|
|
|
|
|
by aestetix
4331 days ago
|
|
Ok. Kodak wasn't really disrupted so much as its market base moved to digital cameras. I suppose you can claim that retail has been disrupted by online markets like Amazon, but (to take an example) there were a lot of reports that Borders went under because of crap management. Radio Shack is still around, and with open doors to anyone who needs a cell phone ;) IBM and Microsoft haven't really been disrupted... It seems like you're pooling together a bunch of companies that are seeing misfortune for a variety of reasons and assuming they have all been "disrupted". Further, the context of the comment implies they were disrupted by startups, which I don't think is true at all. I'm happy to admit I'm wrong if you can give more evidence, but this comment seems a bit misguided. |
|
Flickr definitely contributed to Kodak failing as much as the market for digital cameras. Kodak actually had digital technology but failed to capitalize on it.
Borders may have bad management but so do startups that fail which maybe says startups need better management too? Seems like a common denominator versus differentiator?
Radio Shack closed a ton of stores and is still losing money. IBM stopped selling computers because Dell and others did it better and cheaper (Dell was a startup at one time...) and Microsoft keeps fighting for relevancy in software on all fronts.
But yeah, some of my comments weren't exactly on point. I just think that to say companies aren't disrupted is a broad paint stroke that the article didn't fully support.