4 ms·

Honest question, then what's the point of innovating, if Google, Facebook, or Twitter can simply copy your idea with an unlimited reach?

6stringmerc 11y ago
Well, back when I was first starting to understand computing (Pentium II days), the phrase we always kicked around was "Do something great that Microsoft is terrible at, then wait for them to buy you out." That kinda-sorta applies in this scenario.
- AndrewKemendo 11y ago
  Except in this case they aren't buying meerkat out they rolled out their own version. So I don't think that ethos applies to his question.
  - 6stringmerc 11y ago
    Yeah but in context the idea was that at any time, Microsoft could decided to "un-suck" at whatever it was and then the plan would get blown apart.
    - AndrewKemendo 11y ago
      That is literally always the case. MSFT/GOOG etc... could always decide to "un-suck" and kill some new hot thing, but it's a deus ex machina and not something you can predict, so it shouldn't really even be a consideration.
      - 6stringmerc 11y ago
        ...except when it's literally not always the case. I get where you're coming from but deep pockets and an army of engineers doesn't guarantee success. Google+ never got out of the "it sucks" stage into mainstream success. The legacy of Steve Jobs is also littered with fanciful ideas that never got traction. I guess my point is there is a point to innovating and attempting to try, even as a small player, because there's really no guarantees. I can't recall the exact story right now, but I recently heard that a well-to-do / highly funded flight project (Langley?) failed, and a short time later, the shoe-string operation by the Wright Brothers was successful.
        AndrewKemendo 11y ago
        I think you are missing my point or I did not make it clear because we are in agreement. "MSFT/GOOG could just do it and kill your [service]" is a very common response to anyone who is launching anything new or groundbreaking and it's also a misguided response. So worrying that BIGCO will do that is basically a worthless concern and saying that because something is obvious in retrospect that it was inevitable is not particularly useful. That said, they still can do it and on the rare occasion when they do, instead of doing an acquisition it usually does kill the newcomer. So to the original point, it seems like it's actually becoming more common than less for them to spin something up rather than acquire.
Jtsummers 11y ago
If you do it right, and get lucky (timing, network effects, factors beyond your control), you might be in a position to stand alone against them or be acquired by them.
awwstn 11y ago
Here's something @sama said about this in a lecture: > "The best thing of all worlds is to build a product that a lot of people really love. In practice, you can't usually do that, because if there's an opportunity like that, Google or Facebook will do it. So there's like a limit to the area under the curve, of what you can build. So you can build something that a large number of users like a little bit, or a small number of users love a lot."
zzalpha 11y ago
My experience: because you can probably still do it better. Google, Facebook, and Twitter are far from omnipotent. Want proof? Just look at Google's failed attempts to get into TV advertising or social networking. Or Facebook's attempts with Messenger. Or Twitter's... everything, really. Also, consider, it's unlikely any of them would copy an idea until you've already made it a success, at which point network effects can work in your favour (again, Google's repeatedly aborted attempts in social networking are illustrative, here). To summarize: they might try to copy you, but there's no reason to assume they'll succeed.
- zmonkeyz 11y ago
  If there's anything that tech has proven it's that the best doesn't always win out.

6stringmerc 11y ago

Well, back when I was first starting to understand computing (Pentium II days), the phrase we always kicked around was "Do something great that Microsoft is terrible at, then wait for them to buy you out." That kinda-sorta applies in this scenario.

AndrewKemendo 11y ago
Except in this case they aren't buying meerkat out they rolled out their own version. So I don't think that ethos applies to his question.
- 6stringmerc 11y ago
  Yeah but in context the idea was that at any time, Microsoft could decided to "un-suck" at whatever it was and then the plan would get blown apart.
  - AndrewKemendo 11y ago
    That is literally always the case. MSFT/GOOG etc... could always decide to "un-suck" and kill some new hot thing, but it's a deus ex machina and not something you can predict, so it shouldn't really even be a consideration.
    - 6stringmerc 11y ago
      ...except when it's literally not always the case. I get where you're coming from but deep pockets and an army of engineers doesn't guarantee success. Google+ never got out of the "it sucks" stage into mainstream success. The legacy of Steve Jobs is also littered with fanciful ideas that never got traction. I guess my point is there is a point to innovating and attempting to try, even as a small player, because there's really no guarantees. I can't recall the exact story right now, but I recently heard that a well-to-do / highly funded flight project (Langley?) failed, and a short time later, the shoe-string operation by the Wright Brothers was successful.
      - AndrewKemendo 11y ago
        I think you are missing my point or I did not make it clear because we are in agreement. "MSFT/GOOG could just do it and kill your [service]" is a very common response to anyone who is launching anything new or groundbreaking and it's also a misguided response. So worrying that BIGCO will do that is basically a worthless concern and saying that because something is obvious in retrospect that it was inevitable is not particularly useful. That said, they still can do it and on the rare occasion when they do, instead of doing an acquisition it usually does kill the newcomer. So to the original point, it seems like it's actually becoming more common than less for them to spin something up rather than acquire.

Jtsummers 11y ago

If you do it right, and get lucky (timing, network effects, factors beyond your control), you might be in a position to stand alone against them or be acquired by them.

awwstn 11y ago

Here's something @sama said about this in a lecture: > "The best thing of all worlds is to build a product that a lot of people really love. In practice, you can't usually do that, because if there's an opportunity like that, Google or Facebook will do it. So there's like a limit to the area under the curve, of what you can build. So you can build something that a large number of users like a little bit, or a small number of users love a lot."

zzalpha 11y ago

My experience: because you can probably still do it better. Google, Facebook, and Twitter are far from omnipotent. Want proof? Just look at Google's failed attempts to get into TV advertising or social networking. Or Facebook's attempts with Messenger. Or Twitter's... everything, really. Also, consider, it's unlikely any of them would copy an idea until you've already made it a success, at which point network effects can work in your favour (again, Google's repeatedly aborted attempts in social networking are illustrative, here). To summarize: they might try to copy you, but there's no reason to assume they'll succeed.

zmonkeyz 11y ago
If there's anything that tech has proven it's that the best doesn't always win out.