3 ms·
It's probably to do with how replaceable the company is. It takes an actual airline or travel company to realise "oh hey we should do this" to destroy this comp
by citricsquid 16y ago
It's probably to do with how replaceable the company is. It takes an actual airline or travel company to realise "oh hey we should do this" to destroy this company, they offer nothing beyond a pretty interface unless they have some secret magic behind the scenes. Maybe that's how business works, you gamble on nobody ever challenging you, but I've seen a lot of the criticism towards HM come from how replaceable they are, because they don't even have a market share.
- tonystubblebine 16y agoBut isn't that the norm for all companies that raise angel money?
- pg 16y agoGood design is not a commodity. Surely Apple has taught us all that. Even if the average big company sees something good and thinks "we should do this," odds are they'll fuck up.
- citricsquid 16y agoI won't argue with you as I don't have any real world business experience (at least any that could count as something to back up my point) but I think it's an extraordinary gamble, but that's how you make money I guess, big risks mean big rewards...
- grinich 16y agoGood design requires understanding the problem at a much deeper level. A big company can rip off the design, but without that understanding, they really have nowhere to go. I think that's been most evident with Apple, but it happens anywhere you find good design. (In the sense that design is how something works and not just aesthetics.)