Competing with a Mac

http://www.asymco.com/2013/10/01/competing-with-a-mac/

by co_pl_te • 13 years ago

143 112 13 years ago

wiremine• 13 years ago

As an aside: anytime I read anything from asymco, I feel much smarter, and much dumber, all at the same time.

cwoods2• 13 years ago

The striking thing is how the two companies peaked are almost precisely the same time and how that moment (end of 2010) was not related to the entry timing of their nominal disruptor[iPhone].

Could it be that it was Android that hurt Blackberry and Nokia more than the iPhone did? Low end Android phones definitely replaced a lot of Symbian phones in the marketplace. It would certainly explain the timing of the change.

The idea that Apple is vulnerable to the low end is a relic of an idea.

Not seeing how this follows from the data and analysis and seems to be a rather bold claim. There is a real chance of smartphones getting commodotized and it has already happened to a certain extent in China and India, where local OEMs are calling the shots.

The reason it's not happening in the US to the same extent is that the carriers hide the true cost of the flagship phones into two year data contracts, unlike, say PCs. However, the contract free prepaid market is growing at a record pace [1] and we may see a real change in the marketplace if the trend continues. Is the upgrade to S4 or the 5s from the S3 or 4S worth $500?

[1] http://www.fiercewireless.com/story/npd-one-third-us-smartph...

ricw• 13 years ago

Couldn't agree more with both points. Of course android ate Nokia's pie (cheap phones for everyone). Rather unsure about blackberry, i think thats more a thing that android and ios both now have excellent infrastructure integration (MS exchange etc) for corporate support.

You're also right with how cheap OEM android phones are taking over the market. iOS is losing marketshare pretty much everywhere where phones are not heavily subsidised or the comparative income is low, namely everywhere but the US and UK (and a couple of others). Unless apple drops its ios prices to more reasonable levels (they are really taking the p*ss), it's going to be the same story as the one that unfolded with mac/windows.

gibwell8• 13 years ago

Whilst I agree that Nokia and Blackberry were disrupted by Android, not the iPhone, Apple is gaining customers everywhere. 'Marketshare' is a flawed concept because it assumes a unified market of undifferentiated customers. Apple is simply not in the market of commodity devices. It never had any of that market to lose. Claiming that apple is losing those customers is clearly incorrect.

If the story does unfold as it did with Mac/Windows, Apple will again be the clear winner, just as they are in the PC market.

siglesias• 13 years ago

The point isn't whether it was Android or iPhone (for the record, the Droid campaign started fall 2009). The notion of getting disrupted by higher cost phones--not iPhone for a Symbian but a smart phone for a flip phone--was so unthinkable and invisible that for three years the two companies under discussion here made do selling to emerging markets. It's essentially a tale of how the market and leadership at these companies do not see disruptions from above coming, and if they do see them coming being in a paradoxical state of needing to reverse course on a (thus far) successful strategy.

Not seeing how this follows from the data... There is a real chance of smartphones getting commodotized

Nobody is arguing that smart phones haven't been commoditized. The question is, how viable is a business that does not serve the low end? According to critics who are not keen on the nuances between these different products, a high-end play is not viable at all. But this is ignorant of the history of the Mac and iPod. It's also ignorant of the fate of PC-era commodity players.

By the way, I love the last sentence of Horace's piece here: "That’s not likely to be the case for those who found themselves in competition with the Mac in its pocketable re-incaration."--he's hinting at the possibility that these scary "commodity players," even if they see success, set themselves up poorly for the next round of disruption. Apple's whole-widget approach uniquely set it up to introduce disruptive form factors, and might do so again in the future.

preemrust• 13 years ago

Not seeing how this follows from the data and analysis and seems to be a rather bold claim. There is a real chance of smartphones getting commodotized and it has already happened to a certain extent in China and India, where local OEMs are calling the shots.

I spend time in both countries you mention and couple more in Asia. Local OEMs are calling the shots because market as a whole is growing. But, the smarter OEMs realize that they have to make phones that are less shoddy. That is why you see brands like Oppo. What I have seen in the last couple of years is that as people get busier, they don't have time or patience to handle rubbish phones. They will not mind spending more money to get an iPhone or a Mac. Many analysts in the west try to say something like we Asians buy these gadgets as a status symbol. It might be true to a certain extent, but more people are getting them these because they are tired of cheap and crappy devices.

casca• 13 years ago

Mr Lazaridis and the ridiculous dual-CEO structure are significant contributors to the failure of Blackberry. I have friends there and not one believed that he would be as prescient as saying "If that thing catches on, we’re competing with a Mac, not a Nokia".

