> Only when they hit the terminal stage, they seemed to notice that they were doing something wrong Sadly this is the motivation for a lot of "correct" decisio

> Only when they hit the terminal stage, they seemed to notice that they were doing something wrong Sadly this is the motivation for a lot of "correct" decisions. It is the first thing I look for when I read a startup pitch, a misunderstanding of where the value is and what the customer perceived risks are for adoption. Too often I've heard entrepreneurs or senior managers say, "But if we did that, this business model wouldn't work." And I patiently point out to them that if they can't get customer engagement with their current business model, it already doesn't work so they need to change something. Typically it is re-think the business model so they can focus on what is valuable to the customer and what isn't. ARM Holdings can be disrupted by a business model that can keep software coherence high while not requiring an architecture license to add special sauce. That puts more pressure on the foundation/management entity but it trades value (architecture extension) for adoption. The key is partnering with those who would extend the architecture to keep it aligned with key architectural invariants, and when possible allowing really useful extensions to move into the mainstream.