Why the Next Big Thing Will Probably Look Like a “Bad” Idea скачать в хорошем качестве

Why the Next Big Thing Will Probably Look Like a “Bad” Idea

Scott D. Anthony unpack the Christensen “Line Diagram” that explains why smart leaders dismiss the very innovations that will eventually replace them. https://thethursdaythought.substack.c... If I were to ask you to define “innovation,” your mind would likely jump to “improvement.” You might picture a sharper camera, a faster processor, or a battery that lasts two days instead of one. We are conditioned to believe that innovation is a linear march upward. Better, faster, stronger. But as our guest on the latest episode of The Innovation Show, Scott D. Anthony, points out, this definition is dangerous. It traps us in a cycle of “Sustaining Innovation” while blinding us to the real threat (and opportunity): “Disruptive Innovation.” In his new book, Epic Disruptions, Scott explores 11 innovations that shaped our modern world. But during our conversation, we stopped to double-click on one specific concept—a mental model from the late, great Clay Christensen—that explains why true disruption almost always looks like a step backward. The Trap of “Better” Scott describes a famous “line diagram” that first appeared in 1995. It maps performance against time. In this model, Sustaining Innovation moves you along an established trajectory. It takes what already exists and makes it better for your best customers. Example: The move from the iPhone 16 to the iPhone 17. It is a marvel of engineering, but it is fundamentally doing the same job, just slightly better . Disruptive Innovation is different. It doesn’t just improve performance; it redefines it. And here is the counterintuitive part that trips up incumbents: To the market leader, a disruptive innovation often looks like a bad product. In the diagram, a disruptive innovation actually starts with lower performance on the dimensions that historically mattered. The iPhone Paradox We tend to look back at the 2007 iPhone launch as a moment of instant perfection. We imagine Steve Jobs holding up a device that was superior in every way to the Nokias and Blackberries of the day. But Scott reminds us of the reality. By the standards of 2007 computing, the original iPhone was actually... worse. Processing Power: Compared to a laptop or even high-end business phones, it was weak. Battery Life: It was terrible compared to the week-long charge of a dumbphone. Utility: It lacked a physical keyboard, which business users (the serious market) deemed essential. Network: It ran on 2G EDGE networks, which were agonizingly slow. If you were a strategist at Nokia or BlackBerry, you looked at the iPhone and saw a toy. It had “worse performance along the dimensions that they care about”. But the iPhone wasn’t competing on their line. It was competing on a new axis: simplicity, convenience, and accessibility. It made the complicated simple. The “Toy” Phase of History This pattern—dismissing a disruption because it looks inferior—isn’t just a tech phenomenon. In Epic Disruptions, Scott traces this echo through history. Take Gunpowder. When gunpowder first appeared in China, it wasn’t used for war. It was used by alchemists looking for an elixir of life, and then by entertainers for fireworks. It burned with a “soft whomp”—hardly a weapon of mass destruction . Even when it reached the battlefield, early firearms were clumsy, slow to load, and often less effective than a skilled archer. A military leader looking at early gunpowder weapons would have rightfully concluded they were “worse” than a bow and arrow. Until, of course, they improved enough to topple the walls of Constantinople . Or consider The Printing Press. In 1455, a hand-copied Bible by a scribe was a work of art—perfectly illuminated and unique. Gutenberg’s early printed works were rougher. They were “worse” in terms of artistry. But they traded bespoke perfection for scale and speed, eventually democratizing knowledge and fueling the Reformation . The Danger of “Overshoot” Why do incumbents keep falling for this? Scott explains a concept called Overshoot. Companies are incentivized to keep moving up-market, chasing their most profitable and demanding customers. They add feature after feature (more megapixels, more blades on the razor). Eventually, they overshoot the needs of the average user . When a product becomes “too good” (and usually too expensive), it opens the door for a disruptor to come in at the bottom. The disruptor offers a product that is “not as good” as the leader’s, but is “good enough” for the average person—and usually much cheaper or more convenient. What This Means For You If you are a leader, an investor, or a creator, you need to change your lens. When you see a new technology—whether it’s AI, crypto, or a new business model—do not ask: “Is this better than what we have now?” The answer will almost always be no.