23 ms·
From Nostrademons: "I predict that Libra will work for a while, but will eventually be overshadowed either by competitors or by the new markets that it enables
by totemandtoken 6y ago
From Nostrademons:
"I predict that Libra will work for a while, but will eventually be overshadowed either by competitors or by the new markets that it enables.
There's this pattern I've noticed where every major tech company, once initial traction has been established, gets three pivots. You can think of them as adolescence, mid-life, and rebirth.
The first pivot happens when the company is 5-8 years old (since the 1970s at least; older before then), and serves to define the company. The System 360 for IBM, defining it as the provider of mainframes for enterprises. MS-DOS for Microsoft, defining it as the dominant PC OS. The Macintosh for Apple, defining it as the most user-friendly consumer brand out there. GMail and Maps for Google, defining it as the conglomerate of the Internet age. Mobile for Facebook, defining it as the service that connects people regardless of where they are.
The second pivot happens when the company is 10-15, at the height of its dominance, and usually results from it entering the hottest new technology wave with a vengeance. It looks like it succeeds for a while, crushes early entrants, serves to legitimize that technology wave, but ultimately peters out as the company can't keep up with the changes that it introduces. The IBM PC for IBM, which legitimized the PC market but ultimately fell to clones. Internet Explorer for Microsoft, which legitimized the Internet but ultimately was eclipsed by Google's many products. The Newton for Apple, which legitimized the PDA market but ultimately was too early. Google+ for Google, which legitimized social networking but ultimately failed to gain traction.
The third pivot is when the company realizes that they basically incapable of innovating, and returns to the roots they established with the first pivot to live out their old age. Open-source consulting for IBM, leveraging their massive installed base of enterprise customers. VS Code, XBox, and Azure for Microsoft, recognizing that they are fundamentally a platforms company. The iPhone and iPad for Apple, refocusing on their strengths in UX and delivering top-quality consumer electronics products. Alphabet for Google, realizing that they're fundamentally a conglomerate that lets a thousand flowers bloom (and cancels 990 of them).
Libra is Facebook's second pivot. It'll look like it succeeds for a while, it'll legitimize cryptocurrency, but it'll ultimately end up eclipsed by what it creates. "
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20210791 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20210791
- StavrosK 6y agoGenerally interesting, but it's somewhat telling that the one prediction it made failed miserably.
- totemandtoken 6y agoI agree, but I still think the idea of looking at a company through its pivots is an interesting analysis. There is a lot of survivor's bias in this comment, but that's generally the case when talking about companies
- adventured 6y ago> GMail and Maps for Google, defining it as the conglomerate of the Internet age. Mobile for Facebook, defining it as the service that connects people regardless of where they are. That's an interesting thought. Is it Google or Amazon or Facebook? Amazon: AWS + retail + Alexa + Kindle + Prime. Everything about Amazon (going even further back than Google), for the most part, has been Internet based. They're clearly an Internet conglomerate. AWS is a drastically bigger deal for the Internet than Gmail, YouTube or GMaps; AWS is a present or future $600-$800 billion company by itself. Alexa owns the smart speaker market. Amazon is close to being an online retail monopoly. Prime is the world's largest loyalty lock-in program, which none of the other tech giants have (they have various leveraged network moats instead). Facebook: FB core, FB messenger, WhatsApp, Instagram. I think FB's combination is at least as potent today as GSearch + YouTube + Gmail + GMaps. How quickly FB's sales have grown rather speaks to that as well. I think GSearch has a plausibly more enduring position than Instagram though. And if you remove Instagram then FB's upside drops off dramatically, it's a shaky position that can be threatened. WhatsApp isn't worth much commercially (relatively speaking) and probably never will be, that acquisition was a competition removing action by FB. As Instagram ages, it'll face an endless line of cooler TikToks vying to rip its userbase away (young people not wanting to be where the old people are or where the last thing was), that process will never stop because social networks are almost always built on trend / fashion / cool and as they age they shed the cool factor. What threats have GSearch and YouTube faced? Not much, it's far harder to compete with them than it is to build the next small social homerun and scale it if it hits. Today, and for this decade, FB is probably as great of a conglomerate as Google, however I would rather own Google's properties than Instagram and WhatsApp (if FB had shown an ability to rapidly spin up new products to catch each cool wave, that would be different; but the exact opposite has happened, FB is risking turning Instagram into Frankenstein's monster, contorting it to keep up with each upcomer like Snapchat and then TikTok).