Kronopath• 13 years ago

Finally, someone else who agrees that the iPhone was a disruptive product. It had all of the hallmarks of a disruptive product except for the low price. It appealed to a different set of values (i.e. usability and interface), ignored features that were seen as critical in the existing market of smartphone users (No third-party apps at launch? No copy/paste? No editing of Word documents?!), and it blindsided the incumbents (who focused on business users rather than the new market of everyday consumers). Nowadays you'd have trouble convincing people that existing smartphone users mocked the iPhone when it first came out.

It's worth noting that even Christensen didn't think the iPhone would be a success.[0]

[0] http://stratechery.com/2013/clayton-christensen-got-wrong/

silvestrov• 13 years ago

It HAD lower price: it disrupted the portable computers which were more expensive at that time.

You already needed to pay for a phone, so the real price compared to a portable was just how much more expensive the iPhone was compared to a standard mobile phone.

Due to the system with 2 year phone contracts in USA, that extra price was low.

josh26007• 13 years ago

This was state of the art around the time the iPhone hit: HTC8525 [0]. That is not a phone, that is a ridiculously small screen welded to a slow computer with terrible battery life; and it was $299 on contract at the time.

The disruption in the iPhone was technical, social, political and economic.

[0] http://reviews.cnet.com/smartphones/at-t-8525/4505-6452_7-32...

peterhunt• 13 years ago

I wonder what differentiates a disruptive product from a better product? It seems like the qualities you listed are hallmarks of all good products, right?

josh26007• 13 years ago

A better product is one the public can imagine.

A disruptive product is one that the public cannot conceive of, such that its introduction alters the standards in an industry.

A better product is the HTC8525[0] over the HTC8500. A disruptive product is the HTC8525 versus the iPhone.

[0]http://reviews.cnet.com/smartphones/at-t-8525/4505-6452_7-32... - The leading WinMo smartphone in Q4 2006, pre-iPhone.

r00fus2• 13 years ago

Example: Series2 TiVo - couldn't do HD like some of the cable set-top boxes, but was the first mainstream DVR and I much preferred watching a 30m show in 20m over "HD".

guyzero4• 13 years ago

It's really a pretty specific idea initially coined in Clayton Christensen's book "The Innovator's Dilemma."

From the book, via Wikipedia:

"Generally, disruptive innovations were technologically straightforward, consisting of off-the-shelf components put together in a product architecture that was often simpler than prior approaches. They offered less of what customers in established markets wanted and so could rarely be initially employed there. They offered a different package of attributes valued only in emerging markets remote from, and unimportant to, the mainstream."

So the canonical example would be PCs disrupting the market for mainframes or minicomputers. Or as described in the book, less powerful hydraulic excavators disrupting steam-powered excavators. It's a good book, anyone who is interested in the business of technology should read it.

The contradiction is that disruptive products are usually much worse products than the ones they eventually replace. No one who owned a VAX or a mainframe looked at the first IBM PCs and thought that the PC was a "better" product. But the PC started cheaper, stayed cheaper and got better fast enough to displace minicomputers while at the same time opening up an entirely new market for computers that didn't exist before.

So much of this hinges on how you define what "disruptive" means. There's an argument to be made that the iPhone started the trend of phones & tablets disrupting the entire desktop PC industry, starting as "worse" products that eventually replaced the "better" product. I personally don't think you could really say the iPhone "disrupted" Blackberry per se - their relationship is more like early Compaq to IBM where Compaq/Apple put out a much better product that broke down barriers holding the original product back (e.g. Compaq decoupling bus speed from processor speed allowing them to ship a faster computer with an ISA-compatible bus for expansion cards).

pekk3• 13 years ago

I suspect that it often boils down to marketing. A company selling you something somewhat better wants you to be thrilled and think it is revolutionizing everything, not "hmm this is somewhat better, I might prefer this if it doesn't cost too much more." Which may be the reality of many things which get called "disruptive".

j-g-faustus• 13 years ago

Here's a blog post arguing that the iPhone wasn't disruptive, like PC vs mainframe - the PC was worse in every respect, but it was also dramatically cheaper.

