Talk:Disruptive innovation/Archives/2012

14 inch floppies

I have never heard of a 14" floppy technology. According to the floppy disk article, the first floppy disks were 8", not 14". Syd Barrett (talk) 08:48, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

"Creative Destruction" and the Hindu Myth of "Shiva"

What is this section? Maybe it belongs in an article about Shiva, but it certainly has no place in a article about disruptive technologies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.236.21.134 (talk) 20:59, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

is Wikipedia a disruptive technology?

What about adding Wikipedia itself? Or more correctly I suppose, encyclopaedias in electronic format? Encylopaedia Britannica was a 222 year success, until the PC and then CD-ROM killed it (80% sales drop in 1990).

I agree. I think wikipedia is a classic disruptive technology.

The problem Britannica had was that the early adopters of web enabled reference materials wanted things that Britannica users didn't or didn't care much about:

• strong web connectivity
• user created content
• lots of specialized topics
• a focus on geek culture issues

In the case of encarta / very cheap + multimedia

Encarta and Wikipedia didn't look like a threat at all until it became a major threat and then they only had a year or two to respond before EB was just wiped from a revenue standpoint. You can even argue the next 10 years were a "retreat to quality" where people who wanted high quality reference sources used EB while others used the freely available Encyclopedia Americana or cheaply available Encarta and then wikipedia came along..... jbolden1517^Talk 18:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

It would be nice to have some context about Encarta/CD media/etc on the actual article. Right now, it's not clear to me what the disruptive arc was for Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.5.79.111 (talk) 07:14, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Digital Cameras

How can digital cameras be disruptive technology if by definition it is "less expensive", which it definitely is not, and "lower performance" which is arguable? -moogle

They were initially used only for low quality / fast turnaround roles e.g. real estate, but have now migrated to photojournalism and even magazine photography. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 02:33, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The first digital cameras produced inferior picture quality, but they where not low cost: History_of_the_camera#The_arrival_of_true_digital_cameras In 1991, Kodak brought to market the Kodak DCS-100 [...] priced at $13,000. --62.178.241.245 (talk) 23:04, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

flaws

This article is flawed, especially right at the top. It says

A disruptive technology is a lower performance or less expensive product or process that gains a foothold in the low end, less demanding part of an existing market, and then successively moves up-market through performance improvements until finally displacing the market incumbents.

In fact that's only part of the story (and I'm working from freshly reading Christensen here). In fact you must define two markets, the old market A and the new market B, for the same type of product. Each market has values that are similar but in a different order. The disruptive technology is "worse" in terms of Market A. But "better" in terms of Market B ... which is often a brand new market that didn't exist before.

What happens is that the disruptive tech does fine in Market B but steadily increases in the characteristics valued in Market A as well. At some point it suddenly becomes good enough for Market A as well. At that point it now satisfies the values of both markets simultaneously and therefore is a better product overall for customers in both A and B.

From the old market's perspective it sneaks up from below. For an example with camera phones and a graphic licensed under CC, see my weblog post [[1]] Sbwoodside 07:27, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

On the theory that birds of a feather ought to flock together, I second your analysis.

I read the book about a month or two ago (Innovator's Dilemma, I haven't gotten to Innovator's Solution). I liked it quite a bit. When I was reading the Wiki, I kept thinking that the authors of the page hadn't read the book at all, or at least had missed most of the point of it. An External link explains the confusion; most of the original article is lifted (often whole phrases and sentences) from an piece by John Dvorak: "The Myth of Disruptive Technology". If you're not familiar with Dvorak work, he writes articles that are largely free of facts, wisdom, or experience but larded with an entertaining 'tude and style. I've had it on my list to go back and re-read the book and re-write the page. Perhaps with two of us working on it, it will turn out fabulous.

There were several things I particularily like about the book. You may notice them too as you're reading it.

• He points out that, contrary to pop culture, most innovation comes from large organizations, not garages.
• He explains why large organizations often choose to ignore their own innovations, and why it's rational (though often eventually destructive).
• He explains that middle managers ignore innovation, not because they are ignoring the market but in fact because they are listening closely to their customers.
• He shows that existing companies in fact welcome the new competitors at first because it helps them shed low-margin business lines.

