That is a very funny idea that perhaps innovation is not all that important to disruptive innovation. I know what you are saying is essentially to the point I made in the article: Functionality (even superior functionality) is not always as important as ego satisfaction.

The paradigm shift needed to understand this truth is that innovation does not only mean creation of new technology or functionality, as most marketers believe. Innovation planning should include the creation of anything that creates a long-term strategic advantage.

Using that definition, we would have to exclude “innovations” like product line extensions that only cannibalized older products in the line or color/size/selection introductions that only kept the product line “current.” It would also say that a change in customer service could be a strategic innovation if it created new higher expectations among customers throughout the category and provided a proprietary competitive edge for the marketer. On the other hand, a “breakthrough” technology that did not change customer expectations in a way that only led customers to the innovator would not be considered a strategic innovation, no matter how much better it worked functionally.

The point is that “innovation” is indeed critical to disruptive innovation. The definition of what constitutes innovation just has to be clearly understood.

There were far more capable mp3 players available at the ipod’s release though none of them mainstream. The blackberry was far outclassed by the capabilities of the palm treo long before it found dominance. The Iphone is certainly not much more capable than the treo, even now. (several years later) It does have the ego-centric marketing appeal that the business mined treo never targeted.