3 ms·

Everything I listed was more than possible in 2010. I have been developing hardware/software products for 40 years. I have absolutely no doubt about that at a

Everything I listed was more than possible in 2010. I have been developing hardware/software products for 40 years. I have absolutely no doubt about that at all. The company that controlled the OS and hardware (MS) had all the freedom, smarts and capability to make that happen. All they lacked --conjecture on my part-- was the vision. > As far as the Innovators Dilemma, the author was completely wrong about the iPhone. Have you actually read the book? His iPhone predictions had nothing whatsoever to do with the core ideas, excellent historical perspective and analysis provided in Innovators Dilemma. Quoting from the very link you provided (emphasis mine): "It is Christensen’s second theory of disruption – low-end disruption – that I believe is flawed. Christensen first described this theory in Disruption, Disintegration and the dissipation of differentiability, and expanded on it in The Innovator’s Solution. It is this theory that is at the basis of Christensen’s critique of Apple quoted above."

scarface74 4y ago
> Everything I listed was more than possible in 2010 Microsoft could have designed a processor like what was in the AirPods in 2010? Five years before Apple? Besides, by 2010, Apple was already the best in the business at supply chain management and was manufacturing more high end devices than anyone in the world. What high performance hardware was Microsoft shipping in 2010? The state of the art mobile hardware in 2010 was Apple’s ARM A4 - a 32 bit single core processor that ran from 800Mhz - 1Ghz. It could barely run Safari by 2011 let alone a full office suite. > Have you actually read the book? His iPhone predictions had nothing whatsoever to do with the core ideas, excellent historical perspective and analysis provided in Innovators Dilemma. He tried to apply his “low end disruption theory” from the 60s and he was completely wrong about Apple.
- robomartin 4y ago
  > Microsoft could have designed a processor like what was in the AirPods in 2010? Five years before Apple? The features that would have been ground-breaking at the time did not require the kinds of advanced processors we have today. Not even close. This stuff isn't all that complex. Yes, it would have taken time and effort to implement, yet none of it was anywhere close to impossible for 2010. Perhaps you are not a hardware engineer? Like I said, none of what I mentioned was impossible or challenging in 2010. Hard work? Yes, of course. > by 2010, Apple was already the best in the business at supply chain management No, not really. Excellent, without a doubt, of course. > It could barely run Safari by 2011 let alone a full office suite. Again, context is important here. What would have been disruptive in 2010 had nothing to do with running a full office suite or CAD on your phone in 2010. I had both an iPhone and Windows Phone back then. MS could have provided what I would call next-generation integration with the desktop using the hardware of the day. More than capable. It wasn't an issue of 2010 technology not being adequate for the implementation of such integration. It was a matter of vision, direction or both. Someone, for whatever reason, simply did not make that decision. The decision MS seemed to make at the time was to try to go head-to-head with the iPhone with a product that, in my opinion, did not offer an attractive-enough value proposition. As a result, it was doomed to go nowhere almost from inception. > He tried to apply his “low end disruption theory” from the 60s and he was completely wrong about Apple. I think you missed my point. This is not part of "Innovators Dilema". The erroneous prediction you correctly noted was part of different work by the same author.
  - scarface74 4y ago
    > No, not really. Excellent, without a doubt, of course. By 2010, Apple was shipping 50 million iPhones a year and had just started shipping iPads. Under Tim Cook, Apple had been buying up the majority of flash storage for years between the iPods and the iPhone. Also, while you “appeal to authority”. It’s not like you can’t find information on the web about how far ahead Apple was already starting to become by 2010. In 2013, they shipped a 64 bit mobile CPU years before every one else. It’s hard to manufacture hardware at scale especially when you can’t just be a piece assembly like Dell and you have to design everything yourself and get third party hardware manufacturers to cooperate. > I think you missed my point. This is not part of "Innovators Dilema". The erroneous prediction you correctly noted was part of different work by the same author.

scarface74 4y ago

> Everything I listed was more than possible in 2010 Microsoft could have designed a processor like what was in the AirPods in 2010? Five years before Apple? Besides, by 2010, Apple was already the best in the business at supply chain management and was manufacturing more high end devices than anyone in the world. What high performance hardware was Microsoft shipping in 2010? The state of the art mobile hardware in 2010 was Apple’s ARM A4 - a 32 bit single core processor that ran from 800Mhz - 1Ghz. It could barely run Safari by 2011 let alone a full office suite. > Have you actually read the book? His iPhone predictions had nothing whatsoever to do with the core ideas, excellent historical perspective and analysis provided in Innovators Dilemma. He tried to apply his “low end disruption theory” from the 60s and he was completely wrong about Apple.

robomartin 4y ago
> Microsoft could have designed a processor like what was in the AirPods in 2010? Five years before Apple? The features that would have been ground-breaking at the time did not require the kinds of advanced processors we have today. Not even close. This stuff isn't all that complex. Yes, it would have taken time and effort to implement, yet none of it was anywhere close to impossible for 2010. Perhaps you are not a hardware engineer? Like I said, none of what I mentioned was impossible or challenging in 2010. Hard work? Yes, of course. > by 2010, Apple was already the best in the business at supply chain management No, not really. Excellent, without a doubt, of course. > It could barely run Safari by 2011 let alone a full office suite. Again, context is important here. What would have been disruptive in 2010 had nothing to do with running a full office suite or CAD on your phone in 2010. I had both an iPhone and Windows Phone back then. MS could have provided what I would call next-generation integration with the desktop using the hardware of the day. More than capable. It wasn't an issue of 2010 technology not being adequate for the implementation of such integration. It was a matter of vision, direction or both. Someone, for whatever reason, simply did not make that decision. The decision MS seemed to make at the time was to try to go head-to-head with the iPhone with a product that, in my opinion, did not offer an attractive-enough value proposition. As a result, it was doomed to go nowhere almost from inception. > He tried to apply his “low end disruption theory” from the 60s and he was completely wrong about Apple. I think you missed my point. This is not part of "Innovators Dilema". The erroneous prediction you correctly noted was part of different work by the same author.
- scarface74 4y ago
  > No, not really. Excellent, without a doubt, of course. By 2010, Apple was shipping 50 million iPhones a year and had just started shipping iPads. Under Tim Cook, Apple had been buying up the majority of flash storage for years between the iPods and the iPhone. Also, while you “appeal to authority”. It’s not like you can’t find information on the web about how far ahead Apple was already starting to become by 2010. In 2013, they shipped a 64 bit mobile CPU years before every one else. It’s hard to manufacture hardware at scale especially when you can’t just be a piece assembly like Dell and you have to design everything yourself and get third party hardware manufacturers to cooperate. > I think you missed my point. This is not part of "Innovators Dilema". The erroneous prediction you correctly noted was part of different work by the same author.