Put another way, the thing I liked about the book was that it emphasized that large, old companies do not fail because they are hide-bound, stupid, and arrogant (though obviously that's true often enough). They fail because they are listening to their customers and responding them, they are constantly improving their products, and they are listening to Wall Street and responding to it. From which comes the Dilemma in the title.

DanielVonEhren 02:47, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This article is flawed and it should be disputed. The term Distruptive Technology is abused by the popular press (and bloggers who haven't read the book). I don't see how you can discuss this term without mentioning the Hard Disk Drive industry since that is where Dr. Christensen's primary data comes from. Sbwoodside is quite correct that it is two different markets and not just low end users vs. high end users in the same market. Two more insights are: Good managers implementing sound management strategies make them vulnerable to disruptive technologies. Market success as defined by Dr. Christensen as USD$100M revenue is more likely when applying proven technologies into new markets rather than starting up in an existing industry with entrenched value chains. DanielVonEhren makes a good observation that innovations come from industry labs. Yet, the garage myth comes about from disgruntled engineers starting up their companies out of their homes because their company's marketing people can't make good business cases for the innovations to their existing customers.

Comment on definition of disruptive technology

The book is great (in some sense), but definition by describing concept Disruptive + technology by it's functions is not the worsest case possible, but not seems appropriate or substantial for Encyclopedia, see definition. This causes flaws --AndriuZ 15:02, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Why so concerned with lower price?

The essence of Christensens work was simply to show that an initially inferior technology could improve and take the mass market, even if the new technology never becomes 'better' than the old on some key performance measures - it just has to surpass user demand (and of course be better in other aspects: smaller, cheaper, more reliable). The new tech could be inferior in many ways, price or low performance. The interesting things about such situations is that incumbents very often choose to ignore startups that later compete them out of the market. 11:51, 20 March 2005 user:137.132.3.11 signed as Havard

Hmmm, it doesn't seem to emphasize price, take a look at the definition: a disruptive technology... "performs worse than the leading technology according to existing measures of performance" --Goodoldpolonius2 15:46, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Missing the Point (of View)?

In my experience, the confusion over the "definition" of a "Disruptive Technology" results from a failure to understand exactly who or whom is being 'disrupted' by the technology. Christensen makes it abundantly clear that the technologies he's discussing are >>never<< disruptive to the consumers, but rather to the companies and industries that face them in the market. Disruptive is in the eye of the beholder, and Christensen's entire thesis is based on technology innovations that are "disruptive" from the POV of the "mainstream market leaders".

A Great Article Ruined

Sometime in late 2008, the lede on this article was ruined by uniformed editors. The term comes from academe, how it got labeled as "marketing speak" (which is a dubious wikipedia entry as it is) is beyond me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.236.255 (talk) 21:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Christensen's careful definition is not mere marketing speak. I have removed this bit. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 16:51, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

The fifth generation computer systems project?

Can you call Japan's fifth generation computer systems project once a promising candidate of "disruptive technology"? The fifth generation computer was not of "lower performance or less expensive". These computers were expected to be more advanced (VLSI, ULSI, artificial intelligence, expert system, ...) than other computers of its days in hardware and software. They planned to create a HAL-like computer that understands and answers your questions. In my opinion, internet was the disruptive technology. Rather than making each computer a silicon Alber Einstein, countless dumb computers are connected and each of them has a human brain or database attached to it. Your computer still knows nothing, but some people behind their equally dumb compuers may have your answer. -- Toytoy 11:53, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

My Google search:

• "disruptive-technology" "fifth generation computer" → 81 hits
• "disruptive-technology" "fifth generation computer" -wikipedia → 18 hits
• "disruptive-technology" "fifth generation computer" -wikipedia -encyclopedia → 5 hits

The last five hits are still originated from the Wikipedia. I will remove "fifth generation computer" from the list of "disruptive-technology". -- Toytoy 12:07, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

Examples of disruptive technologies

The dichotomy presented here (disruptive v revolutionary) is not the focus of Christensen's work. Christensen focuses on "sustaining" and "disruptive". To quote from a review of The Innovators Dilemma:

As the above graph shows, disruptive technologies cause problems because they do not initially satisfy the demands of even the high end of the market. Because of that, large companies choose to overlook disruptive technologies until they become more attractive profit-wise. Disruptive technologies, however, eventually surpass sustaining technologies in satisfying market demand with lower costs. When this happens, large companies who did not invest in the disruptive technology sooner are left behind. This, according to Christensen, is the Innovator's Dilemma.

