They *are* investing

Post #234,736 by scoenye 11/17/05 4:16:22 PM Reply	They are investing Just not in the traditional R&D sense. They let everyone else do the hard work, they buy the working end results. By the time everything is said and done, oil will be out, but the same players will still be in charge.
Post #234,749 by ben_tilly 11/17/05 5:20:04 PM Reply	Read "The Innovator's Dilemma" That may be their plan, but I guarantee that the current players are highly unlikely to successfully execute it. Cheers, Ben I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
Post #234,774 by boxley 11/17/05 9:18:26 PM Reply	dunno BP owns a lot of patents and is doing own R&D "the reason people don't buy conspiracy theories is that they think conspiracy means everyone is on the same program. Thats not how it works. Everybody has a different program. They just all want the same guy dead. Socrates was a gadfly, but I bet he took time out to screw somebodies wife" Gus Vitelli Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 49 years. meep questions, help? [link\|mailto:pappas@catholic.org\|email pappas at catholic.org]
Post #234,805 by ben_tilly 11/18/05 1:27:21 AM Reply	That doesn't help. Read the book for why. The short version is that the best opportunities look unappetizing until they must be accepted as inevitable. And once they hit the latter description, it is too late to move into them because that part of the business ecosystem is already full. Cheers, Ben I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
Post #234,827 by bepatient 11/18/05 9:15:09 AM Reply	So you don't think my co, a direct decendent of Ma Bell, will be successful in inventing and promoting the technology that destroys its legacy? Too late. If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #234,857 by jb4 11/18/05 11:47:00 AM Reply	No, I think Big Oil != Nynex (or whatever they're called this week...). jb4 shrub●bish (Am., from shrub* + rubbish, after the derisive name for America's 43 president; 2003) n. 1. a form of nonsensical political doubletalk wherein the speaker attempts to defend the indefensible by lying, obfuscation, or otherwise misstating the facts; GIBBERISH. 2. any of a collection of utterances from America's putative 43rd president. cf.* BULLSHIT
Post #234,881 by bepatient 11/18/05 1:01:56 PM Reply	So you don't equate the 2 largest monopolies/cartels in the history of the country? Hmm. If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #234,884 by boxley 11/18/05 1:08:09 PM Reply	one is an evul environmental horror with ties to Whitehouse the otherone sells gasoline. thanx, bill "the reason people don't buy conspiracy theories is that they think conspiracy means everyone is on the same program. Thats not how it works. Everybody has a different program. They just all want the same guy dead. Socrates was a gadfly, but I bet he took time out to screw somebodies wife" Gus Vitelli Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 49 years. meep questions, help? [link\|mailto:pappas@catholic.org\|email pappas at catholic.org]
Post #234,996 by ben_tilly 11/18/05 8:55:48 PM Reply	They may well invent and promote it... but will they build a successful business about it? Likely not. The basic theory goes like this. Innovations come in 2 forms. The first is, "Better at what we already do." There is no problem in existing companies adopting these - the value proposition is clear. The second is, "Sucks too badly to be used for what we already do." The second is the interesting category. The value proposition is not there, nor does the company have any skills to help it locate the business opportunities which the new technology might work for. Furthermore even if it did find those opportunities, the current volumes and profit margins are so bad that every business instinct pushes the company to not go into that business. Add to this the basic law that technology tends to progress faster than people's needs increase. The result is a consistent trend that established industries tend to get wiped out wholesale when technologies that formerly sucked too badly to be useable improve to the point where they are good enough to win. There are strategies that you can use for this situation. But historically companies have fared very badly in this case. Examples: Sailboat manufacturers after steam took over, micro computer manufacturers after Unix took over, manufacturers of larger disk drives when smaller ones took over (happened several times), wire-based shovels when hydraulic ones took over, etc. Cheers, Ben I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
