3 ms·
There is a counterbalancing force, which is hard to see going away, which is that larger companies have a harder time seeing which way the wind is blowing and g
by habitue 9y ago
There is a counterbalancing force, which is hard to see going away, which is that larger companies have a harder time seeing which way the wind is blowing and getting ahead of the curve. They make decisions slowly, and tend to be wary about investing in risky things that might pull resources away from their existing profit centers. They have something to defend, so they're anchored to past decisions in a way smaller nimbler companies aren't.
- AndrewKemendo 9y agoMy critical contention is that those counterbalancing forces are going away because Large companies have the following vectors: 1. Invest in small companies broadly enough so they get key insight so they can acquire before they become a threat. See GV, Intel Ventures etc... 2. Overwhelm small companies through brute force if they can't acquire. See: Facebook vs Snap 3. Invest in internal moonshots that startups can't compete with. See: Google X In previous times, big monoliths didn't have the foresight to do this or weren't agile enough to restructure internally. I think the way AFGAM operates and has proven they can pivot at scale, using their market dominance to change that whole equation.
- marcosdumay 9y agoCompanies have been doing those 3 forever. It works most of the time, it fails once in a while. All established companies sooner or later face the choice between destroying a huge revenue stream to get a chance on the new thing, or keep the current revenue and limit its lifetime. Nearly all of them choose the second, and the ones that choose the first do not always make it either.