Hacker News new | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Most of the time, "disrupt" is a euphemism for "put a Web 2.0 interface on". You're not disrupting shit, you're putting whitewash on a shoddily-cobbled-together product that other people have been doing better for decades. It's all style and no substance.

If you're doing something new, you'll probably own the industry just by virtue of being there first. But you'll also probably not grow to be super-huge, because if you were solving a huge problem, it probably would have been solved already.

The exception to this is when the problem is huge, but the technology wasn't there to solve it before: see search (Google), social media (Facebook), mobile apps (Uber). And even then the conditions need to be just right (an app for calling cabs would probably not have been nearly as successful if it didn't coincide with a legal loophole that allows them to undercut the taxi industry).

But most ideas aren't those ideas. And that's okay. A business that solves a real problem, even if it isn't a huge problem, will likely be able to stay alive, profit, and grow just fine. Those "disrupting" companies that are all style and no substance will crash and burn when the tech bubble pops.




Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: