Dr.Peter H. Diamandis is a Greek American engineer, physician, and entrepreneur best known for being the founder and chairman of the X PRIZE Foundation, the co-founder and chairman of Singularity University and the co-author of the New York Times bestseller Abundance: The Future Is Better Than You Think.
I often say that businesses must disrupt themselves (before someone else does) to survive.
The fact of the matter is: very few companies have actually successfully disrupted themselves.
Instead, most successful companies “disrupt adjacencies”: they leverage their existing assets to expand into new, high growth markets. They actually disrupt someone else!
Let’s start with a few disruption examples.
FACEBOOK Disrupts SMS MESSAGING: Facebook decided to disrupt SMS messaging with the launch of Messenger. Because Facebook is a platform, they have been able to garner 700M monthly active users globally – driving a projected 38% decline in Telco SMS revenue in North America by 2017.
TESLA Disrupts ENERGY STORAGE: Tesla, an electric car company, is disrupting energy storage with the Tesla Powerwall. They used the technology developed for their cars to branch into this new ($19 billion) market.
GOOGLE disrupts MOBILE PHONES: Google is an Internet search company, but in 2008, Google got into the phone/hardware business, shipping Android and beginning the disruption of mobile operating systems. Android currently commands an astounding 82.8% market share.
Continue reading Can a company actually disrupt itself?
Over the past two centuries or so, capitalism has undergone continual change – economic cycles that lurch from boom to bust – and has always emerged transformed and strengthened. Surveying this turbulent history, journalist and Channel 4 economics news editor Paul Mason wonders whether this time capitalism itself has reached its limits and is changing into something wholly new.
At the heart of this change is information technology: a revolution that has the potential to reshape utterly our familiar notions of work, production and value; and to destroy an economy based on markets and private ownership. Almost unnoticed, in the niches and hollows of the market system, whole swathes of economic life are changing. Goods and services that no longer respond to the dictates of neoliberalism are appearing, from parallel currencies and time banks, to cooperatives and self-managed online spaces. Vast numbers of people are changing their behaviour, discovering new forms of ownership, lending and doing business that are distinct from, and contrary to, the current system of state-backed corporate capitalism.
This talk was organised by and recorded at the RSA.
The orignal article was posted in Social Europe Journal, click on
Dr. John Psarouthakis, Executive Editor.www.BusinessThinker.com.
Founder and Managing Director, www.jpmcenter.com
We all know that if we confiscate the entire 2014 earnings of the highest earners and sent it to Washington, you would solve almost nothing in Washington. Most of us, I hope, understand furthermore that pulling the One Percent’s wealth away from the capitalist funnel that feeds our economy would be worse than solving nothing; it would be a serious problem. This plan would, on the other hand, goad the very top layer of American wealth to do everything in its power to grow the economic pie.
I first thought of the plan applying to any person or entity with taxable income of $1 million a year or more. That was partly because a million dollars is certainly a nice income—but also because it’s an easy figure with which to work in sorting out numerical concepts. A $1-million cutoff would apply to an army of CEOs and business owners, but also to several battalions of quarterbacks, pitchers, power forwards, rock guitar players, actors, and media performers or executives. Applying the plan to the entire One Percent would cover any household making roughly $506,000 and up. Maybe the plan could be modified and applied effectively to affluent but somewhat lower pay grades. I don’t know. Economists and tax experts and actuaries and mathematicians who are whizzes with algorithms—lots of people need to have a go at fine-tuning and improving what I will call here “Economic Growth Corporations.”
These Economic Growth Corporations (EGCs) would not be think tanks, or advisory panels, or bureaucracies whose public benefit can be measured only via the most imaginative statistics. EGCs would be chartered to grow the economy in fact, not in theory and not as mere demonstration projects. EGCs would jumpstart our economic engine in ways numerous schemes, from “enterprise zones” to your town’s tax-abated industrial park, have never done.
Continue reading Instead of soaking the rich, create some new riches