"However, these disruptive technologies typically address a new market segment or a set of under-served customers" - I would say "over-served" instead. because disruptive technology starts with customers and segments that are overshot by the continuous improvement of incumbents' products
I think that we can stop this debate about whether innovation will necessarily lead to success (financially) or not. I might have one case to against you. One case in Asia: the biggest online gaming company in Vietnam (and also in South-East Asia) called VNG bought license of one game from the Chinese Kingsoft, rebranded it, customized the UI, distributed in Vietnam and now they have $60M in revenue. The key success factor is that the market is so ripe and so ready for online gaming, and the game VNG sells in VN just "works" for those customers, they keep paying for the company for the virtual goods and monthly subscription. nobody cares the originality of the game.
The innovation doesn't need to occur in product development. The business model, distribution, or any other aspect are also open to new techniques, even when the product is decidedly un-innovative.
Yes, making money is not innovation. Innovative things are usually financially successful, however.
Although I agree about the bad UI part, I still think they're in the process of pivoting and finding early traction, so it's unfair to conclude that they would be a failure (or wish them a "painless death"). Instead let's wait for a couple of months to see what they evolve into, who knows it could turn to something interesting that we'll use everyday
read pick-up materials like "The game", you'll be surprised to learn that even some average people who tried hard to overcome their fear and negative side can become winners (well, in term of winning women), but technically it'll help you more than that, you'll learn how to become alpha, the type of ppl who loves taking risk, like approaching women without the fear of being rejected (just like doing startups). the point is you need to do risky things, challenge yourself, put yourself to the limits, then you'll feel rewarding after all those efforts (doesn't matter much if you fail or not). Hope it helps
tweak your business model, rethink of the who, what, when, where, how, why of your business, like: who else could be interested or benefited from your offers? what when or where does the consumption often take place? Can you shorten the consumption chain? .. questions like these are pretty basic but they might open new opportunities.
I'm a fan of fast execution but I think situation like this requires some times to sit down and think for awhile before doing something next. Read "The ultimate competitive advantage" or "the entrepreneurial mindset", the 1st book introduces a new way to think about competitive advantage, the 2nd book contains lots of great tool-kits for "thinkers" to differentiate their offerings as well as how to stay ahead of your competition, these 2 are complementary. but read "the entrepreneurial mindset" 1st for some tools that can be implemented immediately (like "quizzing", "attribute map", "stratification map" ...)
"I don't fucking want innovation", "You're not smarter than your competitor. Just copy what they do and do it until you get their numbers."
these quotes say it all, what I love from Zynga (put aside the ethical thing) is that they obsessively focus on "action" and "execution", and not "thinking". it matters because action makes the real things HAPPEN, here's why: when someone come and blame them and their whole evil philosophy they can just say that "it just happens. we just happened to build it, users just happened to use it and the company just happened to make revenue. get over it"
You can always say "It happens." I don't really understand your point. "Hey Fred, some $100 bills are missing from my wallet... you haven't seen them, have you? Ya I took em to buy some blow. It happens. Get over it."?
startups that want to disrupt big guys can also use this strategy, find a niche that is overshot by the incumbents, offer them a good enough product, but improve the performance on other dimensions that big guys overlook, then pivot. I think this works for both disruptive product in existing market and new product in new market
Do you think that being proud of someone just because he's your compatriot is rational or irrational?
After all, you just share the same nationality by random chance, therefore isn't it the same as being proud that you were born on the same day of the week as Einstein or that your hair is the same colour as George Washington's?
It's unclear if its rational to be "proud",but I do think it might be rational to be happy about it.
To the extent that people make snap judgments about other people based on race or nationality, it would seem that you'd want people that share your ethnicity or nationality to do well. This likely has a minor increase in people's perception of you.
Likewise, you probably feel shame or unhappiness when the opposite happens. Just look at what being Muslim is like in the US now.
You inspired a related question: is it irrational that I feel proud of the two French people although I'm not French, I just live in France ? Plus, the Vietnamese mathematician has studied and worked in France.
I somehow feel proud that I made a good choice of place to live for now, if that makes any sense.
PS: I noticed they are almost all "outsiders", foreigners that immigrated to Western countries, or locals outside the traditional elite of the Western countries. The point, which is a depressing one, is that mathematics and, more generally, pure science, is an "outsider" activity nowadays.
I'm with you; it makes no sense to me to be proud of an unknown stranger's achievements just because s/he happened to be born within the same borders as you.
I've never understood the swellings of national pride that occur within a country when (for example) one of their citizens wins an Olympic medal; only a handful of people played any part in that achievement, to insinuate yourself amongst them by virtue of these random relationships is almost parasitic.
Likewise, though less on-topic, I have no time for patriotism either. George Bernard Shaw put it best: "Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all others because you were born in it."
If someone feels proud, he/she naturally just got a good moment in life. I guess your question was: Is it rational to identify yourself with an external entity in order to feel good/bad when something happens to this entity. The answer is: In many cases it is perfectly rational. E.g. when people start supporting an old soccer sclub that got a breakout success, old supporters refer to new ones as "gloryhunters".
By the way, I am a gloryhunter here as well. One of the four Fields medalists this year (Stas Smirnov) graduated from the same high school and college as I did.
I've argued with people that this is not only irrational, but wrong. I feel it is exploiting the successes of others to justify your own lack thereof. For another curious perspective on national pride, there's evidence that people use it to offset their horror of their own mortality. (Even if I die, my nation/culture will survive, and being part of it, a part of me will survive)
It's not just sharing the same nationality. It's the sharing of the same culture and and heritage. It's like the town people feeling proud about the Olympic gold medalist from the same town. Just human emotion. Rational or irrational is irrelevant.
I think it is rational to be happy about it for reasons stated in other comments (perception of your country, etc.)
There is another reason though: it shows that your country/culture is a good one in terms of innovation or whatever. This directly reflects on the culture that your are a part of, both in the sense that you're affected by it, and also that you are part of shaping it. So in a way, a win for your culture is a win for you.
I don't really want to defend nationalism, but to play devil's advocate: is it rational to be proud if the company you work for is successful?
In the widest sense, a nation is like a company. You could argue all it's members contribute to making it the place it is. If it brings forth a field medal winner, it might be a result of the favourable conditions you helped creating.
I agree, we all share the same nationalities by random chance. but why spending too much time thinking about the root of the fact that we all feel proud when some people in our country achieve sth phenomenal, it happens everywhere. It's nothing too complicated or rational or irrational, it's just the emotional conenction that everyone has
