What does self-disruption look like?

Datetime:2016-08-23 02:06:00          Topic: OpenStack           Share

Yeah, sure – it looks like leaning into the flash media transition (2016 is the year of all-flash for transactional workloads), but someone who does this isn’t really “disrupting themselves”, they are “not being silly”.   BTW – I don’t want to minimize this – it’s a far larger immediate customer impact than many other things that are more “disruptive”.

Sure – it looks like leaning into HCI (more on thathere) – but likewise, while it’s early (and much smaller market that CI) – it’s obvious about the growth trajectory shows that customers want more simplicity, want operational complexity removed, and are willing to make some trade-offs to make that happen.   Again – important, all over it, but not fundamentally “disruptive” (not at least at this point anymore).   It’s in the other phase – disruption in flight, and scaling up :-)

I’ll tell you what I think early stage self-disruption looks like.

I love a comment in response to the video: “Custom 200 watt Xeon CPU? 400 watt per node? Either that is crazy or I heard wrong :D”

Now, each of these is furiously contested (trust me – I often find myself in the middle :-) with people passionately/furiously arguing for, and against each - but that’s the essence of self-disruption.  

Inside, I get people saying “this isn’t relevant” or “this doesn’t align with the strategy”, or “this isn’t material to revenue” – to which I respond “that’s what self-disruption looks like and feels like in early stages”. 

Will some not pan out?  Sure.   That’s OK.   The fact that they exist (always with small teams, working hard, pushing against “inertia”) is a health sign of self-disruption.





About List