8 ms·
Well, before this decision in a situation like this you would at least be able to retain your existing customers who are already invested in your platform, due
by nullifidian 6y ago
Well, before this decision in a situation like this you would at least be able to retain your existing customers who are already invested in your platform, due to API incompatibilities etc, but with the ability to painlessly re-implement platforms the large business would take your existing customers too, and reuse the platform momentum that you've built.
- skinkestek 6y agoSo companies would have to compete on pricing, availability, customer service etc etc instead of by being first to create lock in? Seems like a net benefit to me :-)
- nullifidian 6y agoIt stifles innovation and rewards big business. Why risk developing something if it will be taken from you? A winner-take-all kind of situation. It leaves little room for the platform's authors to generate revenue other then hiring themselves to said big business, and probably at depressed rates.
- skinkestek 6y agoBecause you can always outcompete them? No, it is not a first class ticket to unicorn valuation, but it is trivially easy to differentiate - from Google by just providing any kind of customer service to all paying customers - from AWS and GCP just by allowing on premise solutions - from Facebook by not reliably failing to protect and/or actively exploit your customers all the time - etc Need proof? See Slack, WhatsApp and Instagram (before the acquisition), Basecamp etc etc.