Now somebody might break that already loose relationship.



John C. Dvorak, a very reputed columnist, fervently argues that there is no Clay Christensen disruptive technology in its very own coined definition: disruptive technologies are low performers, “less expensive technologies that enter a heated scene where the established technology is outpacing people's ability to adapt to it”.

Is my music editors – steam engines connection invalid then, as there is no disruptive, let alone sustaining, technology? I thought so. Yes, I thought so, as in his paper, Dvorak rebukes so persuasively all purported disruptive technologies: the microcomputers are not cheaper than the minicomputers, and neither do internet sales supplant bookstores. His points are convincing, covering even the titans among the believed disruptive technologies of digital photography and Linux.

But I think again, “independently”. And let me re-affirm with you that despite the distant connection, music editors and steam engines are indeed parts of the twin aspects of technology, disruptive and sustaining.

Microcomputers were not cheaper, because the smaller-sized disks were more expensive. However, microcomputers were not the disruptive technology. It is the smaller-sized disk drives. When the sustaining technology of cost-saving capacity improvement came, the disruptive technology of smaller-sized drives truly took over as they achieved the same price points as larger-sized drives. The smaller-sized drives are thus cheaper in utility terms. Isn't it now a disruptor?

Internet sales, on the other hand, might not outperform bookstores yet. But even that fits into the definition of a disruptive technology: it is an initial low performer. That internet sales would exceed bookstore revenues, especially when there are more credit card holders than ever nowadays, seems a good bet.

Thus, in similar arguments, it is fair to state that perhaps the conclusion that Linux and digital photography not being disruptive technologies is somewhat untimely. And who knows if digital photography is not cheaper because it can't be cheaper or because it is so in demand its economic price can't be lower?

If you are not yet convinced, Napster and VoIP technologies will make you. They fit into every aspect of Clay Christensen's definition of disruptive technologies.

Napster was inferior, it was sued for copyrights violation and eventually shut down. But this first peer-to-peer music sharing program was not only cheaper (in fact, users only needed to pay for their internet access and the music editors if they wish to morph the songs before sharing) than what conventional music producers offer, but also quickly revolutionized the way people listen to music (so quickly that it had to be shut down as the then legal framework had yet to accommodate its form). Napster is non-existent now. But its variants are growing strong. And the sustaining industry of music editor softwares has carved out a niche market for its own. This is typical of a disruptive technology, one that not only changes the way things are, but also brings on other flows of goods and services.

In addition, Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) is another epitome of disruptive technologies. Telephony is getting cheaper, but VoIP is free (except for the internet access). And VoIP boasts efficient pioneers the like of Skype and Vonage that threaten to outdate traditional telephony practices. In fact, telecommunication services have become so complex consumers could not fully utilize their functions, thus turning to simpler services and paying only for what is relevant to their needs. That is how Sweden's Comviq has seized 39% of the market from the incumbent Telia by offering half as many handset features and simpler pricing plans. But telecommunications will soon be free; VoIP will soon disrupt even the like of Comviq. And the sustainers that will keep VoIP evolving will be the class of voice changer softwares and cheaper and faster internet connection.

Ala, my music editors and steam engines are still related.