• dustyData@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    4 days ago

    Disruption!

    It actually just means to undercut an existing industry with venture capital, taking on a loss until the existing competition is out-priced out of the market. Then once a monopoly is established, tear down quality service, hike up prices, shaft costumers and use the money to pay huge bonuses to the executives. If the company is still profitable afterwards then just recreate the same old industry and competitors but with an iron grip monopoly. If it is not profitable, just sell the company and distribute the dividends amongst the C suite. Rinse and repeat.

    • Aceticon@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      4 days ago

      Actually in the old days a lot of “disruption” was basically removing middlement: for example putting a newspaper online avoids having to pay a commission to the newspaper stand.

      It’s just that in the last 2 decades it’s mostly been Regulatory Avoidance instead of removing middlemen: basically exploiting new technology and a gap in existing legislation to avoid regulation altogether, such as how Uber’s service is not legally a Taxi Service but rather a Driven Rental Car Service because people “book” them rather than physically hailing one on the street and similary AirBnB is not a Hostel, it’s a Short-Term Let Service because of how you have to book upfront.

      You also see a lot of leveraging of Networking Effects and brand name (both anti-competitive Market imperfections, especially the former) to quash small operators without actually delivering significant improvements, for example in food delivery or even Social Media (if you consider normal websites as “small operators”).