Daniel Vessal

It surprises me that virtual reality has not become such a disruptive innovation already. Virtual reality creates an escape for people, without having them leave a room. I feel as though companies such as restaurants, travel agencies and the entertainment industry could create tremendous products. In the restaurant industry, who wouldn’t love to eat on the beach when it’s the dead of winter or visit a restaurant in Italy without getting on a plane. Travel agencies can create virtual vacations to entice people to travel more. I think virtual reality should really be utilized more with hoe far technology has come in the past decade.

I really think it’s only a matter of time until virtual reality becomes part of consumer entertainment, whether it be at home or at movie theaters, arcades, or more. I could also see it being part of online shopping experience where users could actually browse stores.

I think that virtual reality will be more difficult to implement in the workplace. Not only would it be harder to implement into a business process, but the adoption rate for newer technology is much lower. During my internship, there were talks about implementing virtual reality into software for stocker traders. This would allow the trader to have infinite screens and the ability to scroll through information faster than every before. Although this seems interesting, I do not think it is a practical option.

I think that crowdfunding definitely poses a potential for disruption, because it allows the average person to get funding. I think that crowdfunding is disruptive in its own right now. Whereas people/small companies with big ideas couldn’t compete before due to a lack of capital, websites like Kickstarter allow users to obtain funding based on the merit and popularity of their ideas. However, there is the caveat that the idea must be popular enough and marketed enough to gain a legitimate following and thus get funded.

I do think crowdfunding could have a direct correlation to disruption because they seem similar in many cases. It’s interesting that something like crowdfunding exists, and that the idea or product has to be popular enough to be marketed like jacklin stated.

Crowdfunding absolutely has a direct correlation to disruption: it removes barriers to entry, primarily capital. Between you (Dan) and Jacklin, the core things about crowd funding and its potential to disrupt have already been touched upon. I’d like to add, though, the similarities between this and 3D printing. 3D printing also removes barriers to entry, which in that case is the means to production.. while thinking about this, it made me realize that the two could be combined in a very beneficial way. A creative person could produce and actually test a product from their imagination at a very minimal cost in their home if they have a 3d printer (or at some point in the future when it may become more commonplace), and then use crowd funding to cover the other aspects of releasing a product onto the market, all while avoiding high production costs and the risk of losing money or loans from an individual’s pocket. Anyone else think this could be a mutually beneficial relationship?

I do think that crowd funding has the ability to disrupt. As the others mentioned, it allows individuals or small companies to gain the necessary capital needed to make their idea come to life. Also, I find it interesting that creators on crowd funding sites, like Kickstarter, retain 100% ownership of their idea, which could be a reason people opt to put their idea these types of sites for funding versus getting investors who will want a financial stake in their idea. However, one problem I see with crowd funding is that someone could steal your idea. If someone goes on a site like Kickstarter, and realizes they can make your idea and believes they can get it to consumers faster, they could effectively put you out of business.

Nintendo has always been against developing for mobile platforms (or licensing its characters out) because they believed that mobile games were far inferior to games on dedicated platforms and that they did not suit well with Nintendo’s commitment to high quality (http://www.engadget.com/2015/03/17/nintendo-mobile-iwata/). As a fan of Nintendo and since I have been following their stance on mobile gaming for years, this move of partnering with DeNa really surprised me. However, Nintendo has been extremely light on details, meaning that we don’t know exactly how they are going to pull off mobile yet. With a long history of quality and success, there’s no doubt in my mind that they’ll have high quality control in any games they produce and that they will take advantage of what mobile platforms have to offer (instead of simply porting games). The games in themselves, though, are not what’s going to disrupt anything. There are thousands if not MILLIONS of games on the App Store and Android (and other mobile platforms), so for consumers it will be just another option (albeit high quality) and for Nintendo another source of revenue. BUT, with Nintendo hinting at an integrated mobile platform being incorporated with its next dedicated console, the NX, I have a feeling they are going to be creating their own mobile platform in the same vein as PlayStation Mobile (which I recently posted about and is shutting down this year due to low adoption rates/sales), but with much greater investment and success. If this is true, THIS could be the next disruption in gaming and possibly mobile platforms in general.

1.1 or 1.2 GHz processor for $1,300? It’s not disrupting anything.

When I read your post, I immediately looked up the details of the new Macbook assuming that they finally gave it touch screen support and made it more of a “hybrid” tablet/laptop. What I found was just the typical Apple strategy of making things smaller (or in this case, thinner), prettier, and more powerful. I don’t think the new Macbook is disrupting its own industry/product line in the context of the iPad because it is still what it always has been: a laptop. It hasn’t crossed that line into a tablet yet, even though it is a lot thinner now. The iPad remains distinct because it runs on a mobile operating system (iOS), as you pointed out, while the Macbook is a traditional “full-experience” laptop running OS X. The surface is a true hybrid of the two, which gives it a competitive advantage that the new Macbook doesn’t address. As Thomas pointed out, the price point is also way too high to be disruptive, especially when the Surface, which runs the full-blown Windows operating system experience, offers the best of both worlds for cheaper, no matter which model you get.

Since we are all college students, I think we would all agree on Google Apps’ placement on this list. One large component of a technology being disruptive is its price; Google Apps is free, and it allows students (as well as employees and just about everybody) to do just about anything they would need to when it comes to the essentials. As a savvy alternative to established incumbents such as Microsoft who charge hundreds of dollars for its suite of Office applications, which ALSO enables collaboration on a level never seen before (how many times have you all collaborated on a google Doc or spreadsheet together with classmates for a project/assignment?), Google Apps is most definitely a disruptive innovation that turned its market upside down.

It’s an interesting idea. You will need to consider liability insurance, but that’s not a deal-breaker. You can add crowd-sourced feedback from service providers to help people know who to trust with their car. Your initial marketing push will be critical. This application will require a critical mass of users in order to work.

There is a new generation OBD2 code readers that plug into your car and provide diagnostics to your phone. You can check the Play Store for examples. This might be a direction you can add value, or it might be a direction that has too much competition; something to research.