Innovation Challenges in Tech

I've watched 3 "revolutionary" healthcare technologies fail spectacularly. Each time, the technology was perfect. The implementation was disastrous. Google Health (shut down twice). Microsoft HealthVault (lasted 12 years, then folded). IBM Watson for Oncology (massively overpromised). Billions invested. Solid technology. Total failure. Not because the vision was wrong, but because healthcare adoption follows different rules than consumer tech. Here's what I learned building healthcare tech for 15 years: 1/ Healthcare moves at the speed of trust, not innovation ↳ Lives are at stake, so skepticism is protective ↳ Regulatory approval takes years usually for good reason ↳ Doctors need extensive validation before adoption ↳ Patients want proven solutions, not beta testing 2/ Integration trumps innovation every time ↳ The best tool that no one uses is worthless ↳ Workflow integration matters more than features ↳ EMR compatibility determines adoption rates ↳ Training time is always underestimated 3/ The "cool factor" doesn't predict success ↳ Flashy demos rarely translate to daily use ↳ Simple solutions often outperform complex ones ↳ User interface design beats artificial intelligence ↳ Reliability matters more than cutting-edge features 4/ Reimbursement determines everything ↳ No CPT code = no sustainable business model ↳ Insurance coverage drives provider adoption ↳ Value-based care is changing this slowly ↳ Free trials don't create lasting change 5/ Clinical champions make or break technology ↳ One enthusiastic doctor can drive adoption ↳ Early adopters must see immediate benefits ↳ Word-of-mouth beats marketing every time ↳ Resistance from key stakeholders kills innovations The pattern I've seen: companies build technology for the healthcare system they wish existed, not the one that actually exists. They optimize for TechCrunch headlines instead of clinic workflows. They design for Silicon Valley investors instead of 65-year-old physicians. A successful healthcare technology I've implemented? A simple visit summarization app that saved me time and let me focus on the patient. No fancy interface, very lightweight, integrated into my clinical workflow, effortless to use. Just solved an problem that users had. Healthcare doesn't need more revolutionary technology. It needs evolutionary technology that works within existing systems. ⁉️ What's the simplest technology that's made the biggest difference in your healthcare experience? Sometimes basic beats brilliant. ♻️ Repost if you believe implementation beats innovation in healthcare 👉 Follow me (Reza Hosseini Ghomi, MD, MSE) for realistic perspectives on healthcare technology

💡⚡The Billion Dollar Mistake: Paradox of Expertise 💡⚡ Having invested in over 100 companies, I’ve had plenty of learnings. Some of them, the hard way. In my experience, too often, industry experts, with heaps of know-how, can inadvertently miss out on ground-breaking opportunities. The irony? When you know too much, you might find yourself trapped in a certain mindset. Hence, investors who reference industry experts too closely in their decision making, risk trapping themselves in tradition. ✨Disruptive innovation, the force that propels startups often into unicorn status, usually comes from the outside. As Super Founders author Ali Tamaseb has found, around 70% of unicorn founders (outside of healthcare and biotech) lack directly relevant work experience in the industries they revolutionise. Think Pinterest, LinkedIn, Airbnb, the list goes on – game-changers led by minds unburdened by industry orthodoxy. Investors who cling too tightly to expertise risk dismissing disruptive potential. Imagine a world where Airbnb was shrugged off as just another lodging idea or Uber deemed too ambitious. ✍ The lesson here is clear: innovation thrives when minds are open, unencumbered by the constraints of industry dogma. So, my lesson learnt, on both sides of the table and therefore advice to both investors and founders: Embrace the paradox. Don't be blinded by expertise; be open to the unexpected. The next billion-dollar idea might just be brewing where the experts least expect it. 💡  #Innovation #StartupMindset #DisruptiveThinking

