3 ms·

John Siracusa explained on an episode of his podcast that part of the reason long-time Mac users experience so much schadenfreude about PCs and PC market share

John Siracusa explained on an episode of his podcast that part of the reason long-time Mac users experience so much schadenfreude about PCs and PC market share is that Mac users have felt like the persecuted minority despite being advocates of what they saw as a superior product for so long. It's a very emotional thing, he explains. That does not explain, however, why a Mac user imagine himself, just because of his association with Apple as a consumer, that he had anything to do with Apple's success, or that his advice to anyone would be in any way meaningful. Especially when that advice is "be disruptive." Disruption's easy to see in hindsight. But it's almost impossible to see before it happens. That's why it's called 'disruption.' And anyway, Google is a force of disruption. On many vectors. In mobile, Google has introduced a business model that's so disruptive that all the industry players feel threatened enough to resort to litigation. (I'm referring to licensing of Android, wherein the manufacturers actually get paid for using the OS, through some ad-sharing deal that's never been completely explicated as far as I know.) They're also still quietly working on ChromeOS, another potentially disruption. My point is, saying "be disruptive" is about as valuable as saying "just win!"

marknutter 15y ago
I think a lot of Apple fans, myself included, knew the iPhone and iPad were going to be disruptive.
ctdonath 15y ago
How many users quietly think "gosh, I wish we could move past Windows/Intel/PCs/filesystems/internal-combustion/XYZ/PDQ and do something _better_"? Lots. Huge big piles of lots. People WANT disruption. Oh, sure, some companies come out with "disruptive" products, but those fade and die far more often than not. It's not just the product, it's the infrastructure, the ecosystem, the culture - all of which Apple identified, crafted, and nailed. Yes, advice can indeed be "be disruptive", just as good advice includes "do it right" (which far too many don't and know it). The successful will grok what that _means_, and how extensive it is, and will build a long-term business model to achieve it ... which isn't "hack together something simple and odd and sell a bunch and then sell the company to the first deep pocket who comes along."
- joebadmo 15y ago
  Yes, advice can indeed be "be disruptive", just as good advice includes "do it right" (which far too many don't and know it). If you're saying that there are people who know they're doing it wrong, but keep doing it wrong anyway, I don't think advising them to "do it right" is going to change anything. Likewise disruption.
erikpukinskis 15y ago
My point is, saying "be disruptive" is about as valuable as saying "just win!" I agree it's not the most prescriptive advice, but it's not the same as "just win!". The term "disruptive technology" was coined by Clayton Christensen, who has written several books on the topic. In The Innovator's Dilemma he describes several disruptions in many industries in great detail. The scenarios he describes (which the OP is referencing by using the term "disruptive") are not generic "here's a company who won!" situations. They are very specific. Namely, a competitor introduced a new technology that was inferior to established technologies in many important ways, but which was vastly superior in at least one. And importantly, it was superior in a way that could not be "backported" to the mainstream technology. We talk about defensibility here sometimes, and each of these new technologies has a clear defensibility strategy. Every Google Doc has a URL your coworker can click in an email, and be immediately editing the document, on any computer, whether or not they've paid for Office. That is a feature that will never be added to Office. It can't be added to office. Telling Google (or HP, or Amazon) to be disruptive is telling them to focus on finding features that Apple won't or can't add to the iPad, and building your products around those. That's a hell of a lot more to go on than "just win".
- joebadmo 15y ago
  And Innovator's Dilemma was written like fifteen years ago. I'm pretty sure anyone at any position of authority understands the concept. That's not what stops large companies from being disruptive. It's fear, bureaucracy, risk aversion, any number of things. But it's not because they've never heard of disruption before. So, I stand by my point that the value proposition for the sentiment "be disruptive" is equal to that of "just win," namely: zero.

marknutter 15y ago

I think a lot of Apple fans, myself included, knew the iPhone and iPad were going to be disruptive.

ctdonath 15y ago

How many users quietly think "gosh, I wish we could move past Windows/Intel/PCs/filesystems/internal-combustion/XYZ/PDQ and do something _better_"? Lots. Huge big piles of lots. People WANT disruption. Oh, sure, some companies come out with "disruptive" products, but those fade and die far more often than not. It's not just the product, it's the infrastructure, the ecosystem, the culture - all of which Apple identified, crafted, and nailed. Yes, advice can indeed be "be disruptive", just as good advice includes "do it right" (which far too many don't and know it). The successful will grok what that _means_, and how extensive it is, and will build a long-term business model to achieve it ... which isn't "hack together something simple and odd and sell a bunch and then sell the company to the first deep pocket who comes along."

joebadmo 15y ago
Yes, advice can indeed be "be disruptive", just as good advice includes "do it right" (which far too many don't and know it). If you're saying that there are people who know they're doing it wrong, but keep doing it wrong anyway, I don't think advising them to "do it right" is going to change anything. Likewise disruption.

erikpukinskis 15y ago

My point is, saying "be disruptive" is about as valuable as saying "just win!" I agree it's not the most prescriptive advice, but it's not the same as "just win!". The term "disruptive technology" was coined by Clayton Christensen, who has written several books on the topic. In The Innovator's Dilemma he describes several disruptions in many industries in great detail. The scenarios he describes (which the OP is referencing by using the term "disruptive") are not generic "here's a company who won!" situations. They are very specific. Namely, a competitor introduced a new technology that was inferior to established technologies in many important ways, but which was vastly superior in at least one. And importantly, it was superior in a way that could not be "backported" to the mainstream technology. We talk about defensibility here sometimes, and each of these new technologies has a clear defensibility strategy. Every Google Doc has a URL your coworker can click in an email, and be immediately editing the document, on any computer, whether or not they've paid for Office. That is a feature that will never be added to Office. It can't be added to office. Telling Google (or HP, or Amazon) to be disruptive is telling them to focus on finding features that Apple won't or can't add to the iPad, and building your products around those. That's a hell of a lot more to go on than "just win".

joebadmo 15y ago
And Innovator's Dilemma was written like fifteen years ago. I'm pretty sure anyone at any position of authority understands the concept. That's not what stops large companies from being disruptive. It's fear, bureaucracy, risk aversion, any number of things. But it's not because they've never heard of disruption before. So, I stand by my point that the value proposition for the sentiment "be disruptive" is equal to that of "just win," namely: zero.