--Kegill (talk) 18:40, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

How do you define if anything should be called a "disruptive technology"? There is a core list of "disruptive technologies" defined by Clayton M. Christensen (mini steel mills, 3.5" hard drives ...) that is not in dispute. Right or wrong, he called them disruptive technologies. This concept is totally based on his idea of technologies. An extended list of disruptive technologies is YOUR OWN CREATION. Christensen may not agree with you, some other people may not agree with you. It is your own POV. When I say "Tom is a cat and Jerry is a mouse." People agree what is a cat and what is a mouse. But what makes Blogging a "disruptive technology"? I think it is your opinion.

In my opinion, mass-market cellular telephony is more expensive than fixed-line telephony in many well-established cities. EIDE/UDMA hard drives and SCSI hard drives were concurrent technologies (the latter carried an obscene premium because most of the users were fat sheeps: Macintosh users and server users). Flash Drives are still very expensive in comparison with floppy disk drives. You give away CD-Rs (about 700 MB, cents) and 3.5" floppy disks (1.44 MB, cents); you don't do that with even a lowest-end 64 MB Sandisk (dollars!). 3.5" floppy disks had been around for over a decade. There were larger sized floppy disks, but they were expensive because of patents (Zip drives, Jaz drives ...). The examples are, in my opinion, POV. -- Toytoy 12:53, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

> What does "expensive" mean? A lot of the comments seem to presume that is just means "price", but there is a need to account for other factors. To take Toytoy's examples, a fixed-line phones is cheaper than a cell phones (mine's $5 per month FL vs $40 per month for CF), but only if you're standing next to it. EIDE drives are cheaper than SCSI drives, but (as I understand it) have to be within the same case for electrical grounding and there's a maximum of two to connection; customers bought SCSI not because they were fat sheep but because they had multi-terabyte datasets when 5 gigabytes was a big drive. I'd say that EIDE was never a disruptive technology to SCSI because EIDE never invaded the data center (technical limitations that it never overcame), and SCSI never was a huge factor on desktops (too expensive).

DanielVonEhren

I'll say ATA, IDE, EIDE and UDMA were SCSI's concurrent technologies. If I am a car builder who has an engine and two suspension systems, I'll build one type of car for the rich; another for other people. The better suspension costs a little more to make. However, I can charge a lot more to buyers. The SCSI business is more or less the same. Remember, Apple used outdated SCSI II drives during the late 1990s. These drives were not very large, nor were they top performers, but if you want to buy a replacement for your Macintosh, you still pay top dollars. These SCSI II drives were mostly the same as their EIDE counterparts except for their circuit boards. The costs are not an important issue here. Sometimes, costs are simply an artificial means of market segmentation. -- Toytoy 18:02, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

EIDE/UDMA and SCSI were never in competition. Each hard drive manufacture produces both EIDE/UDMA and SCSI drives. Most computer users could either use EIDE/UDMA (PC users) or use SCSI (older Macintosh users). You had to pay a lot of money to buy a SCSI or EIDE card to be able to choose. Average uses actually did not have a choice then. As of today, cellphones are not replacing fixed-line phones. You may have a few cellphones, but you still have fixed-line phones in your office and at home. These examples are pretty lousy. That's why I deleted them. -- Toytoy 18:12, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

I think we're basically agreeing with each other here.  :-) The essential point I had wanted to make was that expensive is not just price tag.

In terms of the changes you've made in the last day or so, I generally agree with them--in fact, I think they greatly improve the article. I would have kept in

• Chemical-based film -> digital cameras
• Fixed line -> cell phone
• Mainframe -> minicomputer
• Minicomputer -> PC

In terms of the scope of the article itself, if we're using the phrase disruptive technology as Prof. Christensen does in his book, there needs to be more focus on the business impacts rather than just the technology aspects. As Sbwoodside says in the previous section, the current article is deeply flawed. Managers at Kodak, US Steel, AT&T, IBM, and DEC weren't necessarily stupid or arrogant (although instances of that can obviously be found). They were acting rationally and listening closely to their customers; they did all of the right things, by failed anyway. That (for me) is why The Innovator's Dilemma is so interesting. And that is what the article has not yet captured. I'm hoping we'll change that.

