[ 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)