I used to own one of these (Microsoft Lumia Phone) But why don't we see enough of them around anymore? Windows phones were soo ahead of their time, I remember how beautiful the one that I had was and how it used to be a flex to own a Windows phone But, staring at a beautiful phone for too long can become boring if there are no apps for it - From the perspective of app development, windows phones were too late as the apps were already built for Android and iOS - For example, Instagram and YouTube took 3 years to arrive on the platform. So what user would buy a phone with practically fewer to no apps in it? -Microsoft attempted to facilitate Android app ports, but conflicts with Google hindered the progress - Poor sales and disagreements with hardware partners led to the discontinuation of Microsoft's mobile division partnership - The acquisition of Nokia's mobile division for $7.2 Billion did not improve the situation There were a lot of fundamental disagreements between the two companies. - Microsoft wanted to take completely on iPhone - Nokia wanted to target growing markets like India - Satya Nadella, the new Microsoft CEO in 2015, recognized the loss-making business and shifted focus away from phones - Subsequently, many employees were laid off from the Windows phone division - Updates became more unstable, and in 2017, Microsoft decided to shut down Windows phone production, marking the end of the venture In the end, Windows phones serve as a reminder of a beautiful tech failure. :) Aryan

We've all been there - that amazing product idea that seems like a can't-miss hit. But far too often, those game-changing inventions end up failing spectacularly because of one critical oversight: not actually understanding user needs. Let's learn from some cautionary tales of failed products: 1. Google Glass: Google Glass failed to resonate with consumers due to privacy concerns and a lack of clear use cases. The product's intrusive nature and potential for surreptitious recording made people uncomfortable, while the high price point and limited functionality failed to address any specific consumer problem, leading to its downfall. Now we’ll be able to see if Apple can get it right with their headset. 2. Juicero: Juicero's expensive Wi-Fi-connected juicing machine was ridiculed for solving a non-existent problem. The device required proprietary, pre-packaged fruit pouches, but consumers quickly realized they could squeeze the pouches by hand, rendering the over-engineered and costly machine unnecessary. 3. Microsoft Zune: Microsoft's Zune struggled to compete with Apple's iPod, largely because it didn't offer a distinct advantage or address any particular customer issue. It entered a market dominated by an established competitor without a clear understanding of consumer desires, leading to its eventual discontinuation. These products missed the mark because the teams failed to deeply understand the human problems they were trying to solve. It's a trap that's easily avoided by embracing user research. User research builds empathy, mitigates risks, prevents costly misses, and ensures you're designing solutions to real problems your audience actually has. It's the critical step that separates products that flop from ones that flourish. What has been your experience with user research? I'd love to hear about other success stories, challenges faced, or lessons learned! #UserResearch #ProductDevelopment #ProductManagement #ProductInstitute

If you are a hammer, everything looks like a nail 🩺 [Part 2 of 2] In Part 1 (https://lnkd.in/eDwis_Yc), we explored how different perspectives shape digital health solutions. 🔹TOWARD: Aspirational, but often distant from care realities 🔹ON: Focused on tasks, but misses workflows 🔹WITH: Collaborative, but may lack strategic alignment 🔹FOR: Organization-centric, but overlooks patient nuances 🔹IN: Clinically embedded, but siloed 🔹AS: Frontline expertise, but often lacks scalability The perspective your team adopts influences whether your solution succeeds - or creates more problems. And there is no single “right” perspective. The key is to adopt a "layered approach" that allows all perspectives to contribute towards the initiative, helping ensure that the final solution is actionable and grounded in care realities. To make this work, we need someone with experience to connect the dots and ensure all these perspectives work in tandem. Remember, to patients, care is one continuous story, not a series of isolated chapters like “hospital care” and “home care”. If our solutions fail to reflect this seamless journey, we risk creating gaps that leave patients feeling lost or disconnected. To design effectively, ask yourself: 1️⃣ Are all care settings considered? Does your solution bridge gaps or create silos? E.g.: A telehealth tool designed for acute care might fail when patients transition to home recovery. 2️⃣ Does your team bring real-world experience? Have they worked IN clinical environments or WITH diverse stakeholders? E.g. Teams without clinical experience may overlook critical workflow nuances, leading to tools that disrupt care delivery instead of enhancing it. 3️⃣ Is your team diverse in expertise and lived experience? Does it include technical experts, healthcare professionals, and patients? E.g. When patients co-design tools, adoption rates soar because solutions reflect real needs. 4️⃣ Is your team focused on long-term transformation, not quick fixes? Are you solving for today AND tomorrow? E.g. Short-term fixes may address immediate needs but prevent the innovation healthcare desperately needs. The perspectives adopted shapes more than the solution - it defines whether it earns trust: 🔹For clinicians: Will it reduce their burden or add complexity? 🔹For patients: Will it feel seamless or disconnected? 🔹For organizations: Will it deliver on promises or erode confidence? Pick the wrong lens, and the impact can be devastating. What Perspective Is Your Team Designing From? Drop your perspective in the comments below. #DigitalHealth #HealthcareInnovation #SystemsThinking #Collaboration 💡This post is part of 'Rethinking Digital Health Innovation' (RDHI), empowering professionals to transform digital health beyond IT and AI myths. 💡Find the ongoing series and resources on our companion website (URL in comments). 💡 Repost if this message resonates with you!

