A Quote by Ryan Holmes

Social media is the most disruptive form of communication humankind has seen since the last disruptive form of communications, email. — © Ryan Holmes
Social media is the most disruptive form of communication humankind has seen since the last disruptive form of communications, email.
The principles of disruptive innovation are indeed intended to be guidelines to assist managers both in introducing disruptive innovations as well as identifying disruptive developments in their market.
Transparency may be the most disruptive and far-reaching innovation to come out of social media.
'Instagram' is a media company. I think we're about visual media. I explain ourselves as a disruptive entertainment platform that enables communication through visual media. I don't think it's just photos.
If a company truly wants to resolve the innovator's dilemma, it does need to be able to create wave after wave of disruptive innovation. And those disruptive innovations will typically grow to the point where they do cause some pain for leading companies. But most disruptive innovations create substantial new growth before they cause that pain.
Companies, in fact, are specifically organized to under-invest in disruptive innovations! This is one reason why we often suggest that companies set up separate teams or groups to commercialize disruptive innovations. When disruptive innovations have to fight with other innovations for resources, they tend to lose out.
I don't think that a Singularity would be visible to those going through one. Even the most disruptive changes are not universally or immediately distributed, and late followers learn from the reactions and dilemmas of those who had initially encountered the disruptive change.
The reason why it is so difficult for existing firms to capitalize on disruptive innovations is that their processes and their business model that make them good at the existing business actually make them bad at competing for the disruption. Companies in fact are specifically organized to under-invest in disruptive innovations! This is one reason why we often suggest that companies set up separate teams or groups to commercialize disruptive innovations. When disruptive innovations have to fight with other innovations for resources, they tend to lose out.
The most common misunderstanding of disruptive innovations is to overestimate their impact in the short term and underestimate it in the long term. Another common misunderstanding is to associate disruptive with good.
Twitter is the most impulsive form of social media, but it's still the most celebrated among politicians and pundits within the Beltway, which is curious, since it can destroy any sense of privacy.
Sustaining innovation is the lifeblood of any enterprise. It is the time when we capitalize upon, and recover from, all the disruptive change prior. Most of the operating profits in the world come from sustaining innovation. Much of the market capitalization gains, on the other hand, come from disruptive innovations.
Although social media is a relatively new form of communication, it has become the primary way retailers and customers are interfacing.
The evolving social and digital media platforms and highly innovative and relevant payment capabilities are causing seismic changes in consumer behavior and creating equally disruptive opportunities for business.
A disruptive innovation is a technologically simple innovation in the form of a product, service, or business model that takes root in a tier of the market that is unattractive to the established leaders in an industry.
In the 'Disruptive Broadcasting' space, TV on IP networks is now just another application in a broadband world. We have already seen the transformation of the computing and communications industry with respect to traditional telecom. Now, history is repeating itself with traditional broadcasting.
I think, in general, it's clear that most bad things come from misunderstanding, and communication is generally the way to resolve misunderstandings - and the Web's a form of communications - so it generally should be good.
The short form, speed, and consistency of communication by Trump beat Clinton's nuanced, detailed, and long-form communication. Trump came across as more genuine, Clinton as less than transparent. Trump engaged directly with his community; Clinton spoke through the media in a careful and less frequent manner.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!