The problem, really, is this thing called “disruption”(wired.com)
wired.com
The problem, really, is this thing called “disruption”
https://www.wired.com/story/disruption-is-how-silicon-valley-eats-its-young/
40 comments
Partly (even mostly), this is a rant about hyperbole and cliche.
I'm not sure if this is true, but I've heard title "President" was selected specifically for its understated connotations (as opposed to pomous titles like prime minister). It escalated.
A lot of the tech cliches start as understated ways of being hyperpolic. Paradigm a fairly an abstract term. Disrupt is an understated term for revolutionize. But when they reach ciche status, they get annoying.
There's an art to understated but ambituous, and an appeal to it. Musk pulls it off at times.
I was about to accuse America for this and quote soft words and big sticks, but....that's an americanism ain't it? I dunno. I do think american tolerance for hyperactive positivity is in play somewhere.
All that said, disruption deos happens, but is hindsight it usually seems like a technological or societal disruption, not a company led thing. I mean, news has certainly been disrupted.
I'm not sure if this is true, but I've heard title "President" was selected specifically for its understated connotations (as opposed to pomous titles like prime minister). It escalated.
A lot of the tech cliches start as understated ways of being hyperpolic. Paradigm a fairly an abstract term. Disrupt is an understated term for revolutionize. But when they reach ciche status, they get annoying.
There's an art to understated but ambituous, and an appeal to it. Musk pulls it off at times.
I was about to accuse America for this and quote soft words and big sticks, but....that's an americanism ain't it? I dunno. I do think american tolerance for hyperactive positivity is in play somewhere.
All that said, disruption deos happens, but is hindsight it usually seems like a technological or societal disruption, not a company led thing. I mean, news has certainly been disrupted.
If we're talking about how startups and journalists use it, then yes (and since English is what English speaking people speak, then that usage is a definition of the word).
But "disrupt" has a technical meaning, and pretty clearly defined by Christensen - a product/service that's worse for the main use of that category, but has other qualities valued by other customers for some other use; over time it improves, and while the category leader also improves it eventually "overshoots" what people need, whereas this new thing becomes acceptable AND it has those other qualities - at that point, it is dramatically replaced by the newcomer, completing the process of "disruption". Seminal example: 8 inch disk drives had (and have) greater capacity; but are bigger and less convenient, and a smaller diskdrive has enough capacity. Same thing happened to 5.25", 3.5", those tiny laptop ones, and now SSD. Same pattern. It's an industry/category event, not a company event... but some companies benefit from it.
But it's not very predictive (even thoigh the pattern seems legit in hindsight); Christensen himself famously dismissed the iPhone with about as much aplomb as Cmdrtaco dismissed the iPod. TTBF, while smartphones are disrupting PCs, it's not that absolute; about as much as netbooks did. PCs are still going strong for games, development and business. It was a different story when PCs disrupted workstations.
But "disrupt" has a technical meaning, and pretty clearly defined by Christensen - a product/service that's worse for the main use of that category, but has other qualities valued by other customers for some other use; over time it improves, and while the category leader also improves it eventually "overshoots" what people need, whereas this new thing becomes acceptable AND it has those other qualities - at that point, it is dramatically replaced by the newcomer, completing the process of "disruption". Seminal example: 8 inch disk drives had (and have) greater capacity; but are bigger and less convenient, and a smaller diskdrive has enough capacity. Same thing happened to 5.25", 3.5", those tiny laptop ones, and now SSD. Same pattern. It's an industry/category event, not a company event... but some companies benefit from it.
But it's not very predictive (even thoigh the pattern seems legit in hindsight); Christensen himself famously dismissed the iPhone with about as much aplomb as Cmdrtaco dismissed the iPod. TTBF, while smartphones are disrupting PCs, it's not that absolute; about as much as netbooks did. PCs are still going strong for games, development and business. It was a different story when PCs disrupted workstations.
True.
