I fall on that interesting article about another model of disruption, orthogonal to the famous Uberization.
http://www.merkapt.com/entrepr…admap-to-disruption-11658
Uberization is described so :
How does it develop: Powerful companies invest all their resources maintaining a form of monopoly, and extract revenues of position from a market, this market rapidly get mistreated and hurt. This usually involves a specific form of proprietary asset (or plain laws in some cases), that are used to lock customers in. In such a case, nimble and aggressive ventures have an easy time swooping in, leveraging generic platform technologies, such as mobile, geolocalization, digital payment, Google, Amazon or Facebook… to take on the incumbent and beat him on his key added value.
...
It is quite “safe” to go and try uberize an incumbent. To rephrase what I already said:
- His customers hate him and are ready to switch in a blink of an eye;
- He got bad at delivering his own added value;
- Generic platform technologies can be 80% of your back-office, if you manage to focus on user experience and bring back delight to the market.
This is why “uberization” gets so much press coverage at the moment. It feels like everyone and her grand-mother could be the next Uber. And that’s the case, to some extent.
However this is not the only model of disruption.
An orthogonal model is the Teslaization, which keep the business model unlike Uberization, but introduce really new technology unlike uberization.
Quote
How does it develop: Any company leveraging a technological asset, may be faced with a tremendously powerful competitor surging from a totally different market. This competitor will have a much better technology, initially built for an entirely different purpose. It just happens that it’s a cost effective pivot of their core business.
The also talk of "disruption" "by-the-book", which is both a business model and a technology change... The author says it is not so realist, and real case don't pile up both kind of disruption, by business model and by technology :
This is interesting in the context of LENr, as LENR have a full potential to disrupt the technology, and the market, by it's characteristics.
But maybe is it easier to disrupt one direction at a time...
By addressing old markets needs with a new technology (Teslaization) that will wash the old energy incumbent...
Then, and probably very quickly, Uberization will kill those new incumbent of LENR energy who will have abused their position...
Or maybe LENR is so easily disruptive for technology (cheap, clean,simple) and for business model (local, autonomous, dense), that the two targets may be followed at the same time? Is it Hubris to think about it?
I like the conclusion :
QuoteThe key point of all this, is that in the end, whether you are a fully developed industrial business, or the flicker of a startup idea, not taking enough risk is too much of a risk.
