[gruntled]

That's exactly what you would expect if a "low end disruption" is just getting started. The low-cost disruptor picks off some but not all of the market, and doesn't immediately compete for the most attractive customers (because that fight's too hard for them at the moment).

That's what puts the incumbent in an "innovator's dilemma": do you chase the high end and high margins, and if so which high-end niches do you chase (gamers who want graphics performance, design-lovers who want a precision machined marvel of industrial design) or do you go lower cost and high volume? The latter is a race to the bottom, so the incumbents tend to pick the former and retreat up-market. It's not unusual for the incumbent's profits to increase temporarily when this happens because of their focus on the most profitable customers.

The problem is it doesn't last: the low-cost producers who are already good enough for the low end of the market continue to improve, until they become good enough for the middle of the market too, and grab more and more market share and more and more profit share. And then, looking for even more growth, they head for the top end of the market (or get disrupted themselves).

Ironically, if there wasn't an up-market to retreat to, there would be no dilemma. Android and iOS would have to compete head to head for the same customers with the same requirements (rather than one taking all the budget consumers and the other taking the gamers and others with higher requirements).

As it is, we could be seeing a low-end disruption, and the high-end consumers will be the last to notice.

[thramp]

The thing you’ve gotten wrong with wrong the “design lovers” you mentioned is that Apple’s customer base are entirely those quote-unquote design lovers who happen to be just normal consumers.

The entire point of the article is that competing on user experience pretty much side-steps the whole theory of low-end disruption.

[gruntled]

I understood the article, thanks. I'm just not convinced.

The debate hinges on this: is UX a special basis of competition that can't be disrupted? Will consumers pay a premium for better UX forever? Will the cheaper alternative never be "good enough"? Won't people put up with a few minor annoyances? What if it saves them money?

I think UX is a hygiene factor: when it's bad it annoys you to the point where you do something about it, but when UX is good enough, most people start worrying about other things.

That's different from design: I think some people will continue to pay a premium because they love Jony Ive designs and they can afford it. And some will pay for a status symbol. And some will need the performance. But none of that is the mass market.

[sogen]

Agreed.

Android has been "good enough" for millions of people. From their ugly start to Lollipop, they have been good enough for many people to choose Android as their primary platform.

This is similar to many of Christensen examples, such as the mini mills disrupting "Big Steel" companies by providing "good enough" cheap steel, and slowly but steadily getting better and better.

Android right now is in that phase, getting better and better, and now is as good, if not better, than iOS.

Interesting times.