It started with a fairly specific pathway to "revolutionize". Thus always with cliches. They start as meaningful terms, with some interesting insights rolled in. Then literally becomes literally: People who don't understand the joke still use it.
It started with a fairly specific pathway to "revolutionize". Thus always with cliches. They start as meaningful terms, with some interesting insights rolled in. Then literally becomes literally: People who don't understand the joke still use it.
Also, "changing the world". Sorry, your messaging app isn't doing that.
Well, in the most trivial and banal sense possible, it is: there's now another message app that wasn't there before.
I tried to unpack why this phrase is overused. I think it is because it's one of a few things that both sounds lofty when used in a pitch, and wiil always be true.
It's also a great dodge of considering the type of change (changing the world for the better or worse?) or of that change's magnitude (substantially changing the world, or just a little?). To some of a crowd, having heard the above, they will assume things about "changing the world" that may make further probing on those points at a high level sound like duplicate questions, and thus surpresses the chance of getting them. Useful for someone trying to peddle crap.
I tried to unpack why this phrase is overused. I think it is because it's one of a few things that both sounds lofty when used in a pitch, and wiil always be true.
It's also a great dodge of considering the type of change (changing the world for the better or worse?) or of that change's magnitude (substantially changing the world, or just a little?). To some of a crowd, having heard the above, they will assume things about "changing the world" that may make further probing on those points at a high level sound like duplicate questions, and thus surpresses the chance of getting them. Useful for someone trying to peddle crap.
I only really see it used on potential employees, rather than potential customers. It sounds better than the more-correct 'come and sacrifice your best years on this pointless app that might make me rich but probably will crash and burn like all the others'.
That's definitely something which you can tell employees if you're making an app like that, but it's tolerable to use on customers too, in a pinch.
They probably won't believe you, but it's better sounding than nothing when features and tangible results are sparse.
And hey! When all else fails, it's at least guaranteed to not be false advertising.
They probably won't believe you, but it's better sounding than nothing when features and tangible results are sparse.
And hey! When all else fails, it's at least guaranteed to not be false advertising.
Even if it is, there's something that rubs me the wrong way about that little SV mantra. First, the banal arrogance of it, but more importantly, the purposelessness of it—we just want to be responsible for making our mark, not to make the world better or push it in any particular direction, but just to point and say, "look, I had that effect!"
If WhatsApp didn't change the world, what did?
it's neither the first nor the last chat app, i believe - so how would you say the world changed?
(note that i don't use whatsapp and am not all that familiar with it. mostly i'm aware of it due to an interest in erlang.)
(note that i don't use whatsapp and am not all that familiar with it. mostly i'm aware of it due to an interest in erlang.)
Some ways in which WhatsApp changed the world, based on my first hand experience:
- many of my family members, especially in developing world, bought a smartphone solely as a reason to be on WhatsApp. Nothing convinced them before to buy one. Once they had it, they discovered other awesome uses of a smartphone and are part of the "mobile revolution"(TM). That alone should qualify for "changing the world".
- no one I know uses SMS anymore (again, developing countries). A great change given the price gouging before (and Americans probably won't understand that if you haven't seen it first hand).
- Amount of "support" happening on WhatsApp in the broader economy - (eg. booking a taxi, ordering home delivery from corner grocery store etc - which needed a phone call before and was not as smooth as WhatsApp experience)
- hyper-sharing of casual moments in life. I know, I know - there was facebook and picasa and whatnot before that and instagram/snap these days, but amount of photo sharing that happens on WhatsApp is 2 to 3 orders of magnitude higher than what came before or other channels (again, developing countries), simply because WhatsApp made it super simple to share compared to predecessors and is ubiquitous compared to other contemporaries.
