On Apr 30, 2024, at 10:48 PM, Sebastian Moeller <moeller0@gmx.de> wrote:

Hi Frank.

On 1 May 2024 09:27:37 CEST, Frantisek Borsik via Starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
Basically, Eugene, the situation you are describing is calling for a
competitor to disrupt them!

[SM] Not a big fan of the silicon valley nomenclature... 'disruption' evokes thoughts of 'revolutionary' yet what typically happens is rather 'evolutionary' once one looks behind the marketing/hype... and that is not a bad thing, as real revolutions can be quite painful.
That said, sure if the incumbents leave sufficient specialized demand unfulfilled that opens a niche/opportunity for competitors, but that IMHO is one of the core promises of market economies, and nothing that silicon valley created/realized de novo, no?

[EC] I also dislike the term “disruption”. It is just finding a hungry vendor that will fill the (our) need. I like a #3 that is trying to grow. Then if the larger vendor sees our goal is too insignificant to care, the smalller vendor will peel away (insignificant) market share and everyone is happy. If the smaller vendor starts taking away too much market share then the dominant vendor will change. This kind of change is better than talking to a dominant vendor sitting pretty.