Bill,
Enjoyed your post.
I don't think anyone believes the msft-csco-intc trinity is going to marginalized any time soon. And certainly they are "paranoid" re: emerging markets.
But in Christensen terms your comment "The problem with all the focus on "disruption" is that everyone knows about it." misses part of his point. IBM and DEC "knew" about the PC and had the technology and the capital resources to master it. Christensen says that the problem lies in the value networks that established companies operate in that make it undesirable to move into the new disruptive markets. And there IS evidence that msft-csco-intc have been slow to embrace thin client PDA SW, cable modem chips, DSP's, dumb networks, et al. Microsoft initially missed the Internet/browser biz.
What the big three are doing is moving rapidly to address weaknesses in their product offerings through acquisition (e.g. INTC - Level One; Cisco Systems - Granite Systems) or JV/equity ownership (e.g. MSFT - QCOM, QWST, CMCSA (part owner ATHM)). And loads of venture capital investments. Despite the prolific cash reserves of all these companies, they don't make investments that are likely to grow slower than their existing lines of business.
Another point. When is the last time that intc-msft-csco introduced a "disruptive" technology? Pentium III is a "sustaining" technology. So is Windows 2000.
Net?
Disruptive technologies will still be more likely to arise from entrepreneurial companies - QWST, GBLX, NXLK, AMZN, pick 'em. And that is where George Gilder is SO helpful in early identification.
And when the technology is ready for prime-time, the MSFT-CSCO-INTC will likely be there. So buy an XLK and enjoy.
Enjoy GTR, this thread and your posts. Regards, |
