Document stating what problem the competition is solving - not what it's selling - and why your solution will be more successful
Consequences
Focusing on what the incumbent has already made will blind you to the problem space, and then you’re just trying to beat them at their own game
Very little hope at providing more value exists unless there’s a direct cost undercutting or it's dramatically easier to acquire/use, and even then you are still fighting the ever-present switching costs and the "nobody ever got fired for buying IBM"
By construction, an existing solution was built on older paradigms and technologies, and due to the inertia of its technical debt, will possibly itself not be addressing problems only addressable by today’s technology
You effectively throw away the clean slate advantage and fight someone else’s first mover advantage
The only exception is if you're very fast, very rich, very connected or all of the above
Causes
Surprisingly common mistake where the problem definition is skipped altogether because someone gets obsessed at 'beating' the leader
Lack of originality, or more likely time granted to the product team to be original
Someone used the D-word and everyone took ‘disrupt’ to mean ‘duplicate’
Sometimes, product teams can misinterpret signals from leadership and not question it further out of fear - at this point you have larger cultural problems
Approaches
Existing solutions are fine as signals that the problem exists, and it is very fine to use their failings to understand the problem better, but you really have to look in the right direction