4 ms·

"How did Snapchat beat Facebook to the youth market over the last few years? (Remember Poke?). How did Facebook beat Google in social media in the early 2000s?

"How did Snapchat beat Facebook to the youth market over the last few years? (Remember Poke?). How did Facebook beat Google in social media in the early 2000s? (Remember Orkut?) How did Google beat Yahoo and Microsoft in search?" 1. It wasn't Facebook who beat Google. It was Google who lost to Facebook. 2. It wasn't Google who beat Yahoo and Microsoft. It was Microsoft and Yahoo who lost to Google. 3. Lastly, Snapchat LOST to Facebook. I don't know where he even pulls this out of. Unlike his takeaway which is nonsense and will probably make you waste years trying to make something stupid happen, here's my takeaway--which is actually opposite of what he'saying--that's much more helpful: Don't try to fight against a giant in their own turf. As Snapchat, you will never beat Facebook in their own game, Social. As Google, you will never beat Facebook in their own game, Social (This goes both ways. There have been many rumors about Facebook entering search engine arena, but that will never work). Microsoft and Yahoo (A portal whose business model used to be opposite to Google's) can never beat Google in its own game. The lesson is, play your own game. Don't play into these VCs telling you it's ok to make these stupid attempts. In their eyes, you the founder is just a number. And even if so, this is a terrible advice because there are so many other ways you can win "against" google, facebook, amazon--You simply don't play against them. Google "beat" Microsoft by dominating their own category. Facebook "beat" Google by dominating their own category. And lastly, Snapchat couldn't "beat" Facebook because they decided to follow stupid advice like this guy gave and fight against Facebook instead of dominating its own category. It had potential at first to invent a differentiated category of its own but went off rails becoming just another social media app, which Facebook then swiftly copied.

jacksmith21006 9y ago
Chrome came later and beat MS. The same with Google and mobile. Google just provided better solutions.
- cocktailpeanuts 9y ago
  To be precise there were two phases. Firefox came and beat MS IE first. Then a while later, Chrome came and beat Firefox. This is a completely different story though. First of all, Chrome. Chrome is not a startup. It's a product launched by Google, one of the richest tech companies in the world (and given away for free because they didn't care about directly making money from it). What REALLY happened was it nearly killed off Firefox which was way way poorly funded. So this is irrelevant to this discussion where the topic is about "startups". Second, let's talk about Firefox. Firefox didn't really "beat" IE because they didn't really make much money out of it. Firefox was a very special case. It wasn't some startup which went against MS. It was a result of Netscape losing to MS, and then deciding to open source it while they're going out of business. This is not exactly the best scenario when you're building a startup, and even if we're arguing based purely on product (and not whether the company actually managed to extract value out of it), again it's irrelevant to this current thread because Firefox is NOT a "startup". Lastly, if you're looking at this type of rare occasion and hoping your startup will work out that way, then go ahead and do so, I don't care. I'm just saying there are way better ways to "beat" Google, Facebook, and Amazon. And that's by NOT trying to beat them.
davidiach 9y ago
Snap is not a clear case of failing. Sure, they did not displace Facebook, but the founders and investors made a lot of money and while it isn't growing as fast as it should, it is still growing every day.
- cocktailpeanuts 9y ago
  If you count how much the founders or investors made from the IPO as a measure of success of the company itself, I really can't help you there buddy.
  - chii 9y ago
    So what is a measure of success?
    - cocktailpeanuts 9y ago
      Simple. Either revenue/profit or growth. That's all there is. If your business model is network based, you can go for "grow now, monetize later" model. Then you need growth even if it means revenue sacrifice. If your business model is not network based, then revenue/profit. In case of Snapchat, they made personal gains for the founders and the VCs, but from company point of view, they don't make no money, their growth has stalled. The industry #1 has exactly the same app with larger user base and faster growth. I can't think of a single reason why this would fall into a success category. If anything, the founders and VCs cashing out so much when the company is dying indicates failure rather than success.

jacksmith21006 9y ago

Chrome came later and beat MS. The same with Google and mobile. Google just provided better solutions.

cocktailpeanuts 9y ago
To be precise there were two phases. Firefox came and beat MS IE first. Then a while later, Chrome came and beat Firefox. This is a completely different story though. First of all, Chrome. Chrome is not a startup. It's a product launched by Google, one of the richest tech companies in the world (and given away for free because they didn't care about directly making money from it). What REALLY happened was it nearly killed off Firefox which was way way poorly funded. So this is irrelevant to this discussion where the topic is about "startups". Second, let's talk about Firefox. Firefox didn't really "beat" IE because they didn't really make much money out of it. Firefox was a very special case. It wasn't some startup which went against MS. It was a result of Netscape losing to MS, and then deciding to open source it while they're going out of business. This is not exactly the best scenario when you're building a startup, and even if we're arguing based purely on product (and not whether the company actually managed to extract value out of it), again it's irrelevant to this current thread because Firefox is NOT a "startup". Lastly, if you're looking at this type of rare occasion and hoping your startup will work out that way, then go ahead and do so, I don't care. I'm just saying there are way better ways to "beat" Google, Facebook, and Amazon. And that's by NOT trying to beat them.

davidiach 9y ago

Snap is not a clear case of failing. Sure, they did not displace Facebook, but the founders and investors made a lot of money and while it isn't growing as fast as it should, it is still growing every day.

cocktailpeanuts 9y ago
If you count how much the founders or investors made from the IPO as a measure of success of the company itself, I really can't help you there buddy.
- chii 9y ago
  So what is a measure of success?
  - cocktailpeanuts 9y ago
    Simple. Either revenue/profit or growth. That's all there is. If your business model is network based, you can go for "grow now, monetize later" model. Then you need growth even if it means revenue sacrifice. If your business model is not network based, then revenue/profit. In case of Snapchat, they made personal gains for the founders and the VCs, but from company point of view, they don't make no money, their growth has stalled. The industry #1 has exactly the same app with larger user base and faster growth. I can't think of a single reason why this would fall into a success category. If anything, the founders and VCs cashing out so much when the company is dying indicates failure rather than success.