Post #234,997 by jake123 11/18/05 9:11:09 PM Reply	Then there's the classic: Gillette and Bic The person who invented the disposable razor first approached Gillette with it. They decided not to take him up on it as they were concerned that it was going to destroy their razor sales (sell the actual handle thing at a loss and make a boatload on the consumables... sound familiar anyone?) Anyhoo, he ended up approaching a Japanese plastics company that was at that point known for their pens (ie- Bic) and they immediately recognised the value proposition of his innovation, and nearly destroyed Gillette in the process, though eventually they managed not to be crushed like say Wilkinson was, by belatedly adopting the technology they had spurned before. The interesting thing was that it turned out that the executives at Gillette had completely understood why it was a good idea, but they hoped it would go away instead of working because they would have to retool their entire production process. The result of this was that they lost almost all their business to Bic for many many years. --\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\n* Jack Troughton jake at consultron.ca \n [link\|http://consultron.ca\|http://consultron.ca] [link\|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca\|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca] \n Kingston Ontario Canada [link\|news://news.consultron.ca\|news://news.consultron.ca] *\n-------------------------------------------------------------------
Post #235,000 by ben_tilly 11/18/05 9:25:12 PM Reply	Not quite a classic illustration of this particular point The new technology was good enough at the outset to be used by most customers of the existing one, and the established ones did survive. In the examples that I listed, the new technology started off too bad to be used by customers of the existing one, and the established companies either did not survive, or survived in vastly reduced form. Let me give what a better example might look like. According to The Innovator's Dilemma, given minimum needs for a car (among the most important: accelerate fast enough to merge onto an Interstate), and the projected technology curve for electric cars, electric cars will be able to compete on American highways around 2020 or so. Between now and then the prediction is that niche markets will be found for electric car technology (possibilities include golf carts and third world countries), and companies who establish themselves in those niches will wipe out the established automobile industry. Imagine Ford, GM, Toyota and so on replaced by a glorified golf cart manufacturer. Cheers, Ben I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
Post #235,003 by Another Scott 11/18/05 9:43:03 PM Reply	I don't think that'll happen. In the 1970s there was a company that sold glorified golf carts - [link\|http://sloan.stanford.edu/EVonline/erakko.htm\|Bob Beaumont's CitiCar]. It didn't make it. GM and Ford may not survive. It's quite likely they'll shrink further or be broken up in some fashion in the next 20 years to reduce their debt loads. But they'll be done in by competition from Toyota, Hyundai and other traditional car manufacturers - not Bob in his garage. Global over-capacity in auto production is putting huge stresses on the US and European manufacturers, especially those with wages and benefits that built-up over years of little low-wage competition. Auto manufacturing has huge barriers to entry: 1) Federal safety and 100,000 mile emissions requirements, 2) Dealer distribution and maintenance network requirements, 3) Marketing requirements (gotta build a brand and convince people your car is worth the money and will last). Remember [link\|http://www.delorean.com/\|DeLorean]'s attempt to start a new car company? He was a big manager at GM for many years. He was very smart, had good technology, and had a buzz about him. He failed. A better example of the innovators dilemma is probably what's going on now with broadband, wireless and VOIP with respect to the traditional telephone and network TV companies. Or web versus paper publishing of newspapers and magazines. My $0.02. Cheers, Scott.
