If your product can revolutionize a market and the existing players in the market have rejected it, then by all means you should try to create a new market even

If your product can revolutionize a market and the existing players in the market have rejected it, then by all means you should try to create a new market even if it destroys the existing market. Life is about evolutions, and just because someone does not see the next step in the process does not mean that you are being "big evil bad guy" by doing it without them. Even if it destroys them in the process. Take for example the RIAA, they rejected all kind of early solutions to the fact that their model was changing. Rather they adopted a wait and see and then rely on legal challenges to stall the market strategy. As such they spent far more money and lost far more power, than they would have had, had they chosen to participate in better ways to conduct business. Does this mean that companies like Napster and Apple where evil in bringing their products to market, no it just means a business man saw a better way. It like the quote about the customer wanting a better buggy when the automobile was invented. Some times people either through not wanting change or other factors don't see the advantage of a better way. But that does not mean that the automobile companies where some how evil for killing the stage coach business. It just means a business man saw a market and others did not, to their peril.