3 ms·
Nice observation, I never tied Reis & Trout's explanation to disruption quite like that. They were describing a "Flanking Attack" which really fits with what yo
by raganwald 16y ago
Nice observation, I never tied Reis & Trout's explanation to disruption quite like that. They were describing a "Flanking Attack" which really fits with what you're describing quite well. And yes, the incompatibility is the key.
Going back to The Innovator's Dilemma, this explains why companies become trapped by their customers: Their existing customers hate anything that addresses the drawback because it is incompatible with the value proposition that appeals to them.
Although Microsoft won the battle by burying Netscape, they seem to have lost the Internet war, in large part because the Internet is incompatible with the value proposition of operating systems and desktop office productivity software. For example, the Internet does away with installing software binaries. Which is a drawback of desktop software and operating systems. But that is incompatible with the value proposition that an IT department gets to control what runs on an office computer.
- wvenable 16y agoThe Microsoft example is a good one because Apple inadvertently stumbled on the solution. At first, with the iPhone, Apple embraced the idea of the device simply being a consumer of the web without any dedicated apps[1]. That is effectively Microsoft's nightmare. However, the app store quite effectively mitigated the advantages of web and they've had an explosive growth of native apps despite the existence of a strong browser. Microsoft lost the Internet war, not necessarily because the Internet is incompatible with desktop but because they never actually competed. Instead they tried to smother it. Honestly though, before the app store, I'm not sure anyone knew how one could compete with the web. [1] Assuming that wasn't the strategy all along.