Post #235,007 by ben_tilly 11/18/05 10:18:13 PM Reply	Of course he failed - that is according to theory Electric car technology does not currently meet the minimum requirements that Americans demand from cars. They don't accelerate fast enough to get on Interstates or brake hard enough. Sure, there are plenty of people who could do 95% of what they need with an electric car. But the key is that 5%, because if you're going to have to buy a real car anyways, why bother buying an additional electric one? The prediction isn't that electric cars are great and are about to inevitably wipe out Detroit. The prediction is that electric cars suck. But given current rates of improvement in the technology, around 2020 it will become possible to build an electric car that does perform to peoples' needs. And after that happens, people will start to switch. But when that time comes, it will be too late for traditional automobile manufacturers to get onto the bandwagon. But for the next 15 years, nobody will make a successful business selling electric cars for US drivers. The ones who will succeed in doing it after that point will need to find some other way to make money in the meantime. Incidentally the barriers to entry that you give for cars are not as hard to solve as you might expect. If history is any sign, the new technology will be sold differently than traditional cars. The example in the book of how Honda motorcycles succeeded in the USA demonstrates a disruptive product managing to bypass traditional channels that everyone believed were necessary to build up. Now you're right that US car companies face other kinds of immediate threats and may not survive. But I'll bet that, if electric improves as it has been, that in 30 years electric will win. Cheers, Ben PS Delorian's difficulties in forming a traditional kind of car company using traditional technology against established competitors is also in accord with theory. Companies in established industries tend to be good at what they do - that is how they become established. They lose wholesale when what they do becomes useless. PPS I should note that the rise of hybrids was also predicted in The Innovator's Dilemma. (It was written in 1997.) The prediction is that in the end expertise with building hybrids will help traditional manufacturers no more than hybrid steam/sail technology from sailboat manufacturers helped them when steam got good enough. I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
Post #235,037 by cforde 11/19/05 12:54:06 AM Reply	predictions he prediction is that in the end expertise with building hybrids will help traditional manufacturers no more than hybrid steam/sail technology from sailboat manufacturers helped them when steam got good enough. Now I find that very surprising. I'd expect the experience gained with battery technology, regenerative braking, et al. from the development of hybrids would be essential stepping stones to all-electric. But, you seem to be saying that maintaining the internal combustion baggage in a hybrid limits a manufacturer's ability to grok an all-electric design and therefore hinders their ability to develop an all-electric vehicle. Is that a fair summary? Have fun, Carl Forde
Post #235,040 by drewk 11/19/05 12:59:15 AM Reply	Not so much the ability to grok, as the will to risk === Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link\|http://DocHope.com\|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats]. [link\|http://DocHope.com\|http://DocHope.com]
Post #235,048 by ben_tilly 11/19/05 1:48:07 AM Reply	Not so simple. Read the book. I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
Post #235,047 by ben_tilly 11/19/05 1:44:49 AM Reply	Definitely But the barriers to that understanding aren't where you'd think they would be. They are economic, not technical. It is in the nature of companies to focus on ever more lucrative opportunities. There is a lot of pressure on them to do this. It is in the nature of disruptive technologies that, when they first become viable for mainstream use, they are crap relative to existing products. And are priced accordingly. With resultingly thin profit margins. Which means that existing companies are geared to run away from the opportunity. And companies which are geared to take advantage of that opportunity have a strong desire to improve the product farther so they can take more business. This is what makes it a hard business problem. Technical knowledge is fairly straightforward to aquire. Reorganizing your basic internal business processes and incentives is another story. Cheers, Ben I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
Post #235,281 by cforde 11/21/05 3:19:54 AM Reply	case study [link\|http://www.blogmaverick.com/entry/1234000967068793/\|TV vs HDTV] I think I'm beginning to get it. Have fun, Carl Forde
