It Is Easy For People To Miss Disruptive Trends
from the and-then-they-look-silly-for-it-later dept
People are notoriously bad at recognizing important trends in innovation. It's most commonly seen in people dismissing some new technology or service as being unimportant. Over and over again, people seem to think that the world is static and thus, people "won't need" certain technologies in the future. There are statements like Ken Olsen's from DEC claiming that "there is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home" (which he has since claimed was taken out of context) or Charlie Chaplin claiming: "The cinema is little more than a fad. It's canned drama. What audiences really want to see is flesh and blood on the stage." Those are both from this excellent list of failed technology predictions -- including a bank telling Henry Ford that "the horse is here to stay" and that the car is just "a novelty -- a fad," and multiple people arguing that there is no need for the telephone, including the head of the British Post Office, noting (helpfully) "we have plenty of messenger boys." Oh, and "Television won't be able to hold on to any market it captures after the first six months. People will soon get tired of staring at a plywood box every night." That's from someone who worked as a movie producer for Fox.There are many more at that link, and I imagine in a few decades or so, the prediction from TechCrunch that "there is no reason for any individual to have a 3D printer in their home" would fit nicely among those other ones. There's just something about new and disruptive technologies that causes otherwise intelligent people to completely dismiss them. I still chuckle at people who thought that cameraphones were just a fad because their initial quality wasn't that good.
Technology advances and gets better and better. And a disruptive technology's best trick is that it does something completely new that you couldn't have done before. And that's the part that seems to trip people up. You don't need 3D printing in your home now, the thinking goes, so it'll never be worth having in your home. Entrepreneur Mark Birch has a really good response to the TechCrunch claim, noting that a lot of people completely miss disruptive trends when they start:
It is easy to miss the disruptive trend when it is first happening. Because it is often the nerds that are leading the charge, no one pays it any mind. There certainly is some initial hype, but it usually fades quickly because there is nothing for the mainstream to latch onto. They need to see and touch something and thus it is hard for non-geeks to make the mental leap in how the novel technology could be important for their everyday lives. People are looking for applicability when that does not exist in the early days.I'd take it even further. I'd say that if people aren't missing the trend, then it's not disruptive. What makes disruptive innovation so disruptive is often the very fact that so many people dismiss it and insist that nothing will come of it. It's that dismissiveness that often helps the innovation become so powerful, because it gets better and better while people are so busy writing it off. And then, suddenly, it's ready and the world wants it. And the incumbent players, who dismissed it, all feel taken by surprise.
The reality of 3D printing is that it is not for everyone right now. In fact, only the most hardcore techie could really get into it and fork over the $1000 for the setup. Very few people can fathom why one would want a 3D printing in his or her home. But people said the same thing when the first dot matrix printers came on the market. They were clunky and slow and expensive and broke down all the time. Plus, who would want to print stuff at home anyway other than computer nerds? Now practically every home has a color printer capable of producing high-quality photos, greeting cards, spreadsheets, novels, and the kid’s homework.
There are plenty of things to be skeptical about, but never underestimate what the geeks are working on. When you get past the hype cycles of “next big thing” and look deeper, you find that all that tinkering and experimenting is leading to something that is pretty remarkable and world changing. It might be hard to see at first, but with a little imagination and time, those early experiments generally lead to entire new industries and to the next generation of great companies.
It's easy to miss disruptive trends when they arrive -- but the long term impact of doing so can be quite disastrous for those about to be disrupted.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: disruptive innovation, trends
Reader Comments
The First Word
“That's where the real innovation comes in. Yes, the TV was unimpressive compared to a cinema screen, but it enabled not only its own evolution but the videogame industry as well. Gramophones were once a poor substitute for sitting around the piano with a group of friends, but now look what's happened. I bet the first cars seemed rather silly compared to a good old horse carriage in its early days, but would even recognise this world if it had never existed? I doubt it.
I think that's part of the reason why these innovations are so disruptive to begin with. They really do look like toys or fads to the unimaginitive, and by the time their true potential can be seen, it's often too late to catch up.
