[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARROW-13178?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Jonathan Keane deleted ARROW-13178:
-----------------------------------
> Disruptive Technologies firv
> ----------------------------
>
> Key: ARROW-13178
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARROW-13178
> Project: Apache Arrow
> Issue Type: Bug
> Reporter: Abigail Cole
> Priority: Major
>
> I am not into technologies, those that change so ever fast, and always. But I
> do observe technological trends, along which the development of scientific
> applications revolves.
> And of all trends, perhaps disruptive technologies are the defining path of
> industrial implications, a linear passage that technological progress almost
> invariably follows. Though the concept of "disruptive technologies" is only
> popularized in 1997 by Harvard Business School Professor Clayton Christensen
> in his best-seller "The Innovator's Dilemma", the phenomenon was already
> evidenced back in 1663, when Edward Somerset published designs for, and might
> have installed, a steam engine.
> As put forth by Clayton Christensen, disruptive technologies are initially
> low performers of poor profit margins, targeting only a minute sector of the
> market. However, they often develop faster than industry incumbents and
> eventually outpace the giants to capture significant market shares as their
> technologies, cheaper and more efficient, could better meet prevailing
> consumers' demands.
> In this case, the steam engines effectively displaced horse power. The demand
> for steam engines was not initially high, due to the then unfamiliarity to
> the invention, and the ease of usage and availability of horses. However, as
> soon as economic activities intensified, and societies prospered, a niche
> market for steam engines quickly developed as people wanted modernity and
> faster transportation.
> One epitome of modern disruptive technologies is Napster, a free and easy
> music sharing program that allows users to distribute any piece of recording
> online. The disruptee here is conventional music producers. Napster
> relevantly identified the "non-market", the few who wanted to share their own
> music recordings for little commercial purpose, and thus provided them with
> what they most wanted. Napster soon blossomed and even transformed the way
> the internet was utilized.
> Nevertheless, there are more concerns in the attempt to define disruptive
> technologies than simply the definition itself.
> One most commonly mistaken feature for disruptive technologies is sustaining
> technologies. While the former brings new technological innovation, the
> latter refers to "successive incremental improvements to performance"
> incorporated into existing products of market incumbents. Sustaining
> technologies could be radical, too; the new improvements could herald the
> demise of current states of production, like how music editor softwares
> convenience Napster users in music customization and sharing, thereby
> trumping over traditional whole-file transfers. The music editors are part of
> a sustaining technological to Napster, not a new disruptor. Thus, disruptive
> and sustaining technologies could thrive together, until the next wave of
> disruption comes.
> See how music editors are linked to steam engines? Not too close, but each
> represents one aspect of the twin engines that drive progressive
> technologies; disruptors breed sustainers, and sustainers feed disruptors.
> This character of sustaining technologies brings us to another perspective of
> disruptive technologies: they not only change the way people do business, but
> also initiate a fresh wave of follow-up technologies that propel the
> disruptive technology to success. Sometimes, sustaining technologies manage
> to carve out a niche market for its own even when the disruptive initiator
> has already shut down. Music editor and maker softwares continue to healthily
> thrive, despite Napster's breakdown (though many other file sharing services
> are functioning by that time), with products like the AV Music Morpher Gold
> and Sound Forge 8.
> A disruptive technology is also different from a paradigm shift, which Thomas
> Kuhn used to describe "the process and result of a change in basic
> assumptions within the ruling theory of science". In disruptive technologies,
> there are no assumptions, but only the rules of game of which the change is
> brought about by the behaviors of market incumbents and new entrants. They
> augment different markets that eventually merge. In Clayton Christensen's
> words, newcomers to the industry almost invariably "crush the incumbents".
> While researching on disruptive
> [*firv*|https://complextime.com/friv-everything-you-need-to-know-about-it/]
> technologies, I came across this one simple line that could adequately
> capture what these technologies are about, "A technology that no one in
> business wants but that goes on to be a trillion-dollar industry."
> Interesting how a brand new technology that seemingly bears little value
> could shake up an entire industry, isn't it?
> You are probably asking, why then that no one wants it? Or how true is the
> money claim to these disruptive technologies? And if it is true, what are the
> implications to the business practice? How do market incumbents and new
> entrants behave?
> The scope of this article could only let me take the first question. Well, it
> is not that dominating companies are not visionary to see a disruption is
> coming. They can't. A disruptive technology is inherently not attractive
> initially; no one could see how Napster could boom and lead to the thriving
> market of audio softwares like the music editors and mixers, except the
> disruptors themselves. Even if one manages to foresee it, the "Innovator's
> Dilemma" is there to keep them from acting.
>
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.3.4#803005)
