I don't really understand the iPhone example. I doubt that the touch UI was the only thing that made it work, and it's followed by "In fact, most of the things

I don't really understand the iPhone example. I doubt that the touch UI was the only thing that made it work, and it's followed by "In fact, most of the things you love about your smartphone started as accessibility features." without ever backing that up. And then there's "3. Orgs can achieve momentous victories by prioritizing marginal business cases." which isn't really backed up too. You could probably make an argument that anyone that has a problem that can be solved by a product that would make a successful startup (so a big pain point) is marginalized, but that sounds like a circular definition to me. I feel like the whole post is playing a bit of a motte-and-bailey about the definition of marginalized people. A marginalized person could be "a formerly incarcerated black parent", that's the bailey. It could also be a small business owner that'd like a tool to see his cash flow, that's the motte. " We gotta get over this idea that we’re being mensches by handing over our stolen power to unworthy or inexperienced charity cases." is another example of the bailey. Edit: corrected "It could also be a small business owner that'd like a tool to see his cash flow, that's the bailey." to "It could also be a small business owner that'd like a tool to see his cash flow, that's the motte."