How can value of Bitcoin be even remotely comparable to that of Apple – the company that, for decades, has been disrupting the whole industries and creating incredible REAL products used daily by billions of REAL people worldwide?..
While Apple has defined many industries with its pathbreaking products, it has not disrupted any of them.
iPhone has only 20% market share globally. There are so many other big smartphone makers in the world. Even Nokia is still a Fortune Global 500 company and Blackberry is a $4B company.
iMac has less than 10% market share worldwide and has not disrupted Wintel desktops by any stretch of imagination. Prof. Clay C said iPhone was a canidate for disrupting laptop / desktop industry (not smartphone) and, many years after iPhone has entered the market, laptops and desktops are still alive and kicking.
I could go on an on but I’m sure you get my drift.
OTOH, Bitcoin will disrupt fiat currency. And that would be disruption in its canonical form – as in actually kill. Not upend or shakeup or whatever spurious substitutes for disruption that are used by people to sound cool. If BTC realizes its vision, it will have achieved a far greater transformation in the world than anything that Apple has ever done (or even envisioned to do).
Surely, to the believers, Bitcoin is worth many many Apples.
—–
Where’s the disagreement? I said Apple defined many industries, you also seem to be saying the same thing. However, letting others capture 70-80% of the market share AFTER defining an industry is not disruption.
By cutthroat standards of the market, that’s quite meek and companies that exhibit such behavior lose out on valuation.
(Maybe Apple wants to give a warm-and-cuddly feeling to everyone or whatever but I’ve always wondered why Apple didn’t patent its products and block competition – the way Amazon did, even with a not-so-earth-shattering thingy like 1-Click Shopping. But I digress.)
Not surprisingly, $AAPL has a much lower P/E (16) than even “old guy” companies like $AMZN (82).
—–
Everybody and his Dog can have an opinion on what Disruption means but, unless noted otherwise, Disruption has to mean only one thing i.e. the way it’s defined in the famous Innovative Disruption theory by Prof. Clay C, which is, Incumbent dies aka its revenue drops below $50M.
—–
Nobody has flown to Mars. Ergo there’s no Incumbent. Ergo, there’s no question of Disruption in flying to Mars. As the Founder of OlaCabs – India’s Uber – once said, we operate in 150 cities, out of which 147 don’t have cabs, where’s the question of Disruption?, we’re in the business of Creation.
—–
Innovative Disruption Theory is neither owned by you or me. We can only use it. My pedantic or your semantics or my reason doesn’t matter one bit. What does matter is, while we study and use the theory, we honor the pedantic focus and rigor and semantics demanded by its author Prof. Clay C.
While declaring that Uber is NOT an example of disruptive innovation, this is what Prof Clay C said on the need for rigor in interpreting his theory and why every Rando’s definition of Disruption does great harm for everone. “Unfortunately, disruption theory is in danger of becoming a victim of its own success. Despite broad dissemination, the theory’s core concepts have been widely misunderstood and its basic tenets frequently misapplied. Many researchers, writers, and consultants use “disruptive innovation” to describe any situation in which an industry is shaken up and previously successful incumbents stumble. But that’s much too broad a usage. The problem with conflating a disruptive innovation with any breakthrough that changes an industry’s competitive patterns is that different types of innovation require different strategic approaches.”
—–