Post #235,293 by SpiceWare 11/21/05 9:43:11 AM Reply	Very true HDTV viewers love HD quality. The more HD you watch, the more important HD quality becomes to you. HDTV viewers arent accepting by programming type. Once a viewer goes HD, he/she wants all programming in HD. The only normal TV my DVR is set to record is Battlestar Galactica, Firefly and Tripping the Rift and all 3 are in reruns. Everything else is HD. Darrell Spice, Jr. [link\|http://spiceware.org/gallery/ArtisticOverpass\|Artistic Overpass]\n[link\|http://www.spiceware.org/\|SpiceWare] - We don't do Windows, it's too much of a chore
Post #235,058 by Ashton 11/19/05 5:32:15 AM Reply	Electrics, batteries - and the 5% problem It's always fun to extrapolate, but hardest of all when very many dependencies are seen to be up for grabs. Assuming that folks (think they will..) persist with One-car to fit all uses from 7-11 to SF --> Vegas - your guesstimate depends heavily upon prestidigitating a light, high capacity storage technology, at the very least. Hard to approach the energy/# of gasoline. Seen those numbers for ~ 30 years, now. ('Performance' places even more demands upon storage, of course.) Secondly (we've had this discussion, so I'm just reiterating) - "hydrogen" and related solutions to sub-parts of the [energy - power/work - recharge] cycle, currently would rely upon the electric grid for part #3. Fossil, coal fired, NG, solar Primary sources just use any hydrogen they make (for ex.) as an accumulator/battery - with attendant thermodynamic %losses all along the cycle. We lose / Entropy wins. Nuclear, with its plethora of tradeoffs (and a social-reluctance to deal realistically with its byproducts) is a whole nother thread; is obv. solely about Primary generation. We May.. discover something Interesting, of course - but I seriously doubt it will be a New Law of Thermodynamics. Alas too, as in-city housing becomes less and less affordable, and for the increasing legions of the displaced/outsourced holders of more McJobs: so is there no relief from the long commute in sight. So I see this seeming techno matter is entwined with the social matters we always neglect: er, 'inextricably'? With close-in commuting: you'd have a small 7-11 + short commute all-electric vehicle. That, cheap enough that your Las Vegas cruiser (likely hybrid), seeing fewer miles/yr (lower insurance accordingly) - could make the 2-car compromise palatable. It wouldn't need to be replaced very often. But: One car for all things + the typical commute miles (and Hours Wasted - big sub-thread) -- makes None of the currently visible/envisionable technologies look very promising to me - because Physics Rulez. ie I think you're optimistic about it ending up "electric winning" - within ~30 years. (I have no idea what 'looks good'; partly because I believe that our fortunes thus options have been so damaged by Neoconman-think -- 30 year predictions even re this seeming just-techno topic are ephemeral.) Of course we have to 'plan' something.. even while we determine if we can somehow ameliorate the vengeance of the massive Kill America group we've recently vastly multiplied and ignited. Plan... if we aren't too busy with the Unexpected (?)
Post #235,066 by Another Scott 11/19/05 8:16:57 AM Reply	Great post. Thanks.
Post #235,068 by Another Scott 11/19/05 8:18:42 AM Reply	ObLRPD: Solar powered jet packs. I think that's the ticket.
Post #235,124 by ben_tilly 11/19/05 12:52:24 PM Reply	My copy of the book is in storage or I'd give numbers But yes, you are right that this assumes the future existence of far better batteries than we have today. However that is more reasonable than you might think. It turns out that Moore's law is not an isolated example. Most technologies that have an obvious metric to be measured by show exponential improvement on that metric over fairly long periods of time. The exponents tend to be smaller than in Moore's law, but they are there. The 2020 estimate was achieved by looking at the performance of batteries in 1997, and looking at the apparent rate of improvement in energy density and discharge capacity. Given the minimum requirements for a US car (sufficient acceleration to get onto an Interstate, good enough braking for emergencies, able to drive at least 100 miles before refueling), battery technology won't be good enough until around 2020. So sure. Batteries are not good enough today. Have not been good enough for the last 30 years. And won't be for many years to come. But unless batteries stop improving, they will eventually become good enough. In fact a clear sign of how much batteries have improved is the viability of hybrid cars. We could have built hybrid cars a decade ago. But there was no point - batteries weren't good enough for you to get enough out of the complexity to be worthwhile. Today they are good enough. And to answer the common objection of whether electric is better than gasoline, just look at the mileage that hybrids get. Electric has a huge advantage over gasoline - you get to recover a lot of energy in normal driving conditions. That's why hybrids get better mileage than gasoline. And pure electric has several advantages over hybrids. They have a simpler design, lighter engine, are more efficient and more reliable. (All of these things come from not having 2 engines with complex subsystems to switch between them as needed.) There is no question that, if you could build a good enough electric car, it would be better than what we have. The technical problem is that today you can't build that car because batteries aren't good enough. The business problem is that when electric cars are barely good enough, traditional car manufacturers won't know how to market and sell them. And by the time they are really good enough, traditional car manufacturers will be facing entrenched competitors whose pricing structure is much leaner. Cheers, Ben I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
