3 ms·

I agree with the sentiment that not everything has to be disruptive to be successful, and it might even be important to distinguish between the two for your own

I agree with the sentiment that not everything has to be disruptive to be successful, and it might even be important to distinguish between the two for your own mental stability (a modesty check, if you will), but I don't think it matters in the end to the industry. The concept of disruptive technology doesn't go away because the term is overused, and the brilliance of innovation doesn't depend on the accuracy of the terms used to define it.

jeremyjh 13y ago
But disruptive inventions are not necessarily brilliant. Modesty should have nothing to do with it. Certainly the iPhone can be brilliant without being disruptive.
- msandford 13y ago
  When dealing with software it's rarely the case that worse-is-better, more often it's better-is-better. Worse-is-better only comes up when the stuff already out there is very well done, polished, and too expensive for most people to afford.
  - _delirium 13y ago
    Software is the original worse-is-better domain: Richard P. Gabriel coined the term to describe competition between software packages.
    - msandford 13y ago
      You're right of course, when dealing with desktop software packages. I was only thinking of the online web-startup stuff which is generally just plain better.
- lost_name 13y ago
  You are technically correct and I probably used too strong of a term to describe what I meant there. I only mean to say that labeling something as disruptive doesn't mean it is and vice versa.
- twoodfin 13y ago
  At least as I've heard John Gruber tell it, Christensen at first thought the iPhone wouldn't be disruptive because he saw it (as did most) as high-end phone, targeted at high-end users. What it really was, he later realized, was a small, cheap computer. Now iPhone-style smartphones outsell PCs.
rhizome 13y ago
the sentiment that not everything has to be disruptive to be successful this is seriously amateur framing.

jeremyjh 13y ago

But disruptive inventions are not necessarily brilliant. Modesty should have nothing to do with it. Certainly the iPhone can be brilliant without being disruptive.

msandford 13y ago
When dealing with software it's rarely the case that worse-is-better, more often it's better-is-better. Worse-is-better only comes up when the stuff already out there is very well done, polished, and too expensive for most people to afford.
- _delirium 13y ago
  Software is the original worse-is-better domain: Richard P. Gabriel coined the term to describe competition between software packages.
  - msandford 13y ago
    You're right of course, when dealing with desktop software packages. I was only thinking of the online web-startup stuff which is generally just plain better.
lost_name 13y ago
You are technically correct and I probably used too strong of a term to describe what I meant there. I only mean to say that labeling something as disruptive doesn't mean it is and vice versa.
twoodfin 13y ago
At least as I've heard John Gruber tell it, Christensen at first thought the iPhone wouldn't be disruptive because he saw it (as did most) as high-end phone, targeted at high-end users. What it really was, he later realized, was a small, cheap computer. Now iPhone-style smartphones outsell PCs.

rhizome 13y ago

the sentiment that not everything has to be disruptive to be successful this is seriously amateur framing.