I didn't see it as a judgement, just didn't understand the point. I guess you have provided a little more clarity. How sad is it to generalize the idea that disruption can no longer occur. That is one of the saddest things I've read all day. There are numerous cases where companies 'advance technology' into a product to the point where someone comes along with something simpler to undercut the existing player. Apple isn't a good example of this because it's very hard to disrupt their products. They have extremely focus on the end user and simplicity.

It's not just the values they place on the end user and simplicity, it's their huge amount of cash they can use to test and deploy technologies (think spatial audio partners) and their tight grip on supply chains (try sourcing some of the same materials an iPhone is made of).

I mentioned elsewhere in the thread, the best chance at making a wave as a consumer product concern is to make waves on some sub-component of the larger product being produced by the majors. You aren't going to compete with Apple, Sony or Bose directly, but you can improve on new technologies or extant processes and hope to get subsumed. That's the truly sad part.

No. Apple needs large teams doing complicated or deeply technical things. That's their market. They're in consumer electronics. If it takes 50 people to ship 100M units, then it takes 50 people.

No what? What are you talking about?

The first sentence only experiencing diminishing returns can be read negative. Also everything is easier/cheaper/faster than ever for individuals and small companies to enter the hardware space.

I suspect the best path for success that individuals or small companies can take right now is to focus on one piece of the larger product and aim for acquisition or licensing, sort of like the pharmaceutical space.