"Most camouflage is based on the idea of concealment and blending in with its surroundings. However another school of thought has argued for making the item in question appear to be a mashup of unrelated components. Naval camoufleurs found this theory particularly appealing. Blending didn’t work because ships operated in two different and constantly changing color environments - sea and sky. Any camo that concealed in one environment was usually spectacularly conspicuous in others.
Norman Wilkinson, a British naval officer and painter, suggested a scheme that came to be known as Dazzle or Razzle Dazzle painting. Wilkinson believed that breaking up a ship’s silhouette with brightly contrasting geometric designs would make it harder for U-boat captains to determine the ship’s course."
(FoundNYC Inc, 4 April 2009)
"The innovator's dilemma is this: a company that does everything by the book - listening to customers, managing by facts, being disciplined about costs and quality, and so forth - can get blindsided by an innovation that rapidly takes away its markets, because it was doing everything right. The innovations that cause this 'why bad things happen to good companies' dilemma are disruptive innovations. The signature story of disruption reads as follows: an upstart low-end competitor displaces a much larger incumbent in a market, with the incumbent either retreating upmarket to higher margin/lower volume products or dying out altogether. ...
Examples are smaller, cheaper hard drives disrupting incumbent hard drive makers, hydraulic shovels disrupting cable-winch shovels (an early 20th century example), PCs disrupting mainframes, ink jet printers disrupting laser printers and, most recently, the Nintendo Wii starting to disrupt the Playstation and the Xbox.
Major though they were, innovations such as CDs, laser printing and jet airplane engines were not disruptive with respect to the technologies they displaced ( cassette tapes, light lens Xerography and piston engines respectively). In each case, the incumbents benefited from these non-disruptive, or sustaining innovations.
The key point to remember is that disruption is a market/business phenomenon and has little to do with technology per se. In particular, a disruptive innovation may or may not represent a major technical breakthrough. Major breakthroughs, which are called ‘radical' in Christenson's model, may or may not be disruptive, while minor, or ‘incremental' innovations can be massively disruptive. The opposite of disruptive is sustaining. Why and how does disruption happen?
A disruptive innovation usually starts as a low-quality differentiated product in a low-volume marginal segment of a much larger mature market, which demands attributes that the mainstream market does not, and which is willing to give up performance attributes the mainstream market is not (example, Wii customers willing to give up sheer processing horsepower for 3d input capability).
A marginal player occupies this segment and starts growing rapidly, solving initial quality problems while retaining a cost advantage.
The incumbent mature market leader, no matter how visionary, is forced to ignore the opportunity because it does not meet the growth needs dictated by its larger size, and also because the disruptive product is not yet good enough for its mainstream customers.
The marginal player goes through a learning curve, solves its quality problems and suddenly starts threatening the market leader in its main markets
The incumbent scrambles to put together a response, nearly always fails because of the disruptor's head start and optimized culture, and retreats to a higher-end market."
(Venkatesh Rao, 23 July 2007)