John C. Dvorak seems to exist solely to show just how little he understands about technology and business these days. His latest piece points to a few bad examples of what might be disruptive technologies and then claims there's simply no such thing as a disruptive technology, as described by Clayton Christensen. It appears Dvorak has never actually read Christensen's books, but assumes he knows what they're about after hearing Christensen say the idea of disruptive technologies came to him while watching how DEC failed. Maybe the problem is that, like others before him, Dvorak misreads "disruptive" and assumes there needs to be a "big bang" (he mentions the atom bomb as being disruptive), when the truth is "disruptive technologies" are really "straight, boring technologies. In the meantime, I'd suggest that Dvorak take a look at VoIP and camera phones, but it appears he's already trashed camera phones for not being good enough (the first sign of someone who doesn't understand disruptive technologies) and while he seems to like VoIP and admit that it's the "future of telephony," it never occurs to him that it's disruptive.
If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...
- Xbox, PS4 Games Hitting Swearing Gamers With Technical Fouls
- A Tour Through The Bizarre Mind Of An NSA Defender: Discrediting Activists By Using Their Porn Surfing Is Just Like Journalism!
- If You Don't Care About The NSA Because You 'Haven't Done Anything Wrong,' You're Wrong
- Ft. Worth Police Department Offers *Real* Apology For Its Assistance In The NHTSA's Blood/Saliva Sampling 'Survey'
- Former NSA Lawer Stewart Baker: FISA Minimization Policies Are To Blame For 9/11 Attacks