[scottdw2]

Actually he has admitted he was wrong about the iPhone, thinking of it as a high end phone instead of a low end (but very convienient) computer.

The author of the article, I think, makes a "phalous leap" from "He was wrong about the iPhone" to "disruption doesn't apply to consumer markets".

Primarily because the iPhone is a perfect case of this. It (and it's successor, the iPad) is disrupting the PC industry.

You have to look at the phone as a computer, not a phone. Then disruption theory REALLY makes sense.

[devx]

Ironically, it was because of his disruption innovation theory why I thought immediately after I saw the iPhone that it's going to be disruptive for the whole smartphone industry, and also why I thought Nokia and RIM will be the last companies to adapt to the new smartphone world (which is exactly what happened).

I guess Clayton Christensen put too much focus on the "low-cost" part of the disruptive innovation, which I suppose does happen more often than that, but the way I see disruptive innovation is making some things "10x better" than before, and those things need to be things that the market wants, obviously, otherwise they're pointless.

In a way he was also right, just not about the iPhone - but about Android. Android is also disruptive to the iPhone, and it's more about the low-cost strategy than doing some things much better.

It's also helping noname OEM's create pretty quality devices for very low-cost, and Android has also disrupted paid operating systems like Windows Mobile, and even the desktop Windows, and continues to do it:

http://static5.businessinsider.com/image/523376fe69bedd1c3ec...

So maybe Clayton is ultimately right. The iPhone "changed the game", but it will be Android the one to reap most of the benefits from this "disruption".

[monkbent]

But that's new market disruption, which I said I agree with. In fact, I explicitly called out the iPad (which I'm sure you read).

It's low end disruption - that the same product becomes modularized - that I have an issue with.

[r0h1n]

Sorry to be nitpicky, but did you mean fallacious leap instead of "phalous" leap?

[ThomPete]

Exactly.

The iPhone was not en improvement of the phone but of the computer which also explains why 90% of the time is used for not ringing.

[mathattack]

This highlights the problems of strategic thinking in general. You can always miss something, which is why strategy should be taken with a grain of salt. It's also why some of the great strategists fail as managers of their own firm. (Look at Monitor, founded by some of Clayton's colleagues at HBS)

All that said, I'm still glad that he went out on a limb, and that he was able to fess up to the mistake. Very few business or econ professors are willing to do either.

[Tloewald]

Apple was more profitable than Microsoft for the first fifteen years or so of the PC industry (1977-1992) and for the last five or so. If it hadn't blinked in the early 90s who knows?

Apple always viewed the iphone as a computer. Its computers are also premium products, emphasize ease of use, and yet are fashion statements.