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
And credulous weenies hail every wacky gadget as "revolutionary".
Anyway, yes, I'd LIKE to have a 3D printer, but current models are ridiculous toys that only stick thermoplastic together rather like you can do with an electric glue gun, just computerized! Whee!
Much more handy would be a real 3D milling machine: those exist but are of course out of the toy price range.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: And credulous weenies hail every wacky gadget as "revolutionary".
...and they will NEVER improve beyond that point - so you might as well ignore it and forget any possibilities it might raise in the future if it becomes a mainstream device, especially those that affect current industry models, right?
Congratulations, while attacking the article, you came perilously close to actually understanding its point.
"those exist but are of course out of the toy price range."
For now. If you were in business, would you be better dealing with that possibility now, or after it's already started reducing your customer base?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: And credulous weenies hail every wacky gadget as "revolutionary".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: And credulous weenies hail every wacky gadget as "revolutionary".
Ya know, this is what the article said. That new technologies are often crap now, but do improve later and become mainstream.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: And credulous weenies hail every wacky gadget as "revolutionary".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: And credulous weenies hail every wacky gadget as "revolutionary".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: And credulous weenies hail every wacky gadget as "revolutionary".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: And credulous weenies hail every wacky gadget as "revolutionary".
Funny thing, the widespread talk of 3d printer is driven from the guys that pushed their homemade $4k benchtop mill to the breaking point and beyond.
There's several guys on youtube that just experiment and fire up their machines for no other use than to see what happens. That is just fine for me because somewhere a kid will pick up on it and go further and that will keep experimenting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: And credulous weenies hail every wacky gadget as "revolutionary".
"I can see no reason why anyone would want a computer in their home."
"Everything that can be invented, has been invented."
"There will likely be no more than five computers worldwide."
Words of wisdom to live by. The computer was just a wacky gadget hailed by credulous weenies, right? And since you're clearly not a credulous weenie... you shouldn't be on a computer, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: And credulous weenies hail every wacky gadget as "revolutionary".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: And credulous weenies hail every wacky gadget as "revolutionary".
Or the formula race car "print" also available for download/printing. Freely available from the school that created it. (Did I mention it goes over 160 MPH? And is entirely made from printable parts.)
So yes, "Whee!"
Again OotB, why do you bother commenting? Here you are knocking something which you have no understanding of. And in point of fact, you're reaffirming the point of the article. YOU are the kind of person who doesn't realize the potential some of these amazing and revolutionary devices have.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: And credulous weenies hail every wacky gadget as "revolutionary".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: And credulous weenies hail every wacky gadget as
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
For 3D printing -- expect revival of ye olde print shoppe
Before Laser and Inkjet printers, print shops were the way you got something nicely printed -- even as trivial as church bulletins or party invites.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: For 3D printing -- expect revival of ye olde print shoppe
Prices for printers will drop and quality and diversity of materials will increase and at some point, they will hit the tipping point in which having one at home will add enough convenience that people will start paying for it. And then it will eventually get to the point of being cheaper than shipping or getting something 3D printed professionally.
This is one of the technologies that shouldn't be 'disruptive'. It is such an obvious parallel to personal printers in so many ways, many of the companies that are beaten up by this one should fail. It will still be a tricky technology that will eat up markets that we cannot imagine would be impacted, but shipping companies and warehouses full of small items should take note now - umm...we aren't going to need you much longer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: For 3D printing -- expect revival of ye olde print shoppe
> Who is going to want to wait for their part to ship when
> they can order it and pick it up at the printer the same day.
Hey, if it is The UPS Store doing my 3D printing, then why do I have to pick it up? If they were really smart, they might figure out some way to deliver it locally. This might require them to invest in some trucks and drivers, etc.
(But don't use Apple Maps.)
> at some point, they will hit the tipping point in which having
> one at home will add enough convenience that people will start paying for it.
I agree. But before that happens, it is inevitable that multi-material printers that work in metals, plastics, etc, will not be cheap enough to have at home. Hence the temporary revival of Ye Olde Print Shoppe, or UPS store as you call it.
