4 ms·
In all fairness there is a case to be made the first iPhone was non-disruptive. It would say the real disruptive technology was the app store not the phone itse
by TimPC 6y ago
In all fairness there is a case to be made the first iPhone was non-disruptive. It would say the real disruptive technology was the app store not the phone itself. The first iPhone didn't have the app store.
- avrionov 6y agoMany people underestimated the first iPhone. It has all the capabilities to be a disruptive technology. The appstore was missing only due to timing of the release (this is my assumption, haven't checked out). Also Christensen book has been critiqued many times especially about the inevitability of the disruptive technology [1]. [1] https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/06/23/the-disruption-machine https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/06/23/the-disruption...
- ben_w 6y agoI absolutely underestimated the iPhone, and the only reason I didn’t underestimate the Apple Watch was that I had learned to trust Apple’s judgement over my own — I still don’t really get what it is about the Watch that makes it such a success.
- casefields 6y agoYou would be wrong. >One of those details Steve’s initial opinion on third-party apps for the iPhone. In the beginning, Steve was opposed to third-party apps, and wanted developers to create web apps that could be used through the device’s mobile Safari web browser. According to Apple board member, Art Levinson, “Jobs at first quashed the discussion” of allowing apps on the company’s debut smartphone. https://www.cultofmac.com/125180/steve-jobs-was-originally-dead-set-against-third-party-apps-for-the-iphone/ https://www.cultofmac.com/125180/steve-jobs-was-originally-d...