[kennyma]

So much BS in this article but let's start with these 3: 1) "Products based on disruptive technologies are typically cheaper, simpler, smaller, and more convenient to use." How many more benefits can he put in that sentence? He's basically saying disruptive tech is typically cheaper or better. 2) "Make something the mainstream market doesn’t want now, but will want later." Trying to predict the future is just betting on luck. 3) That random functionality vs time graph. What is 200 Functionality?

Bonus: "If you want to get ideas for your $400 million startup, subscribe to my newsletter."

[tptacek]

Since this article is basically a straightforward blog-sized recap of Clayton Christensen's _Innovator's Dilemma_, which is one of the more important business books in technology, it seems unlikely to me that the whole piece is "BS".

[mywittyname]

> Trying to predict the future is just betting on luck.

I don't agree. Lots of people "invent" things well before they are mainstream products. Invent in the sense that they see the problem they want to solve and know what would solve it, usually the issue is they don't have the expertise to build a product.

In that way, predicting the future is easy. If you sat 100 people down and asked them to invent (read: conceptualize) 30 products, I'm sure you'd end up with a decent number of ideas that will be worth billions in a decade or two when somebody builds them.

Building the future is hard the hard part.