Instead, it was obsoletive, like PC vs typewriters - the PC was way more expensive, but could do so much more, and once you had a PC it didn't make much sense to have a typewriter too.

http://stratechery.com/2013/obsoletive/

neighsayer• 13 years ago

The first iPhone was barely a success. Apple had to give a price drop merely two months after it went on sale. The second iPhone, the iPhone 3G, was the breakout hit. Then Apple changed the rollout process and used a 'cheap' price[1] to accelerate sales.

[1]'cheap' initial payment with an expensive mobile contract.

gmac2• 13 years ago

Apple had to give a price drop merely two months after it went on sale.

I speak as someone whose first iPhone was a 3G, but I think it's possible that the price drop was part of the plan all along. It was be a smart price segmentation move: get everyone who's unbearably keen to pay a whole lot, then move on to people who are bit less unbearably keen at a slightly lower price.

r00fus2• 13 years ago

The unlimited (even tho 2G) data plan was price-disruptive. Verizon wanted to charge me $45/mo for data for my Treo (again 2G/1xRTT).

The iPhone (mandated) plan from AT&T was $20/mo for data, including 200 texts.

Even if I didn't prefer the iPhone, that cost differential was a no-brainer to me.

brudgers• 13 years ago

Data plans were the disruption that made the iPhone more than "a faster horse." They allowed the iPhone's architecture to be feasible and the idea of the app store to be viable. Yes, touch screens are an improvement over pens, but the change that sunk RIM was logistical.

joseph_cooney• 13 years ago

This is how it played out in Australia too. Pre-iPhone data was expensive. My pre-iphone "smart" phones were hobbled by a lack of data which the iphone didn't suffer from.

jseliger• 13 years ago

From the article:

While BlackBerry was guided to omit consumer features from its enterprise buyers, Nokia never secured enterprise buyers of any significance

I wonder if BlackBerry would've prospered by doubling down on enterprise buyers, maintaining their keyboards, and ignoring the consumer market. From what I can tell, BlackBerry haphazardly attacked the consumer market where Apple was the strongest.

w1ntermute• 13 years ago

In my opinion, this is exactly what they should have done. They should have focused on providing value to businesses that the iPhone couldn't, and then incessantly emphasized those features to their enterprise customers.

seanalltogether• 13 years ago

I can only speak anecdotally here, but in my experience as an IOS contractor if blackberry had doubled down on enterprise buyers, it wouldn't have mattered. Top executives were buying iphones despite the enterprise features, and they were forcing their internal IT departments to make room for them. It's also the reason that so many enterprise apps are made for iphone while android is ignored, the top brass want to see their companies app on their smartphone.

nl3• 13 years ago

Didn't work[1]: when the CEO of your company demands that IT let him use his iPhone, then no amount of IT-friendly features is going to keep your enterprise a Blackberry only shop.

[1] To some extent Blackberry did this. While they did launch consumer models, their enterprise sales force remained strong, and new enterprise-friendly features kept shipping.

guyzero4• 13 years ago

If you stick to a very literal reading of Christensen, the iPhone was disruptive to the PC market, but was simply a much better smartphone that its competitors. A product can be both better and worse depending on what you compare it to.

ceejayoz• 13 years ago

It had all of the hallmarks of a disruptive product except for the low price.

The essentially feature-free RAZR flip-phone was $600 without a contract and sold like hotcakes.

nnnnni2• 13 years ago

and a really ugly design with horrible keypad!

roberthahn• 13 years ago

I also felt that the iPhone was a disruptive product. But it took this article to help me articulate the reasons why.

In all of Christensen's examples cited in “The Innovator’s Solution”, the incumbents tended to move upmarket at the time the disruption was introduced. In the case of the cellphone industry, the incumbents were moving downmarket.

This is important because it shows that a company wanting to disrupt an industry needs to position themselves at the opposite end of the prevailing market direction.

But simply zagging while the industry is zigging isn't enough - the disrupting company also needs to employ the appropriate strategy at the same time. Hence, if your disruption is targeted to the cheap end of the market, then Christensen's "good enough" strategy is absolutely the correct one. But, if your disruption is targeted to the high end of the market, as Apple's iPhone was, then you better be offering a degree of quality that no one dreamed of offering.

