Incremental vs Disruptive Innovation
Why the Breakthrough You're Waiting For Is Probably Already Here
The most transformative technologies in history didn't arrive with fanfare — they arrived looking embarrassingly modest.
The Idea
There's a seductive story we tell about innovation: a lone genius has a eureka moment, and the world changes overnight. The reality is almost the opposite, and understanding why makes you much better at spotting what actually matters. Clayton Christensen, the Harvard professor who shaped how we think about this, drew a sharp line between two types of innovation. Incremental innovation improves something that already works — faster processors, thinner phones, better battery life. It's valuable, often profitable, and deeply satisfying to engineers. Disruptive innovation does something stranger: it starts by being worse on every metric that currently matters, but it's cheaper, simpler, or more accessible in a way that opens up an entirely new group of users. The trap is that disruption almost always looks like a toy at first. Early personal computers couldn't match mainframes. Early streaming video was pixelated and unreliable compared to DVDs. Early electric vehicles had embarrassing range. Measured against the incumbent, the disruptor loses — which is exactly why incumbents ignore it, and exactly why they end up blindsided. What makes this genuinely counterintuitive is that the disruption doesn't happen by getting better at what the old thing did. It happens by redefining what the job is in the first place. The question stops being 'how do we make this faster?' and becomes 'what if the constraint we've all accepted was actually optional?'
In the World
In the late 1990s, Blockbuster was a near-perfect business. It had thousands of stores, a recognisable brand, and a model that reliably extracted late fees — which made up a significant chunk of its revenue. When Netflix arrived in 1998, it wasn't competing with Blockbuster. It was serving a different kind of customer: people who planned their watching in advance, didn't mind waiting a few days for a DVD by post, and were frustrated by the walk to the store. By Blockbuster's metrics, Netflix was a niche curiosity. Blockbuster's leadership actually evaluated acquiring Netflix in 2000 — when Netflix was losing money and had a few hundred thousand subscribers — and passed. The asking price was around a small fortune in relative terms, but the bigger issue was that Blockbuster's executives measured Netflix against their own yardstick and found it wanting. Why would anyone want to wait two days for a film when they could get it tonight? The answer, of course, was that a lot of people didn't actually want it tonight. They wanted convenience, no late fees, and a wider catalogue. By the time Blockbuster understood this, Netflix had already begun its pivot to streaming — a move that, again, initially looked worse than physical media. The company filed for bankruptcy in 2010. Netflix now produces its own films and has over 300 million subscribers worldwide. What Blockbuster missed wasn't the technology. It was the question underneath the technology: what do people actually want from this service?
Why It Matters
Knowing this distinction changes how you read the news about new technology. The next time something launches and critics say it's 'not as good' as what already exists, that's worth pausing on. Not good in what way? For whom? Under what conditions? This is also useful for thinking about your own work. Incremental improvements — doing your current job better, faster, more efficiently — are valuable and often rewarded in the short term. But the people who tend to build genuinely new things are the ones asking whether the constraint everyone has accepted is actually necessary. That's a harder, stranger question, and it usually produces something that looks naive at first. The deeper lesson is about humility toward the present moment. We are notoriously bad at seeing which small, awkward, seemingly inferior things today will redefine entire industries in a decade. The framework doesn't give you a crystal ball — but it does give you a different set of questions to ask, which is almost as useful.
A Question to Ponder
What's something in your own life or work that everyone accepts as a constraint — but might actually be optional?
Get a new one of these every morning.
Start learning with Thinkable