the best way to improve a scientific theory is to find counterexamples to it. look for outliers to the theory of disruption.
the theory of disruption posits that disrupting technologies cause firms to fail by the very practices that made them strong in the first place: listening to their best customers, and investing in the technologies that are likely to produce the greatest returns.
a sustaining technology enables improved product performance, whereas a disruptive technology enables worse performance but improves a different factor like convenience, simplicity, size, or price.
often, sustaining technologies improve product performance beyond the point of offering true value to the customer. disruptive technologies usually begin by offering value to the low end of customers before improving until they appeal to a general audience.
as a product category matures, the basis of consumer choice shifts from functionality to reliability, then to convenience, and finally to price. (but what is really the distinction between reliability and functionality, or reliability and convenience?) companies need to pay attention to exactly how customers use the product to determine when the basis of competition will change—when performance overshoots customer need.
the innovator's dilemma:
Simply put, when the best firms succeeded, they did so because they listened responsively to their customers and invested aggressively in the technology, products, and manufacturing capabilities that satisfied their customers' next-generation needs. But, paradoxically, when the best firms subsequently failed, it was for the same reasons—they listened responsively to their customers and invested aggressively in the technology, products, and manufacturing capabilities that satisfied their customers' next-generation needs.