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

What Clayton Christensen got wrong

stratechery.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 51 posts

Re: What Clayton Christensen got wrong

#31

Post by 31reasons »

I think Christensen's statements on both iPod and iPhone stems from theories and sweeping generalizations on how technology field works. But with Apple, the devil is in the details. His argument is not taking into considerations things such as

1. Control of the supply chains so that other players can't get their hands on similar hardware.

2. Singularity of Taste coming from Jobs and Ive that blended with the hardware.

3. Software, that is very hard to replicate without years of effort.

The lesson is, theories are theories and Christensen is not god.

Re: What Clayton Christensen got wrong

#32

Post by scottdw2 »

Actually he has admitted he was wrong about the iPhone, thinking of it as a high end phone instead of a low end (but very convienient) computer.

The author of the article, I think, makes a "phalous leap" from "He was wrong about the iPhone" to "disruption doesn't apply to consumer markets".

Primarily because the iPhone is a perfect case of this. It (and it's successor, the iPad) is disrupting the PC industry.

You have to look at the phone as a computer, not a phone. Then disruption theory REALLY makes sense.

Re: What Clayton Christensen got wrong

#33

Post by ThomPete »

abtinf wrote: post #4
aaronbrethorst wrote: post #3

In a June 2007 interview, again with Businessweek, Christensen reiterated that the iPod was doomed, and further predicted that the iPhone would not be successful The iPod was doomed, and it was the iPhone that killed it. Also, Apple has demonstrated time and again that they're willing to 'disrupt' themselves by introducing hugely popular new products that erode their own margins. See, for instance, the iPod nano, the…

You should try reading the whole article. The OP's point is that Christensen has two theories of disruption, one of which is invalid. The first, new market disruption, to which you are referring with your comment, is not controversial. The OP would likely agree with you. The second, low-end disruption, holds in business-to-business markets but fails in consumers markets. Thus, the iPod was not killed by a low-cost an…

An iPhone with a digitalised iPod inside of it. It is exactly a low cost competitor.

Re: What Clayton Christensen got wrong

#35

Post by ThomPete »

scottdw2 wrote: post #32

Actually he has admitted he was wrong about the iPhone, thinking of it as a high end phone instead of a low end (but very convienient) computer. The author of the article, I think, makes a "phalous leap" from "He was wrong about the iPhone" to "disruption doesn't apply to consumer markets". Primarily because the iPhone is a perfect case of this. It (and it's successor, the iPad) is disrupting the PC industry. You hav…

Exactly.

The iPhone was not en improvement of the phone but of the computer which also explains why 90% of the time is used for not ringing.

Re: What Clayton Christensen got wrong

#36

Post by jamesmcbennett »

What about a simple porter analysis of Apple, still in a strong position, but not as strong as several years ago.

Power of New Entrants: Xiaomi

Power of Substitutes: Google Glass

Power of Customers: demand for low cost iphone

Power of Suppliers: Moving back to US manufacturing?

Power of Competitors: All the big tech companies.

Also a fantastic article on Disruption from The Kernal. Key insight is that companies are very aware of disruption considering it irresponsible for any board of a large technology incumbent not to have read 'Innovator's Dilemna.'

THE STORY WE ALL KNOW "Kodak built film cameras, and made money on the film, the classic “Gillette” business model, and was so obsessed with this profit stream that it completely missed the tidal wave of digital photography and the internet"

INTERESTING ADDITION "The next step for digital photography wasn’t the internet. It was point-and-shoots. Canon and Fujitsu. Kodak was so focused on disrupting itself and not falling into the trap of the innovator’s dilemma that it lost a grip on its core business. It turned out that in order to remain relevant in the internet age, it just had to make good cameras."

http://www.kernelmag.com/comment/analysis/4696/the-man-who-g...

Re: What Clayton Christensen got wrong

#37

Post by monkbent »

scottdw2 wrote: post #32

Actually he has admitted he was wrong about the iPhone, thinking of it as a high end phone instead of a low end (but very convienient) computer. The author of the article, I think, makes a "phalous leap" from "He was wrong about the iPhone" to "disruption doesn't apply to consumer markets". Primarily because the iPhone is a perfect case of this. It (and it's successor, the iPad) is disrupting the PC industry. You hav…

But that's new market disruption, which I said I agree with. In fact, I explicitly called out the iPad (which I'm sure you read).

It's low end disruption - that the same product becomes modularized - that I have an issue with.

Re: What Clayton Christensen got wrong

#38

Post by 6ren »

Like VR, touchscreens have not good enough latency. Because many components and their architecture contribute to latency (touch-CPU-RAM-app-OS-GPU-display), an integrated approach better improves it.

NB: For Christensen, "not good enough" does not mean "not adequate", it means that even better would be valued. It means "need not satisfied". Consider a meal: too small, you're still hungry (you'd pay for more); too big, you leave some on the table (your need has been "overshot", you can't absorb the extra improvement, you won't pay for more).

However, smartphones have overshot the need for pure computing power, it seems to me.

BTW: I too find his disruption more compelling than modular/integrated. A theory is not very predictive if there's many ways to apply it, giving different results.

Re: What Clayton Christensen got wrong

#39

Post by r0h1n »

scottdw2 wrote: post #32

Actually he has admitted he was wrong about the iPhone, thinking of it as a high end phone instead of a low end (but very convienient) computer. The author of the article, I think, makes a "phalous leap" from "He was wrong about the iPhone" to "disruption doesn't apply to consumer markets". Primarily because the iPhone is a perfect case of this. It (and it's successor, the iPad) is disrupting the PC industry. You hav…

Sorry to be nitpicky, but did you mean fallacious leap instead of "phalous" leap?

Re: What Clayton Christensen got wrong

#40

Post by r0h1n »

Firstly, by looking at Apple and its products in isolation the author is missing the big picture on how the company itself could be disrupted.

> the theory of low-end disruption is fundamentally flawed

Android phones started eating Apple's market share from the bottom-up aka 'low end'. While Apple may have created the market for smartphones and tablets, fact is both iOS and iPad are conclusively losing market share.

- http://venturebeat.com/2013/07/29/apples-ipad-market-share-c...

- http://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=prUS24257413

The standard response to Apple's falling market share has been "Market share doesn't matter, only profits do."

That argument was demolished by Samsung when it overtook Apple a few months back to become the most profitable phone maker in the world.

- http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/jul/26/samsung-ap...

It's easy to overlook those trends because the overall market is growing so fast, to the extend that Apple's fall in market share is masked over by its growth in revenue.

As I see it there are two parallel trends that are taking place - (a) Apple's products continue to 'disrupt' an older generation of competitors like PCs and featurephones, while (b) a newer generation of competitors led chiefly by Android continue to steadily disrupt Apple.

Post reply on HN