3 ms·
You should try reading the whole article. The OP's point is that Christensen has two theories of disruption, one of which is invalid. The first, new market dis
by abtinf 13y ago
You should try reading the whole article.
The OP's point is that Christensen has two theories of disruption, one of which is invalid. The first, new market disruption, to which you are referring with your comment, is not controversial. The OP would likely agree with you.
The second, low-end disruption, holds in business-to-business markets but fails in consumers markets.
Thus, the iPod was not killed by a low-cost and standardized competitor (which is the incorrect prediction of low-cost disruption), but by a vertically integrated highly differentiated competitor (a possibility under new market disruption).
- whatusername 13y agoThat sounds like low-end disruption to me (Possibly I'm misunderstanding the theory). The iPod was killed when the marginal cost of an MP3 Player moved to $0. Same thing is happening to Point and Shoot Camera's. My Phone isn't quite as good a music player as a dedicated MP3 Player. And it's not quite as good as a P&S camera. But their marginal cost to me as a consumer is $0.
- ThomPete 13y agoAn iPhone with a digitalised iPod inside of it. It is exactly a low cost competitor.