4 ms·

Starting a company when there are already established and strong competitors probably counts as "looks like a bad idea". I think the point is that the company (

by malanj 11y ago

Starting a company when there are already established and strong competitors probably counts as "looks like a bad idea". I think the point is that the company (or project) seemed like a bad idea, not necessarily the market as a whole. Google and Facebook are both often used as examples exactly because they were "late" to the party. That seemed like a bad idea, but they both had a secret (as Peter Thiel likes to say), that made it not a bad idea.

mtberatwork 11y ago
When Google came about I don't recall anyone thinking that it (indexing the web, page rank, etc) was a bad idea. Everyone knew search was horrible at the time and many established players were simply directories with thin search layers. Yes, there were established competitors, but none of them were really strong aside from a tiny minority (altavista for example). I don't recall anyone considering Facebook a bad idea either, just that it was "yet another social media" site. Facebook mostly lucked out because of MySpace's user exodus.
- danieltillett 11y ago
  I agree that when Google came out it was far better than its competitors. Facebook is a bit different in that the market they went after was the right one not that their product was that much better. Zuck may have been lucky at the start, but he soon realised that he was on the right path and stuck to it.
  - kedean 11y ago
    Facebook had a secret ingredient too, they were one of the only sites on the Internet to use exclusivity correctly. They built up hype and got users drooling by slowing becoming available to more groups, and once they became available to everyone they were already established and validated. Of course luck and a simple design factored in too, but I think the exclusivity was the biggest part.
7Figures2Commas 11y ago
> Starting a company when there are already established and strong competitors probably counts as "looks like a bad idea". First-mover advantage is overrated, and in the tech industry, you'll notice that many if not most successful companies were not first-movers. Often, first-mover advantage is a disadvantage. In even the most established markets, you can find meaningful niches and adjacencies that the big players aren't tapping. Many times, the untapped adjacencies can expand the overall size of the market significantly (see Airbnb).
JoeAltmaier 11y ago
Existing competitors means two good things: customers exist, and the product is understood in the market. Building a better mousetrap is the ideal startup. There's nothing wrong with competition.

by malanj 11y ago

mtberatwork 11y ago

When Google came about I don't recall anyone thinking that it (indexing the web, page rank, etc) was a bad idea. Everyone knew search was horrible at the time and many established players were simply directories with thin search layers. Yes, there were established competitors, but none of them were really strong aside from a tiny minority (altavista for example). I don't recall anyone considering Facebook a bad idea either, just that it was "yet another social media" site. Facebook mostly lucked out because of MySpace's user exodus.

danieltillett 11y ago
I agree that when Google came out it was far better than its competitors. Facebook is a bit different in that the market they went after was the right one not that their product was that much better. Zuck may have been lucky at the start, but he soon realised that he was on the right path and stuck to it.
- kedean 11y ago
  Facebook had a secret ingredient too, they were one of the only sites on the Internet to use exclusivity correctly. They built up hype and got users drooling by slowing becoming available to more groups, and once they became available to everyone they were already established and validated. Of course luck and a simple design factored in too, but I think the exclusivity was the biggest part.

7Figures2Commas 11y ago

> Starting a company when there are already established and strong competitors probably counts as "looks like a bad idea". First-mover advantage is overrated, and in the tech industry, you'll notice that many if not most successful companies were not first-movers. Often, first-mover advantage is a disadvantage. In even the most established markets, you can find meaningful niches and adjacencies that the big players aren't tapping. Many times, the untapped adjacencies can expand the overall size of the market significantly (see Airbnb).

JoeAltmaier 11y ago

Existing competitors means two good things: customers exist, and the product is understood in the market. Building a better mousetrap is the ideal startup. There's nothing wrong with competition.