How is it that long-standing discussion-stoppers persist ..? Take, for the sake of argument and for reason of being the raison d’être of this post, the common “One shouldn’t compare apples and oranges”. Or ‘with’, or ‘to’.
What fun is there in comparing apples to apples ..? Since various species are still very much alike, the attention will go to the, certainly relatively, minor differences, losing the bigger picture. Even when including crabapples, mostly it isn’t worth the trouble. Except for a few experts.
They are so different (Well, overall; there’s also many commonalities like being in your fruit salad with other fruits like tomatoes oh wait) that at once, both the main lines and subtleties of differences can be discussed. Because one compares to discuss, right? If not, just don’t compare anything and sit there like a plant.
Actually, this whole post is about the realisation that in business or other organisational life, we should do both when it comes to innovation. There, tradition has it that one competition in the apples-only markets. Slight differences are sought out, and marketed, as significant whereas usually, they’re not.
Until some orange disruptor appears. Then suddenly, the picture changes – for proper anaylsis, one should compare the apples and oranges, to see how they fit market demand including substitutes et al. And do follow that link to see at which touch points the surprise element rests. Or so.
Just sayin’. And:
[A morning’s comparison of premier cru and grand cru grapes, from Ludes towards Reims, is definitely worth the fine nuance ..!]