4 ms·

The tech industry has fundamentally changed since the early 2000s though. Microsoft was primarily interested in extinguishing competition. The new culture for t

The tech industry has fundamentally changed since the early 2000s though. Microsoft was primarily interested in extinguishing competition. The new culture for the past 10ish years has been to assimilate. It's not an isolated case. There are too many examples to count. Are you arguing that FB/Google/etc haven't been on a crazy buying spree for years now because ... Microsoft didn't do the same thing 20 years ago? Or because Blockbuster didn't do it 25 years ago? We see the current tech giants doing it right now, probably learning from said mistakes in missing the boat.

whb07 7y ago
Uh, yeah that’s what I’m arguing. They aren’t buying everything. It’s a tricky concept and you just demonstrated why it is so. A thriving smart manager in a top company will only recommend the “obvious” and “great” companies to acquire. They aren’t going to suggest to buy a risky or “clearly dumb” company in X vertical. But it is those dumb and risky sounding companies that become the next big thing. So why would GM worry about Toyota when those shitty Japanese cars are terrible and we can focus on the large vehicles where all the money is at? Why would MSFT worry about this whole phone business when clearly it’s making hand over fist with the desktop/pc market? Why would a bank want to get involved with the illegal activity and fraudulent market of crypto.... oh wait.
- jplayer01 7y ago
  You keep picking these companies as examples that haven't made it a part of their model to buy potential competitors, that already made these mistakes and suffered because of it. I don't understand why. The companies I've named have already demonstrated their penchant for buying potential competitors. They don't even have to be particularly successful companies - it's enough for a company to have a niche where they're beloved or interesting to people and they'll be gobbled up. It doesn't even matter if the company gets a bit bigger, because Big Tech can just throw even more money at it. That's the problem - they're buying up anything that even remotely looks interesting, subsuming the tech or the engineers, sunsetting the original projects and moving on to the next startup to buy.
  - whb07 7y ago
    There is no ever fountain spring of money and time which is exactly what buying a company is. You have to throw lawyers and time and effort into it. Assuming you did have Apple's cash balance, lets say you did try to spend it all.... what then happens to next years class of startups/smaller companies? Apple's $billions cash pile isn't all acquired in 1 year but over the past decade. Furthermore, once you buy it you have to spend mental energy integrating the purchase into the company. Do you really believe all the shareholders and stakeholders are all down for that massive distraction? There is a weird chain of thoughts that needs to be interrupted here. Someone I spoke to earlier this year was essentially saying the same thing about Rockefeller, "well he was buying up all the smaller oil fields and producers!". Well, if you did hear that was happening wouldn't you yourself go out and try to strike more oil fields to be bought out quickly? Furthermore, what do you do when the massive fields in the middle east were found? Do you expect Rockefeller to start heading over there buying up the entire region to shore up the U.S market? This is quickly becoming an argument that defeats basic reasoning and basic reason.

whb07 7y ago

Uh, yeah that’s what I’m arguing. They aren’t buying everything. It’s a tricky concept and you just demonstrated why it is so. A thriving smart manager in a top company will only recommend the “obvious” and “great” companies to acquire. They aren’t going to suggest to buy a risky or “clearly dumb” company in X vertical. But it is those dumb and risky sounding companies that become the next big thing. So why would GM worry about Toyota when those shitty Japanese cars are terrible and we can focus on the large vehicles where all the money is at? Why would MSFT worry about this whole phone business when clearly it’s making hand over fist with the desktop/pc market? Why would a bank want to get involved with the illegal activity and fraudulent market of crypto.... oh wait.

jplayer01 7y ago
You keep picking these companies as examples that haven't made it a part of their model to buy potential competitors, that already made these mistakes and suffered because of it. I don't understand why. The companies I've named have already demonstrated their penchant for buying potential competitors. They don't even have to be particularly successful companies - it's enough for a company to have a niche where they're beloved or interesting to people and they'll be gobbled up. It doesn't even matter if the company gets a bit bigger, because Big Tech can just throw even more money at it. That's the problem - they're buying up anything that even remotely looks interesting, subsuming the tech or the engineers, sunsetting the original projects and moving on to the next startup to buy.
- whb07 7y ago
  There is no ever fountain spring of money and time which is exactly what buying a company is. You have to throw lawyers and time and effort into it. Assuming you did have Apple's cash balance, lets say you did try to spend it all.... what then happens to next years class of startups/smaller companies? Apple's $billions cash pile isn't all acquired in 1 year but over the past decade. Furthermore, once you buy it you have to spend mental energy integrating the purchase into the company. Do you really believe all the shareholders and stakeholders are all down for that massive distraction? There is a weird chain of thoughts that needs to be interrupted here. Someone I spoke to earlier this year was essentially saying the same thing about Rockefeller, "well he was buying up all the smaller oil fields and producers!". Well, if you did hear that was happening wouldn't you yourself go out and try to strike more oil fields to be bought out quickly? Furthermore, what do you do when the massive fields in the middle east were found? Do you expect Rockefeller to start heading over there buying up the entire region to shore up the U.S market? This is quickly becoming an argument that defeats basic reasoning and basic reason.