Can a Startup Kill ChatGPT?

Disruption Clayton Christensen defines disruption in his classic book The Innovator's Dilemma. Disruptive technologies are cheaper than existing ones, perform poorly under dominant standards, but are superior in a way existing markets do not need. During his research, new players repeatedly disrupted the market by introducing smaller disk drives wi... See more

I share Professor Clayton Christensen’s consternation about the overuse of the term “disruption.” In this month’s issue of the Harvard Business Review, Christensen and his co-authors Michael Raynor and Rory McDonald write:Disruption theory is in danger of becoming a victim of its own success. Despite broad dissemination, the theory’s core concepts ... See more

Disruption as a strategy sucks If you read Christensen's book and want to start a company, what would you do? Christensen's theory cannot be used to create disruptive companies. While millions of people have read The Innovator's Dilemma, Christensen's theory is descriptive rather than prescriptive. Disruptions are apparent, but you don't know until... See more

When startups consume incumbents, they usually start by serving some small but important market that the big players ignore. 

Note: The prototypical startup advice of ignoring the competitive threat of Big Tech is overrated in my opinion. Unless that company is Google, the other Big Tech companies have shown their ability to ruthlessly copy and destroy startups over the last two decades. The era of Big Tech being unable to execute is over—they are hungry for blood and new... See more

Disruptive innovations have weird metabolisms. They have a cost structure and product-market fit that are alien—even toxic—to incumbents, like blue-green algae eating sunlight and generating oxygen. Incumbent companies can’t adapt to it. It’s not in their DNA.