Christensen-style disruption sounds rather like Gresham's Law ("bad 
money drives out good"), but I don't think the mechanism is the same: 
one can hoard old silver coins and sell those at a profit for the silver 
content, but there's no premium I know of for better technology -- 
probably because "better technology" seems to imply aesthetics, but 
newer, "lessor technology" is likely to be much faster while using less 
energy.

On 6/28/22 10:41 AM, Clem Cole wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 28, 2022 at 9:15 AM Marc Donner <marc.donner@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>     My perception of the debate at the time was that it pitted
>     proprietary networking (SNA, DECNet, ...) against open networking
>     (TCP/IP).  The hardware vendors wanted proprietary networking to
>     lock customers into their equipment, but that dog would not hunt.
>
> Metcalfe's law: "/value of a network is proportional to the square of 
> the number of connected users of the system/."The problem with a 
> walled garden is that it can only grow as large as the walls allow.
>
>
>     It was pretty clear that except for the clever encapsulation stuff
>     that Vint had done with IP, the TCP/IP world was quick and dirty
>     and quite slapdash.  But it was non-proprietary and that is what
>     won the race.
>
> Point taken, but I actually think it is more of a 
> Christensen-style disruption where the 'lessor technology' outstrips 
> the more sophisticated one because it finds/creates a new market that 
> values that new technology for what it is and cares less about the 
> ways it may be 'lessor.'
>
> I described this in a talk I did at Asilomar a few years back.  This 
> is the most important slide:
> ColesLaw20190222.png
>
> ᐧ