This kind of deflates Christensen's compelling rhetoric somewhat. Before Christensen's books, conventional marketing was that in order to succeed, you should see where the industry is headed, and track in the opposite direction. Position yourself against your competitors, not be like them.

hosh6• 13 years ago

Ok, if we're using this framework, here are some interesting thought experiments:

(1) What is Google Glass disrupting? What are the faulty assumptions about it? ("iPhone was a pocket Mac, not a better phone. Google Glasses is a ____, not a ?")

(2) What are the AI / Machine Learning disrupting? (Google, Apple, Facebook, Amazon, IBM, MS) ("AI is a ____, not a ?")

(3) What are the Kiva Systems robots disrupting? ("Kiva System robots is a ____, not warehouse automation? Not ?")

(4) What are 3D Printers disrupting? Certainly not mass-production factories.

bane3• 13 years ago

1) I'm not smart enough to guess on that one.

2) Education and reference resources. I now longer have to spend hours and hours looking up information and synthesizing it myself, I can get an AI to do it for me. (crossing fingers that it synthesizes it like I want it to)

3) Thieving, lazy, sloppy warehouse workers (no offense). The amount of stuff that gets stolen and "missing" out of fulfillment centers is astronomical. Plus, it's basically a a task that doesn't require human level intelligence. What do I need to ship? Where is it? Is it in stock?

4) Service Bureaus and Machine Shops. Prototyping physical things is expensive and time consuming and requires lots of skill to do. When making any kind of physical thing, the equivalent of compiling and debugging, is to run off a prototype at a Bureau. It's so onerous a problem that very few organizations even bother to make more than half a dozen physical prototypes of an item before committing to production. In the end, it'll probably just mean more variety of cheap junk we can buy off of Amazon.

hosh6• 13 years ago

(2) and (3) are interesting responses. But I don't think it is actually using the key insight described in this article. That key insight being that people compare it to what's come before, and that comparison becomes a blinder for it's actual advantages.

(4) will happen, but I think the scope is far too small; again it also has the blinders that does not take advantage of the key insight from the article. With 3D printers, you wouldn't buy products off of Amazon so much as buy licenses to fabrication blueprints to print out a product in your garage, similar to the way you can now buy ebooks, digital music, and digital movies from Amazon without the physical product.

martythemaniak• 13 years ago

I think the disruption potential is easy to see, but predicting it's success impossible, because it depends almost entirely on the company's execution over the course of many years.

For example tons of people were super excited in 2007 because they had a full unix computer in their pockets. Some had the iPhone and some had a Nokia N810. The difference of course is that Apple remained focused and executed very well over the next 5 years whereas Nokia...

To use Glass as an example, it's simple: it wants to be the primary UI to your data and apps. Today you look at the output on the screen and feed it input via voice and the touch thingy, in a decade it reads your brainwaves. People aren't wed to tapping on flat rectangles any more than they were wed to keyboards and styluses.

But whether it's successful or not? No one knows, because it depends entirely on what Google does over the next 5-10 years.

TillE• 13 years ago

Google Glass is, ideally, the new smartphone. In the sense that it could change how people interact with the world in much the same way that smartphones did, but at the next level. A more personal, immediate level.

It's not just a smartphone stuck on your face. It's your constant link to all the information you need.

hosh6• 13 years ago

Isn't the point of using this frame of thought that one needs to look beyond? Just as, "iphones are not better phones, they are computing devices", then wouldn't it be, "Google glasses are not better smartphones, they are ____ ?"

gibwell8• 13 years ago

Launched products are disruptive when they start taking over functionality that other products were once doing. Google Glass is, for now, a publicity vehicle to show that Google is forward thinking.

Only when the product is launched will we learn whether it is disruptive.

nl3• 13 years ago

What is Google Glass disrupting?

Everything. There's never been a portable computing platform as aggressive in integrating with the physical (albeit visual) environment before. It will make what mobile disruption did to desktop computing look like what electronic typewriters did to their mechanical predecessors.

Anything that people currently use their eyes for can and probably will be disrupted.

Shopping: price comparisons in physical shops will be automatic, and no longer make you look like a dick.

Sports: Any team sports will be changed by the immediate knowledge of where all your team is. Any endurance sport will change with the zero-effort monitoring of your vital statistics[1].