> many of the companies that are beaten up by this one should fail.
Yes they should. At this point, what will happen is beyond obvious. And then there are the really cool things that it will enable that we can't even think of yet.
(Dear UPS Store, attached is my 3D model. Please print me 80 copies of this personal media player that has 200 movies and 2 million songs preloaded?)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That's not even seeing basic evolution. If Bill Gates (or whoever might have said it) actually thought 640 K was enough, because that was much larger than growing memory demands had grown to, then what would have made him think they wouldn't continue to grow beyond that boundary?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The Linux Kernel has supported PAE (Physical Address Extension) for a long time now. PAE allows 32-bit OS's to address more than 4GBs of memory (in the case of Linux, up to 64GB, if I am not mistaken).
Just because Microsoft is incompetent, that doesn't mean that others are too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Furthermore, PAE is not magical, it's quite a hack, involving the addressing of multiple "banks" of RAM rather than a linear address space.
If you're gonna go with Linux and > 4gb RAM, you might as well just use a 64bit flavor at this point.
And finally, Windows has supported PAE since the Windows 2000 days, but Microsoft chose to artificially limit which versions of their OS/kernel supported it. This was intentional, to prevent people from utilizing a "consumer" version of Windows from running high-end database or server software that required large amounts of RAM. There was no "incompetence" here other than by those people who chose to buy Microsoft software in the first place ;)
Please get your facts straight before bashing...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Furthermore, PAE is not magical, it's quite a hack, involving the addressing of multiple "banks" of RAM rather than a linear address space."
Ah, thanks for the enlightenment. I knew that PAE was kind of a hack, I honestly didn't know the details.
"If you're gonna go with Linux and > 4gb RAM, you might as well just use a 64bit flavor at this point."
Of course.
That will require 64-bit support from the CPU, but given that these days you probably can't even buy a 32-bit CPU any more (are Atoms still 32-bit only?), that is the best option, rather than go with the hack.
"And finally, Windows has supported PAE since the Windows 2000 days, but Microsoft chose to artificially limit which versions of their OS/kernel supported it."
Thanks Microsoft. /sarc
"Please get your facts straight before bashing..."
Okay-dokey. I shall BASH more carefully in the future then :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Acutally, that would be 640kB
b is for bit(s) (1/8th of an 8-bit byte)
B is for byte(s) (8 bits in an 8-bit byte)
It's not my rule - I'm just poiting it out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Actually, that would be 640kB.
b is for bit(s) (1/8th of an 8-bit byte)
B is for byte(s) (8 bits in an 8-bit byte)
It's not my rule - I'm just pointing it out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's easy to dismiss new disruptive tech as unimportant
So it's easy to see how dinosaurs consider their thoughts to be wise when they pan disruptive new tech.
Back in the 90's there was a PBS program called (if I recall correctly) "The Machine That Changed The World". It was about microcomputers. At one point in one of the interviews, talking about paradigm shifts, the interviewee said something like: big and entrenched business never sees the next paradigm shift coming. So they hire smart people to tell them when it is coming. Then when they tell them its coming, or even its here, they never believe it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That's where the real innovation comes in. Yes, the TV was unimpressive compared to a cinema screen, but it enabled not only its own evolution but the videogame industry as well. Gramophones were once a poor substitute for sitting around the piano with a group of friends, but now look what's happened. I bet the first cars seemed rather silly compared to a good old horse carriage in its early days, but would even recognise this world if it had never existed? I doubt it.
I think that's part of the reason why these innovations are so disruptive to begin with. They really do look like toys or fads to the unimaginitive, and by the time their true potential can be seen, it's often too late to catch up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"Raise your hand if you have iTunes ...
Raise your hand if you have a FireWire port ...
Raise your hand if you have both ...
Raise your hand if you have $400 to spend on a cute Apple device ...
There is Apple's market. Pretty slim, eh? I don't see many sales in the future of iPod."
Shame those things never took off...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
When Bell originally invented the telephone, he didn't use it for calling people; he used it as essentially a Muzak system, sending music from one place to another by wire. It was sold as a novelty to a few towns, where some people would occasionally use it to communicate messages back and forth from time to time.
