I know my comment is a bit, late but a good article. Just a few of more notes:
1. Not only for VC, but for everybody, technology S-curves should be in your vernacular. The valley tends to cycle through buzz words and phases, but s-curves should never be forgotten.
2. The theory for S-Curves was by Everett Rogers, and if you never read his book Diffusion of Innovation, it is a profound revelation. However, I think of a practical application viewpoint, Geoffrey Moore crossing the chasm concept has never dropped in relevance. Although it seemed it hit it's peak of popularity in the valley about 20 years ago.
3. I think you cover this in your post, but I think the concept of the chasm is incredibly insightful, and creates a vernacular to sharpen the points that you already bring up, and even more importantly put some boundaries around when a market turns real. I am attracted to the idea that the chasm exists somewhere around 10% of the targeted TAM.
The beauty of this framework is almost all business cases start off with somebody pointing out a massive TAM, and saying "if I only get 1%, we'll roll in the money." If you then say, "but I don't consider you real until you pass 10% of the TAM," it places a feedback mechanism. The bigger they call the TAM, the further they are away from crossing the chasm. The smaller they call the TAM, the less compelling their business case becomes. Identifying the chasm is a control mechanism to prevent a crazy ROI business case.
It’s quite fascinating that we see the same patterns occurring, here in this case, in different cases and phases of technology. Still, the same is happening in biology and other scientific disciplines.
There are fundamental models that describe change and growth, regardless of the specific area.
I loved reading this article ❤️ And made me think about the following: while “It Works” and “Novelty” dominate early S-curves, narrative continuity becomes essential as products mature. Think of Apple’s genius during late S-curves—not just in design but in crafting aspirational stories that made incremental innovations feel monumental. Their marketing didn’t just sell features; it sold lifestyles.
For AI, the novelty effect is real—and fleeting. The demos and viral moments that drive early growth can create a growth treadmill where retention becomes nearly impossible. Without a strong narrative about why this technology matters beyond the “wow” factor, products risk fading as soon as novelty wanes. The most successful AI companies will shift from “look what it can do” to “here’s how it meaningfully changes your life.”
And for late S-curves? The “radically different” thesis you outlined is crucial, but it’s not enough to just innovate counter-narratives like BeReal. These products need to build sustained emotional resonance. BeReal thrived because it wasn’t just an “anti-Instagram” play—it tapped into an emerging cultural narrative about authenticity.
So here’s the missing piece: The S-curve isn’t just a product problem—it’s a storytelling problem. Great marketing bridges the gaps, convincing users to care during the chaos of early curves and stay loyal through the plateaus of late ones. The question for founders isn’t just “Where are we on the curve?” It’s also “What story are we telling, and will people believe it for the long haul?”
What a great article.
It will be interesting to see how both mobile + AI intersect and whether this will revitalize the interest in mobile apps.
I know my comment is a bit, late but a good article. Just a few of more notes:
1. Not only for VC, but for everybody, technology S-curves should be in your vernacular. The valley tends to cycle through buzz words and phases, but s-curves should never be forgotten.
2. The theory for S-Curves was by Everett Rogers, and if you never read his book Diffusion of Innovation, it is a profound revelation. However, I think of a practical application viewpoint, Geoffrey Moore crossing the chasm concept has never dropped in relevance. Although it seemed it hit it's peak of popularity in the valley about 20 years ago.
3. I think you cover this in your post, but I think the concept of the chasm is incredibly insightful, and creates a vernacular to sharpen the points that you already bring up, and even more importantly put some boundaries around when a market turns real. I am attracted to the idea that the chasm exists somewhere around 10% of the targeted TAM.
The beauty of this framework is almost all business cases start off with somebody pointing out a massive TAM, and saying "if I only get 1%, we'll roll in the money." If you then say, "but I don't consider you real until you pass 10% of the TAM," it places a feedback mechanism. The bigger they call the TAM, the further they are away from crossing the chasm. The smaller they call the TAM, the less compelling their business case becomes. Identifying the chasm is a control mechanism to prevent a crazy ROI business case.
It’s quite fascinating that we see the same patterns occurring, here in this case, in different cases and phases of technology. Still, the same is happening in biology and other scientific disciplines.
There are fundamental models that describe change and growth, regardless of the specific area.
I loved reading this article ❤️ And made me think about the following: while “It Works” and “Novelty” dominate early S-curves, narrative continuity becomes essential as products mature. Think of Apple’s genius during late S-curves—not just in design but in crafting aspirational stories that made incremental innovations feel monumental. Their marketing didn’t just sell features; it sold lifestyles.
For AI, the novelty effect is real—and fleeting. The demos and viral moments that drive early growth can create a growth treadmill where retention becomes nearly impossible. Without a strong narrative about why this technology matters beyond the “wow” factor, products risk fading as soon as novelty wanes. The most successful AI companies will shift from “look what it can do” to “here’s how it meaningfully changes your life.”
And for late S-curves? The “radically different” thesis you outlined is crucial, but it’s not enough to just innovate counter-narratives like BeReal. These products need to build sustained emotional resonance. BeReal thrived because it wasn’t just an “anti-Instagram” play—it tapped into an emerging cultural narrative about authenticity.
So here’s the missing piece: The S-curve isn’t just a product problem—it’s a storytelling problem. Great marketing bridges the gaps, convincing users to care during the chaos of early curves and stay loyal through the plateaus of late ones. The question for founders isn’t just “Where are we on the curve?” It’s also “What story are we telling, and will people believe it for the long haul?”