

Ripe for Disruption - biscarch
http://christopherbiscardi.github.com/blog//openstartup/2012/11/14/ripe-for-fucking-disruption.html

======
dkokelley
Is anyone else a little upset to see that the "use 'fucking' in your title to
get to the front page" tactic is still working? I understand that 'fucking' is
in the original submission, but I really can't understand how a small
4-paragraph rant (by the author's own admission) makes it to the front page in
<20 minutes except for the fact that HN seems to love the word 'fucking'.

[flash edit] I mean no disrespect to the author and the point he makes with
the article.

~~~
biscarch
Author here. No offense taken. For the record "fucking" wasn't included for
front page-ness, I felt it appropriately conveyed my feelings on the topic.

------
mvkel
Hey "brah"

There are indeed industries that are more ripe for disruption than others.

Count the amount of years it's been since there was true innovation in an
industry. If it's over 10, it's ripe. If it's less than 10, it's not.

In other words, if the barrier to entry is extremely high due to constant
innovation, it will be very difficult to disrupt, hence not "ripe" for
disruption.

Additionally, you need to consider the capital investment required to enter a
market.

Starting a car company: incredibly expensive, thus, the auto industry is not
ripe for disruption.

Starting a higher ed tech company: small competitive landscape, potentially
cheap entry into the market. Ripe for disruption.

P.S. Not sure if you noticed, but your hat's crooked.

~~~
herval
> Starting a car company: incredibly expensive, thus, the auto industry is not
> ripe for disruption.

You can't simply label something "not ripe for disruption" just because it's
expensive to do so. Why would an opportunity have to be cheap in order to be
"ripe"?

~~~
mvkel
It was more of a corollary to the previous point, not the sole reason per se.

------
polemic
Disagree.

Simply "doing something better" is not disruption - that's just business as
usual. Disruption is radical change through technological innovation. The
author seems to think that all industries are equality ready for that sort of
shift.

I'd argue that Facebook didn't disrupt social media: it just overhauled
MySpace/Bebo and expanded the online advertising "disruption" instigated by
Google. eBay and Amazon disrupted the retail shopping industry, but building a
better eCommerce site isn't more disruption.

There is also the question of how easily radical change _can_ disrupt an
industry. Weapons manufacturing could, for all I know, be swathed in
unnecessary beaurocracy and be mired in ancient technology, outdated processes
and unnecessary overheads. But it's fair to say that the industry is unlikely
to be 'ripe' for anything without some sort of monumental policy changes at
government levels. The exception that proves the point is the space industry:
a shift of government policy lead to actual disruption by SpaceX.

------
owenjones
Hard to hear the message over all the brogrammin' going down.

------
citricsquid
This blogs design is "ripe for disruption".

~~~
biscarch
I was waiting for this comment to show up. I agree completely and am choosing
to spend my time on other projects.

------
pwniekins
How is this crap front page?

------
saraid216
That's not true. Most people who say that an industry is ripe for disruption
have no clue how to disrupt it other than invoking magic fairy dust ("All you
have to do is solve X!"). They're not talking about "ripeness"; they're
talking about the amount of pain undergone by those interacting with the
industry.

