Product

Apple

Apple Health is great! A story:


My dad bought an Apple Watch a couple years ago, solely at his doc’s recommendation — to serve as heart monitor. 

Just couple month’s later, it alerted him that he was having an Afib attack (heart arrhythmia). This helped him to both (1) preempt a potential stroke and (2) identify an underlying issue which they fixed.


It’s awesome that this tech is available and friendly to non-internet-native consumers. Apple is awesome at this.

What if more product builders thought of likelihood-to-use as part of the technical specs themselves?

I mean this: 

A product can be techincally mind-blowing, but if it doesn't meet people at a place where they are at, the technology is functionally irrelevant (since the tech can not provide a benefit unless it is used).

Sometimes what makes something *actually* used – different than theoretically usable – is something entirely unrelated to the tech itself, and maybe even irrational... since it is we humans, after all, who are deciding.

building /bracket | hosting /greatbooks + /gray | ex-BCG, ex-PHD | poli + phil + econ

You're right, the most advanced technology means little if people don’t see a reason to use it in their daily lives. Bridging that gap between tech and real-world adoption is often overlooked. 
Do you think user research alone is enough to anticipate these adoption challenges, or does something else need to be built into the design process?