DanielVonEhren 18:57, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I read the book 5 years ago. Now my memory is getting fuzzy. If we want to use any additional example, it has to be historically correct. I mean you may want to point out since when and which model(s), XXX technology started to take over YYY's markets and why. This is a difficult but worthy job. -- Toytoy 19:14, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

More examples:

• Internet displaced traditional media. Will try and find source.
• Cell phones displaced pay phones and land lines. Read a study that most U.S. citizens under 30 have switched to cell phones only, no land lines, and also read about how many communities in Africa have bypassed the traditional creation of a phone network infrastructure by using cell phones instead of more costly telephone lines.66.150.206.225 14:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Email for snail mail? Seems like an obvious candiate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.0.188.6 (talk) 15:42, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Removal of Disruptive Examples

I object to the removal of my examples. It is not true that "All knew transistors beat vac. tubes from day 1, etc".

I will recheck in a few days, and if my examples are not back, I will put them back, and add a column to the table for "comments", giving some details about the history of each disruption.

Ldo 07:00, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ldo, you didn't really wait a couple of days, but I appeciate the notes you added. Not all replacement technologies that initially have lower performance are disruptive technologies, however. There is also an element of market disruption by entering from the bottom end of the market, and from key companies not recognizing that the technology is useful. This just isn't the case in your examples:

• Integrated Circuits:From the moment that the Kilby invented the IC, for example, they immediately began to replace discrete circuits at all manufacturers where such a replacement was economical. Originally, there was no need for giant fab plants, and ICs were widely greeted as useful, Fairchild used them immediately, and within two years everyone was using them/ [2].
• Transistors were similarly widely accepted almost immediately. The vaccuum tube was known to be unreliable, and "When the transistor was invented in 1947 it was considered a revolution." (this according to the Nobel Prize Committee [3]/

--Goodoldpolonius2 23:50, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You guys could get rid of the Dvorak link. That guy wouldn't know a NPOV if it bit him on the ass. As far as being a "hoax", the idea makes sense. It's one of those marketing ideas that has a keen observation at its core and then gets hyped all out of proportion to its relevance. The book does a good job of explaining several situations (I like the back-hoe one myself, as it's not in the high tech field) where it's evident what forces are at work.

New graph

New and improved

I've improved on the existing graph. Basically I re-drew it using Visio. Any comments ?

Megapixie 11:13, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Nice job. I actually took the original from a presentation by Christiansen, and this re-drawing looks great. --Goodoldpolonius2 12:51, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Wind power example is inaccurate

The paragraph on wind power should be completely rewritten. Examples of problems:

• Spain currently has only 6.5% of its power supplied by wind [4]. According to that article, the wind capacity will reach 15% only by 2010 if they meet their targets. I wouldn't call this "close to 20%". Note that that article is currently the 2nd hit resulting from a Google search for "Spain wind energy".
• This article -- http://www.ecoworld.org/Home/Articles2.cfm?TID=361 -- claims Germany's wind power is at only 9% of national electricity needs. I wouldn't call this "close to 20%".
• The reasons for the differing capacities and rate of capacity addition between the US and Europe are far more complex than the author allows. Its hard to imagine that the issue of the differing regulatory environments (including subsidies) is not at least as important as "political resistance". I wish I had the time to find a reference to support my point, but by the same token, I request that the author provide one for his.
• Whether new wind power beats all other sources of new power on price is a complex topic. A major factor is whether a site with a strong enough wind resource can be permitted for use. "Strong enough" is relative to the farm's efficiency, the financing, and the length of time required and human resources required for the permitting process.

Further, the basic premise of wind power being a disruptive technology is a rich topic for debate. My understanding of the opening paragraph is that a disruptive technology is one that must come "to dominate an existing market". Its far from clear whether wind ever will. Others would claim that coal and especially nuclear (for better or worse) may lay claim to that title.

