Nanotech pundits often fasten on to the phrase disruptive technology when discussing the effects of nanotechnology. John C. Dvorak in PC Magazine has a different view claiming that the concept of disruptive technology goes to the top of my list as the biggest crock of the new millennium.
Dvorak prefers James Burke‘s explanation for disruption. When there is true disruption, it comes from inventions, regulatory and social change, complementary technologies, coincidence, and demand. which is perhaps more relevant to the current situation in nanotech than Clayton Christensens concept of low-performance, less expensive technology that enters a heated-up scene where the established technology is outpacing people’s ability to adapt to it. The new technology gains a foothold, continues to improve, and then bumps the older, once-better technology into oblivion.
Taking issue with this idea, Dvorak argues that there is not one example of a real disruptive technology. One could almost make an argument for Linux as a disruptive technology. It’s free, so that helps. But what is it disrupting? Microsoft? In 1992, when Linux was invented, Microsoft had about $2.2 billion in the bank. Now Microsoft has over $70 billion in the bank and continues to grow. Some disruption.
Now that is out of our systems, let’s get onto the business of incremental or enabling technologies…