The Innovator's Dilemma: The Revolutionary Book That Will Change the Way You Do Business

they created a market and it's economics and now they're being attacked by the next generation of market entrants who've structured their businesses to _specifically_ attack those economics

https://www.amazon.com/Innovators-Dilemma-Revolutionary-Chan...

https://www.amazon.com/Innovators-Dilemma-Revolutionary-Change-Business/dp/0062060244

That's easy:

Step 1: don't

The end.

Alibaba launched in launched in 2010, back that was innovative enough and it was the right time, today a decade later that market / business model is mature so.

Step 2: look around and see what Innovation can you bring into the market?

This book will help https://www.amazon.com/Innovators-Dilemma-Revolutionary-Change-Business/dp/0062060244

It's a question of personality. I am all for Innovation, Innovation, Innovation.

> Which are better in your opinion?

Innovation

> What examples do you have?

• Apple,
• Whole Foods,
• Walmart (Walmart is not about Low-Prices, it's about IT and innovative processes that allow for low-prices and more)
• Google
• Facebook
• Instagram
• Compaq
• MCI
• Digital
• Intel
• Tesla

If you want more, read this: https://www.amazon.com/Innovators-Dilemma-Revolutionary-Change-Business/dp/0062060244

and this: https://www.amazon.com/Innovators-Solution-Creating-Sustaining-Successful/dp/1422196577

Let's say the OP is correct. It doesn't matter — Whomever is using the word is using it how they want to and the recipient will understand the correct and incorrect meaning. If I was the CTO at a bank and I told the OP we were building a private blockchain for asset management, he would know what I mean. Now since the op is technical, he would probably ask more questions to figure out that what I really want is an openly audit-able immutable database, but his intellect would allow him to drill down further.

This fallacy the same thing that happened for the word "Disrupt"/"Disruption"/"Disruptive Technology". Even Clay Christensen, the creator of the phrase, says most people misuse the phrase "disruption" when compared to his explanation in the Innovators Dilemma[1]. There are Tons[2] of[3] people[3] complaining that the term is misused. In the end, if you casually tell someone you've got an idea for a Taco Food truck that's going to disrupt the food truck industry, people will know what you mean.

The definition of this word "blockchain" is being misused so much that it is changing faster real eduction can help. I think posts like this are great if you're technical, but as I said above — It doesn't matter what the fallacy is.

[1] - https://www.amazon.com/Innovators-Dilemma-Revolutionary-Chan...

[2] - https://techcrunch.com/2013/02/16/the-truth-about-disruption...

[3] - https://www.forbes.com/sites/vukivujasinovic/2017/03/02/its-...

[4] - https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/06/23/the-disruption...

Do you have ideas of what a tech company could put on the table?

I have a bit of an idea, and also a way to frame the problem that may sound a little ridiculous, but hopefully is helpful to someone.

I propose tech, free-trade, outsourcing, and other forces have impacted the US job market similar to the problem laid out in The Innovator's Dilemma [1].

Apple - and Steve Jobs - have been applauded for figuring out ways to solve the innovator's dilemma; specifically, Apple lets newer products with a greater profit potential cannibalize older products' smaller profits.

1. The iPod classic and iPod nano were great products that had solid profits.

2. The iPod Touch ate into iPod classic and iPod nano profits. However, it also eclipsed the profits that the earlier iPods could have achieved, since it was much more than just a music player.

3. The iPod classic and iPod nano did not mind that they sold less, and Apple changed their expectations for sales from each product line accordingly as one product took sales away from other products.

Here's how I see the US addressing a similar dilemma, but involving people's jobs:

1. Career tracks in manufacturing and energy production (coal, especially) had solid salaries and career prospects.

2. Market forces (e.g. trade deals, technology) reduced need for US manufacturing and energy production jobs. Computer programming, technology in general, and design of things rather than the manufacturing of things all have better profits for the companies involved than the building of things.

3. The people who had manufacturing and energy production jobs DO mind that they do not have a job. Government and society did NOT recalibrate goals by saying something like, "sorry your coal job experience is no longer relevant, we're going to give you basic income / job training / some other job prospects."

Apple can make the iPod classic, whose qualities are outdated, simply go away from stores without a tear shed.

The US cannot make people whose skills are outdated simply go away, though. Those people need, at a minimum, some way to pay the rent, food, and aspire to something greater than they have now.

How should the US best address this?

It makes as much sense to re-introduce the iPod classic when the iPod Touch is already out there as it does to go back to dirty energy production when clean energy production already out there, and has great qualities like an endless, easily accessible energy source in the sun and less pollution and land destruction.

However, that very thing has been proposed, and I have not seen any other plans. What about, for instance, ensuring solar panel production facilities are built near where coal jobs went away? Or perhaps big wind farms, sun farms, etc?

The places where coal is buried is not where wind or sun is best captured, but giving some kind of hope to people in those areas - whether in the form of subsidies, training, moving people, etc. It may mean some changes to those impacted, but with every big shift in technology and labor, some jobs simply are no longer necessary like they used to be.

Thoughts?

[1] https://smile.amazon.com/Innovators-Dilemma-Revolutionary-Ch...

For anyone interested in reading more about this, Clayton Christensen covers this area in The Innovators Dilemma.

https://www.amazon.com/Innovators-Dilemma-Revolutionary-Chan...

If this is true, then he (Craig Newmark) really needs to read the innovator's dilemma (http://www.amazon.com/The-Innovators-Dilemma-Revolutionary-B...). TLDR: If you allow yourself to become a prisoner to your success, you're actually making your continued success unlikely. You can solve the dilemma by spinning out a smaller, irreverant version of yourself & giving them what they need to destroy the old company.

In craigslist's case, he could include a link on the old site that allows users to upgrade to a more modern version, and have the modern site basically consume an api/scrape the old CL till it gained momentum.

Well, The Facebook company can feel rather juvenile to deal with. Some of their decisions in dealing with other businesses sometimes feel like they are being made by fifteen year old kids with no life or business experience.

In terms of the Facebook product one cannot deny the obvious: They touched THE nerve on the internet. World wide. Across languages and cultures.

I don't like the embodiment of the product at all. At the very least it has usability and privacy problems. Yet more people use it successfully than any other web app in the world. So, what do I know? What do experts know?

A similar thing could be said about CraigsList. It's 2014. Every time I use the site I cannot believe what I am looking at. Yet I and lots of other people keep using it. It works.

Facebook has a general lack of elegance (whatever that means). The kind that happens when a product is thrown together and evolved over time. Evolving anything over time means the output "naturally selects" (subverting the theory here) to the environment created by it's users.

They survive because they optimized for what is important to their users. Grandma couldn't care less about UI issues or searchability. She wants to see her grandchildren's pictures and videos. And for that it works very well for a huge percentage of the planet.

At some point it becomes almost impossible to break the mold and clean-up what might be less than ideal. Why would you? It works. Another "Innovator's Dilemma" [1] situation to a large extent.

[1] http://www.amazon.com/The-Innovators-Dilemma-Revolutionary-B...