But in 1878, that all changed. A doctor managed to use his "speaking telephone" to summon a bunch of other doctors to the scene of a train wreck, which resulted in many lives being saved. This got a lot of press coverage, and it revolutionized Bell's invention. Suddenly it wasn't a curiosity anymore; this was something that could save your life, or that you could use to save someone else's life!
When that got into the newspapers, suddenly everyone wanted one, and Bell became a millionaire almost overnight. He never really saw that coming, though. It took one person to do the inventing, and another to do the disrupting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I can't tell you how many times I've heard that video calls are going to be the next big thing. "Facetime is now on 3G everyone will use it now!" Some things just aren't what the public/mainstream want. I think 3D printers are in the same league as the people who were claiming we were going to have flying cars and nuclear power supplies in every home. There really are physical and economic limitations to some things and 3D printing has them. Then again I'm sure we are only 10 years away from figuring out how to fix the radioactivity of nuclear power and the power issues for making a normal car fly...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The technology's taking a bit longer to become mainstream, but it's definitely getting bigger.
--Welcome To The Future, Brad Paisley
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
What also exist are the commercial grade 3d printers, which are currently vastly most expensive but vastly better are used in a number of industries and are constantly being improved on.
We've seen that as technology advances prices come down so it's not out of the question that versions our current commercial grade printers will end up in the home and they have a wide range of applications.
The 3d printer unlike flying cars or nuclear powered homes exist and is already useful and it will to grater or less extent be disruptive. We have to be careful not to swing the other way and make grand predictions that fail to come true but there is a growing sense of where 3D prints are starting to go and they may go far.
Yes it maybe limited but it might not be and ignoring what it could become is going to leave you flat footed when it does. Which is the point made here. Mistakes are made when you dismiss something because it may come to nothing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I can't wait to be able to print my own miniatures for D&D/Pathfinder and other assorted tabletop games.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Now all you'll need for a game is am internet connection, a printer, and a hard drive for all the extra books.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
In terms of straight up printing you still have high quality print shops because most people currently don't need an A1 size printer or will have the room for it at home. As such the price isn't driven down as much either. Which is not to say long term people won't be able to print A0/1 at home but the larger the printed object (in both cases) the less likely the common day to day need is likely to be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The opposite is also quite true.
Sometimes, some see a disruptive new force where there is none.
"The cloud" would be a prime example.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Little Leaguer hits pop fly - film at 11
I don't know the score from last night's NFL football game, but I am quite sure that it will be remembered more widely and for far longer than the journalistic gem that you linked to here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not So Sure
And really, what does the average consumer gain from a 3D printer? Mass manufactured goods are already really cheap. I can't see how printing screws at home would ever be cheaper than getting them from home depot, even if home depot just prints the screws there themselves (they would get bulk discounts on the metal/plastic/whatever). No one will be keeping toxic metals around so printing something like a light bulb or plasma TV is out.
Call me when we have replicators, that would be a paradigm shift.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not So Sure
Not social? Try this: "Hey Jim, that is a really cool phone case. Can you send me the make file?"
Go be social with these people: http://www.thingiverse.com/
Printing screws: You miss the point. You don't need to assemble with a 3dPrinter (sure you do "today", but not tomorrow). Screws are probably the last thing you'll print (unless you're missing one and you don't want to drive 15 minutes to Home Depot, take 15 minutes to search for the screw you want. Wait in line for 15 minutes and then drive 15 minutes home. Sure it's only $0.25 (plus gas) but also an hour out of your life - for one screw. What you are more likely to be printing is a screwdriver or some other multipurpose tool. Or a new camera. (yes 3d printers will be able to print electronics in the "thing" you're printing).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not So Sure
I imagine Tupperware parties on Skye where everyone will buy the plans and print their own lettuce keepers.
