First, I'll correct my terminology - it's not "componentized" but "modular". Both integration and modular approach have components, the distinction is that dif

First, I'll correct my terminology - it's not "componentized" but "modular". Both integration and modular approach have components, the distinction is that different modular components can be used; there are many components that fulfill the same interface in a modular architecture, whereas in an integrated architecture, the components are interdependent, so you can't just swap one out. It's similar to reusing modular code: you can have different implementations of a List, and they all work the same - and, since it's standardized interface, many different programs can reuse them. But in integrated code, if you change one thing, you have to change everything else. So you can't mix and match, and you can't reuse the code between projects. So "modularity" is really about the cleanly defined interfaces. Yes, I agree phones are more constrained. But for evaluating the theory, how can you tell how constrained it has to be, to count? For example, Carmack says that integrated CPUs and GPUs are about twice as fast than as separate modular components (so, for the same power components, an xbox360 can be twice as fast as a PC). And yet, even though graphics power is in demand, the PC market was (and still is) dominated by modular GPUs. Curiously, Christensen doesn't provide any statistical data across industries (but he did do this for his basic "disruption" idea). I think it's more that, if some quality is in demand, and if that quality can be delivered best by integration, then that might be how it happens. It's a softer theory. I guess the simple answer is that this idea of integrated vs. modular is just one factor of many, so it's not predictive alone. BTW: surprisingly, cars are not integrated according to Christensen - they are assembled from different components that can be mixed and matched (e.g. the same electrical system can be used in several different models; and different car, same engine; the same chassis can accommodate different versions of each component, because they have bolts in the same places, and use the same interfaces in other respects). This happened because people don't want faster cars (that integrated components are better at delivering); they want safer, more economical cars. But here I have doubts - it seems both those could be better achieved by integration (esp for efficiency).