On "𝗗𝗶𝘀𝗿𝘂𝗽𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 Innovation" as an Important Theory: 𝗔 𝗗𝗶𝗮𝗹𝗼𝗴𝘂𝗲 𝗼𝗻 𝗜𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗰𝘁𝘂𝗮𝗹 𝗥𝗶𝗴𝗼𝗿
𝗔: "What exactly is so innovative about the 𝗗𝗶𝘀𝗿𝘂𝗽𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗜𝗻𝗻𝗼𝘃𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 idea? You can only attack a market from the high end or the low end. Inevitably, some attacks come from the low end. They start with lower quality and improve as they scale. That is basic mechanics. How is this 'evolutionary'?"
𝗕: "Well, it’s been awarded prizes and compared to the 𝗧𝗵𝗲𝗼𝗿𝘆 𝗼𝗳 𝗘𝘃𝗼𝗹𝘂𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻...by Clayton Christensen himself"
𝗔: "In the same league? Let me give you a Computer Science equivalency. It would be like awarding a grand prize to a paper that says: 'Operating systems have two types: those with a GUI and those without. Future competitors will use a GUI.'"
𝗕: "As opposed to... actual engineering?"
𝗔: "𝗘𝗫𝗔𝗖𝗧𝗟𝗬. Compare that to database researchers using sophisticated algorithms to eke out a 5% improvement in real-time streaming, or theoretical papers with mathematics so complex only a genius can parse them. Awarding 'Disruption' a top academic prize is like giving the 𝗚𝗼𝗹𝗱𝗲𝗻 𝗕𝗼𝗼𝘁 to 𝗦𝗮𝗰𝗵𝗶𝗻 𝗧𝗲𝗻𝗱𝘂𝗹𝗸𝗮𝗿 or the 𝗣𝘂𝗿𝗽𝗹𝗲 𝗖𝗮𝗽 to 𝗟𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗲𝗹 𝗠𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗶. It’s the wrong prize for the wrong game."
𝗕: "Wow. 𝗜. 𝗗𝗜𝗗. 𝗡𝗢𝗧. 𝗞𝗡𝗢𝗪. 𝗜𝗧. 𝗪𝗔𝗦. LIKE. 𝗧𝗛𝗜𝗦. The Emperor has fewer clothes than advertised.