But even more important is that the people won't have to schlep around all that Tupperware from party to party anymore.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Right now all of our plastic items are mass-produced from two or three piece molds, by injection, vaccuum forming or blown. What new items will be available once we can produce items layer by layer?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
3d Printing is set to be the most disruptive technology yet
Too expensive: Seriously? $1000 (and less). Your computer costs more. Laser (laser quality) printers used to cost 2x that. Okay fine. They are too expensive. What happens when they cost $120? That's (likely) cheaper than your phone - and about the cost of a nice ink-jet printer.
Can only make prototypes and only using low-grade resin: Hmmm no. There are low-melt metals that can also be used. But what happens when they print in copper, plastic, aluminum, carbon, ceramic, cotton, wool, fleece, steel, gold, rubber....?
You can only print small pieces: The technology is scalable. Limited only by your space. Do you have a deep-freeze in your garage? A work bench? in you basement? What happens when home builders start to incorporate an appropriate space for your fabricator? What happens when a fabricator can be built into the garage for dual-use purposes? Just drive the car out of the garage and now you have room to create a car-sized item.
What ever the criticism is, just ask what happens when that is no longer a barrier to entry. Price, size, content. None of these things are permanent barriers.
Who get's disrupted? Governments: China no longer becomes the manufacturing power-house. Unions: Jobs won't be going to China...but they aren't coming home - they will be lost forever. Manufactures: Those who migrate to idea shops and engineering will have at least a hope of survival...Otherwise they simply won't exist. Supply chain? Moving of "things" for reasons other than stocking stores will continue. Food will continue to be transported. Trade will continue to be healthy. But there will be no trucks stocking the Autozone, because there will be no Autozone.
Bike shops, car parts, toys stores, clothing stores, etc....Other than show-rooms and service, there will be little need for them. Many fix-it places will go away because we'll just print and replace and not worry about "why" something doesn't work.
The transition from brick and mortar to eCommerce will pale in comparison.
-CF
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 3d Printing is set to be the most disruptive technology yet
Need a new heart? It's already been done for mice.
Ina few years you will be able to order your new heart made with your own cells and have it ready when you get there!
Amazing stuff!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 3d Printing is set to be the most disruptive technology yet
They just built a new house next door to me, and as far as I know, they didn't even wire it with Cat-5 cable for networking computers. Adding a special room for a giant fabricator is a long way off.
What ever the criticism is, just ask what happens when that is no longer a barrier to entry. Price, size, content. None of these things are permanent barriers.
Inkjet printers have been around as consumer-level devices for at least a decade now, why does it still cost $40-60 for a set of black & color ink cartridges that print a whopping 50 pages, if you're lucky? In some cases, it's actually cheaper to buy a new printer on sale, rather than buying ink cartridges. You'd think that after a decade and inkjet printers becoming extremely common, that ink cartridges would be dirt cheap now, but they aren't. Not to mention that very few people outside of professionals have anything that can print sheets wider than 8-10", even though I'm sure such printers exist. Being able to print posters at home is cool, but most people don't have enough of a need to do that to make it worth it to own an over-sized printer.
The deciding factor of whether 3D printers will become a common home appliance is how useful they will be to the average person. Will it be cheaper to buy the raw materials and print a set of dishes, or to just buy a set from the store? Yes, you can print replacement parts for various things, but how many people actually replace parts in today's society? Most people can't even be bothered to clean and oil a fan, let alone replace parts. Nobody except the most die-hard fanatic is going to print out and assemble all the parts to build a car. Probably 90% of people today don't even change their own oil.
In order to gain widespread adoption, 3D printers have to offer a use that the average person will take advantage of. Maybe in the future when you can just select an item from a list, press a button and it's ready a minute later, they'll be common place, but that's not going to be for quite a while. While it's undoubtedly great to be able to print your own 3D stuff at home, most people don't have enough of a need to do that to justify owning a 3D printer in the near future. I'm sure hobbyists will love them, but that doesn't exactly equate to mainstream acceptance.
