Slashdot Mirror
The Problem, Really, is This Thing Called 'Disruption' (wired.com)
New submitter mirandakatz writes: The word "disruption" is everywhere in tech -- and it's getting founders in trouble. Just look at what happened with Bodega last week: Had the startup not professed to be disrupting the mom-and-pop shops on every corner, it might not have landed itself in such hot water. At Backchannel, veteran Silicon Valley communications whiz Karen Wickre makes the case against "disruption," pointing out that many of today's biggest companies got their starts without claiming to completely upend an existing industry. She writes: "What if Sergey and Larry had touted Google, in 1998, as 'an unprecedented platform for disrupting global advertising?' Do you think Jeff Bezos claimed that Amazon.com was upending global retail? Netflix? Within a few months of its 1997 launch, it did not foresee the actual paradigm shift of media streaming."
Maybe then, out from under the technological oppression of Silicon Valley, the tech industry can move forward.
So yeah, the only disruption was two idiots claiming they just invented the vending machine/automat.
Sig. Sig. Sputnik
...I hear "we are going to put a lot of people out of work with an app, then hire them as 'contractors' for practically nothing."
"I'm going to put a bunch of people out of business and create a new way to do business in this vertical" is not a way to endear yourself to people in this day and age. Walmart, Amazon, Google, etc didn't get to where they are by telling people they're going to rape and pillage entire industries. They got their by hiding that fact until their momentum couldn't be stopped.
Top-left corner.
In debates about Christianity, there are two groups: those looking for answers, and those looking to just ask questions.
The problem, really, is narcissism.
"I can do that better, even though I never tried it. But since my ego is to the moon, I know I can do better!!!"
Netflix? Within a few months of its 1997 launch, it did not foresee the actual paradigm shift of media streaming.
I'm pretty sure it did. I know they were just shipping DVDs at the time, but the name is Netflix, not DVDflix. That's what they were going for.
and easily blinded by their greed.
What is happening in SV and elsewhere is the same thing that happened last decade on Wall Street and the other stock markets. Electronic & algorithmic trading showed that you could cheat your way to millions, if not billions, and little would be done to reign it in. Those who owned the markets (which why do we allow for stock markets to be privately owned? that makes no sense!) still got their slice and those you were doing the trading for got theirs. Regulators are still behind that curve. Even more complex computer controlled trading evolves as the profits for doing this have been cut down now that everyone is doing it.
The same thing happened when currency trading started. It's a constant cycle of finding a gap and exploiting it until everyone tries to exploit it. Tragedy of the commons writ with the sweat and dollars of the workforce.
So that's what startups do now. They try to find where the gaps exist and exploit them without thinking of what that does to everyone involved. This isn't about "disruption". It never was. It was always about idealistic computer people being exploited by the avarice of Vulture Capital into gains at the expense of the many. Google has ruined online advertising with its relentless march towards monopoly, taking many wonderful things down along the way. Amazon has done the same. Etsy, eBay, all of them strip mined a good thing and made it worse.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... This is a great example of the problem of requiring "disruption".
Just because I can hook a shark from a boat, I do no offer to wrestle it in the water.
The "disruption" being talked about in the summary is that of external disruption, where a newcomer comes in with a radically different approach and renders the incumbents irrelevant.
It's a shame that it didn't focus more on self-disruption. Note that self-disruption is different from internal disruption. Internal disruption is when a company sees that it will be disrupted in the near future, and becomes the one that disrupts itself preemptively. Microsoft's Azure platform, and especially its adoption of Linux on Azure, are examples of this.
Self-disruption is when a producer tries a radically new approach without there being much, if any, risk of external disruption. More importantly, this effort is often such a failure that it in effect drives users or customers to a radically different product, which ends up causing an unintended external disruption. A great example of this happening is the Debian project's switch to systemd. Doing this in effect destroyed the benefits of Debian for many of its users, with systemd causing reliability problems. This drove many of Debian's best users over to OSes like FreeBSD and macOS, even though before the systemd debacle there was little risk of these Debian users moving to those alternative OSes on their own.
Disruption is a very complex field of study, and we shouldn't focus on just external disruption. We should also consider internal disruption and self-disruption, too.
These immature kids just haven't learned on of life's valuable lessons. You attract more flies with honey than with vinegar. If you come into any industry, organization, etc, claiming to completely overturn and disrupt everything because you think your way is better. 99 times out of 100 you will be shown the door and told to never come back. That other 1 time out of 100 a bunch of idiots who feel they have been victims and blame others for their problems instead of taking ownership of their own lives vote for an orange skinned moron who behaves this same way.
It seems like it's after the fact that most success stories that were disruptive were defined as having been that. Now people are looking at the industry and saying 'This is ripe for disruption', but does that mean you have the right plan to do it, or do you start with a small goal that eventually becomes disruptive. Cart/horse/etc. I don't know, but it seems like most didn't plan on that, or did they just not say it? I guess you'd have to ask them.
