Uber And Schumpeter's Concept Of Creative Destruction?

Schumpeter’s concept of creative destruction is rooted in the idea of the future will somehow be related to the present. The cell phones of today are related to the cell phones of the past. We don’t carry them in those highly fashionable bags of the past, but we still use the same basic technology to call other people. We also use them to send many ways to communicate, watch video, access the internet, and take pictures. Today’s cell phone was on the edge of what we thought might be possible 20 years ago. This situation applied to both the adjacent possible and creative destruction. A new more technologically advanced cell phone has been produced and better meets our needs than the previous version.

Christiansen defines a disruptive innovation as a process by which a product or service takes root initially in simple applications at the bottom of a market and then relentlessly moves up market. An example of a disruptive innovation would be community colleges. Community Colleges offer students the opportunity to earn college credits while saving money on tuition compared to rates at a four-year institution. Christiansen argues that Uber is not a disruptive innovation by definition for a couple of reasons. The first is that Uber did not appeal to low-end markets initially like typical disruptor

The main reason was the visualization in the article. Kay discussed how Shah Jahan profited off of the wealth that other people created and did not bring any value. Shah Jahan did not serve the citizens of India. He used the wealth created by the citizens to live a lavish lifestyle and build one of the most beautiful buildings in the world, the Taj Mahal. I picture this building in my head along with all the poor and malnourished Indian’s that built it. Rent-seeking dictators are often over-thrown like Shah Jahan. The idea of rent-seeking was drilled into my