That is not what the Innovator's Dilemma is, as academically defined and researched by Clayton Christensen. His version is actually far more interesting, even though it often gets misrepresented, and explains why it's called a dilemma. The pop version is simply "some people refuse to innovate because of psychological reasons", which isn't a dilemma, it's just a way to call other people silly.

His insight was that in some cases, there can be a product that's worst in every way than a product a company is currently producing. Every way, except one. And that one way is not interesting to the company's customers, so the company almost categorically can't care about it. But that one improvement ends up being massive, usually because it unlocks a new product category that brings in new customers.

For example, think of the massive computers of the early era (and allow me some small liberties in this story). The only things that mattered were strength/speed and cost. But then much smaller versions of computers became available. Originally for hobbyists. No company that built computers cared about this development, because none of their customers cared! These computers were inferior in every way current customers cared about, and were only better for a tiny group of people who weren't customers and no one cared about.

But obviously, home computing ended up a much bigger deal than anything else, and eventually because it was so massive, improvements there led to improvements for the original customers.

That is the dilemma. Do you ignore existing customers who are perfectly happy with what you're building, to chase an illusive innovative growth in a new segment of the market which you have no idea will materialize or not?