3 ms·

The overloading of the word 'disruption' irks me terribly. It seems like everybody wants to be 'disruptive', when all they really mean is 'successful'. Anyway,

by anjc 12y ago

The overloading of the word 'disruption' irks me terribly. It seems like everybody wants to be 'disruptive', when all they really mean is 'successful'. Anyway, Christensen defines 'disruptive innovation' fairly rigorously, and it doesn't seem like their interpretation fits with his. Half the point of disruptive innovations is that, retrospectively, they were ignored and allowed to exist by incumbents for whatever reason, eventually toppling them. If they've been acquired then they're not disruptive anymore, are they? Would Oculus Rift have been a disruptive innovation if it was left to grow? Would it have upended value networks? Maybe. Is it a disruptive innovation now that Facebook has acquired it? Well not according to Christensen's criteria for 'disruption'. The product could be called a radical innovation, but it's not disruptive.

kyllo 12y ago
Uber is one of the few startups that I would call legitimately disruptive, because it uses technology to take customers from the legally regulated taxi industry. Airbnb and Aereo are also what I would consider disruptive. Tesla Motors perhaps. I think that whether local governments have passed or tried to pass legislation banning a given startup is a good litmus test for how "disruptive" a startup really is. If your startup doesn't have any serious legal challenges thrown in its path, it's probably not very disruptive. The first thing incumbent corporations will do when faced with a legitimate threat is use their political influence to try to make the threatening business model illegal.
pinkyand 12y ago
In the same spirit , Christensen talks about incumbents improving their performance more than customers care about. It doesn't seem to describe the voice recognition industry ,at all. I'm not sure even today's voice recognition systems can be considered "good enough".

by anjc 12y ago

kyllo 12y ago

Uber is one of the few startups that I would call legitimately disruptive, because it uses technology to take customers from the legally regulated taxi industry. Airbnb and Aereo are also what I would consider disruptive. Tesla Motors perhaps. I think that whether local governments have passed or tried to pass legislation banning a given startup is a good litmus test for how "disruptive" a startup really is. If your startup doesn't have any serious legal challenges thrown in its path, it's probably not very disruptive. The first thing incumbent corporations will do when faced with a legitimate threat is use their political influence to try to make the threatening business model illegal.

pinkyand 12y ago

In the same spirit , Christensen talks about incumbents improving their performance more than customers care about. It doesn't seem to describe the voice recognition industry ,at all. I'm not sure even today's voice recognition systems can be considered "good enough".