Two things. As much as I don't like the idea of incumbents using their weight to protect against innovative competition, is this not just the nature of a strategic view of competitive advantage? I mean, it's not nice, but it seems like strategy 101 to bolster barriers to entry to protect against new entrants. Without these barriers being possible, incumbents would presumably create barriers in a different manner (through acquisition etc)? It's not like massive incumbents will whither and die because they can't encourage legislation to be adopted, it's just a currently effective strategy.
Secondly, a semantic point, it talks about 'disruptive innovations', but surely the key characteristics of disruptive innovations, at least in the sense that Christensen described them, is that incumbents either don't see the value in them or else the product targets a segment with a low-performance product that incumbents don't see the threat of.
Tesla and Uber don't seem to fit this bill for me, they seem more like maybe sustaining and radical innovations, respectively, and I don't think existing value networks will be affected. They seem like they're just segmenting and differentiating to me. I can't see everybody driving around in Tesla-type cars bought in manufacturer-owned dealerships in 20 years, say, because as the article says itself, it only suits "innovative manufacturers like Tesla and Fisker that only have a very few number of models and who want to locate in high-traffic areas".
> As much as I don't like the idea of incumbents using their weight to protect against innovative competition, is this not just the nature of a strategic view of competitive advantage?
Yes. What is wrong is that the government shouldn't be helpping them.
Secondly, a semantic point, it talks about 'disruptive innovations', but surely the key characteristics of disruptive innovations, at least in the sense that Christensen described them, is that incumbents either don't see the value in them or else the product targets a segment with a low-performance product that incumbents don't see the threat of.
Tesla and Uber don't seem to fit this bill for me, they seem more like maybe sustaining and radical innovations, respectively, and I don't think existing value networks will be affected. They seem like they're just segmenting and differentiating to me. I can't see everybody driving around in Tesla-type cars bought in manufacturer-owned dealerships in 20 years, say, because as the article says itself, it only suits "innovative manufacturers like Tesla and Fisker that only have a very few number of models and who want to locate in high-traffic areas".
I don't think it's disruptive.