Dating: All those "mobile dating apps" that work in theory but kind of fail in the real world might actually have a chance (assuming people get used to people wearing Glass and no longer laugh at them)

[1] No more http://chrisfroomelookingatstems.tumblr.com/

hosh6• 13 years ago

Ok, if you had to fill in the blank, what would fill in? "Google Glasses are not better smartphones, they are ____ "?

blinkingled2• 13 years ago

Blackberry's was the case of being too much in love with their own beliefs and processes. Also known as inability to adapt to changing circumstances. Microsoft also has those tendencies but they tend to get their act somewhat together even if that's too late.

Lazaridis saw the iPhone and the Engineer in him went - the battery won't last and it will bring down the AT&T network with its full fledged browser. Ballmer saw the iPhone and laughed at the $500 price. Both did not see the potential from a changing market's standpoint. Battery tech gets better, hardware, networks and OSes get better every year, and the prices can and do fall.

But some of it was inevitable for Blackberry. There really wasn't any differentiation potential left behind for them. iPhone got the smooth, attractive, computer replacement part. Android got the customizable, ubiquitous, many options, open and the "not iPhone" part. There just wasn't any way for BB to differentiate and win. They could've had a perfectly smooth touch optimized OS with great BB hardware, security suite and BBM etc. and even then their target market would still be limited.

The only way they could've saved themselves was if they had innovated ahead of time. After the iPhone and Android it was game over for them.

josh26007• 13 years ago

How can you innovate when the standard for your product is Java 1.3?

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1959705

blinkingled2• 13 years ago

If they had bought QNX early and switched to either a recent Java version or another decent language - even something like webOS HTML5/JS/CSS would've worked given a sane looking UI and frameworks.

bane3• 13 years ago

I think it also would have been hideously difficult for BB to dev, market and sell two entirely different kinds of devices.

I think there's really been 3 kinds of smartphones:

1) The Microsoft model - shrink a desktop down into a phone display and since everything is so little now, use a stylus to pick at things on the screen. You can definitely see an older MS smartphone and still see it as being a smartphone.

2) The BB model - optimize for most common use-cases and provide a dedicated set of physical inputs to operate. These days, feature phones pretty much do everything a BB can do, but the interface into the capabilities suck. The classic BB phone is very much a feature phone on steroids. A nicer screen, better input but good hardware build quality and excellent email services. It turns out that turing machines are turing machines and BB eventually figured out you can run other kinds of apps on the devices, but their pedigree is very much an amped up feature phone.

3) The iPhone model. Grids and capacitive touchscreens. Let's be honest here, Android started as a copy of the BB model, early Android phones even had a similar set of input mechanisms.

The iPhone model is interesting in that it was just like the Microsoft model in the sense that it was just a cheap portable computing device where "phone" was just an application on the computer. But unlike Microsoft they didn't just take the obvious route of just shrinking down the desktop into an unusable and fussy tiny screen. They developed a different kind of interface.

Also, if you squint just a tiny little bit, it looks kinda like the mobile interface model that BB used, but instead of a wheel or ball or whatever to navigate and a keyboard to type, they simplified and just did everything on a bigger screen.

Pulling these two influences together into what we have now, and being willing to deal with the tradeoffs (lack of precision input and the "feel" of a keyboard + the reduced battery life and added component cost) was really innovative and daring. It was so impressive that Google completely redirected and pivoted Android from the BB model to the iPhone model.

cleaver• 13 years ago

One of Blackberry's key barriers to innovation was that they were unwilling to cannibalize their existing revenue. It was quite substantial revenue, so I would understand the beancounters' reticence.

To connect a Blackberry to your own mail server, you needed expensive software and the enterprise level of network service. While BB did start to offer consumer data plans, you could not use them with your own mail server. When the iPhone came to Canada, I did the math and traded the blackberry for an iPhone.

tracker1• 13 years ago

I think that BB should have done two things... First, double-down on enterprise customers. Second, offer BB branded applications for iOS and Android phones. They could have been best-in-breed applications, and still kept devices with physical keyboards for their enterprise/die-hard customers.

They had a feature set that was early on, unmatched, and enough developer insight/knowledge and codebase that they could have beat other competitors at the application level for integrated contact/calendar/mail solutions for exchange integration.

clarky07• 13 years ago

The interesting thing about this is that the original iPhone was barely something that could be called a success. It sold 6.1 Million phones over 5 quarters. The recent launch was 9 Million in 3 days. They sold 50% more phones in a weekend than they did in 450 days. Reports of Apple's death are exaggerated I think.

DigitalJack• 13 years ago

I think it would be better to compare it to a smartphone of the day, like samsung's blackjack.

rythie• 13 years ago

As a disruptive product, it did exactly what you'd expect it to do, i.e. start slow: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffusion_of_innovations

QuantumGood• 13 years ago

Disruptive products as initially defined are reliant on advances in technology to become good enough to challenge established markets (while they advanced via emerging/self-created markets).

Apple was always biding their time, waiting for the right moment for a giant leap forward in consumer satisfaction to become possible; it's the opposite of the incrementalism of the usual disruptive product.

Few companies would consider such an approach because it seems to be a much, much bigger risk, leaping so far forward in consumer satisfaction that you are practically creating a new market.

But there is an enormous leverage opportunity created when you take this approach:

A visionary new product can generate a lot of marketing leverage from a strong sales pitch. It really is better. Using a strong sales pitch for an established "me too" product doesn't generate a lot of marketing leverage. And Apple had the head visionary as head salesperson.

The flip side of the potential sales pitch leverage is that the product can likely only be sold via strong sales pitch. It's too new.

So the best positioned company to take advantage of the strong selling opportunities of the Apple approach is one with a strong brand as an innovator. Upstarts or stodgy old companies won't know how to really pitch the product compellingly, or will be at too large a disadvantage from their non-existent/badly matched brand.

I worry that Apple with Jobs gone will forget to sell their next big innovation strongly enough, and will just rely on their existing customer base and strong brand. It will probably only work well the first time (existing huge base/incredible brand).

I say "I worry" because I want Apple to continue creating products that are great leaps forward, and I don't think they can do so perpetually without acknowledging the huge role that a really strong sales pitch plays in the success of such products.

pekk3• 13 years ago

Apple was trying and failing for many years. Now they have found a bigger niche in little electronic devices. Good for them! But let's not pretend the earlier failures were all intended as some kind of grand strategy. Apple is not a perfect unicorn. It's just another company, selling products.

schraeds• 13 years ago

Apple makes more money selling macs than any other pc vendor...

philwelch• 13 years ago

I'm pretty sure there was a plan at the very beginning of the Jobs era, to get the Mac line profitable again just to keep the company going long enough to go after new and different product lines. About a year before returning to Apple, Steve Jobs even publicly outlined this strategy:

"If I were running Apple, I would milk the Macintosh for all it's worth -- and get busy on the next great thing. The PC wars are over. Done. Microsoft won a long time ago." -- Fortune, Feb. 19, 1996

http://www.wired.com/gadgets/mac/commentary/cultofmac/2006/0...

innino2• 13 years ago

Good article, good to see someone who appreciates how strong Apple's strategy really is, rather than just hating.

A nice comment somewhere in this thread about CEOs of corps competing to get the best app - Apple managed to turn the iPhone into arguably the premier ego-arena on the planet. A characteristic which gives iOS an allure which should not be underestimated, unless you happen to enjoy being crushed like a bug.

smackfu3• 13 years ago

If you weren't aware, Asymco is very pro-Apple. I would be shocked to see any hating from him.

innino2• 13 years ago

Do you mean pro-Apple as in a fanboy who thinks everything Apple does is great, or pro-Apple as in he appreciates and respects their design chops and business acumen?

ghshephard• 13 years ago

The first iPhone was the disruptive product. Everything after that has been incrementalism. The 2013 iPhone 5 is a direct descendent of the 2007 iPhone 5, and the 2007 iPhone 5 was almost a completely different product than my 2006 Treo 700w.

utopkara• 13 years ago

This article is based on the false premise that somebody with deep knowledge can predict disruptors.

I'll tell you why talking heads/pundits/experts couldn't predict, because they are useless, and the whole business of market disruption prediction is built on a ridiculous premise.

canistr• 13 years ago

I hesitate to agree with this article given that that hindsight is 20/20. If anything, you could mark the decline of the BlackBerry with the introduction of the iPad.

normloman• 13 years ago

Who cares whether something is disruptive or not? Does it make any difference at all? Are you trying to crack some formula to making disruptive products, because it ain't gonna work.

Competing with a Mac

Related Stories