Silicon Valley is becoming a dropshipping factory for AI wrappers. Here's why many of these so-called "AI startups" are just expensive middlemen: Every time I see yet another "AI-powered" wrapper startup launch, I'm reminded of the worst business model on the internet: dropshipping. YC's Winter 2025 batch included 128 “AI” startups out of 160 companies. But many are building identical products on foundational models with different logos: • 10+ AI voice agents for customer support (Leaping AI, Trace) • Multiple AI accounting/admin automation tools with similar features • Several AI agent support platforms offering the same infrastructure features YC routinely accepts direct competitors within the same batch They are mass-producing AI wrapper variations of the same product with little to no differentiation (just like dropshippers). Dropshippers: Take products from Alibaba → add markup → sell on Amazon/Shopify. AI wrappers: Take models from OpenAI → add UI → sell to VCs and unsophisticated SMBs. Both carry no inventory. Both conduct no R&D. Both compete solely on marketing and distribution arbitrage. Both mistake temporary arbitrage for sustainable business models. We're already seeing this play out. PhotoAI hit $157K monthly revenue through social media virality, just like dropshipped products on Instagram ads. It works until everyone copies the playbook. Then customer acquisition costs skyrocket and margins collapse. The most embarrassing example is PearAI. They literally copy-pasted Continue's open-source code and slapped their name on it. Investors need to realize that backing young technical founders worked when software was complex. Young founders know how write code but understand zero about actual customer problems. That's how you end up with 50 customer service chatbots instead of one great industry-specific solution. Meanwhile, real innovation happens with domain experts. Harvey AI succeeded because it was founded by lawyers and technical experts. They understand legal workflows, compliance requirements, and integration challenges. Here’s what needs to change: • Stop using traditional VC for digital middlemen: If a startup's core value is ‘ChatGPT but prettier’, they should consider seed-strapping or revenue-based financing, not venture capital. • Prioritize domain expertise over coding ability: Industry veterans who understand workflow problems will now be better suited to build than API integrators. • Demand proprietary data or genuine technical differentiation: Without unique assets, you are arbitraging OpenAI's pricing until they cut you out. • Focus on thick wrappers, not thin ones: Companies building substantial features, specific workflows, and deep integrations maintain competitive moats. Simple API calls don't. The dropshipping boom crashed when everyone realized that middlemen add no real value. The AI wrapper bubble will crash the same way, except this time, we are calling it innovation.

