4 ms·

I second that. If you actually read "The Innovator's Dilemma" it defines disruption narrowly as when a start-up overtakes an incumbent with an inferior product

I second that. If you actually read "The Innovator's Dilemma" it defines disruption narrowly as when a start-up overtakes an incumbent with an inferior product that appeals to a new market. If you really want to "disrupt" a company, don't look for problems with the big competitors. Look for potential markets they're ignoring. But all you start-up people use "disrupt" to describe any competition between start-ups and big business. Worse, you all seem to think start-ups have the advantage, because the incumbents are big and old and you are nimble and young. Sorry, but history has shown that market leaders will almost always crush you. If you innovate, they will just copy your innovation and throw more marketing dollars behind it. Historically, start-ups only prevail when they reach out to new markets ignored by the competition. Big, successful businesses are totally beholden to their current customers. They can't reach out to new markets without cannibalizing profits of their current product line.

bindley 12y ago
Incumbents wont always copy innovations. When you innovate to hit an overshot section of the incumbents market, or non-consumers in the incumbents market, you create asynchronous skills. The incumbent typically will ignore you because you're taking their low end clients, but eventually, the innovations that won the low end clients will improve and you will move up market. That is how disruption works, almost always through innovation. I think when you say innovation you mean sustaining innovation, which is where you build something that serves the most profitable section of the market, therefore motivating incumbents to copy you. When playing that game it's almost always a lose for the startup, unless you quickly sell out to an incumbent. There are some situations where incumbents will be motivated to fight startups on low profit clients. Typically this is when you have an incumbent who's profitability comes from having a high volume of low profit customers. In cases like that, it's not likely you will get a foothold unnoticed.
- normloman 12y ago
  I should have been more clear. "Sustaining" innovations is what I'm talking about. As long as incumbents see an innovation as valuable to their current customer base, they will adopt it. It's the innovations that appeal to outside markets that start ups thrive with. Thank you for clarifying this.

bindley 12y ago

Incumbents wont always copy innovations. When you innovate to hit an overshot section of the incumbents market, or non-consumers in the incumbents market, you create asynchronous skills. The incumbent typically will ignore you because you're taking their low end clients, but eventually, the innovations that won the low end clients will improve and you will move up market. That is how disruption works, almost always through innovation. I think when you say innovation you mean sustaining innovation, which is where you build something that serves the most profitable section of the market, therefore motivating incumbents to copy you. When playing that game it's almost always a lose for the startup, unless you quickly sell out to an incumbent. There are some situations where incumbents will be motivated to fight startups on low profit clients. Typically this is when you have an incumbent who's profitability comes from having a high volume of low profit customers. In cases like that, it's not likely you will get a foothold unnoticed.

normloman 12y ago
I should have been more clear. "Sustaining" innovations is what I'm talking about. As long as incumbents see an innovation as valuable to their current customer base, they will adopt it. It's the innovations that appeal to outside markets that start ups thrive with. Thank you for clarifying this.