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

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.