3 ms·

Not sure I follow the logic. "[Google] stuck in me-too mode and have been for years. They simply don’t have innovation in their DNA any more. And it’s because

by drej 9y ago

Not sure I follow the logic. "[Google] stuck in me-too mode and have been for years. They simply don’t have innovation in their DNA any more. And it’s because their eyes are fixed on their competitors, not their customers." [...] "I just witnessed history in the making. (...) I have not seen a land rush this massive since the early days of the Web, and it just might be even bigger. So what is Grab? Well, the simple and unsatisfying answer is: They’re the Uber of Southeast Asia."

munchor 9y ago
Did you read the full article? It's a long read but the logic is quite well explained. Whether you agree with the logic or not is another thing but it is definitely explained in the article and cannot be summarized by your quote.
ian0 9y ago
They aren't really the Uber of Southeast Asia. They are more like "the potential Alipay/Wechat" of south east Asia. And given those apps have managed to re-arrange e-comm, on demand, banking & payments industries over the course of a few years id say they are pretty innovative. Take a look at what Kudo (a grab acquisition) does for example. Also agree with the comment below re countries with high un-employment. At least here in Indonesia on-demand services seem to have made a net positive impact on income levels for low income demographics. Hopefully when one emerges as the victor some regulations are put in place to make sure this remains the case.
- ian0 9y ago
  Only on HN would you be confused whether the down-vote was for defending On-Demand services or talking about regulating them :P
  - cocktailpeanuts 9y ago
    Probably downvoted because your comment is irrelevant to the point you're criticizing. "uber of southeast asia", "alipay of southeast asia", "wechat of southeast asia" all that doesn't matter in this context. They're all unoriginal. Parent was saying how OP is claiming to have left Google because they are unoriginal and frame themselves against competition. That's exactly what "X of Y" is. Doesn't matter what X, or Y is. That's what that expression is designed to do.
    - ian0 9y ago
      Ok, thats kind of fair. I should have been more specific. What they are on track to becoming (the we-chat, alipay of SEA), requires a high level of innovation in itself. As We-chats rise was very different to Alipay's - Grab & co's are to the chinese companies. Its most definitely not cookie-cutter territory.
      - lazerpants 9y ago
        Are Alipay or Wechat even that innovative? I mean, would they exist if Chinese companies were required to play fair with American competitors?
Nomentatus 9y ago
I have to agree. However you characterize Grab, it seems he's gone there precisely because it isn't doing something unique; but because it's in an big, exciting and rather equal contest. Which is fine, but doesn't fit logically with the long reason for leaving Google. For all we know Grab is a well-funded me-too company. Maybe the real key is adrenaline, not benefits to society. He finds genuine, unique innovation exciting, but he also finds head-on fights exciting - either way he gets his adrenaline, his work seems to matter to somebody and the work can't be "mailed in." Google's "fault" is that it's been allowed to leverage a monopoly (patent, originally) and extend it in ways that used to be illegal, for decades, and now they have a rather massive series of moats. It's never really in emergency mode.

by drej 9y ago

munchor 9y ago

Did you read the full article? It's a long read but the logic is quite well explained. Whether you agree with the logic or not is another thing but it is definitely explained in the article and cannot be summarized by your quote.

ian0 9y ago

They aren't really the Uber of Southeast Asia. They are more like "the potential Alipay/Wechat" of south east Asia. And given those apps have managed to re-arrange e-comm, on demand, banking & payments industries over the course of a few years id say they are pretty innovative. Take a look at what Kudo (a grab acquisition) does for example. Also agree with the comment below re countries with high un-employment. At least here in Indonesia on-demand services seem to have made a net positive impact on income levels for low income demographics. Hopefully when one emerges as the victor some regulations are put in place to make sure this remains the case.

ian0 9y ago
Only on HN would you be confused whether the down-vote was for defending On-Demand services or talking about regulating them :P
- cocktailpeanuts 9y ago
  Probably downvoted because your comment is irrelevant to the point you're criticizing. "uber of southeast asia", "alipay of southeast asia", "wechat of southeast asia" all that doesn't matter in this context. They're all unoriginal. Parent was saying how OP is claiming to have left Google because they are unoriginal and frame themselves against competition. That's exactly what "X of Y" is. Doesn't matter what X, or Y is. That's what that expression is designed to do.
  - ian0 9y ago
    Ok, thats kind of fair. I should have been more specific. What they are on track to becoming (the we-chat, alipay of SEA), requires a high level of innovation in itself. As We-chats rise was very different to Alipay's - Grab & co's are to the chinese companies. Its most definitely not cookie-cutter territory.
    - lazerpants 9y ago
      Are Alipay or Wechat even that innovative? I mean, would they exist if Chinese companies were required to play fair with American competitors?

Nomentatus 9y ago

I have to agree. However you characterize Grab, it seems he's gone there precisely because it isn't doing something unique; but because it's in an big, exciting and rather equal contest. Which is fine, but doesn't fit logically with the long reason for leaving Google. For all we know Grab is a well-funded me-too company. Maybe the real key is adrenaline, not benefits to society. He finds genuine, unique innovation exciting, but he also finds head-on fights exciting - either way he gets his adrenaline, his work seems to matter to somebody and the work can't be "mailed in." Google's "fault" is that it's been allowed to leverage a monopoly (patent, originally) and extend it in ways that used to be illegal, for decades, and now they have a rather massive series of moats. It's never really in emergency mode.