I second that. If you actually read "The Innovator's Dilemma" it defines disruption narrowly as when a start-up overtakes an incumbent with an inferior product that appeals to a new market. If you really want to "disrupt" a company, don't look for problems with the big competitors. Look for potential markets they're ignoring.
But all you start-up people use "disrupt" to describe any competition between start-ups and big business. Worse, you all seem to think start-ups have the advantage, because the incumbents are big and old and you are nimble and young.
Sorry, but history has shown that market leaders will almost always crush you. If you innovate, they will just copy your innovation and throw more marketing dollars behind it. Historically, start-ups only prevail when they reach out to new markets ignored by the competition. Big, successful businesses are totally beholden to their current customers. They can't reach out to new markets without cannibalizing profits of their current product line.
But all you start-up people use "disrupt" to describe any competition between start-ups and big business. Worse, you all seem to think start-ups have the advantage, because the incumbents are big and old and you are nimble and young.
Sorry, but history has shown that market leaders will almost always crush you. If you innovate, they will just copy your innovation and throw more marketing dollars behind it. Historically, start-ups only prevail when they reach out to new markets ignored by the competition. Big, successful businesses are totally beholden to their current customers. They can't reach out to new markets without cannibalizing profits of their current product line.