Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

What Clayton Christensen Got Wrong (2013)

stratechery.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 50 posts

Re: What Clayton Christensen Got Wrong (2013)

#31

Post by Tloewald »

andyidsinga wrote: post #24
mathattack wrote: post #18

I get a little bothered when people expect pundits like CC to be right 100% of the time. If they get nit-picked too much, then people stop making predictions. And CC may indeed be correct on the iPod - it had a great run, but sales are falling through the floor. Similarly, Apple is looking great in the iPhone, but it is still under attack on the low end.

I see my kid's teen friends running around with android phones. Also, there's something to be said for competitors catching up in terms of design. Several are catching up and forcing apple to complete on their terms - see phablets starting with samsung galaxy note.

Apple is competing with Samsung on Samsung's terms? If so it's doing a great job.

Re: What Clayton Christensen Got Wrong (2013)

#32

Post by duaneb »

pilsetnieks wrote: post #29
mathattack wrote: post #18

I get a little bothered when people expect pundits like CC to be right 100% of the time. If they get nit-picked too much, then people stop making predictions. And CC may indeed be correct on the iPod - it had a great run, but sales are falling through the floor. Similarly, Apple is looking great in the iPhone, but it is still under attack on the low end.

He was absolutely right about the iPod, except that the company that disrupted Apple was Apple. Jobs ostensibly was "deeply influenced" by "The Innovator's Dilemma," so it's not inconceivable that he learned from it and cultivated disruptive projects within Apple.

Meh, I think spotify (and related services) probably made the ipod obsolete for a certain class of smartphone users.

Re: What Clayton Christensen Got Wrong (2013)

#33

Post by gruntled »

sogen wrote: post #26
andyidsinga wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see my kid's teen friends running around with android phones. Also, there's something to be said for competitors catching up in terms of design. Several are catching up and forcing apple to complete on their terms - see phablets starting with samsung galaxy note.

Oddly I saw the opposite: my nephew and his friends using iOS only. Yesterday he bought an iPad mini with his savings, I suggested him to get an Android tablet "hey, an android will cost you 1/3", but he declined, because all his friends had invested a LOT of time on their (iOS) games.

That's exactly what you would expect if a "low end disruption" is just getting started. The low-cost disruptor picks off some but not all of the market, and doesn't immediately compete for the most attractive customers (because that fight's too hard for them at the moment).

That's what puts the incumbent in an "innovator's dilemma": do you chase the high end and high margins, and if so which high-end niches do you chase (gamers who want graphics performance, design-lovers who want a precision machined marvel of industrial design) or do you go lower cost and high volume? The latter is a race to the bottom, so the incumbents tend to pick the former and retreat up-market. It's not unusual for the incumbent's profits to increase temporarily when this happens because of their focus on the most profitable customers.

The problem is it doesn't last: the low-cost producers who are already good enough for the low end of the market continue to improve, until they become good enough for the middle of the market too, and grab more and more market share and more and more profit share. And then, looking for even more growth, they head for the top end of the market (or get disrupted themselves).

Ironically, if there wasn't an up-market to retreat to, there would be no dilemma. Android and iOS would have to compete head to head for the same customers with the same requirements (rather than one taking all the budget consumers and the other taking the gamers and others with higher requirements).

As it is, we could be seeing a low-end disruption, and the high-end consumers will be the last to notice.

Re: What Clayton Christensen Got Wrong (2013)

#34

Post by screature2 »

crazychrome wrote: post #22
screature2 wrote: post #20

I guess this is a 2013 article, but I'm surprised that what hasn't been mentioned in the comments yet are the platform/network effects of iOS apps and the App store. I think it's interesting to identify a consumer focus on status/UX/psychological benefits, but I actually think it's wrong to say that the consumer isn't paying for more functionality because I think the iOS app ecosystem actually provides pretty compell…

which comes first, a good consumer product or a healthy ecosystem around it? it's a positive feedback loop thing in later stage but product always comes first. it's not a big secret but only few nailed it occasionally in a decade.

that's a good point, but Apple's bet on this ecosystem continues to pay off with each of their new consumer product reaping pretty sizeable dividends from that ecosystem.

