Bruce Hohne

I think this is a definite threat to Microsoft, especially as our generation enters working age. One advantage that Microsoft has is it’s ubiquity as you mentioned. It will always be a staple in any office environment because using Microsoft Office is a skill that people put on their resumes, and a office platform centered around social media interaction features will pose a difficult learning curve for baby boomers who aren’t as technical as younger people. Productivity would take a large hit if they had to switch platforms, and they would try to make Slack work like Office does, which may not be possible in a simple way due to UI differences. While Slack has the potential to make headway in a market that Microsoft has a stronghold on, they will have difficulty if people have trouble adopting it.

I personally think that helicopters film teams and other photography companies should be worried and should already be adapting. The popularity of drones has skyrocketed and now that they are becoming more advanced they will definitely be eating into incumbent markets. My advice would be, if you can’t beat them, join them. Companies should perhaps adopt some of their technologies to aid the drone market. So instead of fading away, they still stay relevant as time goes on.

I think this is a very interesting topic, especially because it is so relevant to all of us. I have personally become one of those millennials that has given up the cable ecosystem to use products like Xfinity, Netflix, and Hulu. As is true with any disruption, I feel like this is too hard to predict because it is very dependent upon the individual. I personally believe I will return to the cable ecosystem as an adult because that is what I’m used to. I think the opposite of Moffett and believe that having children will cause me to return back to the cable ecosystem, because I had cable as a child. However, this is only my opinion. Everyone is different and I am sure that not everyone will feel the need to return to the cable ecosystem. In order to stay competitive I believe that cable companies need to offer things that streaming services cannot, especially for families that have different needs then the individual. More options is one thing, but presenting more options in real time seems important. From my experiences sometimes I just can’t stand waiting the next few days for a certain show to stream. It is hard to say what will happen to the cable ecosystem in the future. While I do prefer streaming, I would like to hope that cable will still be an option.

I agree with Craig Moffett that many millennials will not come back to the cable ecosystem because now that they know and use services such as Netflix, Hulu, Amazon, and other streaming services, their perceived value of cable has diminish to a point where it is no longer worth it regardless of how much money they make. According to the consumerist, customers only regularly watch 18 channels out of the 180 that they pay for, paying for a service that you are only use 10% of is not a good investment. In order to get the millennials to come back, the cable companies should use a “a la carte” model where customer only pay for channels they want, this would lower the price and make it more appealing to customers.

I also agree with Craig Moffett that Millenials will stick to over the top services as sources for television. This year I started using Google Chromecast to access services such as Netflix and stream other services such as HBO GO, Starz, Showtime, etc. I don’t see any drawbacks and find it beneficial since I do not have to pay for channels that I do not watch. In fact, for many shows it is significantly easier to watch through these services since the viewer does not have to deal with commercials. The only instance in which I can see millennials going back to subscription is because of kids. Toddlers will most likely not know what they specifically want to watch and the parents may not be sure either. In this instance, this subscription cable holds an advantage. Otherwise, I don’t think many millennials will re-enter subscription tv.

Steph, this is a very interesting article. I love the question you asked where you wonder if Facebook is still at the forefront of innovation or have they peaked. As I was reading this, I thought it was interesting that Facebook, a social media company, would have an interest in the Internet of Things. Sometimes it’s difficult to say why one company might have an interest in an area totally unrelated to what they do. I thought this move looked desperate on their part and might be a sign that the “writing is on the wall” for Facebook. I then thought that perhaps Facebook is trying to continue doing what it sort-of already does-be everywhere. Perhaps Facebook is trying to expand on what we think social media is and is going after this social media “on steroids” approach where Facebook not only lets us comment on the things we use but control them too.

I definitely think that Facebook has the resources both financially and technologically to compete with the big tech companies ( Google, Amazon, Samsung, Apple) in the IoT market. Facebook makes its living on collecting and know its user’s information, and by entering the IoT market, they will be able to gather even more information from its users. Information such as daily habits (wake up, sleep, leave work, etc..) , eating habits, and schedule, Facebook would be able to use this information to market products or services for users. I do think that Facebook has peak as a social media network but has a company whose product is basically information, they are just getting started, with apps aim at businesses, drones and VR to come.

Andrew, I thought this was a great article. I was not surprised to see that there was some contention around performance reviews at a large company. Performance reviews, I feel, are an inefficient way at representing just how well an employee performs. Performance reviews are “static” and, especially at a company where projects and clients are always changing, can paint the wrong picture. I feel performance reviews are valuable but they should not be the deciding factor in reviewing an employee.

I definitely agree Ryan. I want to work for a company that has a program like this.

As long as people using Uber understand that self-driving cars are safer than human operated cars, they will continue to use Uber. For me personally, I want to get from Point A to Point B and have no interest in speaking with the driver about their long days slaving away at work so I very much enjoy the idea of driverless cars.
It really depends on what Google can offer. Will they have a larger fleet thereby arriving sooner after a request is made for a cab? If so then I’d go with Google. Are their cars cleaner? Will they have targeted ads in the vehicles? There are so many factors that can influence consumer behavior, but if Google does create its own taxi service, a lot of people will use it.

Uber has revolutionized the world with its ability to identify a problem, and coming up with a technological solution just like the most recent of transportation industry. But the article targets Uber’s future plans of replacing the current cars with the driver less cars. The article sees this as an opportunity for Uber to replace all the taxicabs in the New York City. Even though credible sources such PWC predicts that autonomous could lead a reduction of cars up to 99%, but I personally think it is too early to make such claims. I wouldn’t want to travel in a driver-less car. I agree that disruptive innovation’s aim is to provide service that would minimize human effort, but having a driver less is too much to ask. But maybe with the time this might change, but at the moment I don’t see myself buying an autonomous car.

When it comes to the disruptive innovations we covered in class I believe that autonomous cars might have the possibility of becoming the most disruptive if they are successfully constructed. However, you make an interesting point about road regulations and this is also why I think autonomous cars might fail in taking over the car industry as a whole. As of now and probably within the next 10-15 years I don’t think it is even slightly feasible for these little Uber cars to take over the city. I don’t even think autonomous cars can become a real disruption until they are completely flawless in architecture, can better drive a car than a human, and are allowed on the road. I would like to think that I will never buy an autonomous vehicle, but as with any disruptive innovation it might become more practical to buy one in the next few decades. As we mentioned in class autonomous vehicles could definitely have some benefits. They could reduce accidents, drunk driving, traffic, and just make the road a safer place in general. Overall, I would agree with your opinion that we should take this with a grain a salt, despite the strong statistics. The effects of the autonomous vehicle really could be staggering, but before that is even a possibility these cars need to be flawless and affordable of course!

I have no reason to believe that the findings are inaccurate, but there is a bias to the calculation of IT spending as a percentage of revenue; larger companies, by the article’s definition, have larger revenue streams than smaller companies. Thus, if two companies spend the same amount on IT, the larger of the two will spend less as a percentage of revenue than the smaller one.
I liked that the article recognized that smarter spending—not more spending—is the hallmark of a successful IT operation. Just because an IT investment is costlier, it is not necessarily better for an organization; a costlier IT project can also artificially boost expectations about the value created by the project. When management is expecting miracles from a costly IT investment, even a successful implementation can disappoint. Thus, it is important to choose IT investments wisely (taking note of Hubbard’s recommendations in “Everything Is Measurable”) and be realistic about their effects on the business.

I don’t think Apple would be able to compete with the likes of Spotify or Pandora mainly because Apple’s service would be limited to its ecosystem only. With Spotify or Pandora, it is available on almost all platform which allows it to reach more people.