[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 What businesses/organizations have captive customer bases, really don't care about bad user experiences, and have outdated equipment?

20th century cabs were miserable, and even faced with competition, taxis are slow to adapt, have outdated technology, and persist in poor user experiences.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

[sharemywin]

usually the definition is around some technology coming out that the incumbents were so heavily invested in earlier technology that they couldn't embrace the new technology until it was too late. It's not that taxis companies couldn't have developed tech, it's because they followed the law which caused them not to be able compete. so, unless you call "law" a technology I don't include it in my definition. And since most of the other on demand companies are failing it leads me to believe it's not about technology or even strategy(unless you call breaking the law a strategy). Is my way the only way to look at it obviously not. Just like facebook didn't disrupt anything. they just executed better.

[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.