Horace and Anders discuss the iPhone analog audio port, the lightning port's use by Apple Pencil and Apple's viewpoint on privacy and the environment. Horace rounds the episode out with a definition of disruption.
In the second part of your podcast, you talk about the latest developments of
disruptive innovation theory. I believe that this new turn on the debate is a
really important step of the evolution of the theory into a "scientific
theory".
For multiple reasons, the theory went viral (not by authors' intentions of course).
People got obsessed with it and adopted it to their worldviews. Until recently,
every major low-end business success was disruptive innovation; every failure
was not following the disruptive path.
Thank god, the authors of the theory realized that and intervened (HBR article, a16z podcast), presenting a more clear and precise view of what is and especially
what isn't disruptive innovation.
This could make the disruption theory more "vulnerable" and possibly less
popular, but also more scientific, more useful and for me above all more
"fair" and "honest".
(It would be interesting to see if the authors' latest effort is capable of changing the popular beliefs/myths about the theory)
rational2 ·
Agree. The a16z podcast was particularly effective and led me to buy Raynor's The Three Rules book.
The Disruption Thery is a bit more precise now and as a result more useful.
2 comments
Panos ·
In the second part of your podcast, you talk about the latest developments of disruptive innovation theory. I believe that this new turn on the debate is a really important step of the evolution of the theory into a "scientific theory".
For multiple reasons, the theory went viral (not by authors' intentions of course). People got obsessed with it and adopted it to their worldviews. Until recently, every major low-end business success was disruptive innovation; every failure was not following the disruptive path.
Thank god, the authors of the theory realized that and intervened (HBR article, a16z podcast), presenting a more clear and precise view of what is and especially what isn't disruptive innovation.
This could make the disruption theory more "vulnerable" and possibly less popular, but also more scientific, more useful and for me above all more "fair" and "honest".
(It would be interesting to see if the authors' latest effort is capable of changing the popular beliefs/myths about the theory)
rational2 ·
Agree. The a16z podcast was particularly effective and led me to buy Raynor's The Three Rules book.
The Disruption Thery is a bit more precise now and as a result more useful.