111–117 of 117 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Apple makes 45% of all profits in the PC market. Nobody else comes close. That isn't a small segment - they are the clear winner.
6% market share is small.
There is a word for market share without profits. Failure.
Value is measured in money. Apple creates 45% of the value in the PC industry.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
(2) and (3) are interesting responses. But I don't think it is actually using the key insight described in this article. That key insight being that people compare it to what's come before, and that comparison becomes a blinder for it's actual advantages. (4) will happen, but I think the scope is far too small; again it also has the blinders that does not take advantage of the key insight from the article. With 3D pr…
4 - I...somewhat disagree. I spent a few weeks looking into current and future 3d printing tech, and outside of some very limited use-cases would I consider that the output quality and materials mix from any 3d printing tech to be a threat to traditional manufacturing. It's a nice idea, but it's just very very far away from happening. Even relatively simple items right now are not something that are even close to bei…
My point in bring up all of this is that the key insight in this article is not about disruption, but about refactoring your base assumptions. When you see 3D printers as to what is really is, but has not yet been, then you start to see other technologies that are coming together to be able to fabricate things in your garage. Yes, that does include being able to print circuitry directly into the printer -- and yes, there are people working on that right now.
This is a lot closer to happening than you think it is :-)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nah, the old Windows phones were just fine. Did many of the things we now pretend that Apple invented. But they were for nerds. And huge phones sell reasonably well today. The functionality was really already there. The "disruption" was aesthetics, marketing and ease-of-use. And in the end, it's a phone, not a cultural revolution.
> The "disruption" was aesthetics, marketing and ease-of-use The iPhone (and smartphones in general) have disrupted multiple markets: * Photography and video * Portable music players * Email and messaging devices * Phones ... and many others The thought I ran into many times with many people during this "disruption" period basically went along the lines of: "I could buy a new camera, a video camera, a new iPod, a net…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ok, if you had to fill in the blank, what would fill in? "Google Glasses are not better smartphones, they are ____ "?
By its very nature that question constrains the possibilities of Glass by attempting to label it. Falling into that trap leads to less insight, not more. By way of analogy, one could say a car was a faster horse-and-buggy, but an airplane was something new & different. A telegram was a faster form of mail, but a telephone was new & different. A good example of the lack of insight that kind of question leads to is the…
Haha, that's a nice piece of rhetorical sophistry.
It is good to keep an open mind on the different possibilities. However, the art of strategic thinking requires you to make decisions in the face of uncertainty. Until you can fill in that blank, you can't make decisions right now and place your bets.
That is the point of this exercise. There is a key insight in the article, and it can be applied to something like the Google Glasses. If you cannot discern it, you're more likely to be running off of unexamined emotions instead of a vision of what's to come.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you weren't aware, Asymco is very pro-Apple. I would be shocked to see any hating from him.
Do you mean pro-Apple as in a fanboy who thinks everything Apple does is great, or pro-Apple as in he appreciates and respects their design chops and business acumen?
Essentially, I would be shocked if Asymco had a post saying he disagreed with Apple's strategy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are contradicting yourself. You say that fill stack companies are hard to keep going and yet you say that non-full stack companies come and go even more easily. By your logic, non-full stack companies are even harder to keep going.
It's not a contradiction. Both are hard to keep going. Full stack ones are even harder. Hence all but 2 are gone. The ecosystems for more open systems are also really durable. Personally, watching for decades the most surprising thing is that MS has kept the desktop rather than losing it to Linux. Would you say that MS has 'won' the server market because they make more money than any Linux company even though Linux h…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Apple makes 45% of all profits in the PC market. Nobody else comes close. That isn't a small segment - they are the clear winner.
Funny how Windows' profits are not part of the "PC market". I guess it's all about cherrypicking statistics to create a "winner".