4 ms·

OP. Meh, every single startup I've seen in the past 25 years has claimed that they are tackling their problem differently than their competitors in some way. I

OP. Meh, every single startup I've seen in the past 25 years has claimed that they are tackling their problem differently than their competitors in some way. If this is what disruption means, then it's the quintessential distinction without a difference. It's the entrepreneurs' equivalent of a VC saying "we add value." A waste of pixels. And if that's the entire content of your strategy--you think being different is all the strategy you need because, "disruptive"--then chances are you're cooked.

prof_hobart 10y ago
Like I say, I'm not disagreeing with the idea that "we will disrupt" on its own is no more use as a business case than "we will make wads of cash". What I am questioning is the idea that there's only one way to disrupt an industry - to be cheaper and in some way subpar compared to the incumbent. You seem to be suggesting that the taxi industry hasn't been disrupted by Uber, because it doesn't align with one person's definition of what disruption looks like. And I don't really understand that. There's clearly been huge disruption there.
galistoca 10y ago
There's a huge difference between "tackling the problem differently than their competitors" and "tackling the problem differently in a way that their competitors can't imitate easily without sacrificing their assets". The latter is disruptive, the former is just what doing business means. I think Uber does fit into the latter. Just to be clear, I do agree with your general tone of the article, it's just that your Uber part made me cringe.
- AnimalMuppet 10y ago
  > tackling the problem differently in a way that their competitors can't imitate easily without sacrificing their assets That isn't enough. You have to tackle the problem differently in a way that matters to the market. It has to show up somewhere, in terms of price, features, or quality.
- sharemywin 10y ago
  Uber succeeded mostly by violating local licensing laws. And federal employment laws which they may still need to pay the piper for.
  - galistoca 10y ago
    Exactly, that's why the incumbents couldn't replicate them, because they had to stay legal. Let's not go into whether this is ethical or not. I'm simply pointing out what disruptive means.
    - sharemywin 10y ago
      that's kind of a stretch on the definition.
      - galistoca 10y ago
        Ok smart guy, then tell me how so.
        sharemywin 10y ago
        usually the definition is around some technology coming out that the incumbents were so heavily invested in earlier technology that they couldn't embrace the new technology until it was too late. It's not that taxis companies couldn't have developed tech, it's because they followed the law which caused them not to be able compete. so, unless you call "law" a technology I don't include it in my definition. And since most of the other on demand companies are failing it leads me to believe it's not about technology or even strategy(unless you call breaking the law a strategy). Is my way the only way to look at it obviously not. Just like facebook didn't disrupt anything. they just executed better.
        galistoca 10y ago
        What you described is a "symptom", not a "definition". However let's say that you're correct and think for a second. Where do you pull out this notion that something has to be a technology to be disruptive? Here's the real definition of disruptive: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/disrupt http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/disrupt There were many cases in history where people came up with disruptive invention, philosophy, business model, or any idea. Anything is disruptive if it renders the previous approach obsolete. Napster was disruptive, but both illegal and a failure. Based on your definition Napster is not at all disruptive. What else would you call it then? Being disruptive is not just about a small number of successful case studies mentioned in Christensen books.
- ganeumann 10y ago
  Sure, but tackling a problem in a way that your competition can't respond well to is called a strategy. I mean, you can define disruption any way you want, but keep in mind that the reason people use the word disruption when they mean strategy is because they imbue the word with magic power, not because it communicates anything meaningful.

prof_hobart 10y ago

Like I say, I'm not disagreeing with the idea that "we will disrupt" on its own is no more use as a business case than "we will make wads of cash". What I am questioning is the idea that there's only one way to disrupt an industry - to be cheaper and in some way subpar compared to the incumbent. You seem to be suggesting that the taxi industry hasn't been disrupted by Uber, because it doesn't align with one person's definition of what disruption looks like. And I don't really understand that. There's clearly been huge disruption there.

galistoca 10y ago

There's a huge difference between "tackling the problem differently than their competitors" and "tackling the problem differently in a way that their competitors can't imitate easily without sacrificing their assets". The latter is disruptive, the former is just what doing business means. I think Uber does fit into the latter. Just to be clear, I do agree with your general tone of the article, it's just that your Uber part made me cringe.

AnimalMuppet 10y ago
> tackling the problem differently in a way that their competitors can't imitate easily without sacrificing their assets That isn't enough. You have to tackle the problem differently in a way that matters to the market. It has to show up somewhere, in terms of price, features, or quality.
sharemywin 10y ago
Uber succeeded mostly by violating local licensing laws. And federal employment laws which they may still need to pay the piper for.
- galistoca 10y ago
  Exactly, that's why the incumbents couldn't replicate them, because they had to stay legal. Let's not go into whether this is ethical or not. I'm simply pointing out what disruptive means.
  - sharemywin 10y ago
    that's kind of a stretch on the definition.
    - galistoca 10y ago
      Ok smart guy, then tell me how so.
      - sharemywin 10y ago
        usually the definition is around some technology coming out that the incumbents were so heavily invested in earlier technology that they couldn't embrace the new technology until it was too late. It's not that taxis companies couldn't have developed tech, it's because they followed the law which caused them not to be able compete. so, unless you call "law" a technology I don't include it in my definition. And since most of the other on demand companies are failing it leads me to believe it's not about technology or even strategy(unless you call breaking the law a strategy). Is my way the only way to look at it obviously not. Just like facebook didn't disrupt anything. they just executed better.
        galistoca 10y ago
        What you described is a "symptom", not a "definition". However let's say that you're correct and think for a second. Where do you pull out this notion that something has to be a technology to be disruptive? Here's the real definition of disruptive: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/disrupt http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/disrupt There were many cases in history where people came up with disruptive invention, philosophy, business model, or any idea. Anything is disruptive if it renders the previous approach obsolete. Napster was disruptive, but both illegal and a failure. Based on your definition Napster is not at all disruptive. What else would you call it then? Being disruptive is not just about a small number of successful case studies mentioned in Christensen books.
ganeumann 10y ago
Sure, but tackling a problem in a way that your competition can't respond well to is called a strategy. I mean, you can define disruption any way you want, but keep in mind that the reason people use the word disruption when they mean strategy is because they imbue the word with magic power, not because it communicates anything meaningful.