[prof_hobart]

Although I agree that having a business plan that's based on nothing more than a concept of "being disruptive" is not much of a plan at all, I feel that in some parts, he's picking a strawman and arguing against that.

He claims that "I’m sure what the presenter of the slide was getting at was Clayton Christensen’s definition of disruption from his classic book The Innovator’s Dilemma. ".

He then goes on to say (talking about Square and Uber) that "neither of these companies were disruptive in The Innovator’s Dilemma sense". However, I'd be surprised if the presenter wasn't thinking precisely of people like Uber and the type of "disruption" they've brought to the taxi industry.

So, if they are thinking of Uber, and if Uber's disruption isn't the sort being talked about in the Innovators dilemma, then I suspect they weren't thinking of Christensen’s definition at all.

I'm not sure why disruption has to be less functional - it just needs to be tackling the root problem (and often redefining what that root problem is) in a different way to the incumbent.

[ganeumann]

OP.

Meh, every single startup I've seen in the past 25 years has claimed that they are tackling their problem differently than their competitors in some way. If this is what disruption means, then it's the quintessential distinction without a difference. It's the entrepreneurs' equivalent of a VC saying "we add value." A waste of pixels. And if that's the entire content of your strategy--you think being different is all the strategy you need because, "disruptive"--then chances are you're cooked.

[galistoca]

There's a huge difference between "tackling the problem differently than their competitors" and "tackling the problem differently in a way that their competitors can't imitate easily without sacrificing their assets". The latter is disruptive, the former is just what doing business means. I think Uber does fit into the latter.

Just to be clear, I do agree with your general tone of the article, it's just that your Uber part made me cringe.

[ganeumann]

Sure, but tackling a problem in a way that your competition can't respond well to is called a strategy. I mean, you can define disruption any way you want, but keep in mind that the reason people use the word disruption when they mean strategy is because they imbue the word with magic power, not because it communicates anything meaningful.

[sharemywin]

Uber succeeded mostly by violating local licensing laws. And federal employment laws which they may still need to pay the piper for.

[stcredzero]

> violating local licensing laws

They recognized that the local licensing laws were causing horrible market distortions or outright market dysfunctions. The salient points are the market dysfunctions. Where is the market failing and causing misery? What businesses/organizations have captive customer bases, really don't care about bad user experiences, and have outdated equipment?

20th century cabs were miserable, and even faced with competition, taxis are slow to adapt, have outdated technology, and persist in poor user experiences.

[sharemywin]

most small businesses do it they pay fines and penalties of 100% or more. They were able to play politics and won, congrats to them. didn't work so well for theranos, lending club, zenefits.

[galistoca]

You seem to think being disruptive means it has to be always super successful and always ethical. Being disruptive has nothing to do with how successful they are. There are tons of disruptive approaches that failed. Also being disruptive has nothing to do with whether they're ethical or not. Maybe you have your own little definition, but that's not the definition the rest of the world uses.

[galistoca]

Exactly, that's why the incumbents couldn't replicate them, because they had to stay legal. Let's not go into whether this is ethical or not. I'm simply pointing out what disruptive means.

[sharemywin]

that's kind of a stretch on the definition.

[galistoca]

Ok smart guy, then tell me how so.

[AnimalMuppet]

> tackling the problem differently in a way that their competitors can't imitate easily without sacrificing their assets

That isn't enough. You have to tackle the problem differently in a way that matters to the market. It has to show up somewhere, in terms of price, features, or quality.

[prof_hobart]

Like I say, I'm not disagreeing with the idea that "we will disrupt" on its own is no more use as a business case than "we will make wads of cash".

What I am questioning is the idea that there's only one way to disrupt an industry - to be cheaper and in some way subpar compared to the incumbent. You seem to be suggesting that the taxi industry hasn't been disrupted by Uber, because it doesn't align with one person's definition of what disruption looks like. And I don't really understand that. There's clearly been huge disruption there.