28 Jun
2022
28 Jun
'22
5:54 p.m.
Christensen-style disruption sounds rather like Gresham's Law ("bad
money drives out good"), but I don't think the mechanism is the same:
one can hoard old silver coins and sell those at a profit for the silver
content, but there's no premium I know of for better technology --
probably because "better technology" seems to imply aesthetics, but
newer, "lessor technology" is likely to be much faster while using less
energy.
On 6/28/22 10:41 AM, Clem Cole wrote:
On Tue, Jun 28, 2022 at 9:15 AM Marc Donner <marc.donner(a)gmail.com> wrote:
My perception of the debate at the time was that it pitted
proprietary networking (SNA, DECNet, ...) against open networking
(TCP/IP). The hardware vendors wanted proprietary networking to
lock customers into their equipment, but that dog would not hunt.
Metcalfe's law: "/value of a network is proportional to the square of
the number of connected users of the system/."The problem with a
walled garden is that it can only grow as large as the walls allow.
It was pretty clear that except for the clever encapsulation stuff
that Vint had done with IP, the TCP/IP world was quick and dirty
and quite slapdash. But it was non-proprietary and that is what
won the race.
Point taken, but I actually think it is more of a
Christensen-style disruption where the 'lessor technology' outstrips
the more sophisticated one because it finds/creates a new market that
values that new technology for what it is and cares less about the
ways it may be 'lessor.'
I described this in a talk I did at Asilomar a few years back. This
is the most important slide:
ColesLaw20190222.png
ᐧ
