I agree, and disagree. Agree: 'Disruption' (as often so-called in start-ups) through 'innovation' (as often so-called in larger corp internal policies) is abo

I agree, and disagree. Agree: 'Disruption' (as often so-called in start-ups) through 'innovation' (as often so-called in larger corp internal policies) is about change. But that change is often incremental, not huge bounds forward (e.g. AT&T in their halycon days, or HP pre-electronics, examples of huge bounds made by incumbant firms) Disagree: Incremental change (one less click to do X, or $5 dollars off purchase of Y) _is_ important, as when multiplied across multiple product types in multiple industries, such 'disruption', 'innovation' or 'change' can have effects that not only have a small effect, but sometimes hit tipping points. Toyota / pull-based scheduling / LEAN as a big-corp type example. This view comes from the motivation to embark on a small project right now. Production (of a physical product) enriches those that have the economies of scale to produce it (manufacturer) that I am not seeking to 'disrupt' (or, continue to make the same people rich as the title puts it), but to create search, delivery and cost savings for the customer. This is unlikely to 'change the world' in the sense of developing AI could, but will lead to savings that are valuable to thousands of individuals, and hopefully more. 'Disruption' or 'innovation' seems to be an easy target to attack, as it encompasses a multitude of ideas. Side note: I have a strong opinion that 'innovation' for many large corps is a deliberately mis-used term with multiple goals - two principal ones being a motivational tool to motivate systematically disenfranchised employees, and to substitute the word 'change' (often viewed negatively) for 'improvement' (which often lacks).