverse innovation" should not be confused with “reverse engineering.” Let's examine the differences.
First, some context.
Earlier this month when I sat down for breakfast here with Feng Chen, vice president of China fabless company Rockchip, he abruptly asked if I knew the “80-3-2 rule.” I had never heard of it.
The subject came up as we were discussing the global media tablet market. Chen, who noted that this is his personal theory, not Rockchip’s, explained: If you design a system (or chip) with performance of at 80 percent compared to the best-in-class product on the market, and if you offer it at one-third the price, you can double the sales volume of your system (chip).
Chen used the media tablet market as an example. Many Android-based tablets with relatively less performance than Apple’s iPad, will eventually exceed sales of iPad in volume, he argued.
In other words, don’t over-engineer it.
Android, along with outsourcing and faster product turnarounds are the key elements that make the 80-3-2 rule possible. The rule also offers a mechanism for getting products in the hands of consumers.
Source: IHS iSuppli
Does the 80-3-2 rule make sense? Sort of.
The chart above illustrates the theory’s flaw: While Apple gets all the profits generated by the iPad, sales revenue for the Android camp is divvied up by many me-too Android tablet and chip suppliers. Presumably those companies, all subscribing to the 80-3-2 rule, are fiercely undercutting one another, further reducing their margins.
So, the 80-3-2 rule is simplicity itself, but it doesn’t look sustainable to me.
Chen’s theory reminded me of something else. The Economist carried a story about "frugal innovation." The article cited companies like General Electric and India’s Tata Consultancy Services (TCS) that developed new products like a hand-held electrocardiogram (by GE) and a water filter (TCS).
“Instead of adding ever more bells and whistles, they strip the products down to their bare essentials," embarking on “frugal innovation,” or as it is sometimes called, “reverse innovation,” the Economist explained.
How reverse innovation works
According to the Economist, "Frugal innovation is not just about redesigning products; it involves rethinking entire production processes and business models. Companies need to squeeze costs so they can reach more customers, and accept thin profit margins to gain volume...."
Therein are the dots we can use to connect to Chen’s theory. His 80-3-2 rule also addresses the issue of how a company finds a way to develop a product and a business process to squeeze costs, gain volume and reach millions of new customers.
(Full disclosure here. The Economist article was first pointed out to me by a U.K.-based engineering executive who works for Taiwan’s chip giant MediaTek. He was explaining how MediaTek’s recent success has a lot to do with "frugal innovation." MediaTek, virtually unknown 10 years ago, is now a power house with huge market share in the Chinese smartphone and media tablet markets.)
MediaTek has fundamentally changed the playbook for the chip industry here, especially for smartphones and tablets. More chip suppliers for smartphones and tablets who are competing with MediaTek are now expected to provide similar “turnkey systems” that MediaTek delivers, rather than just reference designs.
Technology development, especially in the electronics industry, has historically been one-dimensional. It all pretty much comes down to how your engineering team makes a system operate faster, run more apps and features, while consuming less power.
Frugal, or reverse, innovation and the 80-3-2 rule both suggest that it’s time to rethink innovation in more in multi-dimensional terms.
I can think of two good examples for how ignoring reverse innovation costs companies.
Much has been written about the decline of mobile phone maker Nokia. Many blame it on Nokia's late entry to the smartphone market. I disagree. Nokia’s failure is directly related to its inability to beat its competitors in the global feature phone market, where Nokia once dominated. Mind you, Nokia had quality products and production was outsourced. Still, Nokia neglected to develop a “good enough” product, and failed to develop a more innovative and imaginative process.
The same goes for Japanese LCD TV manufacturers like Sharp, which insisted on building a mega fab to handle ultra-thin, large LCD panels. Sharp's strategy, which raised Japanese manufacturing to the highest "craftsmanship-like" level, was admirable but, ultimately, wasted effort. Sharp’s job was manufacturing TVs, not developing works of art.
Chinese companies that are repeatedly bashed for their reverse engineering practices may soon surprise the world with their reverse innovation ingenuity. If successful, they could reach the neglected 6 billion people on the earth.
Meanwhile, China's competitors, still steeped in the one-dimensional technology innovation, will be scrambling to compete in the replacement market of 1 billion consumers in developed countries.
责编：Quentin
扫码分享到好友
