Comment by whack | Hacker News Reader

Comment by whack | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I really wish people would stop abusing the term "disruptive innovation" in ways it was never meant to be used. Making a product that's overly complicated, beyond what the market is demanding, is just bad management. It doesn't require any disruptive innovation to correct for this - making something that better matches your customers' needs is bread-and-butter business management, which every competent company is already doing.

The whole point of disruptive innovation is to build something which most customers do not want, with the bet that due to technology/market trends, market demand will grow exponentially in the future. Unlike the above, this is a real dilemma because if you're an established successful company, it's hard to justify pouring energy and resources into something for which the demand doesn't exist. If you're building something to meet a market demand that already exists, that's not disruptive innovation, that's just innovation, period. It's something people have been doing for millennia, and there's no dilemma here.

Sorry for sounding like an angry old man. It just annoys me when I see specific terms with specific meanings get bastardized into meaningless buzz words.

I would add that the disruptive innovation also cannibalizes your existing market business in addition to being something that customers do not want now but will want in the future. If you build something that customers do not want now but will want in the future and it does NOT impact your existing business, that's also just regular old innovation.

Indeed, and an obvious example is Apple cannibalizing the demand for it's personal computing systems, by offering mobile devices that nearly replace and obviate key features offered by personal computers.

Had somebody else beaten them to the punch, they'd have suffered from the same disruption, AND lost business.

Because they were early, and had the muscle to withstand the temporary discomfort of being ahead of their time, they could land ahead of schedule and wait for everyone to catch up. At which point they were able to guide a massive avalanche in their favor.

It's not a requirement that the cannibalized market should be held by the disruptor. The market that gets destroyed doesn't have to be your own, but 'tis better to be the disruptor than the disrupted.

Part of the problem is that Prof. Christensen used the word disruption to name his theory. It's a common word, and has partial overlap with the process he describes. As a result, some people mean what he did when they say "disruptive innovation" and other people just mean an innovation that can disrupt someone or something. That said, if he had named it something else, it may not have been as popular or widely referenced...

See also Paul Graham and 'startup'.

I think Amazon was able to sustain growth, being innovative and keep the current customers. They were able to predict the future, customer needs and at the same time not to screw old customers.

Amazon did sacrifice their customer base for growth. They integrated 3rd party sellers without demanding similar levels of quality. So, now their customers buy some grey market and a lot of flat out defective and counterfeit goods.

Buying a cheap USB charger can risk not only whatever your charging but also a house fire. This stuff is dangerous and quickly ruining Amazon's brand.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com