It should also be noted that WhatsApp needed two big giant shoulders to stand upon:
- android and affordable phones (sorry, iPhone simply doesn't cut the deal for the masses)
- 2G / 3G spectrum and data connectivity
- many of my family members, especially in developing world, bought a smartphone solely as a reason to be on WhatsApp. Nothing convinced them before to buy one. Once they had it, they discovered other awesome uses of a smartphone and are part of the "mobile revolution"(TM). That alone should qualify for "changing the world".
- no one I know uses SMS anymore (again, developing countries). A great change given the price gouging before (and Americans probably won't understand that if you haven't seen it first hand).
- Amount of "support" happening on WhatsApp in the broader economy - (eg. booking a taxi, ordering home delivery from corner grocery store etc - which needed a phone call before and was not as smooth as WhatsApp experience)
- hyper-sharing of casual moments in life. I know, I know - there was facebook and picasa and whatnot before that and instagram/snap these days, but amount of photo sharing that happens on WhatsApp is 2 to 3 orders of magnitude higher than what came before or other channels (again, developing countries), simply because WhatsApp made it super simple to share compared to predecessors and is ubiquitous compared to other contemporaries.
It should also be noted that WhatsApp needed two big giant shoulders to stand upon:
- android and affordable phones (sorry, iPhone simply doesn't cut the deal for the masses)
- 2G / 3G spectrum and data connectivity
No VOIP system before Whatsapp reached the threshold of general usability for the unwashed masses (a complex matter conflating voice quality, software distribution, contact discovery, network effect, data usage, resilience, system load etc.). Facebook and Viber came close but failed.
Before Whatsapp, my friends in various African countries and their correspondents spent sometimes hundreds of Euros a month in voice communications. After Whatsapp: zero. It happened overnight.
Quite a few chat applications worked as well, but one cannot overstate how radically Whatsapp has changed international voice for users and telcos alike. That is not just success in entertainment but a significant social impact.
Before Whatsapp, my friends in various African countries and their correspondents spent sometimes hundreds of Euros a month in voice communications. After Whatsapp: zero. It happened overnight.
Quite a few chat applications worked as well, but one cannot overstate how radically Whatsapp has changed international voice for users and telcos alike. That is not just success in entertainment but a significant social impact.
Saving people money != changing the world.
The telegraph changed the world, so did cellphones. Cheaper messaging or HDTV did not.
The difference is really one of capability not minor quality improvements. Otherwise you get into things like calling every single new generation of graphics cards as revolutionary not evolutionary.
The telegraph changed the world, so did cellphones. Cheaper messaging or HDTV did not.
The difference is really one of capability not minor quality improvements. Otherwise you get into things like calling every single new generation of graphics cards as revolutionary not evolutionary.
There is a demand elasticity threshold effect. When people traveled overseas, the consensus was that they were out of reach. Cheap Internet access broke that consensus for text & images. Whatsapp broke it for synchronous voice. People can now maintain close relationships internationally. It did not happen linearly with international voice prices decrease: it happened suddenly with the combination of the cost reaching zero with accepted usability.
Whatsapp started in 2009, you could do free voice chat internationally well before that.
Arguably they 'won' because Skype was sold to Microsoft in 2009 creating a huge opening. But, it hardly changed the world even if it did save some people quite a bit of money.
PS: I suspect people will have the same conversation in 10 years about a company created around 2014 when Whatsapp was sold.
Arguably they 'won' because Skype was sold to Microsoft in 2009 creating a huge opening. But, it hardly changed the world even if it did save some people quite a bit of money.
PS: I suspect people will have the same conversation in 10 years about a company created around 2014 when Whatsapp was sold.
Over 1 Billion users.
According to wiki: According to the Financial Times, WhatsApp "has done to SMS on mobile phones what Skype did to international calling on landlines."[167]
Seems pretty world changing in terms of providing a core communication service to 1/7 of the human population
According to wiki: According to the Financial Times, WhatsApp "has done to SMS on mobile phones what Skype did to international calling on landlines."[167]
Seems pretty world changing in terms of providing a core communication service to 1/7 of the human population
Previously there wasn't a WhatsApp app, and now there is! World changed. :)
Right. Messaging apps like Twitter didn't change the world.
