Talk:Disruptive innovation/Archives/2013

Cuts
Cut these two, because I'm not convinced they are disruptive innovations. The first because I'm not convinced that the market for mobile telephony has been demolished, the second because GPS systems were always directed at the same market as maps; they are a "sustaining" innovation. CharlesGillingham (talk) 21:01, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

It's more likely a hoax
I think the whole issue of using "disruptive technology" to promote a product is more likely a hoax, or a carefully created marketing slogan. If you want to sell investors something dreamy and beautiful, you label it as a "disruptive technology". People will see you like a rebel. Most of the times, your investors' money simply went down the drain (ebooks, creative internet ventures, ...). There are some successful cases, possibly only a handful of them. The costs of "disruptive technologies" are subjective to marketing and the selective use of creative accounting. Cars may be called as a "disruptive technology" to the railroad, only if you don't count the money spent to build the roads and many other external costs. Snake oil dealers are everywhere. We shall avoid using examples other than Christensen's. -- Toytoy 18:35, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, more exactly a verbal tool of a cheap talk. 220.132.182.155 07:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * And an oxymoron, that is to say, a word consists of contradictory meanings. --14.198.220.253 (talk) 18:42, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Table needs sorting
The table of disruptive technologies needs sorting & reorganising. (Not sure how to do it myself.) 203.56.94.11 (talk) 07:27, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

=A lot of the disruptive technologies seem to be placed under the displaced technology column instead, ie CRT "disrupting" LCD. Either I'm reading this wrong or it definitely needs reorganizing. 58.164.141.33 (talk) 08:38, 23 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Fixed what I saw. Couldn't find any reversed columns, though. Perhaps you were reading it wrong. CharlesGillingham (talk) 21:09, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Some of the examples, specifically the 8 to 5 to 3 inch floppies may be not relevant. They are examples of product improvement. E.G. While the steamship was disruptive to the sail ship, the windjammer was not disruptive to the caravel. Just a thought. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.182.241.250 (talk) 03:18, 25 September 2013 (UTC)


 * On the contrary, these are excellent examples, because they disrupted markets. Read Christiansen.


 * I don't know about the Windjammer vs. Caravel. The relevant question is this: when windjammers came out, did Caravel builders keep on building Caravels, thinking that the market for Caravels would never be affected by the windjammer? Then it is disruptive. If the Caravel builders immediately switched to building windjammers and never lost their majority market share, then it's not disruptive, it's sustaining. CharlesGillingham (talk) 03:53, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Printed Electronics
This should be added I think. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Printed_electronics

Reference: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/04/120419143123.htm

(Electronic devices could become so cheap they might become as effectively disposable as junkmail!) 203.56.94.11 (talk) 07:27, 20 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Hasn't disrupted anything yet CharlesGillingham (talk) 03:53, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

MOOCs disrupting Higher Education?
MOOCs have been touted as being disruptive to higher education, but so far it is a speculative area funded by venture capital where no one has actually made any money. Is there any actual evidence of MOOCs disrupting higher education and disrupting that market? Coursera considered various possible monetisation methods and then ended up settling on selling their course platform to traditional universities: http://higheredstrategy.com/coursera-jumps-the-shark/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.166.19.219 (talk) 09:20, 8 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Agree. They haven't disrupted anything yet. CharlesGillingham (talk) 03:54, 18 December 2013 (UTC)