Is 3-D Disruptive?
Evidence of disruptive technology (Mixner):
- Simple
- Cheap
- Faster to market with new up-grades
- Maybe not quite as good as what out there, but useful.
- One or two unique features that pique folks interest, probably based on very good design elements.
Let's compare that list to the reality of 3-D movies, cameras, laptops, and televisions.
- Manufacturing 3-D, in whatever form, is not simpler than regular technology.
- It's not cheaper either, at least so far.
- It's more complex; upgrades take longer.
- It is better, seemingly, than 2-D, especially in the applications where you don't have to wear some type of special 3-D glasses.
- Yes, 3-D is interesting. It does pique my interest. There's only one problem. It's not cheaper. I said that already.
When 3-D is simpler, cheaper, faster to market, useful, I'll be more interested in buying it. Maybe that means I am a late adopter. So be it. As it stands right now, 3-D isn't disruptive. It's just the next greatest thing that may or may not make it in the marketplace. The movie-going public has voted. They're not willing to pay the $3 to $5 distributors want for a ticket to a new movie release. Directors and producers are scared (Barnes). They should be.
Reference
Barnes, Brooks. As 3-D Falls From Favor, Director of 'Transformers' Goes on Offensive to Promote It. New York Times. 22 June 11. ttp://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/22/business/media/22transformers.html?ref=technology
Mixner, Jack. Disruptive Strategy. Small Companies Have the Edge. 23 Sept 2008. http://mixnerstrategy.com/blog/2008/09/disruptive_technology_smaller.html