> spectacular business failures over the next decade as the incumbents who fail to engage the "technical creative class" are eviscerated by nimbler and more tec

> spectacular business failures over the next decade as the incumbents who fail to engage the "technical creative class" are eviscerated by nimbler and more tech-savvy operators Sorry, this is encouraging for us here, but I think it's silly. Clayton Christensen studied why strong incumbents fail. He found again and again that incumbents were the best at adopting new technology, even radical architectural changes, provided that the technology gave an improvement that was valued by their customers. They failed when the new technology wasn't valuable to their customers. Even when they developed the technology in-house, to a level of excellence, it didn't help them - if their customers didn't want it. The reason it eventually caused them to fail was that other people did want it, and firms grew up to service them. Eventually, the new technology improved enough so that the incumbents' customers also wanted it - but they bought from the new guys, who had by now become the "incumbents" for that technology, and had all aspects of the business worked out (engineering, product design, brand, advertising, channels, distribution, support etc). It will be the same here: if incumbents can harness new technology to serve their customers, they will do so. If they are fighting for their lives, will put their massive resources into play to secure the necessary technical talent. And the danger that is hard for them to fight: other firms serving different customers, with technology that one day will be good enough for their customers (but not yet). e.g. target people who cannot afford the incumbents' product, with a product that's not good enough for the incumbents' customers. e.g. target people who can't use the incumbents' product in a specific situation, with a product that is not as good as the incumbents' product in the usual situation. e.g. target people who lack the time, skills or expertise to use the incumbents' product (i.e. not worth the hassle), with a product that is not as good as the incumbents' product for their customers (who do have the time, skill, expertise). This is the mechanism - avoid threatening incumbents, and you have a chance. Threaten them, and they will kick your ass (you will "provoke a competitive response"). It's not as simple as lacking technical expertise.