5 ms·

Essentially this same sentiment, applies to any number of things: - Why would anyone buy the Framework laptop, they don't have nearly the support/pedigree that

Essentially this same sentiment, applies to any number of things: - Why would anyone buy the Framework laptop, they don't have nearly the support/pedigree that Dell, HP, etc. has? - Why would anyone use iPhones in the enterprise/IT world, they don't have nearly the support/pedigree that Blackberry, Microsoft, etc. has? - Why would anyone use Google Fiber, they don't have nearly the network or support that AT&T, Spectrum, etc. has? - Why would anyone ever use Linux (in enterprise, let's say), compared to the support and adoption that Microsoft/Windows offers? - ... I'm purposely picking different examples with varying degrees of success or adoption. I am not claiming that Oxide will be an instant category-dominating success. I don't think Oxide expects to replace HP/Cisco/Dell/etc. overnight, and I don't think a business has to launch with that ambition from the start, to prove that it's worth launching. But this take is so repetitive as to be bordering on cliche -- I don't know if you're self-aware enough to realize, you are literally just a living embodiment of the "Innovator's Dilemma" right now...

endisneigh 3y ago
Your examples are strange. Framework is niche. iPhones do have the pedigree. Google Fiber is barely used. Most folks do use a supported Linux distribution, they don’t roll their own.
- sanderjd 3y ago
  > Framework is niche. "Niche" is not a dirty word. Framework is niche, but if they can make their cost structure work (which I have no idea whether or not they can), that's ok. New products don't need to dominate their market in order to be succesful. (But I do agree that Google Fiber is a bad example / a good example of a new product in an established market not working.)
- leetrout 3y ago
  > iPhones do have the pedigree Not in 2007-2008 which is equivalent to Oxide today.
  - endisneigh 3y ago
    Apple was an incredibly well established company and the initial iPhone was not used in enterprise… it didn’t really start to take off there until iPhone 4 (2010-2011). Not to mention the comparison is inane to begin with. Using an iPhone for your enterprise and moving your tech infra to a relatively unknown company are not equivalent at all.
    - mixmastamyk 3y ago
      You must have missed the "beleaguered" era.
    - slikrick 3y ago
      it's so funny to me that you're harping on this analogy when it's clear you are so stubborn you won't accept anyone else's answer anyways.
  - mfer 3y ago
    iPhones became popular through the bring your own device movement. You aren’t going to see that with racks in a data center
    - FullyFunctional 3y ago
      It think it was the other way around. The success of the iPhone (and Android) was a large factor behind the BYD movement.
  - uecc 3y ago
    iPhone was truly transformative. This just seems like a twist on hyper-converged infrastructure + open source. I mean, I love their design. I just don’t think it’s special enough to warrant mass adoption. And I certainly wouldn’t be deploying at scale in an enterprise environment with zero widespread adoption. Small entities will just use cloud same as always. Large companies have a multitude of unique needs that won’t all be catered for by a single box. The big vendors will clean up on that front as usual.

endisneigh 3y ago

Your examples are strange. Framework is niche. iPhones do have the pedigree. Google Fiber is barely used. Most folks do use a supported Linux distribution, they don’t roll their own.

sanderjd 3y ago
> Framework is niche. "Niche" is not a dirty word. Framework is niche, but if they can make their cost structure work (which I have no idea whether or not they can), that's ok. New products don't need to dominate their market in order to be succesful. (But I do agree that Google Fiber is a bad example / a good example of a new product in an established market not working.)
leetrout 3y ago
> iPhones do have the pedigree Not in 2007-2008 which is equivalent to Oxide today.
- endisneigh 3y ago
  Apple was an incredibly well established company and the initial iPhone was not used in enterprise… it didn’t really start to take off there until iPhone 4 (2010-2011). Not to mention the comparison is inane to begin with. Using an iPhone for your enterprise and moving your tech infra to a relatively unknown company are not equivalent at all.
  - mixmastamyk 3y ago
    You must have missed the "beleaguered" era.
  - slikrick 3y ago
    it's so funny to me that you're harping on this analogy when it's clear you are so stubborn you won't accept anyone else's answer anyways.
- mfer 3y ago
  iPhones became popular through the bring your own device movement. You aren’t going to see that with racks in a data center
  - FullyFunctional 3y ago
    It think it was the other way around. The success of the iPhone (and Android) was a large factor behind the BYD movement.
- uecc 3y ago
  iPhone was truly transformative. This just seems like a twist on hyper-converged infrastructure + open source. I mean, I love their design. I just don’t think it’s special enough to warrant mass adoption. And I certainly wouldn’t be deploying at scale in an enterprise environment with zero widespread adoption. Small entities will just use cloud same as always. Large companies have a multitude of unique needs that won’t all be catered for by a single box. The big vendors will clean up on that front as usual.