3 ms·

I'll be honest, it seems disingenuous to argue that Oracle is immune to disruption in a debate about whether Amazon poses an existential threat, and then later

I'll be honest, it seems disingenuous to argue that Oracle is immune to disruption in a debate about whether Amazon poses an existential threat, and then later reveal that you were using a specific, hidden meaning of the word -- especially when the plain, obvious meaning is directly applicable to the discussion. I will try to assume positive intent. The last thing I'll say is a bit of advice: In future debates, it would be useful to indicate at the beginning when you're using a specific, non-obvious definition of a word, especially when the broadly accepted meaning is directly consistent with the debate topic, and especially when the definition you are using has little to do with the overall discussion. It will save time and will help avoid misunderstandings that damage your credibility among your counterparts in the discussion.

hyperpallium 7y ago
Sorry, no ill intent, I thought the technical meaning was common knowlwdge on HN, since the technical meaning is where the term originated. I was actually afraid I was being condescending by referencing the source. But I only introduced it in my 4th comment in the debate, and clarified it in the next one, when I sensed there might be a misunderstanding. I didn't use it at the "beginning" of the debate. The definition is central to the debate. I see now it's hard for us to discuss this, as disruptive vs. sustaining determines whether the incumbent (Oracle) or entrant (AWS) wins. The debate turns on the distinction. "Disruption" is just a theory, doesn't have a perfect track record, and I sense you're not interested in it, but the original research on the hard disk drive market was pretty influential, about how some dramatic tech changes in e.g. the magnetic surface made no difference to who led the market ("sustaining"), while changes in form-factor (8", 5.25", 3.5" etc) "disrupted" the market by changing who bought them and why... and also changed who led the market. Wikipedia on "the innovator's dilemma" is a pretty good summary, IIRC. It's a shame a misunderstanding has prevented you from participating in a discussion. I thought we were reaching the crux of the issue... oh well. It was interesting to me, at least.
hyperpallium 7y ago
After sleeping on it, I agree it is an existential threat. Disruption usually happens from the low-end, but in this case, Oracle is being threatened from the top-end. That's terrifying. Oracle must address these security concerns. It's just that I'm not sure the existential threat will succeed (because I'm not sure cloud scalability/pricing will change the reasons to buy Oracle - I find that an interesting question). BTW When people quote a term, it's to alert you to usage of that term.

hyperpallium 7y ago

Sorry, no ill intent, I thought the technical meaning was common knowlwdge on HN, since the technical meaning is where the term originated. I was actually afraid I was being condescending by referencing the source. But I only introduced it in my 4th comment in the debate, and clarified it in the next one, when I sensed there might be a misunderstanding. I didn't use it at the "beginning" of the debate. The definition is central to the debate. I see now it's hard for us to discuss this, as disruptive vs. sustaining determines whether the incumbent (Oracle) or entrant (AWS) wins. The debate turns on the distinction. "Disruption" is just a theory, doesn't have a perfect track record, and I sense you're not interested in it, but the original research on the hard disk drive market was pretty influential, about how some dramatic tech changes in e.g. the magnetic surface made no difference to who led the market ("sustaining"), while changes in form-factor (8", 5.25", 3.5" etc) "disrupted" the market by changing who bought them and why... and also changed who led the market. Wikipedia on "the innovator's dilemma" is a pretty good summary, IIRC. It's a shame a misunderstanding has prevented you from participating in a discussion. I thought we were reaching the crux of the issue... oh well. It was interesting to me, at least.

hyperpallium 7y ago

After sleeping on it, I agree it is an existential threat. Disruption usually happens from the low-end, but in this case, Oracle is being threatened from the top-end. That's terrifying. Oracle must address these security concerns. It's just that I'm not sure the existential threat will succeed (because I'm not sure cloud scalability/pricing will change the reasons to buy Oracle - I find that an interesting question). BTW When people quote a term, it's to alert you to usage of that term.