7 ms·

- Facebook wasn't the first social network. People were connected, shared pictures, and had friends before. - Amazon wasn't the first online store. - AirBnB w

by flexie 9y ago

- Facebook wasn't the first social network. People were connected, shared pictures, and had friends before. - Amazon wasn't the first online store. - AirBnB wasn't the first short term rental website - Netflix wasn't the first online movie portal. - Apple didn't make the first cell phone or even the first smart phone, or the first music player or the first home computer. - Tesla didn't make the first electric car. - etc. Still, the one criticism that startup hear again and again is that "You are late - it's already there".

fragmede 9y ago
There's value in being first to market but what those example really show is that first isn't all it's cracked up to be, and marketing and sales are crucial for success.
- aflinik 9y ago
  I’d say all of those examples show that you need to be first to the actual market, not just first or first to _some_ market
- jsonne 9y ago
  First to market is a tactic and potentially an advantage, but it isn't the end all be all of whether or not you'll be successful.
chubot 9y ago
Just to play devil's advocate, what was the first online store? I think Amazon was pretty damn close, having started in 1994 as a store that simply stocked a large selection of rare books. The shipping took weeks as I recall. It was not an obvious idea at the time, simply because there weren't that many people on the web. It was around the time that SSL was being developed [1] -- so if you were much earlier you probably couldn't take payments securely. There were probably mail order catalogs that had websites, but I think that is a different thing than a "web store". Also, Netflix wasn't the first online movie portal, but I'm pretty sure they were the first people to make a business out of mailing DVDs! It's crazy that they started like that. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transport_Layer_Security#SSL_1.0.2C_2.0_and_3.0 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transport_Layer_Security#SSL_1...
- gknoy 9y ago
  Vaguely pertinent, but ViaWeb was founded in 1995 by pg (and others). Amazon was apparently founded in 1994, but wasn't called Amazon until 1995 -- or, at least based on my cursory skim of Wikipedia. So, I don't know that it was the first or not, but Bezos was certainly not the only one thinking about it at the time.
- keenerd 9y ago
  > I think Amazon was pretty damn close, having started in 1994 as a store that simply stocked a large selection of rare books. The shipping took weeks as I recall. Afaik, they didn't really carry any stock when they first started. They were re-selling mail order books. A while back there was a documentary about Amazon's early years. The part that everyone always quotes is the thing about using doors as desks. (Which struck me as silly, doors are expensive compared to many large, flat surfaces.) Anyway, the part that really stuck with me was that they had one favorite mail-order place, except that shop had a ten book minimum order. So Amazon would order the one book someone wanted and then nine copies of some obscure book about snails that was never in stock.
  - chubot 9y ago
    Yup I think I saw that same video on YouTube. They didn't have stock, so they were sort of like a meta-retailer. They presented an illusion of large selection. I think the value was the interface and ease of searching, and not inventory and retail operations.
- yellowstuff 9y ago
  CD Now beat Amazon by a few months: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CDNow https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CDNow But you're right, Amazon was basically there at the beginning of online retail. A better example is YouTube. Many online video sharing sites had started and died years before YouTube was a gleam in Janet Jackson's pasty http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech/news/2006-10-11-youtube-karim_x.htm http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech/news/2006-10-11-youtube-...
  - 9y ago
ksk 9y ago
Is there a distinction between "its already here" and "its already being made popular by someone else"?
- dsacco 9y ago
  That distinction could be demonstrated by market maturity, which could be further defined by how large the incumbents are and how saturated the market has become. Google is a giant now, and has made the search engine market both mature and saturated (along with its competitors). Before Google came along, there were several other search engines, but the market wasn't at all saturated. It was much easier to enter that market with a well placed innovation in searching while the market was primed to grow even larger among a set of competitors who had not dominated it yet. The market was large enough that an innovative company would capture first time users and spread itself organically among them, eventually stealing them from other engines in the process. Conversely, the search engine market has become saturated. To start a new search engine, you'll need to steal users from an existing search engine, because there is virtually no one who doesn't already use one. As a basic concept, it's extremely difficult to differentiate on the core idea of a search engine. You will not beat Google just by offering a new technical innovation, you'd likely have to beat Google by adding search innovations to a novel platform that is emerging to challenge Google before they capture that platform as well. That sort of combination would offer a new fertile market that hasn't been saturated. As an example, a search engine for applications would have been a legitimate threat, had Google not already developed it for Android and Chrome with Apple competing.
  - ksk 9y ago
    Right, but I was only disputing OPs point about "its already here" being an illegitimite concern about a startup company.
samstave 9y ago
The future is a spiral of iterative improvement with occasional leaps up a few rungs on the spiral.
dsacco 9y ago
Google didn't make the first search engine, either.

