First off, let me say that I want someone to please counter my argument. I have been unable to see a valid counterargument so far.
I've thought about this quite a bit, anytime I see someone use the phrase 'disrupt an established company,' I assume they're talking about barely skirting the law through the use of hazy, gray areas. And an app.
The only 'innovation' in (most of) these companies is the same 'innovation' that this site screams about when it's on the part of patent trolls; I will do X, but now I will do X with a smart phone or computer. That's not innovative, it's lazy.
It would be super easy for giant companies to meet the same prices if they were able to ignore laws. That's not competition, it's cheating.
I've thought about this quite a bit, anytime I see someone use the phrase 'disrupt an established company,' I assume they're talking about barely skirting the law through the use of hazy, gray areas. And an app.
The only 'innovation' in (most of) these companies is the same 'innovation' that this site screams about when it's on the part of patent trolls; I will do X, but now I will do X with a smart phone or computer. That's not innovative, it's lazy.
It would be super easy for giant companies to meet the same prices if they were able to ignore laws. That's not competition, it's cheating.