4 ms·

She seemed to state that Clayton Christensen cherry picked his companies and excluded examples that didn't support his theory. And that there are many companies

She seemed to state that Clayton Christensen cherry picked his companies and excluded examples that didn't support his theory. And that there are many companies which have failed or succeeded outside of his theory of disruption. To summarize, we pay too much attention to disruption nowadays. We overuse it to destructive ends, and she seems to think it wasn't based on rock solid evidence. The article ends with a reference to more organic, collaborative and poetic connections. Not a strong critique in my opinion.

exstudent 12y ago
Indeed, she offers no alternative. I suppose we're to sit around trading DFW novels and pretending that technology can't "disrupt" whatever industry we're working in. I'm not sure how that point of view is helpful or meaningful.
hyp0 12y ago
She didn't get around to critiquing his theory, just the over-use of it. And her summary didn't include the theory's essence: that incumbents are captured by their present customers - even when they are 100% on top of the coming tech, they can't desert them, and can't see the new customers (which, to be fair, don't strictly exist yet). I think his key background evidence is pretty strong: that technology improves faster than we can absorb it e.g. PCs are now faster than they need to be for most tasks. Although we do demand more of our PCs, they have improved at an even faster rate. This relates to the above theory in that we now that they are fast enough, we are willing to pay for some other quality - like portability. For businesses that have worked at improving the technology along the dimension that was in demand for a long time (e.g. speed), they have organized everything around this - R&D, manufacturing, marketing, positioning, sales, partnerships, even their release schedule. They are optimized for getting better at that dimension and selling that dimension. So.... when that dimension is no longer in demand, all their optimization works against them. It's difficult to change emphasis, both for engineering and marketing. Right now, Intel - the inventor of the CPU (and of the integrated circuit, can you believe it?) - is putting its truly incredible resources, knowledge, talent, skill and market position into more power-efficient CPUs (instead of higher-performing) for smartphones. But your smartphone doesn't use them.
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 12y ago
  No, I can't believe it, if only for the simple reason that the invention of the IC preceded the founding of Intel by roughly a decade. One of Intel's founders was one of the co-inventors, but at the time of the invention working at Fairchild.
- greendestiny 12y ago
  I think innovation and the disruption it brings is real - but I think this article does a good job of arguing that the inability of incumbents to respond is overstated by the theory and its proponents. Intel hasn't closed down and given a few years may be stronger than ever.
- XorNot 12y ago
  Conversely your smartphone connects to a lot of mainframes which are stacked to the brim with Intel processors and that's not changing. Intel have tons of breathing room in the market - and they only need to succeed at beating ARM once to break their hold. They have faster fabs, more fabs and more engineering talent then anyone else in the business. They're not going anywhere.
  - hga 12y ago
    I doubt they can apply more hardware design engineering talent that the whole ARM ecosystem can; they certainly haven't as of the last time I checked (which was a while ago). I also doubt the "beat them once" thesis. In general, to get "everyone" to switch you need a 10X superiority over the competition, and I seriously doubt that's in the cards. The ARM ecosystem is also extraordinary rich, and I can't see how Intel could replicate it. Finally, I seriously doubt the big players, some of whom have their own chip designs, and at least in the case of Samsung manufacture them, would be happy to move from the ARM ecosystem to an Intel monoculture where they'd be at Intel's mercy forever after.

exstudent 12y ago

Indeed, she offers no alternative. I suppose we're to sit around trading DFW novels and pretending that technology can't "disrupt" whatever industry we're working in. I'm not sure how that point of view is helpful or meaningful.

hyp0 12y ago

She didn't get around to critiquing his theory, just the over-use of it. And her summary didn't include the theory's essence: that incumbents are captured by their present customers - even when they are 100% on top of the coming tech, they can't desert them, and can't see the new customers (which, to be fair, don't strictly exist yet). I think his key background evidence is pretty strong: that technology improves faster than we can absorb it e.g. PCs are now faster than they need to be for most tasks. Although we do demand more of our PCs, they have improved at an even faster rate. This relates to the above theory in that we now that they are fast enough, we are willing to pay for some other quality - like portability. For businesses that have worked at improving the technology along the dimension that was in demand for a long time (e.g. speed), they have organized everything around this - R&D, manufacturing, marketing, positioning, sales, partnerships, even their release schedule. They are optimized for getting better at that dimension and selling that dimension. So.... when that dimension is no longer in demand, all their optimization works against them. It's difficult to change emphasis, both for engineering and marketing. Right now, Intel - the inventor of the CPU (and of the integrated circuit, can you believe it?) - is putting its truly incredible resources, knowledge, talent, skill and market position into more power-efficient CPUs (instead of higher-performing) for smartphones. But your smartphone doesn't use them.

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 12y ago
No, I can't believe it, if only for the simple reason that the invention of the IC preceded the founding of Intel by roughly a decade. One of Intel's founders was one of the co-inventors, but at the time of the invention working at Fairchild.
greendestiny 12y ago
I think innovation and the disruption it brings is real - but I think this article does a good job of arguing that the inability of incumbents to respond is overstated by the theory and its proponents. Intel hasn't closed down and given a few years may be stronger than ever.
XorNot 12y ago
Conversely your smartphone connects to a lot of mainframes which are stacked to the brim with Intel processors and that's not changing. Intel have tons of breathing room in the market - and they only need to succeed at beating ARM once to break their hold. They have faster fabs, more fabs and more engineering talent then anyone else in the business. They're not going anywhere.
- hga 12y ago
  I doubt they can apply more hardware design engineering talent that the whole ARM ecosystem can; they certainly haven't as of the last time I checked (which was a while ago). I also doubt the "beat them once" thesis. In general, to get "everyone" to switch you need a 10X superiority over the competition, and I seriously doubt that's in the cards. The ARM ecosystem is also extraordinary rich, and I can't see how Intel could replicate it. Finally, I seriously doubt the big players, some of whom have their own chip designs, and at least in the case of Samsung manufacture them, would be happy to move from the ARM ecosystem to an Intel monoculture where they'd be at Intel's mercy forever after.