I think it's more likely that 3D print shops will spring up. Maybe Kinkos will start offering a 3D printing service.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: 3d Printing is set to be the most disruptive technology yet
Mostly that's patents and proprietary software, but some copy makers are bringing the pricing down to more reasonable levels, and people are buying it up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: 3d Printing is set to be the most disruptive technology yet
Personally, my ideal printer would be one with large ink tanks that could easily be refilled from a commonly available bottle for each color.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: 3d Printing is set to be the most disruptive technology yet
There are always unintended consequences, emergent behaviour and ways of thinking that can only come about once something new have enabled them. We've gotten better at understanding and predicting these things as we now have people who where born in and grew up in a world where the pace of technological change has been huge. One of the most important ways of thinking we've developed as a result is that you simply can not look at a new technology and say "there is not enough of a need for that how things stand" because big technologies change how people behave what they want and what they think. Technology is at it's most disruptive when it creates needs that can only exist when the technology is available.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 3d Printing is set to be the most disruptive technology yet
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I like to project the disruptive technologies for music
The 3D printers are part of that continuum. If you can make your own version of music merchandise, you have less need to buy it from a musician.
It's not that I want artists to continue to lose sources of income, it's just that I expect it to happen. And as people cut back on the things that they own (and if in addition they have less money to spend on events like live shows), the money goes out of the system or to other places. For example, the real winners in the 3D printing industry will be those who supply the plastics, metals, etc. that are squirted out of the machines. The ideas of what can be created with the machine will pretty much be free. The digital instructions will be widely shared. There will be mass duplication or modification for anything that people find cool.
I look forward to the disruptions because I think the world economy needs it. The more we can meet basic needs for everyone, with the fewest resources and the least environmental damage, the better.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Another Quote
It would appear that we have reached the limits of what it is possible to achieve with computer technology, although one should be careful with such statements, as they tend to sound pretty silly in 5 years.
John von Neumann, circa 1960
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The remarkable thing here is that, once again, you don't seem to consider the opposite: What happens when you chase every fad as if it was the next telephone or personal computer?
As an example, consider the fax machine. It would be easy at the time to see it as a disruptive technology (hurt couriers, changed communications forever), but instead it's a technology that has been relegated to low end appliance status. Fedex didn't go broke, UPS still works hard, and so on.
What happened? The internet came along and made it even easier to send email and to communicate in a manner that didn't need faxes as much. Instead of being a killer technology that dominates how we work, FAX is now more of a narrow market technology used by business in certain ways. Yet, the day couriers, the bike couriers, they are more popular than ever in most cities. The original document is way more important and valuable than a bad FAX copy for most people.
How about GPS units for cars? Amazing technology, but for the most part, they are getting squeezed out by tablets, cell phones, and even in car navigation. All the promise of GPS as a stand alone product has pretty much evaporated.
Same issue for stand alone MP3 players, they have gone from popular device to a sideline, as more and more people use their smartphones and tablets to accomplish the same thing.
In business models, you have the same thing really. While online shopping has proven to be disruptive to retailers, the retailers are starting to take action to combat it. One thing they are starting to figure out is showrooming, with Best Buy recently announcing that during the holiday season (except for Thanksgiving, I think) they will price match online sellers in store. Why order from Amazon and get it in 2 days if you can take it home now for the same price?
The downside? Best Buy has to put price pressure on the manufacture to keep their margins. At some point, if online sellers are too successful, the showrooms they depend on will shrink or disappear entirely, making it harder for consumers to shop with confidence. The disruptive business model of cheaper online selling won't stand up well by itself.
Also, online selling depends on delivery being cheap or free to make it work out. Over time, you can expect UPS and Fedex to keep pushing their prices up, as fuel costs continue to soar. Individual delivery service is costly in that manner, when compared to shipping many boxes to a retail store at the same time. At some point, it may be cheaper to buy retail than online, because online has some serious issues.
So we may look back 20 years from now and see just how silly Amazon was, how quaint an idea it was, like the old general store.
Mike, I seriously recommend to you something, it's not to be nasty or rude: Start considering the other side more. I think you would find that adding some balance to your stories and your opinions would make you sound less shrill and one sided. I think it would also help you hone your message and make it more realistic, and therefore more powerful. These days your messages and style are getting a little too one sided and a little too insistent, and while that may play to your choir here, it makes you pretty much far down the end of the grey scale on the black and white stick.
