Hacker News Reader

Comment by asto | Hacker News Reader

What will it disrupt exactly? Example? As far as I can tell, it is merely a device that affords convenience.

The disruption in mobile & social already happened, the iPhone, iPad and Facebook are just indicators that the industry has moved in to a very mature stage.

What did mobile and social disrupt?

-Authoritarian governments. -Print media -Broadcast and cable TV -Anything people occupied their time with before it

What will/has the iPad disrupt/disrupted?

-Microsoft -Desktop & Laptop hardware manufacturers -Print books (asta la vista Borders) -Television sets

Steve Blank's complaint is basically that the margins are so good in this "new" market that all the money is being invested here and the next big disruptors are getting ignored.

I think as processing power continues to drop in price and mass market access to gigantic data sets grows, this will become a non-issue. The question is, will those disruptions come from somewhere outside of Silicon Valley?

Well one thing are those god awful POS systems like Micros: http://www.micros.com/

How is a device that afford convenience not disruptive?

I can walk from Seattle to Portland if I desired, the only advantage a car offers is convenience. Yet through that dramatic increase in convenience the car has proven to be one of the most disruptive inventions in history. Similarly, one can communicate, do graphic design, mix audio, produce movies, write letters and novels without a computer but the convenience afforded by computers and the internet has fundamentally transformed all of those activities.

There's a difference between "makes this already-very-feasible thing a bit more convenient" and "makes this thing feasible."

Right, so cell phones are irrelevant then because when they were introduced it was already already-very-feasible to call people, indeed it happened millions of times a day all across the country, telephone calls were routine. But even though cell phones made a feasible thing even more convenient and easier they were still a very transformative and very lucrative technology.

No, cell phones made it possible to call someone while they weren't at home or at the office. That's extremely important, and the main reason for cellphone adoption. It wasn't for pleasure calls. It was for reliable, anywhere communication.

Those comparisons aren't even nearly on the same scale. A car doesn't just offer convenience, it offers trips that were previously impossible. It is not possible to walk from Seattle to Portland in any kind of meaningful timeframe.

An iPad, on the other hand, makes a few tasks marginally quicker, but is incapable of other tasks. It is marginally more portable. Yes, there are other benefits (as you state) but they are nothing compared to the amount of time that would be generated by self-driving cars. The average US citizen spends 7% of their life driving:

http://www.justanswer.com/general/0oy3c-time-does-person-spe...

Imagine the difference that could make. We could all play on our iPads more.

What makes a timeframe meaningful? Many of the settlers of the American West (including Portland and Seattle) walked there from Missouri alongside their wagons.

A car makes commuting possible. That changes how cities are built. It integrates states and countries economically and socially.

Seriously?

It has nothing to do with the journey itself, it is what that journey allows you to do. The settlers of the American West could not make that trip with any kind of regularity because it took so long. These days, you could live in Portland and work in Seattle. Admittedly, it would be miserable, but still. The ability to commute is life-changing.

Compare that to the iPad. It does make reading my e-mail slightly more convenient, yes. It allows a number of different UI interactions. None of these are life changing.

It's only 2-3 days by horse. You could do it in about a week on foot.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com