Post #235,141 by Another Scott 11/19/05 2:24:12 PM Reply	This paper from MIT in 2000 is interesting. [link\|http://web.mit.edu/6.933/www/Fall2000/solarEclipse.pdf\|Solar Eclipse: The Failure of a Promising Technology]. It's about the history of a solar powered car that was being developed at MIT and talks about it in relation to Christensen's book. p.23 Stepping back from the cars themselves and studying their history, trajectory, and demise have brought to light the indicators to their failure, the survival skills of those involved in designing them, and their impact on technology today. The initial belief that these cars were going to cause a real threat to the gasoline industry slowly yet surely disappeared. The engineers could only push the technology so far before the physical limitations of the cells and the sun's energy were too large to overcome. By the time the parts had become reliable, the whole was still not sufficient. There was no way to put the components together such that a customer would switch from gasoline to solar. This study thus shows that such technologies fail because of exactly this situation: the innovations saturate before a viable product can be produced for the targeted market. The question is then put forth of whether there could have been a better market, and that is a possibility that remains, yet cannot be determined until someone attempts it. The MIT team went on to found [link\|http://www.solectria.com\|Solectria] which is now (or part of) [link\|http://www.azuredynamics.com/\|Azure Dynamics]. They still make all electric vehicles (apparently no longer solar powered), but they also do a lot of hybrid vehicle work. Ben writes: So sure. Batteries are not good enough today. Have not been good enough for the last 30 years. And won't be for many years to come. But unless batteries stop improving, they will eventually become good enough. It depends on what you mean by "good enough". And that's obviously where the choice of market comes into play. The military is willing to spend millions on electric vehicles that have unique capabilities. Box, e.g, probably isn't. :-) Will electric-only vehicles displace hybrids? In some niches, yes - it already does (see below), but not overall. As Ashton pointed out, the power density in liquid fuels is much higher than that obtainable from batteries. There will continue to be a need for internal combustion engines for a long time to come (e.g. you're not going to see a practical electric 18-wheeler anytime soon.) Meaning several decades, IMO. Car companies are continuing to improve the efficiency of [link\|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_cycle\|Otto-cycle] internal combustion engines. VW has a new turbo+supercharger [link\|http://www.autoweek.com/news.cms?newsId=103408\|"Twincharger"] engine that gives good performance and improved fuel economy. Improved electronic controls allows reduced emissions and improved economy in even conventional cars. Even some [link\|http://www.hybridcars.com/silverado-sierra.html\|large pickup trucks] now have features like turning off the engine at a stoplight to improve mileage and reduce emissions. Conventional cars are going to become more hybrid-like because it's better (from emissions and efficiency standpoints at the moment; potentially from a total cost standpoint) to convert motion to stored energy than generate fresh motion. Even electric cars have or will have regenerative braking in most cases. Yes, batteries are going to improve, but they've been worked on for a very long time (Franklin coined the term in 1748) and the improvements are coming at greater and greater cost. Several other electric energy storage systems are [link\|http://www.onr.navy.mil/fncs/aces/focus_pwrgen_energy.asp\|under investigation] but no breakthroughs are in sight yet. So, at least for the next 50 years (my wild guess), it's probably safe to say that conventional autos will be around and a large part of the market, but they'll become more hybrid-like over time. I also think it's safe to say that companies like Toyota, Honda, Hyundai, BMW, Daimler-Chrysler and VW (or their successors) will be providing most of the vehicles - not Azure Dynamics. IOW, I don't think electric vehicles are a good example of a disruptive technology - as I understand the term (and with the caveat that I've only skimmed TID). FWIW. Cheers, Scott.