Re: What Clayton Christensen Got Wrong (2013)

#35

Post by andyidsinga »

Tloewald wrote: post #31
andyidsinga wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see my kid's teen friends running around with android phones. Also, there's something to be said for competitors catching up in terms of design. Several are catching up and forcing apple to complete on their terms - see phablets starting with samsung galaxy note.

Apple is competing with Samsung on Samsung's terms? If so it's doing a great job.

yep - big screens: https://www.google.com/search?q=steve+jobs+large+screens

edit: I can't deny they're doing great in sales :)

Re: What Clayton Christensen Got Wrong (2013)

#36

Post by [deleted] »

duaneb wrote: post #32
pilsetnieks wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He was absolutely right about the iPod, except that the company that disrupted Apple was Apple. Jobs ostensibly was "deeply influenced" by "The Innovator's Dilemma," so it's not inconceivable that he learned from it and cultivated disruptive projects within Apple.

Meh, I think spotify (and related services) probably made the ipod obsolete for a certain class of smartphone users.

[deleted]

Re: What Clayton Christensen Got Wrong (2013)

#37

Post by encoderer »

andyidsinga wrote: post #24
mathattack wrote: post #18

I get a little bothered when people expect pundits like CC to be right 100% of the time. If they get nit-picked too much, then people stop making predictions. And CC may indeed be correct on the iPod - it had a great run, but sales are falling through the floor. Similarly, Apple is looking great in the iPhone, but it is still under attack on the low end.

I see my kid's teen friends running around with android phones. Also, there's something to be said for competitors catching up in terms of design. Several are catching up and forcing apple to complete on their terms - see phablets starting with samsung galaxy note.

Samsung had an awful 2014. They have had some real set backs.

I read recently that Apple had a 5 inch prototype built in the iphone4 but it was not a compelling product at the time. Nothing is as clear cut as "Samsung forced apple into competing on screen size".

Re: What Clayton Christensen Got Wrong (2013)

#38

Post by encoderer »

lemmingsleft wrote: post #19

Ben Thompson is mostly wrong: Customers don't 'buy' iPhones, Carriers do i.e. iPhones are protected from low end disruption by carriers subsidizing and obscuring the price with plans/contracts. In markets where carrier subsidy isn't as popular (e.g. Europe) iPhone market share is very low. Likewise, iPad market share is dropping quickly becausr there are few subsidies for that product. NB Apple was always careful to…

I disagree. I think people shop for a phone the way many people (unfortunately) shop for a new car: On the monthly payment, not the sticker price. All that matters is that the carriers finance the phone, subsidies are dying. Every major US carrier now has installment options.

> Likewise, iPad market share is dropping quickly becausr there are few subsidies for that product.

You don't think it's because they essentially invented the market, starting out at 90% market share?

Re: What Clayton Christensen Got Wrong (2013)

#39

Post by thramp »

gruntled wrote: post #33
sogen wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oddly I saw the opposite: my nephew and his friends using iOS only. Yesterday he bought an iPad mini with his savings, I suggested him to get an Android tablet "hey, an android will cost you 1/3", but he declined, because all his friends had invested a LOT of time on their (iOS) games.

That's exactly what you would expect if a "low end disruption" is just getting started. The low-cost disruptor picks off some but not all of the market, and doesn't immediately compete for the most attractive customers (because that fight's too hard for them at the moment). That's what puts the incumbent in an "innovator's dilemma": do you chase the high end and high margins, and if so which high-end niches do you ch…

The thing you’ve gotten wrong with wrong the “design lovers” you mentioned is that Apple’s customer base are entirely those quote-unquote design lovers who happen to be just normal consumers.

The entire point of the article is that competing on user experience pretty much side-steps the whole theory of low-end disruption.

Re: What Clayton Christensen Got Wrong (2013)

#40

Post by ams6110 »

I don't relate to this at all, but accept that I'm an outlier in the marketplace. I have a cheap android phone on a cheap month-to-month plan. Other than the apps it came with, I have installed very little from Google Play. I use the phone for texting, phone calls, mobile email, maps, occasionally mobile browsing, and that's about it. I don't play games with it, I don't listen to music with it, I don't take pictures with it. Even this cheap phone does way more than I need. I would never consider an iPhone.
Post reply on HN