Tangentially. From the OC: > I don’t have an MBA, but this to me is a clear case of The Innovator’s Dilemma. PostgreSQL protocol v3 is the incumbent, and proto

Tangentially. From the OC: > I don’t have an MBA, but this to me is a clear case of The Innovator’s Dilemma. PostgreSQL protocol v3 is the incumbent, and protocol v4 and/or other protocols like HTTP are the potential disruptive innovators. I have no idea what Christensen means by "disruptive technology". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disruptive_innovation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disruptive_innovation The fifth qualifier "New firm's business model differs significantly from incumbent" seems important. The rest feel like Just So stories. Especially "Originate in low-end (less demanding customers) or new market (where none existed) footholds". I think time has shown Peter Drucker to be more right. First target affluent customers and then ride the cost curve down towards market success. I just reread Innovator's Dilemma, and searched the rest. Nothing about cost curves. I've been trying to think of how "disruption" would apply to Tesla vehicles and Apple Silicon. Neither products came in as "toys". Rather, I think both initially targeted very high end niches (novel use cases), and the underlying enabling technology was just starting their cost trajectories, whereas the incumbent mass market products were at the end of their trajectories. Plough metric tons of cash into R&D and wait for the new to overtake the old. -- Back to AWS Babelfish. AWS adds TDS and T-SQL compatibility to steal business from Microsoft Azure. Just some more bullet list items for middle management purchase bots to check off. It'll surely improve, but switchover costs for non-trivial projects would still be pretty high. Back when I was warehousing medical records on both MSSQL and Oracle, all the hard work was tweaking the physical design, eg codesigning the indices and queries, to make stuff performant. I'm sure that's still true. I think adding these features to Postgres is good for everyone but Microsoft. -- I guess I object to the common use of "disruption". As though there's an element of surprise. I'd suggest the OP framed AWS Babelfish in terms of competitive threats (aka insurmountable opportunities). And maybe predict some unforeseen consequences. On the positive side: The meaning of "disruptive innovation" wonderfully Agile. Perfect for consultants, pundits, and polywogs.