Have you ever considered how many potential “Marie Curies” we lose each year to systemic gender gaps in innovation and intellectual property (IP)? Read Professor Myriam Mariani’s insights into a more inclusive innovation and IP ecosystem in our latest World Intellectual Property Organization – WIPO IP and Economics blog. It discusses the barriers women face in the innovation sector and suggests potential solutions to achieve gender parity. According to WIPO’s latest report on the global gender gap in innovation and creativity, over the past 20 years only 23% of international patents included at least one woman as a listed inventor, and overall, only 13% of all inventors listed were women. These figures highlight not just a participation gender gap but also reveal unused potential in the global innovation landscape. Professor Mariani outlined several reasons for the need to increase women’s participation in innovation: 1.   Expanding the talent pool, as over-reliance on male talent and underutilizing female talent limits the diversity, quantity and quality of ideas. 2.   Ensuring equal opportunities for all, allowing everyone the freedom to become an inventor, regardless of gender. 3.   Addressing innovation gaps in technologies, as women inventors often bring more patents focused on their own needs, experiences and interests. At WIPO, we are committed to changing these statistics by promoting a more inclusive innovation ecosystem that embraces diversity and nurtures talent to ensure that innovation thrives on the talents of all, unrestricted by gender. Let’s discuss how we can support a more inclusive environment that celebrates and nurtures diverse inventors, prevent the loss of potential “Marie Curies” and build a more inclusive future. Read Prof. Mariani’s insights: https://lnkd.in/eqD_ug9K Find out more about WIPO’s work regarding the Innovation Gender Gap: https://lnkd.in/eChJVxZJ #GenderDiversity #Innovation #IntellectualProperty #WIPO #InnovationEcosystem #Economics #WomenInInnovation #GenderEquality

"You don't look like an executive." I have long brown hair with blonde highlights. "You don't look like an inventor." I wear sparkly shoes. And I LOOOVE pink. 𝐖𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐚𝐧 𝐞𝐱𝐞𝐜𝐮𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐬𝐮𝐩𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐨 𝐥𝐨𝐨𝐤 𝐥𝐢𝐤𝐞? 𝐖𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐚𝐧 𝐢𝐧𝐯𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐨𝐫 𝐬𝐮𝐩𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐨 𝐥𝐨𝐨𝐤 𝐥𝐢𝐤𝐞? I am an award-winning CMO, and I have 12 patents. Bias tells us that executives wear gray, navy or black suits and have short hair. Bias tells us that inventors are often men in lab coats. These stereotypes are not just outdated; they are limiting. According to a study by Catalyst, women hold only 29% of senior management roles worldwide. Research from the National Academy of Inventors shows that less than 13% of all patent holders are women. These statistics highlight a significant gender gap in leadership and innovation. I am here to break those biases. I lead with creativity, passion, and a touch of sparkle. I innovate with a fresh perspective, embracing both my femininity and intellect. My long hair and love for pink do not diminish my capability. My sparkly shoes do not undermine my accomplishments. I am living proof that executives and inventors come in all shapes and styles. Success is not defined by what you look like. It's defined by what you achieve and the impact you make. Agree?

There was a time when Skype dominated online calls. In 2011, it had 300 million active users & controlled 74% of the global VoIP market. I still remember using Skype in those days & it felt kinda magical. Now Microsoft is shutting it down by May 5, 2025. Here’s a look at what went wrong: 1. User exodus: → By 2023, Skype’s market share had plummeted below 5%. → While Zoom surged past 350 million daily active users. 2. Microsoft's pivot: → After acquiring Skype for $8.5 billion in 2011, Microsoft introduced Teams in 2017. → Today they boast 320 million monthly users, absorbing Skype’s corporate audience. 3. Rise of competitors: → WhatsApp, FaceTime & Google Meet captured billions of users. → It offers seamless mobile-first experiences that Skype never fully optimized for. 4 User Frustration: → Between 2015 & 2020, Skype underwent multiple redesigns. →This led to a 30% drop in satisfaction ratings due to performance issues and a cluttered UI. Here are a few lessons for brands to learn from this: a. Market leadership isn’t forever: → Skype had a head start but failed to evolve. b. Product experience is everything: → Simplicity & reliability beat brand recognition. c. If you don’t cannibalize yourself, someone else will: → Microsoft bet on Teams over Skype, and it paid off. Tech moves fast. Adapt or become a case study in decline. What’s one tech product you think is next in line for obsolescence?