--Mike,
re: Clayton Christensen on the viability of 3G
<< Until I learn how Christensen distinguishes between his concept of an open and closed standard, I don't think I truly understand his concept of either. >>
At the time you composed this post to me, had you yet listened to the 50 minute audio presentation by Clayton Christensen called "The viability of 3G"??
Somehow I get the impression (and I could be wrong) that you are making comments here before you have listened to what I consider to be a very informative presentation on subject's we are all interested in, and which are very relative to the practice of the "Gorilla Game", because it deals with innovative (and disruptive or discontinuous innovations) in a general sense but more specifically with mobile wireless telephony's evolution to its capability to access the wireless internet.
If you have not yet budgeted the time to listen, you might wish to. If you already have I would invite you to comment, and if you have other things to do I would invite others that are interested in the pace of 3G rollout, the reasons for same, and the implications of same, to listen, and perhaps comment if the spirit moves them.
It is an interesting presentation. I personally agree with much of what he has to say (or maybe he agrees with me <g>), but not all.
He talks about companies that were the market leaders ... but missed the next big wave, where management in fact just missed that wave, and he talks to capabilities of those management teams (or the ineptitude of same) that caused them to miss the wave. He addresses the fact that management was indeed good ... but by being too good did in fact cause their company to fail.
This concept in and of itself should be of interest to us.
The primary subject matter of the presentation, however, is about a specific disruptive innovation, wireless access to the internet.
Most importantly he talks about you ... an individual that uses wireline, but not yet wireless, and why you are a laggard. <g>
He deals with the issue of developing and applying proprietary architecture before standardization, and the rationale for same.
The first question asked him after his presentation deals with Qualcomm v. Nokia. He doesn't comment on Qualcomm. but he "worries about Nokia" ... Nokia "makes all the money and their vendors get hammered" ... an interesting comment that TI, Philips, STM, Infineon, Telson and all might be interested in commenting on.
He comments on delay in 3G ..... "its a classic phenomenon" .... this is where he brings in references to the Apple Newton, and handheld evolution and he deals with the issue that disruptive technologies are initially not good enough to be used by mainstreams. I can identify personally with this as I have been attempting to make some use of CDMA, digital wireless data ever since CDMA finally did data less than 2 years ago (August 1999 here in the States).
He talks about Europeans and WAP standard. and calls it "not a good model". Obviously he is unaware that WAP was a standard driven from the United States, applied independent of underlying technology, and that even within the GSM community the decision to use WAP (as opposed to Geoworks approach) was initially made in Dallas, TX, by the North American GSM operators.
Compared to most of the wireless Internet market, which is based on the WAP standard, NTT DoCoMo has mostly closely followed the "proprietary integrated" approach at this early stage in the development of the wireless Internet market.
Most importantly he talks to an issue that potentially will delay gorilla like returns to Qualcomm:
Therefore, 3G may not be necessary until the wireless Internet market gradually develops the need for higher bandwidth intensive applications. Said differently, it might be a while until the wireless Internet market requires the 384 kbps to 2.4 mbps offered by true 3G networks. Consequently, 2.5G networks such as GPRS and CDMA 1XRT may ultimately have much longer staying power than initially anticipated, because they may turn out to be adequate to support the bandwidth requirements of wireless Internet applications for the foreseeable future.
<< Until I learn how Christensen distinguishes between his concept of an open and closed standard, I don't think I truly understand his concept of either. >>
Now assuming you have listened to Christensen, perhaps you can comment on how he deviates (if at all) from Moore or from common parlance in the tech industry, that we need to be familiar with in order to play the "Gorilla game" since being able to distinguish between proprietary & committee base architecture, and "open" and "closed" architectures, since that capability is a gorilla gamers stock in trade.
I think he provides adequate background for an understanding
I'll attempt to help here by clipping Christensen's example of closed and supplying Moore's definitions which are based upon (lifted from) Morris and Ferguson, since I happen to have them handy.
Christensen's example:
Proprietary (closed architecture) integrated business models tend to be more successful in the early stages of a new technology. For example, in the early stages of the mainframe computer industry, mainframe vendors were highly integrated, interdependently designing proprietary operating systems, core memory and logic circuitry in order to maximize performance. However, once the market reached a level that customers were fully satisfied by the performance of mainframe computers, the industry moved toward a standard, where independent suppliers could provide components based on the standard.
Geoff's definition of proprietary architecture:
When [architectures] are under the exclusive control of a single company they are proprietary. ... The opposite of a proprietary architecture is one that is controlled by some form of committee - a standards body or consortium.
Geoff's definition of "open" architecture.
Its interfaces are published and other vendors are encouraged to integrate their products with the gorilla product to create a whole product for a target customer, ... or category of customer. If an architecture is open ... [and] its protocols are published [then] any vendor can build to its specifications. [Examples: Intel, Microsoft, Oracle]
Geoff's definition of "closed" architecture.
If "closed", the secrets of the architecture are closely guarded, and only licensed vendors can build products using the architecture. [Examples:] Nintendo - Polaroid
We could also take Geoff's definition of open, and say that an architecture is "closed" if its interfaces are not published, and other vendors are not encouraged by the company that created and controls the architecture to integrate their products with the vendors product to create a whole product for a target customer, [or category of customer].
... which, since this series of posts is related to 3G, and by extension to Qualcomm, is what Qualcomm's initial intent was (like Polaroid's or Nintendo's), until about 192 when CTIA on behalf of wireless carriers, "suggested" they standardize their technology, if they wanted to market it in licensed cellular bands, ... which in turn now allows us to consider them as a gorilla, or at least a chimp.
Now if those definitions of Geoff's are to brief for anyone to really distinguish between proprietary "open" or proprietary close one can turn to the source from which Moore was "proud to appropriate it" [the formula] - "Computer Wars" by Charles Ferguson and Charles Morris.
Oh !@#$. TPTB are !@#$%^& with the !@#$%^& fixed fonts again!
Eric-- |