Post #235,144 by ben_tilly 11/19/05 3:02:53 PM Reply	What I mean by "good enough"... is good enough to make a low-end all-purpose consumer car. At that point it will be possible to deliver a reliable all-electric car at a much better price point than an internal combustion one. It will be a long time - maybe never - before they are good enough to match internal combustion engines for high-end purposes. But they don't have to to win in the market. They just have to meet people's actual needs at a better price. And the complexity and overhead of doing internal combustion and other stuff means that internal combustion won't be able to match the price of electric. But you're right. Until it happens, this is not a good example to use. If it pans out, it will be a very good prediction. But for examples it is better to use something that already happened. An incidental point. When disruptive innovations start disrupting, the high-end market is always stuck on the old technology. You see, even as the disruptive innovation becomes good enough for many, it still sucks relative to the established technology and is not good enough for high-end use. Take, for instance, the case of hydraulic shovels. Starting in the 50's, the traditional wire shovels started being disrupted by hydraulics. But as of 1997, there were still 4 wire shovel companies left. However they had retreated to the top end of the market. In fact the only market that was left was building scoops for strip mining. If you need to remove less dirt than an entire hillside, hydraulics are good enough. But they can't do that (yet). Take, for another instance, traditional steel mills vs mini-mills. As Christensen spends some time explaining, the steel industry is segmented according to how demanding the metal is to produce. The mini-mills have been working their way up to harder and harder metals. Yet despite the fact that they have been eating away at Bethlehem Steel since the 70's, the highest-end steel production still is done by Bethlehem. Cheers, Ben I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
Post #235,103 by Simon_Jester 11/19/05 11:03:33 AM Reply	Not that I care...but looking at history... who thought Eastern, Delta, TWA, Pan Am in the 1970 seventies would be threatened (and in some cases beaten) by a company called SouthWest?
Post #235,105 by Another Scott 11/19/05 11:10:31 AM Reply	Good point. But they're selling a service, not a Thing.
Post #235,120 by ben_tilly 11/19/05 12:28:36 PM Reply	Kodak sold things. They're hurting pretty badly. I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
Post #235,137 by bepatient 11/19/05 2:02:30 PM Reply	But thats a different beast Kodak bet their future that film would survive...and didn't realize they were wrong until much too late. And they also didn't invent their successor technology. If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #235,145 by ben_tilly 11/19/05 3:13:51 PM Reply	Again, read the book. It is easy to pass such facile judgements. It is much harder for the company involved to do anything about them. I'd be willing to bet that Kodak knew that digital was coming, explored it in their labs, and made a sincere attempt to get on the bandwagon. Lemme google...looks like I'd win my bet. According to [link\|http://www.kodak.com/US/en/corp/kodakHistory/1990_1999.shtml\|this history], Kodak was selling 1.3 megapixel cameras in 1991!) And they were one of the early innovators in digital imagining. This didn't help them at all. This isn't an isolated example. Christensen found that CEOs at the losing companies knew long before it happened what bandwagon they needed to be on and tried to do something about it. But there are basic organizational challenges that make this an exercise in swimming upstream, and he only found one CEO who had faced disruptive innovation and managed to force the company to switch. And that CEO said that, had he known how hard it would be, he wouldn't have bothered. Cheers, Ben I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
Post #235,148 by bepatient 11/19/05 3:20:21 PM Reply	I will actually. Looks interesting even if I may not agree If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #235,221 by Simon_Jester 11/20/05 11:52:14 AM Reply	Organization learning.... part of the reason the organization as a whole can't make these radically changes is that by and large it's leaders have been promoted under the old system. Everything they know, what they can do, will be rendered worthless if they (as an organization) change. Take Kodak...it's middle managers (and upper managers) knew film. They'd lived and breathed it for their entire lives. They can possibly acknowledge that digital is coming and what they know is going to be worthless. They cannot acknowledge that the kid down the hall knows what it necessary to keep the company in business over the next few decades.