Balance, that is perhaps the lesson here: Don't chase useless technology (ginger... oh ginnnnnger!), and don't chase one sided answers that don't suit everyone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I sort of agree with you, but in a different way than your point. I think the shelf life of just about anything is short these days. I've been expecting the decline of Facebook from the beginning of the hype because I've been involved in lots of online groups/communities since 1993 and none of them has staying power. Anything that can quickly replace the past can itself be replaced because there are no significant barriers to entry. (Remember during the first dotcom boom when people actually tried to sell the concept of first mover advantage? So much BS.)
The churn cycle of much technology today is short. Combine that with a stock market that no longer seems to understand buy and hold and you've got the makings of an economic revolution. What I like about 3D printers are the disruptive possibilities. Will they come to pass? Well, it will be interesting if we get to a point where the printers can replicate themselves so there isn't even a market in selling them. Again, the only money might be in the liquids that the printers consume because those can't be reproduced digitally.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I think that it is very short term, and very small in the end. Almost everything we use in real life made of plastic still has more to it than just that. It can be anything from the formulation to the process used to make it.
As an example, you can 3D print a spatula, but I wouldn't recommend using it to cook (for a whole bunch of reasons). You may be able to use it to "print" replacement parts for things on your car, but I wouldn't want to see the liability if one of your hose caps fails and a few people die.
Further, there is also the consideration of the costs of 3D printing versus the alternate methods. A mass produced injection molded part may be many, many times cheaper than producing the part yourself, and the retail cost, even shipped to your local store, still cheaper than your ability to produce it. For a technology to be truly disruptive, it has to have practical applications, make economic sense for the end users, and actually produce something of value for less than the current retail (or at least wholesale) price. If you don't hit that, you are pretty much doomed from the get go.
If anything, it looks so much like a technology desperately looking for a real application, and might end up as nothing more than something builder hobbyists really want.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The small printers for home use are limited, but the technology is already being used for a diverse range of products. The expectation isn't that everyone will necessarily have their own printer, but there will be ones available within communities.
The big economic vision is that these printers will allow for cost effective short runs. Economies of scale will be less important.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
There is a lot of "could", with little discussion of the cost of the materials to do it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Fully-customized, modular solar house is 3D printed prefab - videos - *faircompanies
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
How about GPS units for cars?
Same issue for stand alone MP3 players
All of them were incorporated in multi-purpose devices, which does not mean they are less disruptive. In fact, they are so disruptive they became the norm and got assimilated by other gadgets. It's interesting to note that many companies that got a head start with those technologies in the early days failed to adapt to the changing market and ended up breaking.
Sure UPS works hard and FedEx is there but are they really focused in delivering letters (the predecessors to the e-mail)? Or are them in the cargo transportation business?
What happens when you chase every fad as if it was the next telephone or personal computer?
You fail and go bankrupt. That's why it is difficult to be an entrepreneur. How do you know what will be innovative, disruptive and profitable? I once read an interview with one of those entrepreneurs and he highlighted that the great difficulty is you have to ignore what your immediate and natural reaction tells you when you see a new startup you want to invest. Even numbers can be misleading. And while they get failures, there's a sheer number of companies that simply don't boom. But the ones that actually boom (let's say Google style for instance) are worth all the others.
And the point of the article is this: you have limited resources to invest and not every new thing will be the next iPhone but it's damn easy to dismiss the next iPhone as a fad,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mike might be wrong this time...
You kind of have that in reverse here. If a certain technology itself did not succeed, and is generally forgotten, there is even less likelihood of a prediction about it being remembered.
I wonder if some industry leader wrote off QR codes as a fad that would be relegated back to the stock rooms in less than a year? How about 3D TV? Has anyone shot that horse yet?
Where is the list of accurate Industry predictions about disruptive tech that didn't disrupt all that much?
Not as interesting if they were correct, so we don't have that list to ponder over.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Printing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]