I didn't target Twitter or WhatsApp or any other app. Sure, some did. But most of the startups that say they "change the world" use the phrase very casually.
President @realDonaldTrump would beg to differ.
I think one thing is disruption the other is unprofitable disruption. Newer better ways of doing things is great. The problem is when Uber & Amazon disrupt the old ways with cheap capital and unprofitable prices. Once the old shops/taxis have died they can raise prices. That isn't fair.
This is just the normal lifecycle of the internet or just humans in general. We loved the word disruption a couple of years ago, and now there's a shift to hate it. We loved apps, now we hate them. We loved IoT now nobody talks about it. Deep/Machine learning is all the rage.
The original brainstorm/paper for Amazon was "the everything store." He started with books and planned to expand in to everything... so yea he actually did set out to disrupt the whole industry.
Is it the fact that they don't say what they're thinking? Or that they didn't "honestly think" their companies would disrupt industries?
Is it the fact that they don't say what they're thinking? Or that they didn't "honestly think" their companies would disrupt industries?
VC's respond to marketing. Founders use advertising language. Engineers annoyed.
Words mean things, but words also have a context. execute means something different to a programmer than it does to a death row inmate. It's nice to imagine a world where there is only one true language that is sufficient for every case, but that's wrong.
Words mean things, but words also have a context. execute means something different to a programmer than it does to a death row inmate. It's nice to imagine a world where there is only one true language that is sufficient for every case, but that's wrong.
> Ex Googler says founders need to stop using the word disruption
i'm a bit unclear on the relevance of 'ex googler'. apparently the author of the wired article was once employed by google, but that doesn't seem germane to the piece.
edit: looks like the title was updated.
i'm a bit unclear on the relevance of 'ex googler'. apparently the author of the wired article was once employed by google, but that doesn't seem germane to the piece.
edit: looks like the title was updated.
Where is the bar for disruption? The timeline they give is "years if not decades" which to me says the bar is really high. But there is such a thing as local disruption which can be a good thing and the bar for that is lower than Earth shattering disruption.
While I agree we should stop using this in marketing copy, I think they are useful to use as aspirational internal goals.
They give software engineers, designers, and product owners something to aspire to. Which is a good thing.
While I agree we should stop using this in marketing copy, I think they are useful to use as aspirational internal goals.
They give software engineers, designers, and product owners something to aspire to. Which is a good thing.
From the article:
>These founders who actually have disrupted industries and markets were not grandiose when they started out.
They did not appear grandiose from the outside. But the founders were very ambitious. With Newmark as an exception among the mentioned examples.
>These founders who actually have disrupted industries and markets were not grandiose when they started out.
They did not appear grandiose from the outside. But the founders were very ambitious. With Newmark as an exception among the mentioned examples.
The main thing that needs disruption right now is conglomeration.
Can we stop using all the buzzwords? It will improve synergy.
That's not the title of the article at all.
It's been fixed. Original HN title: "Ex Googler says founders need to stop using the word disruption" has been updated to match the article title.
The sentence comes from the article and summarizes it pretty well.
Please don't put all companies in the same basket.
There's a big difference between Instagram and Google.
There's a big difference between Instagram and Google.
Facebook and Google make most of their money from ads. That's a big similarity. I'd even say that they are each others biggest competitor.
Their business model has NOTHING to do with the legitimacy of a "disruption" claim.
In many senses, "disruptive" simply means "a greater share of revenue goes to the shareholders". This allows "disruptive" companies to win in price-competitive markets, but it has the side effect of consolidating economic wins in single layer of the economy at a macro level. Advances in capital finance without accompanying advances in worker protections led to this; but again, thanks to the population mentioned above, there's not exactly a worker shortage and thus no pressure for worker protections from the political class.