I really hate the word disrupt used in this way.
$50 Android smartphones are enhancing the lives of millions, maybe? Titling it this way sounds like they are some sort of addictive drug or natural disaster.
$50 Android smartphones are enhancing the lives of millions, maybe? Titling it this way sounds like they are some sort of addictive drug or natural disaster.
Many for the first time could pay / receive money directly e.g. without a middleman who collects percentages - most people still don't have bank accounts and can now do their payments / get paid via smartphones.
They can now communicate (long distance - private, business, emergency, political), some started new businesses around these smartphones, some became rich (some even billionaires without the sleaze) and can now provide their families with a much more solid basis to survive. There are now more people with access to mobile phones than to electricity in many parts of Africa.
These smartphones are also having an impact on the daily lives of many in developed countries. Many of the smartphone payment systems that are available since recently / will become available soon have been field-tested in Africa.
Nope. Everything disruptive is life changing, but not everything life changing is disruptive.
1. To throw into confusion or disorder 2. To interrupt or impede the progress, movement, or procedure of 3. To break or burst
The rest of your post may be true, but is utterly besides that point.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disruptive_innovation
"A disruptive innovation is an innovation that helps create a new market and value network, and eventually goes on to disrupt an existing market and value network (over a few years or decades), displacing an earlier technology. The term is used in business and technology literature to describe innovations that improve a product or service in ways that the market does not expect, typically first by designing for a different set of consumers in the new market and later by lowering prices in the existing market."
So the thing being 'disrupted' is the old way of doing things, the old telcos, the old money markets etc.
I know that. And that's why saying "disrupting Africa", instead of "disrupting old African telcos", is silly/stupid. Good we cleared that up.
This is really great news, these are devices that we can develop for, and provide some incredibly useful utilities. Look for some interesting startups to come out of Africa taking advantage of this, and producing utilities for people in that part of the world.
I think the "minor gripe" is actually HN's version of the meme reply: easily digestible, doesn't take much effort, and easy to agree with. Just as reddit's frontpage is dominated by imgur links, so too are the comments on HN dominated by easy criticisms.
The circumstances which lead to that are probably pretty complex, but I'd say they include: a not very competitive market, geographical and other factors making mobiles the only effective technology for communications, marketing and social norms making mobile phones almost a necessity, a lack of basic financial education for many, etc. While I'm sure that people's lives are enhanced in many ways, I'm also sure that there are more responsible ways of spending the little money they do have.
The main one being the massive desire and need of human beings to communicate with each other, and to feel empowered about their lives. Don't downplay that, there is nothing irresponsible about that.
Why don't you give up all internet/communication access and tell us how much of an impact it has on your life (yes that includes any laptop/pc at home).
Or do you think African people are special & different from us Western people and don't have the same desires?
Smart/cellphones made it possible for them to get connected, if it was for wires, good luck waiting.
Also, his point was that the "disruptive" word is what doesn't sound right here, as it sounds like "phones are disrupting the lives of Africans", which has a completely different meaning. I also kind of disagree with him here, because it's pretty obvious that Jimmy Wales was talking about technological disruption, and how it's a good thing, and not about "ruining people's lives", which I guess it's what someone else could understand from this title, but doesn't sound very likely.