I will shred my adversaries. Pull their eyes out just enough to turn them towards their mewing, mutilated faces. Illyria
There are technologies which are truly disruptive. However, other than ways to spooge ads and siphon data, there has been little to nothing that has been actually truly changing how people work day to day. The biggest change that happened recently with regards to actual workflow was tablets killing netbooks on the low end. Otherwise, what we are doing in 2017 is almost identical to what we are doing in 2010.
The problem is that truly disruptive technologies will get either bought out or just stomped out of existance, which is why virtually nothing has changed for everyday life, other than more privacy intrusions and the push from vendors to sell us crappy IoT devices which are usually security nightmares and will remain so until thrown away.
Disruption happens when the new is vastly more profitable than the old. No amount of public outcry can stop something like that.
That's how Netflix took down Blockbuster. They kept their huge profits secret till they went public. By that time it was too late for Blockbuster video rental store (Yes, they really did have a store that rented movies.)
Now, everyone tries to brag in order to get money. It's self defeating. If you are truly a disruptive technology, you should be working your ass to keep that secret. Claim you expect to get 20% of the market, not 80%.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
Many were talking about disruption back in the 90s during the internet boom. This Karen Wickre is trying to rewrite history or didn't bother to do any research.
And actually the Google and Amazon founders were quite sure they were going to disrupt things by the late 90s. I remember interviews with all of them stating that very fact.
Apparently actually having a platform that allows us to do historical research allows us to ignore it at will. Fascinating.
Reed Hastings has been quoted on a number of occasions saying exactly that. "There's a reason we didn't call the company 'DVD-by-Mail.com.'" They also nearly screwed it up entirely with the whole "Qwickster" debacle, which Hastings also discussed. There's also more than a little cherry picking going on here. Picking a few "winners" and then extrapolating that because they didn't seek "disruption" as part of their business plan makes this kind of a puff piece. Not to mention the egregious use of other stupid buzzwords like "paradigm shift" in the description. I'd also like to believe the reason the Bodega folks got in hot water what that it was pretty easy to see that they were going down the Jucero path by over-engineering and hyping what amounts a vending machine -- a technology that's been with us a really long time, and that can already do pretty much everything they were promising. Source for dvd-by-mail: https://www.cnbc.com/2017/03/1... Source of Qwickster debacle: http://deadline.com/2014/05/re...
Zoo animals know better than to shit where they eat.
These guys could learn a lesson or two from the monkey cage.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
I agree with the idea of the article. Basically people hate being told that a new application or platform is the cat's pajamas. However the examples in the short summary of the article are terrible. Google didn't even get into advertising in 1998, it wasn't until after they bought out doubleclick that they really took off. Jeff Bezos absolutely touted that he wanted to upend the retail industry to any investor that would listen. I think the article needs stronger cases for examples of success but I can state that it does work.
Everyone claims their new business is “disruptive”. Heck, companies now claim small changes in their established systems are disruptive. It’s been overused to the point of meaninglessness.
#DeleteChrome
Disruption is a new idiotic buzzword and creating such nonsense is why they invented liberal arts degrees.
And when it happens, I always feel like I may be the next big thing in tech. *grin*
Why did the chicken cross the road? Because Elon Musk put an AI chip in its head.
It has lowered employment costs and allowed my company to outsource production anywhere in the world. We make more profit employing fewer people and as a result our stock has never been higher and I'm buying a new boat tomorrow!
"Disruption" isn't a thing. It's a lie pushed by con artists to dup venture capitalists out of money.
In "disrupting" the supply chain, Amazon has pushed millions of Americans out of jobs that had benefits, gave people meaning and paid taxes - all so 1 guy can be fabulously wealthy
In "disrupting" the online monitization stream, FaceBook has killed thousands of news papers and millions of jobs. Jobs where highly intelligent and educated people like editors and fact checker ensured what was printed and read by millions of others was accurate and fact based... all surrendered so we can have immediate gratification of "like" and Presidents who prefer to tweet instead of think.
Be careful what you strive for.... what you attain may have consequences beyond initial goals.
You might have created disruptions, but it is always up to someone in the IT to fix the mess you create.
I just disrupted my pants in multiple ways.
Pass the smalt or maybe some raw water - that is real disruption!
Professing to do something* is not the same as actually doing it (let alone being even halfway decent at doing it).
Entities saying they do something often lack in the actually doing it (well enough) part. * = replace with e.g.: Disrupting, Agile, Quality Assurance, No Evil ... and the list goes on and on.
Free, as in your money being freed from the confines of your account.
In Soviet Russia YOU fix IT's mess. =)
Why did the chicken cross the road? Because Elon Musk put an AI chip in its head.
I've lived long enough to see "Disruptive" tech a number of times over. And IMHO to be truly "disruptive", the tech involved must have some unexpected application. I don't see Amazon or Netflix as being disruptive per se (they are disrupting existing paradigms), because they are inertial companies.
