As the worsening of resource and environmental problems worldwide, many manufacturers implement green technological innovation, of which product durability design and recycling process innovation are widely adopted. Product durability design refers to designing more durable products, which can reduce environmental impact through extending the product life cycle. For example, Apple strengthens the design of splash, dust and water resistant in iPhone 7, iPhone X and iPhone 13, which is applicable for the IP67 standard and increases durability of cell phones. Recycling process innovation refers to improving the efficiency of used products collection and reducing the disposal cost during product recovery, which brings down environmental impact through saving materials. For example, Apple upgrades its disassembly robots, from Dave to Daisey, which can extract more types and quantities of raw materials including aluminum, copper and magnetite from the collected used products, recovering more value in the recycling process. The two “green” technological innovations are claimed to be beneficial to the environment and economy by many well-known manufacturers, such as Huawei, Apple, HP and Lenovo. However, the change in market size triggered by the two technological innovations is ignored. To be specific, although product durability design reduces the consumers′ willingness to purchase in the next generation of market demand through increasing the quality perception in the usage period, it may increase the market demand for the current generation, which means that there exists a trade-off between current demand and future demand and the triggered concerns of environmental and economic superiorities. Similarly, though recycling process innovation reduces marginal environmental impact through acquiring more components from the collected used products and marginal revenue from providing with more rebates, it may expand the market demand of new products for the next purchase through providing more trade-in rebate for the consumers, which means that there also exists a trade-off between marginal economic and environmental impact and volume expansion. Moreover, the two technological innovations play different roles in different market segmentations, where recycling process innovation encourages consumers to purchase new products with lower price, and product durability design encourages consumers to continue to use the products with higher usage perception and price. Previous studies focus on the pricing decision and coordination mechanism of members in closed-loop supply chain, and rarely discuss whether the two technological innovations or the hybrid innovation are beneficial for the environment and economy as manufacturers claimed. Based on the above analysis, we propose four research questions: 1) Whether recycling process innovation can enhance environmental and economic performance? 2) Whether durability product design can enhance environmental and economic performance? 3) Whether hybrid innovation is better than pure single innovation in environment and economy? 4) What is the optimal technological innovation strategy for the manufacturers concerning environment and economy simultaneously?To address the above research questions, we consider a market where one manufacturer provides durable products for consumers, aiming to maximize his profit. We establish three models, i.e., recycling process innovation model, durability product model, and hybrid model. Firstly, we formulate market demand using a two-period consumer choice model with the impact of the two technological innovations Then, based on the obtained demand functions of each market segment, we establish the profit function of each model, and obtain the optimal equilibrium results. Lastly, we compare the pricing decisions, market demands and environmental impacts of the equilibrium results. Numerical examples are used to demonstrate the results. The comparisons show that the optimal strategies are different depending on the production cost. Five scenarios are identified with different cost ranges and the corresponding strategies are established. In addition, the win-win strategy for both environment and economy is identified by combining the boundary conditions. The main conclusions of this research are as follows: 1) Production cost of new product is a key factor for the manufacturer to choose the optimal innovation strategies. 2) when the production cost is small, recycling process innovation is most profitable; when the production cost is moderate, hybrid innovation is most profitable; when the production cost is large, durability product design is most profitable. 3) The most profitable innovation strategy may not be the “greenest” one. 4) We identify the win-win strategy for both economy and environment, and its corresponding boundary conditions. Based on the conclusions of our research, we provide some managerial insights for enterprise managers and policy makers to improve environmental and economic performance simultaneously. As for the enterprise managers, the innovation choice of the manufacturers should be decided by the value of production cost. For industries with low production cost, the enterprise managers should strengthen the effort of recycling process innovation such as upgrading recycling process to disposal more materials to maximize economic performance. For industries with high production cost, enterprise managers should focus on the durability product design, such as using durability materials, module products design. For industries with moderate production cost, enterprise managers should implement hybrid innovation with the balance of two innovations. Meanwhile, policy makes should consider the production cost when issuing “green” innovation policies.