by flexie 9y ago

fragmede 9y ago

There's value in being first to market but what those example really show is that first isn't all it's cracked up to be, and marketing and sales are crucial for success.

aflinik 9y ago
I’d say all of those examples show that you need to be first to the actual market, not just first or first to _some_ market
jsonne 9y ago
First to market is a tactic and potentially an advantage, but it isn't the end all be all of whether or not you'll be successful.

chubot 9y ago

Just to play devil's advocate, what was the first online store? I think Amazon was pretty damn close, having started in 1994 as a store that simply stocked a large selection of rare books. The shipping took weeks as I recall. It was not an obvious idea at the time, simply because there weren't that many people on the web. It was around the time that SSL was being developed [1] -- so if you were much earlier you probably couldn't take payments securely. There were probably mail order catalogs that had websites, but I think that is a different thing than a "web store". Also, Netflix wasn't the first online movie portal, but I'm pretty sure they were the first people to make a business out of mailing DVDs! It's crazy that they started like that. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transport_Layer_Security#SSL_1.0.2C_2.0_and_3.0 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transport_Layer_Security#SSL_1...

gknoy 9y ago
Vaguely pertinent, but ViaWeb was founded in 1995 by pg (and others). Amazon was apparently founded in 1994, but wasn't called Amazon until 1995 -- or, at least based on my cursory skim of Wikipedia. So, I don't know that it was the first or not, but Bezos was certainly not the only one thinking about it at the time.
keenerd 9y ago
> I think Amazon was pretty damn close, having started in 1994 as a store that simply stocked a large selection of rare books. The shipping took weeks as I recall. Afaik, they didn't really carry any stock when they first started. They were re-selling mail order books. A while back there was a documentary about Amazon's early years. The part that everyone always quotes is the thing about using doors as desks. (Which struck me as silly, doors are expensive compared to many large, flat surfaces.) Anyway, the part that really stuck with me was that they had one favorite mail-order place, except that shop had a ten book minimum order. So Amazon would order the one book someone wanted and then nine copies of some obscure book about snails that was never in stock.
- chubot 9y ago
  Yup I think I saw that same video on YouTube. They didn't have stock, so they were sort of like a meta-retailer. They presented an illusion of large selection. I think the value was the interface and ease of searching, and not inventory and retail operations.
yellowstuff 9y ago
CD Now beat Amazon by a few months: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CDNow https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CDNow But you're right, Amazon was basically there at the beginning of online retail. A better example is YouTube. Many online video sharing sites had started and died years before YouTube was a gleam in Janet Jackson's pasty http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech/news/2006-10-11-youtube-karim_x.htm http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech/news/2006-10-11-youtube-...
- 9y ago

ksk 9y ago

Is there a distinction between "its already here" and "its already being made popular by someone else"?

dsacco 9y ago
That distinction could be demonstrated by market maturity, which could be further defined by how large the incumbents are and how saturated the market has become. Google is a giant now, and has made the search engine market both mature and saturated (along with its competitors). Before Google came along, there were several other search engines, but the market wasn't at all saturated. It was much easier to enter that market with a well placed innovation in searching while the market was primed to grow even larger among a set of competitors who had not dominated it yet. The market was large enough that an innovative company would capture first time users and spread itself organically among them, eventually stealing them from other engines in the process. Conversely, the search engine market has become saturated. To start a new search engine, you'll need to steal users from an existing search engine, because there is virtually no one who doesn't already use one. As a basic concept, it's extremely difficult to differentiate on the core idea of a search engine. You will not beat Google just by offering a new technical innovation, you'd likely have to beat Google by adding search innovations to a novel platform that is emerging to challenge Google before they capture that platform as well. That sort of combination would offer a new fertile market that hasn't been saturated. As an example, a search engine for applications would have been a legitimate threat, had Google not already developed it for Android and Chrome with Apple competing.
- ksk 9y ago
  Right, but I was only disputing OPs point about "its already here" being an illegitimite concern about a startup company.

samstave 9y ago

The future is a spiral of iterative improvement with occasional leaps up a few rungs on the spiral.

dsacco 9y ago

Google didn't make the first search engine, either.