1. Given the definition of "disruptive innovations" given in the Geekipedia piece, do you agree with the author's argument that the iphone is a truly disruptive technology. Explain why you agree or disagree.
I think that the iPhone could definitely be considered disruptive technology. When it first came out I believe that Apple intended it to just be a portable computer that could make phone calls. But it blew up and became a way for people to constantly be in touch and checking their social networking sites and e-mails and get the answer to any question they have, from directions to a friends house to the price of a new book. The apps that have since come out since the iPhone's invention can do anything imaginable. I'm pretty sure that the iPhone creators at Apple had no intention of the iPhone being used to calculate the force of a punch, but it does, and it can. After seeing and learning how people use their iPhones, Apple can adapt how it works and make it more convenient for the user. I believe that is what makes a technology disruptive- it doesn't just perform the functions of multiple technologies- it creates new situations that society has never seen before and improves the way the product is used.
2. Assuming that Winston, the author of the hand-out "Storm in Paradise", would claim that the iphone is actually just evolutionary, not revolutionary, what evidence could you offer from the "Wired" article and the other items, to support his point of view?
The entire Wired article discusses exactly how the iPhone was revolutionary. It went from the iPod, solely playing music, to this touch screen music-player/phone-call-maker/ internet-access-er/ gps/ everything-you-ever-dreamed-of piece of equipment. There were many templates, mistakes, re-do's that lead to the device that we see today. It was its progress, evolutionary-speaking, that to the revolutionary effect it has had on the way people view their cell phones and the actions it should be able to perform.
3. What comment would Winston make about the new ipad, and do you think it will be seen as " disruptive technology", a game-changer, as many-though not all- of the technology critics have been saying?
My feelings on the iPad are mostly of confusion. It seems like an inconveniently large version of the iPod touch. The fact that it's just a screen seems like it would be a very fragile item to carry around while providing the same conveniences of a laptop. I don't see it as disruptive beause I don't see it as providing any kind of new uses that computers didn't formerly have. I guess it could be a game changer because it changes the way the user interacts with the screen itself. Perhaps thats the only real impact it will have on the computer world- it will be seen as a gamer's tool and, as Winston predicted with the message not being the purpose but rather the medium being the message, provide a new environment for gaming sitations and open the door to new possibilities. As someone who is not a gamer, this doesn't appear to affect my life in a way that will prove to be disruptive.