Anonymous for lack of time (apologies) 4.36.201.141 14:17, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

These figures are not necessarily incompatible. Utilization of wind power is essentially 100%. Like nuclear the windmills generate electricity that feeds into the grid regardless of the load on the grid. The generating capcity of the country on the other hand is designed to handle peak loads. So it is entirely consistent for wind to be supplying 20% of the electricity at the same time that it is only providing 6.5% of the capacity. --Gorgonzilla 18:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the current example is grossly inadequate. Denmark, germany, and spain are much more compact than the US. The CIA factbook suggests population densities of 236, 127, 80, and 32 people/squarekilometer for germany, denmark, spain, and the us respectively. The cost of wind at the "factory gate" may be cheaper than coal, but you do need to take into account transportation costs as well as whether or not the electricity is being produced when needed. It costs a heck of a lot more to transport electricity from North Dakota to Long Island than it does to transport electricity from one side of Denmark to the other.

Next, the United States exports coal while Europe imports coal (mostly from South Africa and Australia and hence over water). The economics are entirely different.

Also, wind is not the lowest cost supplier of energy nor even of electricity. It is the lowest cost supplier of electricity at the factory gate when the wind is blowing. However, on a hot breezeless sunny summer day in Sacramento, PV on the roof is going to win hands down. And if you want to heat hot water for a shower, solar thermal on the roof would probably beat using wind to generate electricity to heat water.

Finally, wind is not a "high performance" disrupter. The most demanding uses of electricity are using it on demand and providing high reliability. Natural gas and hydro generated electricity are the high performance electricity generators for on-demand applications. Various forms of batteries plus various forms of on-site electricity generation (possibly involving diesel instead of natural gas) are used for data centers to provide high reliability electricity.

Wind is a disruptive technology that is first displacing low quality coal use in Europe. Later it will displace "high quality" coal us in the U.S. So, if properly written, this is a good example. -- (No name)

Wind power is certainly not a disruptive technology by Christiansen's definition. Wind power does not change the business model. Wind power is sold through exactly the same channels as traditional power. Wind generated power offers exactly the same utility and quality as traditional forms.

The nearest example in the book would be to the steel mills with coal generation being considered the equivalent of the integrated mill and minimill technology the equivalent of wind. I don't think that the comparison holds water. Companies that have big stakes in coal, gas and nuclear are trying to establish a hold in wind, geothermal and other renewables. Everyone expects to need to build new generating capacity. The issue is return on capital, not a disruptive change at all.--Gorgonzilla 18:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive Medians

I find it quite amusing after reviewing the these comments that majoritively we are excited by the sustaining technologies. Having exposed myself for the better part of a decade in what is considered the newest RF tech. I get a greater feeling that our potentials are endless. Two remaining and obvious questions I have are:

1: Can we achieve a more productive society with all of the improvements in Technology at a noticable level? Granted we have seen shifts in progress that are in some instances indrectly tied to technoloicgal advancements; yet nothing comes to mind as a direct contributor.

2: While noting end user devices are coming of age; when should we look at higher advancements in that which connects the dots to our communnication ability? (i.e. the common copper,fiberoptic or RF channels.

dont confuse disruptive technologies with new evolution curves?

Although many different views of what forms a disruptive technology exist. I think items such as VOIP, DVD and transistor are simply a technology subject evolving along a new evolution curve? Triz explains its theory on evolution curves -do not think there is a right or wrong on what describes a disruptive technology just different perspectives and ideas? For me an IPOD/MP3 is a new evolution curve on portable music changing the market for DVD's tapes etc ....... but the later can still be lower cost (not to manufacture) unsigned by 17:13, 29 December 2005 User:81.159.41.161

Disruptive technology for me is to come-up with a product/service/application which serves a niche market and within its distinctiveness, disrupts the value chain of a business model. It grows itself and creates a new sector in a given exiting industry and creates a better alternative like Bell's fixed-line Telephones against Telegraphs, Cellular phones against fix-line Telephones, Cellular will against WLAN..... unsigned by 20:40, 24 March 2006 User:Rehan Siddiqui

To be more specific about TRIZ - there is a important and big part of it - LTSE Laws of Technical Systems Evolution explaining how different systems evolve (or changes) but their's function remains. --AndriuZ 14:44, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Questionable "Unresolved Disruptive Technologies"

Some of the examples of "unresolved" technologies promoted as disruptive cannot honestly be considered "unresolved". The most glaring of these is "e-commerce vs. physical shops". It is absolutely clear that both e-commerce and physical shops are completely entrenched in their own respective niches, and while there is a lot of competition between them in some areas, the idea that either one could entirely supplant and eliminate the other in the forseeable future* is lunacy. Similar arguments apply to "free / open-source vs. proprietary software" and "Internet Video on Demand and IPTV vs. Advertising supported broadcast and cable television".

