Abigail Cole created ARROW-13178:
------------------------------------
Summary: Disruptive Technologies firv
Key: ARROW-13178
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARROW-13178
Project: Apache Arrow
Issue Type: Bug
Reporter: Abigail Cole
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)
