4 ms·
So, just from observation, when developing new tech, there is always LAST to market advantage. MS was LAST to market. Google was LAST to market. Kubernetes was
by streetcat1 7y ago
So, just from observation, when developing new tech, there is always LAST to market advantage. MS was LAST to market. Google was LAST to market. Kubernetes was LAST to market. Apple was LAST to market (After MS and Palm).
I think that Agile is good after the market is captured. But when developing the core tech (usually with no customers beside product managers and based on research), it might be too constraining.
- hinkley 7y agoI’ve observed the same thing. I’ve also observed that the dogma in the startup world is exactly opposite. Everything is about version 1 and there is nothing left in the tank for version 2. The whole MVP thing is more about selling demoware to investors. It just sounds like it’s being supportive and it gets them what they want. They don’t give one shit about what happens 18 months from now. That’s somebody else’s problem. There’s always someone with a higher pain tolerance they can hire (note: pain tolerance is negatively correlated with capacity to anticipate problems before they become emergencies). And there’s always advertising or mergers to mask the real problems.
- agency 7y agoThere's a last to market advantage in the same way that "you always find things in the last place you look"
- Nomentatus 7y agoGates made this argument strongly, in public, before getting nailed a couple of times - the latest big smackdown being Android, as he's confessed recently. "Last to market" is often "first to market with the truly appropriate technology."