The examples of "Music downloads and File sharing vs. compact discs", "ebooks vs. paper books", and "VoIP (and VoIP over 802.11) vs. traditional telephone and mobile phone service" are much better examples of "unresolved" potentially disruptive technologies.

• "forseeable future" in this case refers to the current world we live in, free from instantaneous teleportation, William Gibson-style "simstim", and other similarly sci-fi developements.

--JDS2005 07:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Home Refrigerators

One of the best examples of a disruptive technology - the refrigerator - is not mentioned. This one device displaced the ice box, and an entire industry of ice delivery. Unless anyone objects, I'm going to add it in. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Joezasada (talk • contribs) 21:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC).

Linux vs commercial UNIX vs Windows

Don't turn a good point into a bad one. The claim that Linux is going to displace the commercial UNIX distributions is not contentious at this point, arguably this has already happened. The claim that it is likely to displace Windows Server is a POV claim. Windows Server sales are strong and growing, this is not likely to change in the near future.

In the mid 90s an ULTRIX, OSF/1 or Solaris license could easily cost in the tens or even hundreds of thousands. Even on a workstation the price was typically 2-5K. Even the high end windows server distributions cost less than a fifth the price of equivalent unix distributions for those systems.

Windows NT server should arguably be bracketed with Linux as a disruptive change. Regardless the dynamic between the low cost o/s is really not the same as between Linux and commercial UNIX. Windows and Linux both appeared at the same time. Microsoft has huge volumes and they have never lost a market by pricing themselves out of it. --Gorgonzilla 18:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Examples of disruptive technologies redux

There are a couple innovations listed in the table that I'm either not sure were actually disruptive, or just don't make sense to me.

"Bug logic" - I've never heard of that phrase. It seems to mean using small-scale integration (SSI) or medium-... (MSI) integrated circuits instead of discrete logic. Did engineers really call this "bug logic", or is there something better, like simply "ICs" or "small-scale ICs"?

High speed CMOS video sensors vs. Photographic film - I don't understand what is being described here. Does this refer to high-speed still cameras or movie cameras? The description sounds like its talking about movie cameras.

Eight track vs. Record player - Weren't 8-tracks sold through the same channels as 45's? If so, I suspect they were embraced by record companies. In which case they probably weren't disruptive, but rather were sustaining. Where does this example come from? It's not in "Solution" nor "Next", nor... hey, where's my "Dilemma"? Did we loan it out? Darn!

Should these examples have citations, maybe? JPalonus 20:46, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to cut some items from the list

Each item in the table should make an argument that it is a disruptive innovation, rather than a revolutionary or sustaining innovation. Ones that don't, should be cut. Also, each item should have a footnote to a reliable source. I fixed the "filesharing" item, and the first batch come straight from Christensen. Anyone who can save the others should do so. Otherwise, I have to cut them as off-topic. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 01:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

In order to belong on the list, you must show that it is disruptive innovation. That it:

1. Was originally directed at a market that was not being served by existing products.
2. Eventually improved to the point that it disrupted the the market as a whole.

So I think that none of these belong:

Definitely wrong (in my view)

• Compact disc. Was not directed at a new market. It was always designed to replace vinyl.
• Refrigerators. Was not directed at a new market.
• Fire arms. The medieval period is beyond the point where modern business terminology makes sense.
• Paper. Ditto'.
• High speed trains. Hasn't significantly disrupted the air travel market.
• Missile/Artillery. It doesn't seem to me that any market was disrupted here. Is there a firm that overlooked the potential signficance of the missile to their market?
• TV. Didn't significantly disrupted the box office in the long term. (Despite predictions in the 50s that it would. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 06:53, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Title of Article should reflect this as Christensen-centric

