4 ms·
It's a minor point and somewhat off topic, but: > The status quo which Plaid aims to disrupt (ugh) Agreed. The fetishization of disruption never sat right wit
by MaxBarraclough 5y ago
It's a minor point and somewhat off topic, but:
> The status quo which Plaid aims to disrupt (ugh)
Agreed. The fetishization of disruption never sat right with me. Why not express the point in terms of solving problems for customers, rather than in terms of ruining existing businesses?
- akerl_ 5y agoI’m not sure what distinction you want. The status quo is that for site operators and end users, there is no sane way to standardize API access across US financial institutions. The thing Plaid is “disrupting” (notably, the article says disrupt, Plaid themselves don’t mention disrupting anything on their site) is this current gap. The problem they’re solving is “people want to interact with financial institutions in a standard, programmatic way, and Plaid enables that”
- MaxBarraclough 5y agoI meant it (misplaced price in being 'disruptive') generally, not specific to Plaid.
- akerl_ 5y agoI’m not sure I understand. Plaid didn’t say they were disrupting anything. The article derisively says they’re “disrupting”, and then complains about that term. You also disagree with the term. So nobody involved here was fetishizing “disruption”; the only people who mentioned it did so to snark about it.
- MaxBarraclough 5y agoYes, Drew mentioned in passing that he's not fond of the term. I expressed agreement. You presumably don't agree, or you wouldn't be dismissing it as snark. > So nobody involved here was fetishizing “disruption” Right, Drew mentioned it in passing. Hence It's a minor point and somewhat off topic.