5 ms·

> But instead of stepping up to the plate and igniting a Red Queen's Race that would have benefited everyone, INTC first tried to discredit the technology repea

by doh 7y ago

> But instead of stepping up to the plate and igniting a Red Queen's Race that would have benefited everyone, INTC first tried to discredit the technology repeatedly, then they built an absolutely dreadful series of decelerators that demonstrated how badly they didn't understand manycore. Eventually, they gave up, and now they're playing catch-up by buying companies that get within striking distance of NVDA rather than building really cool technology from within. Reminds me of "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win". So many companies have this reaction (e.g. RIM with BlackBerry). Wondering if this is some kind of "corporate instinct".

marcosdumay 7y ago
This is "The innovator's dilemma" material. TL.DR. yes, it's a perfectly rational (but short term biased) reaction that corporations mostly can not resist having.
- doh 7y ago
  I was just thinking about it as I wrote it. I think that's correct and glad you brought it up.
- asdf21 7y ago
  The thing is, it works 98% of the time, the scrappy upstart gets laughed out of business. There is a sort of survivors bias in focusing in the 2% and assuming that's the norm. Corporations act this way because it generally works. Like the OP said though, it does lead to arrogance over time, and that's when a fall happens.
  - icelancer 7y ago
    But all it takes is a 1/50 shot to sink your business or overlook a key feature. That's why it's a real thing, and a 98% success rate is not very good at all.
  - close04 7y ago
    A corporation (the management, that is) also act this way because they know their maneuverability is just about the same as that of the Titanic. So while they (maybe) prepare a response knowing full well they're already late too the party they try to discredit the startup hoping it will at the very least slow it down. Corporations can't really be as successful at innovating as a startup. A startup is free to build or reshape itself into anything, focus on a single thing, and pivot on a dime. In a corporation the same structures that hold it up and moving are the ones that resist it changing direction or promoting something new. Easy to lose focus and get lost in the red tape. And that's before you consider the risk a CEO sees in potentially cannibalizing their own (currently successful) business or just throwing money down the drain at 98 losing ideas. Like you said, 2% of ideas may be successful so a corporation would rather let the startup play it out and then buy it if it has potential. Easier to justify to investors. So corporations innovate when they have nothing to lose and any risk is worth taking. See MS trying to somewhat successfully reinventing themselves after seeing mobile and FOSS booming. Private companies also have an easier time innovating because they have no investor pressure. They may be behemoths but at least they can avoid suffering from the "too many cooks in the kitchen" syndrome.
    - asdf21 7y ago
      >because they know their maneuverability is just about the same as that of the Titanic. I know this to be true, however I cannot understand for the life of me why this is the case. If I was the CEO or CTO and had, say, 5k people under me, you had better believe there would be dozens of little 3-4 person teams doing hard research on threats and coming up with recommendations to get in front of them. I mean this is basic 1st year MBA SWOT Analysis stuff.
      - runevault 7y ago
        Even if you know what is coming, that doesn't guarantee you can outmaneuver it. When you are dealing with thousands of people, contracts with hundreds to tens of thousand of customers, and infrastructure based on the assumptions that make your existing business tick, a fundamental change that costs a new competitor $0 to make because they don't have any of that built up stuff could costs a fortune for you to counter. holding the place of an incumbent has advantages and disadvantages. Sometimes you can't leverage the advantages, and that's when a company can get buried by the upstart the worst.

by doh 7y ago

marcosdumay 7y ago

This is "The innovator's dilemma" material. TL.DR. yes, it's a perfectly rational (but short term biased) reaction that corporations mostly can not resist having.

doh 7y ago
I was just thinking about it as I wrote it. I think that's correct and glad you brought it up.
asdf21 7y ago
The thing is, it works 98% of the time, the scrappy upstart gets laughed out of business. There is a sort of survivors bias in focusing in the 2% and assuming that's the norm. Corporations act this way because it generally works. Like the OP said though, it does lead to arrogance over time, and that's when a fall happens.
- icelancer 7y ago
  But all it takes is a 1/50 shot to sink your business or overlook a key feature. That's why it's a real thing, and a 98% success rate is not very good at all.
- close04 7y ago
  A corporation (the management, that is) also act this way because they know their maneuverability is just about the same as that of the Titanic. So while they (maybe) prepare a response knowing full well they're already late too the party they try to discredit the startup hoping it will at the very least slow it down. Corporations can't really be as successful at innovating as a startup. A startup is free to build or reshape itself into anything, focus on a single thing, and pivot on a dime. In a corporation the same structures that hold it up and moving are the ones that resist it changing direction or promoting something new. Easy to lose focus and get lost in the red tape. And that's before you consider the risk a CEO sees in potentially cannibalizing their own (currently successful) business or just throwing money down the drain at 98 losing ideas. Like you said, 2% of ideas may be successful so a corporation would rather let the startup play it out and then buy it if it has potential. Easier to justify to investors. So corporations innovate when they have nothing to lose and any risk is worth taking. See MS trying to somewhat successfully reinventing themselves after seeing mobile and FOSS booming. Private companies also have an easier time innovating because they have no investor pressure. They may be behemoths but at least they can avoid suffering from the "too many cooks in the kitchen" syndrome.
  - asdf21 7y ago
    >because they know their maneuverability is just about the same as that of the Titanic. I know this to be true, however I cannot understand for the life of me why this is the case. If I was the CEO or CTO and had, say, 5k people under me, you had better believe there would be dozens of little 3-4 person teams doing hard research on threats and coming up with recommendations to get in front of them. I mean this is basic 1st year MBA SWOT Analysis stuff.
    - runevault 7y ago
      Even if you know what is coming, that doesn't guarantee you can outmaneuver it. When you are dealing with thousands of people, contracts with hundreds to tens of thousand of customers, and infrastructure based on the assumptions that make your existing business tick, a fundamental change that costs a new competitor $0 to make because they don't have any of that built up stuff could costs a fortune for you to counter. holding the place of an incumbent has advantages and disadvantages. Sometimes you can't leverage the advantages, and that's when a company can get buried by the upstart the worst.