3 ms·

Phones are computers. They're bound to become more complex and powerful over time. Who best understands this and constantly innovates to manage this complexity?

Phones are computers. They're bound to become more complex and powerful over time. Who best understands this and constantly innovates to manage this complexity? Not Samsung. Apple's approach not only pays for this constant innovation, it acquired and retains the people who most care about it. As Christensen himself argues — it's very hard for a company to internally sustain competing business models, and Samsung is in the commodity imitation business (everywhere, not just phones). Just as it can't easily be Apple without ceasing to be Samsung, Apple can't be Samsung without ceasing to be Apple. What's odd is that everyone is happy to let Apple be mercedes. bmw, porsche, and rolls royce while they fight to be GM and Toyota.

r0h1n 13y ago
> Phones are computers. They're bound to become more complex and powerful over time. Who best understands this and constantly innovates to manage this complexity? Not Samsung. > Samsung is in the commodity imitation business (everywhere, not just phones) Wow. That is 100% pure and unadulterated hyperbole. Walter White would be proud. Care to share any facts or data that proves why Samsung, a company that straddles more segments than any other company in.the world (smartphones, semi-conductors, memory, televisions, cameras, air conditioners, washing machines, PCs and foundries, to name a few), is "unable to manage complexity"? Or why you think Samsung is in the "commodity imitation" business? There are Android smartphones today that are not just competing but better "BMW, Porsche or Rolls Royce (though strictly, a RR is never a competitor to any of the brands you mention)" to Apple's "Mercedes". Wean yourself off the Apple Koolaid.
- Tloewald 13y ago
  I'm talking about managing the complexity of the device for users, not manage internal complexity (which they clearly can do very well). I own quite a bit of samsung gear, and they're quite awful at e.g. TV menu systems. Samsung isn't an innovative company (at least in terms of products). They're a fast follower -- a hardware microsoft if you like. Good at execution and imitation. Nothing wrong with that, the world needs Samsungs just as it needs Apples and Googles.

r0h1n 13y ago

> Phones are computers. They're bound to become more complex and powerful over time. Who best understands this and constantly innovates to manage this complexity? Not Samsung. > Samsung is in the commodity imitation business (everywhere, not just phones) Wow. That is 100% pure and unadulterated hyperbole. Walter White would be proud. Care to share any facts or data that proves why Samsung, a company that straddles more segments than any other company in.the world (smartphones, semi-conductors, memory, televisions, cameras, air conditioners, washing machines, PCs and foundries, to name a few), is "unable to manage complexity"? Or why you think Samsung is in the "commodity imitation" business? There are Android smartphones today that are not just competing but better "BMW, Porsche or Rolls Royce (though strictly, a RR is never a competitor to any of the brands you mention)" to Apple's "Mercedes". Wean yourself off the Apple Koolaid.

Tloewald 13y ago
I'm talking about managing the complexity of the device for users, not manage internal complexity (which they clearly can do very well). I own quite a bit of samsung gear, and they're quite awful at e.g. TV menu systems. Samsung isn't an innovative company (at least in terms of products). They're a fast follower -- a hardware microsoft if you like. Good at execution and imitation. Nothing wrong with that, the world needs Samsungs just as it needs Apples and Googles.