4 ms·
> if a competitor takes interest in your space and has a large war chest, you'd be powerless to compete with them If that were true, every single company that
by coffee 6y ago
> if a competitor takes interest in your space and has a large war chest, you'd be powerless to compete with them
If that were true, every single company that had more money to spend would always win. But that's not what's observable. There seem to be other factors at play that don't always center around money.
> no new company that starts with the environment you are describing is going to be successful.
That would mean no upstart could ever compete in the same space any established player. But again, that's not what's observable.
It appears to be much more multi-faceted than just "he who has the most money always wins."
- andreilys 6y agoSeems to be the case with Facebook that just acquired all their competitors once they became a threat.
- coffee 6y agoNot all companies desire to be acquired, even when offered. Not all deals go through, even when desired. We often hear of those that do get acquired, more rarely those that don't - Facebook has notably failed making attempts. Those companies are still going strong. Facebook didn't kill them.
- cutemonster 6y agoWhat are some of those? Snapchat is one? I wonder if they have in mind an IPO instead
- colonwqbang 6y agoMaybe it's not what you would prefer but the owners of those companies probably saw themselves as winners. Unless Zuckerberg forced them to sell at gunpoint?
- cutemonster 6y agoThey = winners, FB = winner. Consumers and their customers = losers (?)
- _blu 6y agono, because the point is that the company has fundamentally changed it's structure. So it would be hard to create new features when they lack a culture for doing that