>Maurice/all, do you think G* qualifies as a "disruptive" technology? >see below)
>...
Since I was asked (I belong to the group "all") I had a look on the criteria one by one:
>What is a disruptive technology? In short, a disruptive technology >has the following traits:
>
>Is a less featured, sometimes cheaper, version of an existing >technology
Undecided. Satellite phone is less featured OK (unless size is considred a feature) at least for the end user. Much more expensive though.
>Redefines the parameters of performance measurement in an industry
True for sat phones. While not reaching the normally required levels of conventional quality indicators sat phone is very handy when visiting the odd relative living in Antarctica.
>Does not have a defined market at the time of introduction
Not true. The market is quite clearly, well, limited. You have the oil drillers, CNN reporters, at least the newer ones who haven't got the Inmarsat yet, the half a dozen enthusiasts on the GSTRF thread and of course the higher management of G* related companies who get it whether they want it or not.
>If adopted by existing players immediately, would require an >undermining of their existing product line
Not true. If Ericsson produces a sat phone (which they were supposed to do by the way) the users of their existing mobiles couldn't care less. There is no contest here: where you can use terrestial mobile, terrestial mobile wins.
>Often appears contrary to needs requested by customers, at
>introduction
Very true. Indeed very rarely do people require from their mobiles massive size and weight, huge power consumption, low call quality, indoor incapability, mind boggling cost and coverage on Mount Everest.
>Creates a new market, which eventually grows to destroy the existing
>technology market
Not true. G* is not creating a new market as Inmarsat and I* are there already, more or less successfully (respectively).
Two out of six (one draw). Conclusion: not disruptive technology.
- rajala |
