I mean cost in terms of 'time to make a decision', without considering 'cost of making the wrong decision', which is closer to risk. > The answer to why you sh

I mean cost in terms of 'time to make a decision', without considering 'cost of making the wrong decision', which is closer to risk. > The answer to why you shouldn't just do whatever Google is doing is because trying to copycat the leader is the one thing that will guarantee your _failure_ in the market place. The article seems to demonstrate the opposite - decisions following the leader, and paying for it later, but surviving in the interim. > If you're doing the same thing as everybody else you're by definition just reinventing the wheel. Why bother? I don't really agree. When it comes to something like a DB or architecture, that's probably not where you need to be inventing new solutions - products are rarely sold based on their technical implementation, and more about the results they drive. If you were building a new Google search, and you used all of the same tech, that's probably a bad idea. But if I'm building a product for a completely isolated domain, who cares if it's solved using the same tools that Google solves search? Regarding lambda, there's likely tons of room for competitors even within a domain to implement off of the same technology - again, it's just a tool, and not likely to be the differentiator.