tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9003076573972458673.post2978736480965133997..comments2024-03-18T15:56:25.386+05:30Comments on Catalign Innovation Consulting: iPhone and Blackberry: Competitors and ComplementorsVinay Dabholkarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02007011866370283276noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9003076573972458673.post-51590874633639964462010-06-11T12:14:01.479+05:302010-06-11T12:14:01.479+05:30Excellent observation, Vinay, and I'm in agree...Excellent observation, Vinay, and I'm in agreement with you. I in fact just had the same insight regarding iPhone as a complementor to Blackberry rather than a competitor - and googled and found your article offering the same insight.<br /><br />Brandenburger & Nalebuff's theory of 'co-opetation' does present an interesting and different take on things. I suspect the iPhone has been a great boon for Blackberry, allowing them to enter the ordinary consumers market (i.e. non-business users) while still being the major player in the business user market. I don't have any statistics on this but I believe the majority of 'hard core' business users are still using Blackberries.Abhi Gargnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9003076573972458673.post-78325406771974544392008-04-21T23:49:00.000+05:302008-04-21T23:49:00.000+05:30Vinay,I would disagree with your argument that iPh...Vinay,<BR/><BR/>I would disagree with your argument that iPhone extended the existing market. In fact, iPhone created an entirely new market of mobile entertainment devices that run full-fledged OS. iPhone is not just a phone, but it is a mobile game processor/audio-visual player/GPS-like device that can also be used for making calls. (Yes, Nokia/Samsung also have similar products, but they don't have the same capabilities as the iPhone.) In fact, recent study in the US has shown that people use iPhome more for downloading songs via iTunes and for watching youtube.<BR/><BR/>I would argue that BlackBerry is a successful evolutionery product, whereas iPhone is a revolutionery product.<BR/><BR/>Regards,<BR/>RajeshAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9003076573972458673.post-72447178923097463472008-04-08T07:27:00.000+05:302008-04-08T07:27:00.000+05:30Krishna,Your observation is mostly true. In fact, ...Krishna,<BR/><BR/>Your observation is mostly true. In fact, Markides and Geroski give several such examples in their paper "Colonizers and Consolidators: The two cultures of corporate strategy". They say following: "The skills, mind-sets, and competencies needed for discovery and invention not only are different from those needed for commercialization; they conflict with the needed characteristics"<BR/><BR/>However, the topic of current article "competitors and complementors" is orthogonal. RIM had the product before iPhone was launched. Also iPhone did not create a new market. It enlarged an already existing market. <BR/><BR/>VinayVinay Dabholkarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02007011866370283276noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9003076573972458673.post-41728987684872323642008-04-06T08:35:00.000+05:302008-04-06T08:35:00.000+05:30Vinay,I have heard that disruptive innovators typc...Vinay,<BR/><BR/>I have heard that disruptive innovators typcially start very small and even remain small. The ones that really make benefits are the big comapnies that make use of these technology / change in a big way. Is this true?<BR/><BR/>Netscape / Microsoft on browser, some examples on hard disk technologies (I don't remember the players here), etc are good examples. Also, can comapnies like RIM, Nokia / HTC benefit from the smartphone boom?<BR/><BR/>Regards<BR/>KrishnaKrishnakumar Mhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14817525576616192221noreply@blogger.com