Post #235,225 by ben_tilly 11/20/05 12:22:31 PM Reply	And that is reinforced... by the fact that at all points the customers that the company has contact with (and knows how to contact) prefer film. And at all points the people who work with film have better economic opportunities. (Larger sales, higher profits, all stuff that is hard to ignore.) This is why the only successful strategy for disruptive innovations seems to be to start a spin-off, and then after the disruptive wave is well established, re-merge. However even with that you have to be careful - you can't subsidize the spin-off very much. If it is subsidized, then it becomes dependent on the subsidy and will find it hard to succeed. The Innovator's Solution has more to say about this, but it boils down to the maxim, "Good money is impatient for profit but patient for growth. Bad money is impatient for growth but patient for profit." Cheers, Ben I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
Post #235,227 by Another Scott 11/20/05 12:43:34 PM Reply	It's not so black and white. So to speak. :-) As Ben's link above points out, Kodak has been doing digital photography for years and they still do. They also still do film. Part of Kodak's problems were due to heavy competition from [link\|http://internationalecon.com/fairtrade/fairpapers/ddaniels.html\|Fuji]. Whether the competition was fair or otherwise, I can't say. There was also the expensive battle with Polaroid in the 1980s over instant cameras. But Kodak is still around, and according to [link\|http://www.kodak.com/US/en/corp/annualReport04/financials.shtml\|this] they had $13.5B in sales and 55,000 employees in 2004. They did have a big restructuring charge, but they're not in horrible shape. A better example of a company that was done in by digital imaging was [link\|http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/business/20050427-1329-polaroid-bankruptcy.html\|Polaroid]. E.g. almost no-one uses film for microscope or oscilloscope cameras any more. And you don't see camera phones that spit out polariods. ;-) Their [link\|http://www.dpreview.com/news/0110/01101201polaroidch11.asp\|stock price] went from $60.31 to $0.28 in a little over 4 years. Digital photography ate Polaroid and resulted in its bankruptcy. (Yes, a company called [link\|http://www.polaroid.com\|Polaroid] exists now, with some of the same products, but it's not the same entity. It was purchased for its brand name (they sell TVs and DVD players too now)). Cheers, Scott. (Who seems to be in a contrary mood on this topic. :-)
Post #235,085 by bepatient 11/19/05 10:24:58 AM Reply	They spun the business and remerged it several times ATT/Bell Labs invented the cellphone network...essentially the death knell for the landline phone business that it also created. They are also the fundamental creator of the network infrastructure for VOIP which end up killing the long distance business of the founding ATT. Now, there are some complications because of the telecom business spinning off and buying each others parts...but the core has remained the same...and they are busy inventing the things that will continue to kill the legacy telephone business. If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #235,119 by ben_tilly 11/19/05 12:27:27 PM Reply	OK, they invented. Will they build the next business model? I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
Post #235,136 by bepatient 11/19/05 2:00:21 PM Reply	We'll see but its very certainly the plan and there's alot of revenue attached to it already. If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #235,146 by ben_tilly 11/19/05 3:15:18 PM Reply	That we will. (I'm betting on Skype and relatives.) I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
Post #235,149 by bepatient 11/19/05 3:22:41 PM Reply	Too limited its not about the device anymore. It has to be across a broad spectum of devices, net or wireless...and they all have to interconnect seemlessly. If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #235,155 by drewk 11/19/05 4:37:07 PM Reply	Seemlessly? Is that anything like unseemly? === Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link\|http://DocHope.com\|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats]. [link\|http://DocHope.com\|http://DocHope.com]
Post #235,161 by bepatient 11/19/05 5:17:55 PM Reply	grrrr If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]

Welcome to IWETHEY!