5 ms·

I don't think author of this article has ever actually read anything by Christensen -- it makes zero mention of what Clay Christensen is best know for; the Inno

I don't think author of this article has ever actually read anything by Christensen -- it makes zero mention of what Clay Christensen is best know for; the Innovator's Dilemma. And nowhere in this does the article actually state what his alleged thesis is, and what about it isn't being born out. It just points out a couple of cases of innovation and then waves some hands and claims Christensen is wrong a lot. The Innovator's Dilemma is his big idea, and it's still as much a part of the innovation lexicon as it was in 1997. The accuracy of his prognostications re:specific companies is pretty irrelevant. For some reason the article's author is fixated on the idea that Christensen's thesis has something to do with small companies; it does not. The Innovator's Dilemma deals with companies established in their industry being unable to innovate because it will disrupt their own business. Google entering the car market is a perfect example of this (because Google is NOT a carmaker), not a counterexample. General Motors is unable to create driverless cars because it's antithetical to their current business -- THAT'S the innovator's dilemma.

spinlock 11y ago
Exactly. I think the author's example of Uber is also way off the mark. Uber did not disrupt the cab industry the way PCs disrupted the mainframe industry. Cabs did not provide a good service; they provided a bad service that was protected by a government backed monopoly. The cab industry was never worried that it would cannibalize existing businesses by allowing people to hail cabs on their phones. They just didn't care if people had a good experience because they had a captive market. The Uber story really isn't a "good" business case because there are only so many regulated monopolies. Entrenched businesses, on the other hand, are everywhere.
- exelius 11y ago
  Uber is disruptive -- to the municipal authorities who regulate taxis. Other than that, they're a taxi company with an Internet dispatch system. There are even fewer regulated monopolies that can follow the Uber path (Airbnb is one of them). Uber was uniquely able to disrupt a bunch of municipal taxi regulators because a single taxi regulator does not have a very large budget. Uber can outspend them, set a few precedents in case law, and it was over. The strategy doesn't work in an industry with centralized regulation (USDA, FDA, FCC) or in an industry with a colossal amount of money involved (anything health care related).
  - spinlock 11y ago
    That is not "disruption" in the technical sense.

spinlock 11y ago

Exactly. I think the author's example of Uber is also way off the mark. Uber did not disrupt the cab industry the way PCs disrupted the mainframe industry. Cabs did not provide a good service; they provided a bad service that was protected by a government backed monopoly. The cab industry was never worried that it would cannibalize existing businesses by allowing people to hail cabs on their phones. They just didn't care if people had a good experience because they had a captive market. The Uber story really isn't a "good" business case because there are only so many regulated monopolies. Entrenched businesses, on the other hand, are everywhere.

exelius 11y ago
Uber is disruptive -- to the municipal authorities who regulate taxis. Other than that, they're a taxi company with an Internet dispatch system. There are even fewer regulated monopolies that can follow the Uber path (Airbnb is one of them). Uber was uniquely able to disrupt a bunch of municipal taxi regulators because a single taxi regulator does not have a very large budget. Uber can outspend them, set a few precedents in case law, and it was over. The strategy doesn't work in an industry with centralized regulation (USDA, FDA, FCC) or in an industry with a colossal amount of money involved (anything health care related).
- spinlock 11y ago
  That is not "disruption" in the technical sense.