What is blue ocean strategy?

To which extent is it provocative to say that the "Blue Ocean Strategy" boils down to gaining a first-mover advantage?

• Of course, there is more than the first-mover advantage in this theory but the main goal is nevertheless to reach a monopolistic position, even temporary .... This theory ignores competition and competitive advantage but isn't the first-mover advantage a competitive advantage itself? It ignores competitive advantage by arguing that firms need to find an uncontested market. It does not take into account that a firm's strategy is dependent on its resources and capabilities* and that these R&C  determine whether a firm can change, keep costs low and at the same time create something new. *Resources being tangible (financial assets or infrastructure), intangible (Patents, culture, reputation) or human/ capabilities being the ability to leverage on the resources according to the resource-based view of the firm

• Answer:

  Yes I agree massively. This concept felt oversold when it was brought up in a tutorial. It's kind of classic management theory that when an economist looks at it, he'd say "well, why hasn't it been done yet?", but this time it does actually carry some merit - the theory is basically telling us to create something new - which is what inventors and innovators attempt to spend their whole lives doing for the sake of it, regardless of whether they actually have an idea that they can commercialise to start with. So firstly, irrespective of whether it's the same as another concept, it's actually just quite frankly not that useful.To be really crude, you could possibly even venture and say that it's classic business school professors to take a well-known concept and basically re-define it, and using their reputations, re-sell it for their own profits.I can't in any logical and pragmatic way, explain why these two theories are fundamentally different.