3 ms·
If you read Clayton Christensen's Innovator's Solution [1] book (sequel to Innovator's Dilemma), you'll see him talk about "integration" and "disintegration" (b
by higherpurpose 13y ago
If you read Clayton Christensen's Innovator's Solution [1] book (sequel to Innovator's Dilemma), you'll see him talk about "integration" and "disintegration" (basically the modularization of a product or market).
So in the early days of a new market/category of product, the products are highly integrated, for several reasons. One is that the market is still new, so there isn't much of an "ecosystem" to begin with. Another is that the company with the "first mover's advantage" wants to keep stuff proprietary as much as possible, and another is that the product still kind of "sucks" in some areas (camera, battery life, in early days of the iPhone for example - compared to the traditional competition). So they need to make everything work as tightly as possible, to squeeze all the possible optimization out of it.
But eventually, the market becomes mature, the ecosystem grows, and the products become "good enough" for most people. So much of that extreme optimization or need to keep everything proprietary and in-house isn't needed anymore, and you actually start getting some advantages from the modularization of the market, such as buying a better modem than you can make from a "modem company", and so on.
For a while I wasn't sure this was going to happen to the smartphone market (ignoring the fact that there has been an increasing trend towards customization through colors and whanot), because for one the smartphone is a very tighly put together product, and it's hard to imagine how it could've been separated into a dozen different pieces without being junk, and two, for a while the trend was towards increasing "closeness" of devices, rather than openness.
But it seems it's going to happen, and ARA looks just about right (I wasn't a big fan of the Phonebloks pin-model). Still, even if the strategy here is "correct", and most likely on the right side of history, Google will still need to excel at execution, and make sure using such a phone gives very few disadvantages compared to a regular phone, but many more advantages (being able to use whatever camera you want, without buying a $700 phone every year, and so on). Otherwise, people could be turned off by the initial version, and then it will be a lot harder to convince them what a good idea this is. But for now I'm optimistic.
[1] - http://www.amazon.com/Innovators-Solution-Creating-Sustaining-Successful-ebook/dp/B00E257S7C/ref=sr_1_1_bnp_1_kin?ie=UTF8&qid=1397650807&sr=8-1&keywords=innovator%27s+solution http://www.amazon.com/Innovators-Solution-Creating-Sustainin...
- andosa 13y ago> So in the early days of a new market/category of product, the products are highly integrated Not sure about this one, seems like the opposite to me. Twenty years ago, PC's were very modular, and it was very common to add/upgrade a sound card, memory, cpu, video card etc. Fast forward to now, and for the most common computing devices (think tablets and smartphones), there is almost zero modularity or upgradability. Even with current PC's (i.e. mostly laptops), it's increasingly limited. The same trend is apparent in other similar technology. For example with analog TV, people could add a PAL block if their TV was NTSC or SECAM. Upgrading your car used to be significantly easier etc.
- Tyrannosaurs 13y agoFrom Benedict Evans: "Hugh Trevor-Roper is supposed to have said that 'history teaches us nothing except that something will happen', and this applies pretty well to tech: this is so young and so fast-changing an industry that drawing parallels is more misleading than helpful." Feels about right to me.
- pix64 13y agoI'd argue tablets and phones are different products from desktop computers which continue to be modular.
- divy 13y agoYou're forgetting the first wave of PC's - Apple II, TRS-80, TI-99, C64, etc. These machines had very little modularity compared to the wave of beige boxes that followed the IBM PC standard. I think Christensen even uses that as an example.
- uxp100 13y agoThe S-100 buss based machines before those were very modular, if perhaps not PCs in the same sense.
- chillingeffect 13y agoInteresting observations on the flux between fixed and modular here. PCs today are still modular devices with varying degrees of specialization. Macs have less modularity. What they both have in common are peripherals. Until now, smart phones/tablets have had little in the way of peripherals. Some headsets, keyboards, memory cards, etc., but people seem to be clamoring for certain peripherals above all others. They seem less concerned about CPU types, just like the in Mac and PC world. Key peripherals seem to be camera and some kind of "geekport"/internet of things. I don't see a need to modularize every part of the phone a la PCs, but to expand the peripherals would help. It might be as simple as adding extra USB ports.