There is nothing new here. This is all a reproduction of the seminal works of: (1) Foster(1986) "Innovation: The Attacker's Advantage"which introduced the S-curve and the phrase "technological discontinuity" based on the seminal work by Utterback & Abernathy (1975) and Abernathy & Utterback (1975) regarding innovation and product lifecycles. (2) Tushman & Anderson (1986) "Technological Discontinuities and Organizational Environments" who noted "Major technological innovations represent technical advance so significant that no increase in scale, efficiency, or design can make older technologies competitive with the new technology."---- Bill —Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.163.230.207 (talk) 13:30, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect, you're describing a "transforming" innovation, not a disruptive innovation. This article is about a different subject. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 07:53, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Stoves

Electric has not displaced gas, and it is not at all uncommon. Considering that new homes and apartments are being installed with gas mains all the time, this is just a bad example and should be removed. I won't do it though since anon edits are always reverted now on Wikipedia..24.4.132.165 (talk) 23:37, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree, in Europe in many big cities many households still use gas stoves, the main reason for this is that in Europe gas is much cheaper then electric energy (the price for electric energy is around 0.20€/kWh in most western European countries, one kWh gas costs only about 0.06-0.07€/kWh). I lve in Vienna and from my impression, most households in Vienna still use gas stoves. --MrBurns (talk) 16:53, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

However, Electric Lights have replaced Gas lights except for historical purposes in a few situations. Also, Electric lights replaced Acetylene lamps for automobiles and the stage.

Further Comments about Stoves

Gas stoves are still considered by many to be superior in many ways to electric stoves. Their response is quicker and they heat more evenly than electric stoves. Prime proof of this is gourmet or professional stoves are almost always gas. Electric stoves appealed to a new market, those who were looking for inexpensive stoves, since it is cheaper to install an electric line than to put in a gas line to a kitchen. To some cooks, including this writer, electric stoves appeal to those with children so as to not have an open flame. Therefore, electric stoves never really threatened to replace gas stoves, as a disruptive technology usually offers a new way of doing things that replaces the old because it offers a better, innovative, often cheaper way to do something. NetworkedTogether (talk) 03:25, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Promotional

Quickly scanning this article, it looks to me like it primarily serves to promote one particular author's buzzword-of-the-day. Where are the independent third-party secondary sources? 121a0012 (talk) 20:55, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I had the same impression; this is an ad for a man and his book(s). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.218.82.48 (talk) 20:31, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

It took me a while to put my finger on why the criticism above sounds so plausible but yet is off-base. I think I've thought of an analogy that explains it: At some point in the 1800s, I guess about the 1830s and 1840s, an article about the applied science and technology of electrical current maybe could have seemed like an ad for one man: Michael Faraday. But that wouldn't have been because the principles that he outlined weren't an accurate and useful set of insights. It mostly would have been simply because he was the biggest earliest leader among a contemporary set of early leaders in a certain field of study. Christensen's work either already has been built upon by others (one would need to be well-read in the appropriate academic journals to know) or it eventually will be. Anyone with sufficient exposure to the literature who comes here to the Wikipedia article on the topic and chooses to donate their time to cite others, whether that happens tomorrow or eight years from now, can add some additional names and refs to the article. But that fact doesn't mean that the article is no good right now. — ¾-10 01:30, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Disruptive main page

The main page seems to suffer somewhat from the disruptive feature of modern era. For example the "digital photography" section. There are terms such as "shutter lag is much less than it used to be", "hundreds or thousands of pictures", "also helped" and "have a high power consumption".

It would be better if the text is clearly divided to two section: initially and currently (make the tense clear). When talking about numbers or sizes it is clear now that the "megapixel mania" is common lure, fitting less pictures, not really describing how many can be stored. When talking about "high power consumption", you can't compare that to analog.

Analog does not have batteries so the battery consumption of digital is always "high". However progress is probably being made there when comparing digital-digital to the future models. However many consumer analog cameras had motors for the film rolling. They used quite much battery in comparison. And now we are just talking about still cameras. Video cameras use quite much battery (both analog and digital) and totally analog video recorders are cumbersome.

When making a comparison, make it clear that the text is not comparing digital vs. digital, just digital vs. analog. The digital progress is still happening and the shutter lag probably continues to decrease. For the "also helped" section, describe the time span (years) for "film to digital" takeover (in the "masses").

In short: Be clear about tense, years, what you are comparing, make clear if the progress is still ongoing, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.114.90.60 (talk) 07:40, 10 January 2012 (UTC)