A perfect example of this would be a mobile phone for the ederly. Something with big buttons, a loud hearing-aid-compatable speaker, and (maybe) dirt simple memory dialing. Make it the size of a regular cordless phone. Also, with room to WRITE numbers on it.

-Jeff

Posted by: Jeff Albro on August 15, 2003 11:21 AM

---

 

Pick up the August 4th issue of eWeek. On page 49, Jim Rapoza talks about how PCs aren't for everyone and that for some, computing at any speed is dangerous.

"Modern computers are much too powerful and dangerous for people who can't learn how to secure and manage them properly."

He goes on to suggest that "a very capable and safe personal appliance could be made and sold for the magical price of $100".

It "irks/bothers" me when I see someone with a 2 or 3 Ghz computer who only does email and some web browsing, and my fastest computer is a 1.3 Duron and I'm trying to do things like raytracing and computer clusters.

Posted by: Morris Cox on August 15, 2003 02:36 PM

---

 

The article doesn't distinguish clearly enough between technological and company political factors - I don't know whether this is the journalist's fault or his source's.

A couple of examples:

• The primary cause of failure in established companies' online businesses is turf wars - if the online sales channel succeeds, it's going to cut into the existing sales empire(s).
  
• Someone at IBM once said (in the 1970s) that if IBM had a product with zero production cost it would have sell it for $500 each because of overhead costs - and these overheads are all internal empires. That's why new entrants can undercut the big companies despite the big companies' apparent advantages in experience, purchasing power, sales contacts and economies of scale.
  
  When HP separated its inkjet printer business from its laser printer business, it bit the political bullet. IBM did something similar by making Lexmark independent. But I bet there were some stormy scenes and strained relationships in both companies.
  

Some technological developments do seem to have the disruptive effect the author describes - e.g. how IBM's dominance was destroyed in the late 1980s by independent PCs and by mini-mainframes (DEC VAX etc.).

Bit I still think the primary factor is political. For example IBM could have used its technological and financial strength to out-compete the independent PCs and mini-mainframes, but this would have meant cutting overheads (= empires) to the bone in order to compete on price.

Posted by: Philip Chalmers on August 16, 2003 05:36 PM

---