> disrupt an industry that desperately needs it.

Why is the primary tech people impulse to disrupt, destroy and harm other industries? Maybe that is why we dont produce useful tech anymore. The primary impulse is always hostile, rarely something like "lets create and sell a useful thing for them".

> adopt emerging technology when it comes into play (like for example when the Internet came into play) and use it to start your own company, or make yourself more productive,

Funny, the strategy of creating a company entirely dependent on mercy of another company, vulnerable to destruction with any simple change in TOS has been criticized on HN previously.

▲

try_the_bass 20 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> Why is the primary tech people impulse to disrupt, destroy and harm other industries? Maybe that is why we dont produce useful tech anymore. The primary impulse is always hostile, rarely something like "lets create and sell a useful thing for them".

I think you misunderstand what disruption means in this context? Disruption means pursuing the same market as some incumbents, with the express goal of serving that market better/faster/more efficiently.

The impulse is hostile to the incumbents, but (in principle) good for the market: the market is getting competition, and competition is one way to make things cheaper/better/etc.

Obviously what this looks like varies by market, but the principle is very different from how you're presenting it

▲

satvikpendem a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Sometimes the other industries are just bad, like Uber for taxis or Airbnb for hotels. Now the disrupted industries have gotten somewhat better but only due to competition.

And disruption doesn't always mean destruction, it's just a word that is used, not to necessarily be taken literally.

▲

watwut 21 hours ago | parent [-]

Hotels did not got better. They are about the same. Uber sold rides under pruce for years and then pushed expensis on deivers.

In my city, Uber is just like any other taxi company.

>;And disruption doesn't always mean destruction, it's just a word that is used, not to necessarily be taken literally.

It means exactly that tho. When tech people talk about disruption, they dont talk about creating better products, they are not interested in what the rest of the world needs or want. When tech people talk about disruption, focus is alwas on, well, disruption as a goal on itself.

It is never mutual prosperity vision, it is about using VC money to create monopoly and then raising prices to milk the situation to the max.

We dont even see articles about how to make more useful products on HN. Nor about how to solve real world problems. We, as a culture, just dont do that.

	▲	satvikpendem 20 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I'd rather take an Uber, with an app and no tip or meter without redzoning than any taxi, same with Airbnb and having a full kitchen everywhere I go. So the disruption was in fact good for many facets of society. It is useful, otherwise so many would not, well, use it.

▲

randysalami a day ago | parent | prev [-]

I see your comment is not popular but I agree. I think it’s because it’s easier to take value than it is to create it from scratch. One requires empathy, creativity, the other only requires greed. Or maybe it is a zero-sum game.