4 ms·

So they fail in entry to yet another market. Time to hunker down into the foundry business.

by aj7 5y ago

im_down_w_otp 5y ago
This seems to be pretty typical of companies that have a sustaining cash cow. They're simultaneously compelled to try to find new avenues for growth while unable to really establish, operate, and sustain a commitment to see it through. Intel has x86, Google has AdWords, and they both have a graveyard of alternative product roadmaps around them. That said, I'm glad to see Intel gaining focus as I don't see it as a generally good thing for them to be floundering in the marketplace.
- lokimedes 5y ago
  It’s hard being the new product in the BCG matrix. Incumbents seldom remember how meager the traction looked in the beginnings of the lifecycle of their current cash cows.
  - silvestrov 5y ago
    even more so when it takes some years before the product gets traction. Twitter was not an overnight success. The first few years it was ridiculed as a big "completely useless" failure by journalists: the same people which now cannot live without it.
    - eitland 5y ago
      > Twitter was not an overnight success. The first few years it was ridiculed as a big "completely useless" failure by journalists: the same people which now cannot live without it. My opinion: In fact Twitter is still amazingly useless and is a prime example of a product succeeding despite its flaws instead of because something. And no, I'm not this negative towards everything simple. Snapchat for example has a point, I can see the point of it even if I use it even less than Twitter. Twitter succeed because Google botched Google+ after first using all the oxygen in the market together with Facebook.
- flyinglizard 5y ago
  But Google also has YouTube, Gmail, Gsuite, Android and Chrome - all are hugely influential cash cows. Google is a very successful multi-business company. It’s nothing like Intel. Intel tries to innovate and diversify but they are strangled by their stagnant workforce and internal politics. Two of their biggest acquisitions, Mobileye and Habana Labs chose to remain independent companies to a large degree under separate branding. They source what’s good for them from the mothership, and other than that maintain autonomy. Intel acquisitions which did not do that, instead fully integrating into Intel, mostly failed.
- jonas21 5y ago
  Or is it simply that we're more aware of the failures because anything a big company does gets press coverage? If you're small, you can fail quietly (and they do all the time).

So they fail in entry to yet another market. Time to hunker down into the foundry business.

by aj7 5y ago

So they fail in entry to yet another market. Time to hunker down into the foundry business.

This seems to be pretty typical of companies that have a sustaining cash cow. They're simultaneously compelled to try to find new avenues for growth while unable to really establish, operate, and sustain a commitment to see it through. Intel has x86, Google has AdWords, and they both have a graveyard of alternative product roadmaps around them. That said, I'm glad to see Intel gaining focus as I don't see it as a generally good thing for them to be floundering in the marketplace.

lokimedes 5y ago
It’s hard being the new product in the BCG matrix. Incumbents seldom remember how meager the traction looked in the beginnings of the lifecycle of their current cash cows.
- silvestrov 5y ago
  even more so when it takes some years before the product gets traction. Twitter was not an overnight success. The first few years it was ridiculed as a big "completely useless" failure by journalists: the same people which now cannot live without it.
  - eitland 5y ago
    > Twitter was not an overnight success. The first few years it was ridiculed as a big "completely useless" failure by journalists: the same people which now cannot live without it. My opinion: In fact Twitter is still amazingly useless and is a prime example of a product succeeding despite its flaws instead of because something. And no, I'm not this negative towards everything simple. Snapchat for example has a point, I can see the point of it even if I use it even less than Twitter. Twitter succeed because Google botched Google+ after first using all the oxygen in the market together with Facebook.
flyinglizard 5y ago
But Google also has YouTube, Gmail, Gsuite, Android and Chrome - all are hugely influential cash cows. Google is a very successful multi-business company. It’s nothing like Intel. Intel tries to innovate and diversify but they are strangled by their stagnant workforce and internal politics. Two of their biggest acquisitions, Mobileye and Habana Labs chose to remain independent companies to a large degree under separate branding. They source what’s good for them from the mothership, and other than that maintain autonomy. Intel acquisitions which did not do that, instead fully integrating into Intel, mostly failed.
jonas21 5y ago
Or is it simply that we're more aware of the failures because anything a big company does gets press coverage? If you're small, you can fail quietly (and they do all the time).