{"id":736,"date":"2016-02-27T15:23:12","date_gmt":"2016-02-27T15:23:12","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/endrun.endcrawl.com\/?p=736"},"modified":"2022-05-25T17:53:26","modified_gmt":"2022-05-25T17:53:26","slug":"red-camera-was-not-disruptive-innovation","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/endcrawl.com\/blog\/red-camera-was-not-disruptive-innovation\/","title":{"rendered":"Why the RED Camera was (and was not) a Disruptive Innovation"},"content":{"rendered":"

NAB,\u00a0you’re\u00a0wearing pretty thin.<\/p>\n

Let’s start with the expo\u00a0floor, which always feels\u00a0like an extension to the mandatory\u00a0acres of jangly\u00a0casino floor we\u2019re routed through on our way there. The\u00a0one-armed bandits and vendor booths both vie for attention. Each year we’re on the hunt for something new and\u00a0game-changing. And each year instead we are proffered incremental improvements to small, tactical annoyances. Surprises are rare.<\/p>\n

The World Of Atoms moves at its own lumbering pace, and neither the slot machines nor the display booths change much from one year to\u00a0the next.<\/p>\n

Set against the World Of Bits<\/a>\u2014where new soft technologies can mutate and disperse in just days and weeks\u2014digital cinema sure feels like new skin for some very old wine.<\/p>\n

The RED Camera was a rare exception to this slog. Affordable 4k and native RAW workflows were distant sci-fi when rumors started swirling in 2005. But just two years later, RED was shipping cameras to its first customers.<\/p>\n

Full disclosure: I was one of those customers.<\/p>\n

Over Labor Day weekend 2007, I became the co-owner of the first two production model RED\u00a0One cameras. (For the record: serials #0006 and #0007. The first five belong to RED founder Jim Jannard\u2019s private collection.)<\/p>\n

I would spend the next five years putting the system through its paces, running native 4k RAW pipelines on scores of projects. That path would start with the earliest RED indies you\u2019ve never<\/a> heard<\/a> of, and lead through Academy Award winners like Beginners<\/em> and The Great Gatsby<\/em>.<\/p>\n

And in case you missed the headline: I do not think\u00a0that the RED camera was a disruptive innovation.<\/p>\n

But before the flaming arrows of fanboys darken my skies, and I\u2019m banned from RedUser for all eternity, please allow me to explain.<\/p>\n

\"Will<\/p>\n

Photo<\/a> by Adam Dachis \/ CC BY<\/a>. Cropped, hacked & retouched.<\/span>
Will Lobstermania 2 resolve all the lingering questions left from Lobstermania 1?<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

The\u00a0Disruption Troika<\/h2>\n

We filmmakers abuse the term \u201cdisruption\u201d liberally, but then so does Silicon Valley. The authors of classic Disruption Theory\u00a0recently took to the Harvard Business Review to try and set the record straight<\/a>. And rightly so:\u00a0disruption\u00a0doesn’t simply mean\u00a0\u201cshiny new toy\u201d or \u201cthis will make my day job harder.\u201d<\/p>\n

But\u00a0a worthy idea\u00a0will also assume a life of its own, so\u00a0I hope Clayton Christensen<\/a> will forgive my occasional breach\u00a0from his canon.<\/p>\n

A Disruptive Innovation is three things:<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. It is\u00a0Inferior<\/strong>. The new product or tech has deliberate, glaring omissions in its specifications or feature set. Conventional wisdom gazes upon these omissions in horror. Pearls are clutched.\u00a0Monocles pop.<\/li>\n
  2. It is Combinatorial<\/strong>. The innovation does not rely on radical new breakthroughs (think cold fusion, warp drive, or invisibility cloaks). Instead, it leverages readily available technologies and re-combines them in new ways.<\/li>\n
  3. It\u00a0is Bottoms-up<\/strong>. Disruptors\u00a0identify\u00a0an under-served market and start selling there. Over time, the disruptor’s product improves and is able to consume greater\u00a0market share. The incumbents are either pushed out, or they end up balkanizing themselves into small, luxury pigeonholes.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    Let\u2019s look at a number of concrete\u00a0examples, and\u00a0see how RED stacks up.<\/p>\n<\/section>\n

    \n
    \"Pictured<\/p>\n

    Photo courtesy Offhollywood<\/a><\/span>
    Pictured in there somewhere: the author. First weekend out with REDs #0006 and #0007.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

    \n

    I. Disruption is\u00a0Inferior<\/h2>\n

    Inferior doesn\u2019t mean cheap or low-tech:\u00a0an \u201cinferior\u201d disruptive product can have a high ticket price. We’re not talking about\u00a0manufacturing defects or other quality control issues like the iPhone 4 antenna debacle, either.<\/p>\n

    A\u00a0disruptive product deliberately<\/em>\u00a0ships with specs that appear <\/em>subpar to conventional wisdom.<\/p>\n

    A. Inferior Steam Shovels<\/h3>\n

    My five-year-old could tell you that earth movers are hydraulic. But in the early twentieth century, everything was cable-operated.<\/p>\n

    \"PSM_V62_D073_Steam_shovel_1024\"<\/p>\n

    And only occasionally would a cable snap and maybe decapitate you.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

    Hydraulics entered that market underpowered and niche: it would take years for the technology to match the brawn of cable-operated machinery. So instead of going head-to-head with the heavy iron, disruptive diggers introduced lower-power models that were only good for small jobs.<\/p>\n

    These new hydraulic excavators were inferior by traditional measures like\u00a0shovel size and extension distance. But all new homes need trenches dug for water and sewage lines. And that used to be\u00a0done with shovels. By\u00a0hand. In the post-WWII housing boom, new hydraulic backhoes took over the job. They even turned an\u00a0emphasis on narrower shovels and maneuverability into an\u00a0advantage.<\/p>\n

    As\u00a0hydraulic technology improved over time, it\u00a0consumed more and more market share. In a move history would see repeated many times later, the incumbent firms eventually tried to make the switch\u00a0to hydraulics as well\u2014buy they waited until it was safe. By then, the disruptors had accumulated a massive head start. The incumbents were largely\u00a0pushed out of their core markets.<\/p>\n

    B. Inferior iPhone<\/h3>\n

    Apple\u2019s iPhone strategy was heavily influenced by the disruption playbook. This is where I fork from Disruption Orthodoxy, since Clayton doesn\u2019t think the iPhone fits the bill. But\u00a0begging Clayton’s forgiveness, we tend to forget how the\u00a0original iPhone\u00a0showed\u00a0any number of deficiencies\u00a0compared to \u201creal\u201d smartphones at the time:<\/p>\n

      \n
    • No 3G support<\/li>\n
    • No Flash support<\/li>\n
    • No\u00a0physical\u00a0keyboard<\/li>\n
    • And let\u2019s not forget that we didn\u2019t even get copy & paste until iOS3<\/em>.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

      Here’s\u00a0former\u00a0Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer clutching his pearls:<\/p>\n