4 ms·

True but irrelevant. When Google Maps did happen, there's no reason why MapQuest could not have built the same thing at the same time. The fact that they didn'

True but irrelevant. When Google Maps did happen, there's no reason why MapQuest could not have built the same thing at the same time. The fact that they didn't, and that Google did, suggests opportunities for upstarts (sorry, startups) to get the jump on established players by introducing disruptive innovations.

potatolicious 17y ago
Not to mention the fact that MapQuest took years to come out with something that even comes close to the user experience of Google Maps, which suggests to me that GMaps completely broadsided them, and that they didn't have anything remotely close to that sophistication even considered/researched. It seems to be, as an outsider anyways, that MapQuest got lazy, not just out-done by Google.
- pchristensen 17y ago
  Exactly, forgiveable that MapQuest didn't invent Google Maps, unforgiveable that it they kept the same ugly static maps for years after GMaps.
  - borism 17y ago
    well, all this is true... but at least MapQuest is still around (since 1967). And I don't think GOOG makes any significant $ from maps yet. Perhaps you tried to say that in 90s they should have tried to make a better search engine instead, apply advertising business model to it, make a lot of money... and then proceed to make the best maps on web by deploying those profits? Because otherwise I don't see how MapQuest could have done it.
    - deleted 17y ago
      [deleted]
    - pchristensen 17y ago
      They worked on their business, not their technology. Since they were in the mapping business, they might have invested more $ into their mapping product.
inerte 17y ago
Yes, there _are_ reasons, just because you think those companies could have worked around them doesn't mean they were not valid reasons. More than half of the companies on that list is either gone or is irrelevant nowadays, which shows the vision being displayed on this thread completely out of sync with reality. It's sooo easy to come here and say that Company X should have done such and such to survive. But most of them did not. So there are reasons, and they are good reasons, and I wrote some of them. I've made no comments about startups or disruption or whatever. I just disagreed with matrix saying "there are no excuses". And we still have to go into the "real" reasons, which are fossilized business process and a reliance on cash cows, lack of innovation, etc... This is a classic case of people reaching the correct conclusion based on false premises and theories. It'll always be possible to overcome the stablished players, or opportunities for startups, but to keep saying there are "no reasons" for the old players to have failed is wrong.
- wisty 17y ago
  High fixed costs can often be a factor. Google now has about a hundred thousand engineers, right? If you make a great ad network (and found way to make it scale without needing google-scale servers) google wouldn't be able to compete on price. That's also why MS won't shift push a basic subset of HTML as a document format (using Word as something you use to lay out printing), leaving things like MediaWiki as the bees knees of collaborative editing.

potatolicious 17y ago

Not to mention the fact that MapQuest took years to come out with something that even comes close to the user experience of Google Maps, which suggests to me that GMaps completely broadsided them, and that they didn't have anything remotely close to that sophistication even considered/researched. It seems to be, as an outsider anyways, that MapQuest got lazy, not just out-done by Google.

pchristensen 17y ago
Exactly, forgiveable that MapQuest didn't invent Google Maps, unforgiveable that it they kept the same ugly static maps for years after GMaps.
- borism 17y ago
  well, all this is true... but at least MapQuest is still around (since 1967). And I don't think GOOG makes any significant $ from maps yet. Perhaps you tried to say that in 90s they should have tried to make a better search engine instead, apply advertising business model to it, make a lot of money... and then proceed to make the best maps on web by deploying those profits? Because otherwise I don't see how MapQuest could have done it.
  - deleted 17y ago
    [deleted]
  - pchristensen 17y ago
    They worked on their business, not their technology. Since they were in the mapping business, they might have invested more $ into their mapping product.

inerte 17y ago

Yes, there _are_ reasons, just because you think those companies could have worked around them doesn't mean they were not valid reasons. More than half of the companies on that list is either gone or is irrelevant nowadays, which shows the vision being displayed on this thread completely out of sync with reality. It's sooo easy to come here and say that Company X should have done such and such to survive. But most of them did not. So there are reasons, and they are good reasons, and I wrote some of them. I've made no comments about startups or disruption or whatever. I just disagreed with matrix saying "there are no excuses". And we still have to go into the "real" reasons, which are fossilized business process and a reliance on cash cows, lack of innovation, etc... This is a classic case of people reaching the correct conclusion based on false premises and theories. It'll always be possible to overcome the stablished players, or opportunities for startups, but to keep saying there are "no reasons" for the old players to have failed is wrong.

wisty 17y ago
High fixed costs can often be a factor. Google now has about a hundred thousand engineers, right? If you make a great ad network (and found way to make it scale without needing google-scale servers) google wouldn't be able to compete on price. That's also why MS won't shift push a basic subset of HTML as a document format (using Word as something you use to lay out printing), leaving things like MediaWiki as the bees knees of collaborative editing.