--Mike,
re: Christensen & Listening
<< I thought he spelled it out his usage of proprietary "closed" nice and concisely. ... You've presumably seen my thinking that he never used the word, "closed," much less try to explain it. I think that's something H&Q conjured up. >>
At about the same time you were posting this, I was composing this post:
... but since I was chiding you for commenting on the Christensen audio before listening to it I need to chide myself (publicly) for listening - but not listening well - before commenting on it myself.
Typically, my first listen to any business or investing audio is a preview, and I generally half listen while doing other things. I set aside time to do a more thorough and focused listen if the preview sparked my interest, which this one did.
In this case I skimmed the PDF (summarry/comments/interpretation), and did my first listen right after Judith and Voop posted the links. I then printed out the PDF, and read it thoroughly.
When you and I first engaged I assumed that what was in the summary was more or less what Christensen said.
When I listened the second time with the PDF in hand, I discovered that the Hambrecht comments embellished and interpreted what Christensen said.
We will never know whether he reviewed their summery or if they worked from his presentation notes, or just commented and interpreted on their own.
[Let that be a lesson to us all - sometimes we do not listen well - what we think we heard is not what we heard, and sometimes when dealing with the written word we selectively focus on certain elements and miss the overall gist].
Either way placing "closed" in parentheses between proprietary and architecture or business model was warranted in my judgment. The reason for this is that to many people proprietary connotes closed, while to many others proprietary architecture or business models can be either open or closed. It is always important to distinguish for this reason. Moore's usage is a lift, from the industry, from the chroniclers (like Morris & Ferguson), and although its common parlance in tech, its not in overall investing circles.
All this of course of tantamount importance to us Gorilla Gamers. Worst of all, proprietary closed and proprietary open are not black and white, and although Moore treats committee architecture as the opposite of proprietary architecture, that's not always black and white either, and the evolution of cdma2000 standards in 3GPP2 is a case in point.
Skimming back through "Innovators Dilemma" which I view as an important complement to the "Gorilla Game", I think I've been able to determine that Clayton deals with business models more than architecture and doesn't use Open or Closed to distinguish between proprietary architecture or business models ... at least I don't think he does.
Regardless, I have enjoyed the discussions that have resulted as a result of the Christensen posting.
Eric-- |
