I think Eric did a good job demonstrating that the use of "technology" in
"technology startup" is at least ambiguous, if not a straight-up misnomer. But
another ambiguity lies in the word "startup". My company is routinely
misclassified as a startup simply because we're small and have our hands in
some (seemingly) novel pies. But we're just a "boutique" company, which is
decidedly different from the VC-seeking, market-focused, pockets of turbulence
one usually means by "startup".
All this yammering the marketeers do about disruption is red meat for the
audience of the business books section at Barnes & Noble, right next to the
self-help and homeopathy sections. It's not quite nonsense, though. The myth
that any single innovation, linearly drives the market this way or that is
caused and maintained by the same psychological condition that makes us think
Einstein, Newton, Hitler, or whoever was pivotal to the development of mankind.
These Great People were drafted by the collective to play those roles. They
were not causative, isolated, instances.
The same is true of any other technological advance from beer brewing to germ
theory to the iphone.
On 10/17/2016 08:29 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> If you ARE (factual) or WERE (counter-factual) a technology startup, do you
> (would you) advertise yourself as a disruptor? What would the promotional
> THEORY behind doing so? What market share would you be hoping to capture.
> What would be the business model?
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com