| WereKitten said: Isn't this just renaming one of the principles that underlies Christensen's ideas about disruptive technologies? They usually are based around cheap, off-the-shelf base elements, they offer some new, different value rather than the ones constantly improved in mainline products. They raise slower in what they offer in "old values", but they aim at being "good enough" for the requirements of most users - which raise even slower. The difference being that this "good enough" about specific uses / a certain threshold of user requirements is a more limited concept than the disruptive process over time ( for example, the accessible/cheap point and click cameras are never going to replace the high-end models for prosumers, as that kind of accessibility is not a value for those who want total control over the shots ) And btw, this "limited" version is much closer to what is happening in videogaming than the full "disruptive technology" process. |
I agree with your first paragraph, but I don't fully buy into the second. I understand where you're coming from, mind you: sticking to the cameras for a bit, the professionals actually need all those fancy gizmos and gadgets to do their jobs, so accessibility et. al. won't do them all that much good. The thing is that I see the process as going further.
Take a look at the article's conclusion: sure enough, the crappy Flip Ultra's newest model now features more "high-end" things than the initial model did, and they're determined to keep adding more of those as time goes on (and the technology becomes more affordable). It's not impossible...no, actually, I'd say it's inevitable that, in time, these crappy cameras will become about as powerful and versatile as the models they're disrupting, only now these models will also emphasize new values like accessibility. It will take years for this to happen, of course, but I know that it WILL happen.
I also strongly disagree with your later reply that "(a) 'good enough' product or tech doesn't necessarily disrupt existing technologies." My understanding of the concept may be flawed, but I believe that disruption essentially requires a "good enough" product, and that unless the disruptor is co-opted, the "good enough" product eventually evolves to be the "better" product for the vast majority, including many of the traditional users. After all, the margins on the "good enough" product are low, the traditional market offers much more money, and the disruptor is hungy for profits.
