3 ms·
I know that last line is wry but I feel like people need the reminder: The graveyards are filled to overflowing with companies that were challenged by low-end
by julianeon 3y ago
I know that last line is wry but I feel like people need the reminder:
The graveyards are filled to overflowing with companies that were challenged by low-end 'crappy' products and said 'they are going after the bottom of the market, we are safe'... a few years before they entered a terminal decline, and a decade before they went extinct.
- hyperthesis 3y agoI think thought is different; but I also see no barrier to strong AI. Jobs might be the least of our problems at that point.
- hyperthesis 3y agoThe significant factor in "disruption" [Christensen] is not low-end products - incumbents typically crush them, and markets consolidate over time; many competitors become few. What's newsworthy and puzzling is when the low-end entrant does win. The key factor (IMHO from reading several of his books) is when incumbents cannot address low-end entrants, because their customers have captured them in some way (e.g. all aspects of the organization are optimized to their customers). Thought experiment: how could this apply to human thought? i.e. what is a low-end that we couldn't address? Disclaimer: I really like Christensen's reasoning, theories, and expression of them... but he did predict the iphone would not be disruptive. So, at best, difficult to apply!