"Produced by Larry Keating for AT&T. 'THE ARTIST AND THE COMPUTER is an excellent introductory informational film that dispels some of the 'mystery' of computer-art technology, as it clarifies the necessary human input of integrity, artistic sensibilities, and aesthetics…. Ms. Schwartz’s voice over narration explains what she hoped to accomplish in the excerpts from a number of her films and gives insight into the artist’s problems and decisions…. I would recommend THE ARTIST AND THE COMPUTER for all grade levels, in classes on filmmaking, art appreciation, and human values.' - John Canemaker, Film News, Animation, Jan.-Feb. 1978. Cine Golden Eagle 1976; New York Film Festival; USIA - Animation and Education 1977; Annual Creative Problem Solving Institute, 1980. Recent screening at the Museum of Modern Art, New York, December 10, 2012."
"The brochures selected here (just a fraction of the Museum's holdings in this area) show some of the more important technologies, companies, and applications in computing from 1948 to 1988. This covers the period from mechanical and relay-based computers to those based on the microprocessor - a remarkable transition that occurred over only 25 years. We hope you enjoy browsing through these historical documents."
(Computer History Museum)
This collection of photos from business equipment brochures dramatically shows the extent to which our assumptions about gender roles have changed.
"The innovator's dilemma is this: a company that does everything by the book - listening to customers, managing by facts, being disciplined about costs and quality, and so forth - can get blindsided by an innovation that rapidly takes away its markets, because it was doing everything right. The innovations that cause this 'why bad things happen to good companies' dilemma are disruptive innovations. The signature story of disruption reads as follows: an upstart low-end competitor displaces a much larger incumbent in a market, with the incumbent either retreating upmarket to higher margin/lower volume products or dying out altogether. ...
Examples are smaller, cheaper hard drives disrupting incumbent hard drive makers, hydraulic shovels disrupting cable-winch shovels (an early 20th century example), PCs disrupting mainframes, ink jet printers disrupting laser printers and, most recently, the Nintendo Wii starting to disrupt the Playstation and the Xbox.
Major though they were, innovations such as CDs, laser printing and jet airplane engines were not disruptive with respect to the technologies they displaced ( cassette tapes, light lens Xerography and piston engines respectively). In each case, the incumbents benefited from these non-disruptive, or sustaining innovations.
The key point to remember is that disruption is a market/business phenomenon and has little to do with technology per se. In particular, a disruptive innovation may or may not represent a major technical breakthrough. Major breakthroughs, which are called ‘radical' in Christenson's model, may or may not be disruptive, while minor, or ‘incremental' innovations can be massively disruptive. The opposite of disruptive is sustaining. Why and how does disruption happen?
A disruptive innovation usually starts as a low-quality differentiated product in a low-volume marginal segment of a much larger mature market, which demands attributes that the mainstream market does not, and which is willing to give up performance attributes the mainstream market is not (example, Wii customers willing to give up sheer processing horsepower for 3d input capability).
A marginal player occupies this segment and starts growing rapidly, solving initial quality problems while retaining a cost advantage.
The incumbent mature market leader, no matter how visionary, is forced to ignore the opportunity because it does not meet the growth needs dictated by its larger size, and also because the disruptive product is not yet good enough for its mainstream customers.
The marginal player goes through a learning curve, solves its quality problems and suddenly starts threatening the market leader in its main markets
The incumbent scrambles to put together a response, nearly always fails because of the disruptor's head start and optimized culture, and retreats to a higher-end market."
(Venkatesh Rao, 23 July 2007)