What Clayton Christensen Got Wrong (2013)
stratechery.com
What Clayton Christensen Got Wrong (2013)
1–10 of 50 posts
Re: What Clayton Christensen Got Wrong (2013)
#2Re: What Clayton Christensen Got Wrong (2013)
#3http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/06/23/the-disruption-...
This article is pretty bad.
The OP, however, is quite good. In a nutshell, it argues that (1) disruption theory assumes rational actors and (2) consumers are much less rational than businesses.
Re: What Clayton Christensen Got Wrong (2013)
#4That's a very interesting theory, but it's supported by very few examples, and the examples are pretty weak.
In the example of clothing and fashion - the consumer really buys buys psychological value(status, attention, etc), not user experience with his extra money, and i'm not sure those goods can be "good enough", because some have arms-race logic build internally(for example status).
In a sense, the same applies for the BMW - you could probably get as great car as the BMW , for much less , but the BMW holds important psychological advantages.
And as for consoles - i'm not sure we've reached "good enough" level of graphics for true gamers. When we'll reach that - it would be interesting too look at that market.
So yes, consumers aren't rational and for some thing you can never satisfy them, but i'm not certain user experience is one of those things.
Re: What Clayton Christensen Got Wrong (2013)
#5http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/06/23/the-disruption-...
This article is pretty bad. The OP, however, is quite good. In a nutshell, it argues that (1) disruption theory assumes rational actors and (2) consumers are much less rational than businesses.
ISTM that the author is not so much saying or arguing people are not rational, but that the economic definition of "rational" is missing the modeling of consumer behavior in this area. (i am not an economist.)
Re: What Clayton Christensen Got Wrong (2013)
#6Earlier quoted context omitted.
This article is pretty bad. The OP, however, is quite good. In a nutshell, it argues that (1) disruption theory assumes rational actors and (2) consumers are much less rational than businesses.
ISTM that the author is not so much saying or arguing people are not rational, but that the economic definition of "rational" is missing the modeling of consumer behavior in this area. (i am not an economist.)
That's fair.
Re: What Clayton Christensen Got Wrong (2013)
#7That's a very interesting theory, but it's supported by very few examples, and the examples are pretty weak. In the example of clothing and fashion - the consumer really buys buys psychological value(status, attention, etc), not user experience with his extra money, and i'm not sure those goods can be "good enough", because some have arms-race logic build internally(for example status). In a sense, the same applies f…
What do you mean when you say that you're not certain user experience is one of those things?
Re: What Clayton Christensen Got Wrong (2013)
#8That's a very interesting theory, but it's supported by very few examples, and the examples are pretty weak. In the example of clothing and fashion - the consumer really buys buys psychological value(status, attention, etc), not user experience with his extra money, and i'm not sure those goods can be "good enough", because some have arms-race logic build internally(for example status). In a sense, the same applies f…
Can you define the "true" gamers?
Re: What Clayton Christensen Got Wrong (2013)
#9That's a very interesting theory, but it's supported by very few examples, and the examples are pretty weak. In the example of clothing and fashion - the consumer really buys buys psychological value(status, attention, etc), not user experience with his extra money, and i'm not sure those goods can be "good enough", because some have arms-race logic build internally(for example status). In a sense, the same applies f…
> the consumer really buys buys psychological value
I think that's what the author is saying - businesses don't buy printers thinking about how the printer will make their staff feel, whereas when people buy iPhones, how they feel is a big part of the decision. The idea that I can afford to buy an excellent user experience for myself is very much part of that status value. Apple has exploited those feelings so that its design value outweighs the economies of scale that can be achieved by modularisation.
Re: What Clayton Christensen Got Wrong (2013)
#10iPhone and iPod are very interesting and unique case studies in that they combine high-end differentiation (the devices, or at least the brilliant marketing-fueled perception of the devices) with low-end disruption, and with network-effect ecosystems (music, apps).
The low-end disruption is cheaper music (iPod) and cheaper computer (iPhone). Computer in that many consumers initially saw iPhone as a way to do email, web and apps without paying for separate computer and Internet.