4 ms·

Being a fast follower is a very valid business strategy (see e.g. https://hbr.org/2012/06/first-mover-or-fast-follower https://hbr.org/2012/06/first-mover-or-fa

by runako 11y ago

Being a fast follower is a very valid business strategy (see e.g. https://hbr.org/2012/06/first-mover-or-fast-follower https://hbr.org/2012/06/first-mover-or-fast-follower). Some fast followers actually do end up being the biggest. (In evidence is the trope of the innovator's gripe that someone stole 'his' market.) See: Microsoft (OS, office software), Apple (iPod, smartphones), Google, Facebook. None were first to market. Google entered its market after search was considered a solved problem.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
jacquesm 11y ago
To be fair to Google though, their search was orders of magnitude better than the predecessors best (Altavista, Inktomi and a whole raft of others). If it had not been for that then they would have been an also ran. I think the 'fast follower' label should be restricted to be used when the new competitor does something that is for the most part on par with whatever the original is doing, only marketing it better or to a different audience. Otherwise it is more of a 'fast innovator' or simply better execution.
- runako 11y ago
  I guess it's a matter of perspective? For example, tech people tend to single out Google as a 'fast innovator', while attributing the success of Windows or the iPod to superior marketing or some other aspect of business hacking (as opposed to perhaps their success at building better product ecosystems). One could argue that the iPod was a 'fast innovation'. Or conversely that Google followed quickly behind a host of others, simply building on what their predecessors had done before (and in some way at reduced risk, since 'Internet search' was known to be a viable market at Google's inception). The categories are fuzzy -- although hopefully not for those making the decisions! Either way, the larger point I was making was that yes, being a fast follower is a legitimate business strategy. There are a lot of risks to being first, and the benefits of being first may not outweigh the risks.

by runako 11y ago

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

jacquesm 11y ago

To be fair to Google though, their search was orders of magnitude better than the predecessors best (Altavista, Inktomi and a whole raft of others). If it had not been for that then they would have been an also ran. I think the 'fast follower' label should be restricted to be used when the new competitor does something that is for the most part on par with whatever the original is doing, only marketing it better or to a different audience. Otherwise it is more of a 'fast innovator' or simply better execution.

runako 11y ago
I guess it's a matter of perspective? For example, tech people tend to single out Google as a 'fast innovator', while attributing the success of Windows or the iPod to superior marketing or some other aspect of business hacking (as opposed to perhaps their success at building better product ecosystems). One could argue that the iPod was a 'fast innovation'. Or conversely that Google followed quickly behind a host of others, simply building on what their predecessors had done before (and in some way at reduced risk, since 'Internet search' was known to be a viable market at Google's inception). The categories are fuzzy -- although hopefully not for those making the decisions! Either way, the larger point I was making was that yes, being a fast follower is a legitimate business strategy. There are a lot of risks to being first, and the benefits of being first may not outweigh the risks.