Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Disruption is not a strategy

reactionwheel.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 35 posts

Re: Disruption is not a strategy

#11

Post by ganeumann »

prof_hobart wrote: post #8

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 (talki…

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.

Re: Disruption is not a strategy

#12

Post by galistoca »

ganeumann wrote: post #11
prof_hobart wrote: post #8

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 (talki…

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…

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.

Re: Disruption is not a strategy

#13

Post by wslh »

petewailes wrote: post #2

There's something important in the latter half of this: understanding that this isn't useful as a guide, but as a warning. No-one realistically sets out to create "a Google". People set out to solve a problem. Sometimes that problem turns out to fuel vast business, sometimes not. You can guess at the size, but sometimes you're going to be wrong (hello Twitter). You can aim to replace a business, but it's near impossi…

I think this is changing and a company like Google can see what we call "the future", based on virtually infinite data points. I am not saying that these data points are all possible futures but they give a clear advantage over entrepreneurs with minimal data. True, you can't predict the real future but Intel could act earlier with more information. Andy Grove wrote about this on his "paranoid book".

Re: Disruption is not a strategy

#14

Post by ThomPete »

Disruption is not something you set out to do, but it can be a result of what you are doing.

Clayton Christensens "innovators dilemma" isn't a book about how to disrupt, but how disruption happens.

The problem with a large part of the newspeak in the startup community is that it has become too formulaic.

10 things, how you, why you, how to.

I avoid these articles like the plague as they have nothing to do with running a startup.

Re: Disruption is not a strategy

#15

Post by swalsh »

ThomPete wrote: post #14

Disruption is not something you set out to do, but it can be a result of what you are doing. Clayton Christensens "innovators dilemma" isn't a book about how to disrupt, but how disruption happens. The problem with a large part of the newspeak in the startup community is that it has become too formulaic. 10 things, how you, why you, how to. I avoid these articles like the plague as they have nothing to do with runnin…

"I avoid these articles like the plague as they have nothing to do with running a startup."

They're just for SEO anyways. I've been trying to learn more about marketing lately, and one of the biggest issues I've run into is that almost all the articles about marketing are marketing materials themselves.

Re: Disruption is not a strategy

#16

Post by ThomPete »

swalsh wrote: post #15
ThomPete wrote: post #14

Disruption is not something you set out to do, but it can be a result of what you are doing. Clayton Christensens "innovators dilemma" isn't a book about how to disrupt, but how disruption happens. The problem with a large part of the newspeak in the startup community is that it has become too formulaic. 10 things, how you, why you, how to. I avoid these articles like the plague as they have nothing to do with runnin…

"I avoid these articles like the plague as they have nothing to do with running a startup." They're just for SEO anyways. I've been trying to learn more about marketing lately, and one of the biggest issues I've run into is that almost all the articles about marketing are marketing materials themselves.

Yes. Content marketing as they call it.

My point is just that market insights doesn't come on formula. You can't read a book and learn about marketing. You can go out and do it or surround you with people who have experience doing it.

Sure you can learn a little here and there. But hardly anything that will make your company make it compared to those who didn't.

Re: Disruption is not a strategy

#17

Post by logicallee »

petewailes wrote: post #2

There's something important in the latter half of this: understanding that this isn't useful as a guide, but as a warning. No-one realistically sets out to create "a Google". People set out to solve a problem. Sometimes that problem turns out to fuel vast business, sometimes not. You can guess at the size, but sometimes you're going to be wrong (hello Twitter). You can aim to replace a business, but it's near impossi…

>No-one realistically sets out to create "a Google"

but lots of people unrealistically set out to create "a Google" and some of them succeed. Who never would have if they had had a realistic goal.

my goals are completely unrealistic. most people with such goals fail completely.

Re: Disruption is not a strategy

#18

Post by petewailes »

logicallee wrote: post #17
petewailes wrote: post #2

There's something important in the latter half of this: understanding that this isn't useful as a guide, but as a warning. No-one realistically sets out to create "a Google". People set out to solve a problem. Sometimes that problem turns out to fuel vast business, sometimes not. You can guess at the size, but sometimes you're going to be wrong (hello Twitter). You can aim to replace a business, but it's near impossi…

>No-one realistically sets out to create "a Google" but lots of people unrealistically set out to create "a Google" and some of them succeed. Who never would have if they had had a realistic goal. my goals are completely unrealistic. most people with such goals fail completely.

Even if you succeed, that's anecdotal. Telling others to do the same wouldn't be good advice, in the same way as a lottery winner telling others to play wouldn't.

Re: Disruption is not a strategy

#20

Post by sharemywin »

galistoca wrote: post #12
ganeumann wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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 Ube…

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