4 ms·

>There's probably some useful discussion to be had whether Apple is really "losing its edge" in regards to making disruptive devices though. Less than two year

>There's probably some useful discussion to be had whether Apple is really "losing its edge" in regards to making disruptive devices though. Less than two years after they introduced their last disruptive device (the iPad)? What "disruptive devices" has Apple's competition released during last 10 years exactly? Blackberry could be thought of as one. Any other? (And one could argue that the high-dpi laptop, introduced less than a year ago, is also another disruptive device in the PC industry -- as was the Air that created the whole ultraportable thing and is still unsurpassed).

steverb 14y ago
There's a problem if your technical edge is disruptive devices. In order to maintain that edge you have to keep disrupting. I think the iPod, iPhone, and iPad were fairly obvious choices (although I was surprised that it was Apple that released the iPod, I had expected a killer device from one of the then traditional consumer electronics companies). Apple has already addressed all of my personal pain points, although I suppose they could eventually get AppleTV right I don't think it will be disruptive at anywhere near the scale that the iPhone was.
- pretoriusB 14y ago
  >There's a problem if your technical edge is disruptive devices. In order to maintain that edge you have to keep disrupting. True, but why "maintain that edge"? Apple was doing just fine with just the Mac like pre iPod. And then it did phenomenal after the iPod, iPhone, iPad. Even just with those, it's a tens of billions dollar business they can continue milking. It's not like "disruptive" is what marks Apple. The iPhone 5 is not disruptive anymore, but it sells like hot cakes. Incremental improvement and more especially high class machines (design, build and software integration) is what marks Apple. They can milk that for decades.
  - steverb 14y ago
    The edge matters for investors. Yes, Apple can continue to trundle along making about what it does now for a good long while, but their stock is generally priced for growth (although that has been changing lately). In the meantime they have have Android (and eventually probably MS) swallowing their market from the low end up. To me it seems very similar to what happened with the desktop market.
    - pretoriusB 14y ago
      >The edge matters for investors. Yes, Apple can continue to trundle along making about what it does now for a good long while, but their stock is generally priced for growth That's true, but I don't care much for investors. I was happy with Apple in 2002-3, when it was 1/50 today's size, because it had the product I wanted: a bloody usable Unix that can run proprietary apps, and good hi-end laptops. I wish companies were less relied in investors and the stock market and more on their actual production and revenues. Then you wouldn't have some social BS selling for several billion dollars only to die out a couple of years later...
chris_wot 14y ago
The problem with defending against disruptive devices is that they only become so when they start disrupting your business.
gregsq 14y ago
I'm not going to attempt to predict unpredictable disruptive technology, but the landscape is certainly changing, though by how much is still predictably uncertain. The cost reductions available to Apple are also available more widely. There's a lot of hardware work going on by lots of actors, and I don't think we should assume that restrictions on supply, for example with Samsungs Exynos 5, will continue indefinitely. It depends in the end on competitive advantage viewed from different perspectives. Apple is a great design company, and it's economies of scale are impressive. As these economies constrict, so does the advantage and within such a scenario disruption can more easily occur.

steverb 14y ago

There's a problem if your technical edge is disruptive devices. In order to maintain that edge you have to keep disrupting. I think the iPod, iPhone, and iPad were fairly obvious choices (although I was surprised that it was Apple that released the iPod, I had expected a killer device from one of the then traditional consumer electronics companies). Apple has already addressed all of my personal pain points, although I suppose they could eventually get AppleTV right I don't think it will be disruptive at anywhere near the scale that the iPhone was.

pretoriusB 14y ago
>There's a problem if your technical edge is disruptive devices. In order to maintain that edge you have to keep disrupting. True, but why "maintain that edge"? Apple was doing just fine with just the Mac like pre iPod. And then it did phenomenal after the iPod, iPhone, iPad. Even just with those, it's a tens of billions dollar business they can continue milking. It's not like "disruptive" is what marks Apple. The iPhone 5 is not disruptive anymore, but it sells like hot cakes. Incremental improvement and more especially high class machines (design, build and software integration) is what marks Apple. They can milk that for decades.
- steverb 14y ago
  The edge matters for investors. Yes, Apple can continue to trundle along making about what it does now for a good long while, but their stock is generally priced for growth (although that has been changing lately). In the meantime they have have Android (and eventually probably MS) swallowing their market from the low end up. To me it seems very similar to what happened with the desktop market.
  - pretoriusB 14y ago
    >The edge matters for investors. Yes, Apple can continue to trundle along making about what it does now for a good long while, but their stock is generally priced for growth That's true, but I don't care much for investors. I was happy with Apple in 2002-3, when it was 1/50 today's size, because it had the product I wanted: a bloody usable Unix that can run proprietary apps, and good hi-end laptops. I wish companies were less relied in investors and the stock market and more on their actual production and revenues. Then you wouldn't have some social BS selling for several billion dollars only to die out a couple of years later...

chris_wot 14y ago

The problem with defending against disruptive devices is that they only become so when they start disrupting your business.

gregsq 14y ago

I'm not going to attempt to predict unpredictable disruptive technology, but the landscape is certainly changing, though by how much is still predictably uncertain. The cost reductions available to Apple are also available more widely. There's a lot of hardware work going on by lots of actors, and I don't think we should assume that restrictions on supply, for example with Samsungs Exynos 5, will continue indefinitely. It depends in the end on competitive advantage viewed from different perspectives. Apple is a great design company, and it's economies of scale are impressive. As these economies constrict, so does the advantage and within such a scenario disruption can more easily occur.