The PC itself was disruptive. The internet (IP) is disruptive. They were disruptive, because it allowed people to do things that were not even considered before. Those two things are the basis for Netflix and Amazon today.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
In the 1980s, the term was "paradigm shift" and "vertical integration." In the 1990s, the term was anything to do with the web - "information superhighway", "integrated marketing", "dot com", and "new media."
Like all marketing and fashion trends, it's just dressing up the same concept in a different way to make it seem fresh and new. You get ahead of the pack by doing stuff others are not yet doing.
I think this type of marketing started with Taco Bell. Every time after I eat there my bowel suffers from disruption
This paradigm is know as free market. Keynes vs Friedman
The products may be vertical, but the taxation dodge horizontal.
Think Irish/Dutch flimflam with a Caymans Island twist.
The local corner store cannot compete with tax free store rent, or not paying tax on local sales.We know the effective rate of tax being paid. Cheating the tax system and getting away with it because its in clear sight is disruptive.
Is lazy people trying to make money from vapid "NEWS" articles and ads machines.
The problem really, is this attempt to explain businesses, and set expectations for mass wealth, by using buzzwords. Five years ago, no one was trying to explain their business model as 'disruptive'. Ten years ago, everyone was trying to explain how everything was Net 2.0. Twenty years ago, it was already getting hard to get any attention from VCs, if you couldn't explain how you were an internet company.
So, to recap:
So, to recap: even though we think you're not a danger and not a flight risk, we're still going to make sure to transfer some of your money to that rich guy's pocket so he can continue getting rich off poor people and be happier ... So "at the expense of the many"? That "expense" is that the many have a greater standard-of-living--it's the difference between the US and a poor third-world country like Chile.
Breakfast served all day!
"Disruption" as a concept is pretty buzzwordy, but there's probably something to it in some markets (Netflix and movies, Amazon and retail, etc).
But I wonder if its starting to get a negative connotation because people are sick of the actual disruption caused by it?
I kind of wish the technology world would shut the fuck up and sit down for a few years and quit disrupting. Most of their disruptions are just a pain in the ass.
looking for problems.
It has nothing to do with disruption, instead it is people who take the latest trend (apps for example) and go looking for problems to solve with their solution.
Google wanted to solve the problem of web search being clunky and inefficient, the ads came after that.
Netflix wanted to solve the problem of late fees for rentals, which was a lot easier to do when mailing out dvds as the overhead was less when you only have central repositories to deal with instead of multiple brick and motor locations.
They succeeded because they were solving a problem for the people that would use them. that is what the people starting bodega haven't realized, what problem are they solving?
In an office, there should be a stock of common supplies (consumables) that the office provides because they can use economies of scale to get discounts.
In college dorms the students have access to amazon and you can bet that delivery is always quick to students on campus.
The neighborhood, are they going to have prices that are extremely lower than the corner store? or be able to compete with amazon again.
The problem is that they have nothing to disrupt and very little benefit for people to change their ways. Maybe if they went looking for the problem first and then figuring out the solution they might have better luck and wouldn't get so much blow-back because it would be a problem people actually want solved.
And she still had no idea why the crowd started to cheer!
out of business. I think the trouble is they're doing it in one of two ways: a. The "Sharing Economy" way where you bypass minimum wage laws and shift your costs to desperate employees or b. the AI way where you automate everything.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
There's no surer way to kill your creativity than to try to be creative.
Now the goal for any new business is to grow; and if it grows fast enough and large enough, disruption of businesses already in that space is an inevitable side effect. But focusing on disruption itself may be a distraction, what you want to do is focus on execution and finances.
I'm pretty sure Jeff Bezos wants to control the world -- commercially. He wants to own every way you have of obtaining anything. But while that's been in the cards from day one, what sets Amazon apart is execution.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Disruption == Ignore the laws that you don't like, use the ones you.
Innovation == Partner with startups and pirate their tech or just pirate their tech.
The trend has been started by one guy, who wrote management books in the 80s-90s.
Aricle link
As a potential lottery winner, I totally support tax cuts for the wealthy
Sergey and Larry disrupted altavista and yahoo real good back in the day.
Altavista was good but they thought going news portal will be good. Well nope... I was on dialup as most of the internet back then...
Pets.com didn't work: Was that because people blocked its disrupting effect, or because it was a dumb idea? One critic said it was cheaper to mail his pets to the shop than mail-order from their catalogue.
Napster didn't work. That was a disrupting technology: Digital downloads when music was stored and transacted via CD. The established industry had some heavy laws that were used to punish Napster.
We don't call the family car, the light-bulb or the oral contraceptive; disruptive technology, although they obviously were. Technology is disruptive for economic reasons: Sooner or later, people will recognize that and then choose to block it or support it.
A technology can only be blocked when it is being established: The law is turning against Uber but their foothold in the market will turn an outright ban into a lengthy lawsuit. Anyone remember how superior DAT was sunk as an audio standard, leaving CD-DA (Red-book) to rule? Instead, DAT became the medium for digital back-ups.
Lets face it, Mom and Pop shops have been on their deathbed for decades compared to what they were before chains showed up.