Established organizations have incentives to serve current customers and preserve profitable products. A new approach may initially look less attractive or threaten existing revenue, so investing in it can conflict with near-term business priorities.
The concept explains a strategic tension rather than proving that every incumbent will fail. Outcomes depend on the technology, market and organizational response, and a specific company's motives still require evidence.
ELI5
Think of a successful company hesitating to build something new because it could reduce sales of the product that currently supports the company.
For example, a firm may protect its familiar service while a different way of solving the same customer problem grows into a serious competitor.
Does the concept mean existing leaders always make irrational choices?
No. Decisions can make sense for current customers and economics while creating difficulty with a later disruptive shift.
Does it prove why a particular company delayed a product?
No. It is an explanatory framework that still needs evidence about the specific company's decisions and circumstances.
