4 ms·
I used to read a lot of writing like this and still do (tech strategy newsletters--Stratechery, Benedict Evans, etc) The hazard of reading stuff like this is t
by eldavido 5y ago
I used to read a lot of writing like this and still do (tech strategy newsletters--Stratechery, Benedict Evans, etc)
The hazard of reading stuff like this is that it makes the world seem much more orderly and predictable than it is. Case in point: Zoom. "Videoconferencing is a commodity". "Distribution is all that matters". And all of a sudden, someone does this "commodity" a lot better, without the pre-existing network/distribution/brand of someone like Skype, Google, etc. How do they explain this? How does it make sense that a team can work heads-down without any clear distribution advantage and just grind, and build a large, meaningful company by making a better product?
It's the same deal with Yamaha Motorcycles. Read their story. Bootstrapped from a "nobody" brand in the US, stiff competition against Harley-Davidson and their ilk. They just got better and better, gradually improving year after year, until they're taken seriously by hardcore enthusiasts and are one of the leading motorcycle companies in the US. How do you explain this success in terms of moats, 2x2 matrices, SWOT analysis, competitive positioning, etc? Sometimes a company wins because they just want it more badly and are willing to push their people harder, and outwork/out-deliver the competition.
Calling the tech "still fundamentally a commodity" bothers me not because I'm a technologist, but because it's horribly hand-wavey and imprecise. It sounds precise, but what...exactly...does this mean? As other commenters have pointed out, sure, a commodity that cost oh, 100 billion dollars and a decade to build, isn't easily duplicated, and meaningfully contributes to the user experience? I heard someone describe gold as a "6000-year bubble" last week in the context of the "crypto bubble". Same idea--"a commodity that nobody else has, took a decade to build, and over 100 billion dollars". Some "commodity".
As a CEO, I increasingly find all this strategy stuff noise. All that matters is delighting your customers. You do that and charge a reasonable price, you're going to succeed. It might take a while, and of course you need decent sales/marketing execution, but overall, just focus on keeping customers happy, and you'll get there.
- liuliu 5y agoI use Apple TV. Netflix does have better user experience (in terms of playing videos) than Prime Video, HBO Max, Hulu for me. It plays faster, seeks faster, properly does Dolby Vision / HDR when the content has it and has different language subtitles. It animates properly from one screen to another (in stark contrast to Prime Video). The content exploration and navigation is something to be desired, but comparing to other apps, it is on par (similarly bad).
- eldavido 5y ago100% agree. Prime video is garbage through and through. I much, much prefer Netflix. I think Benedict's larger point is correct that I might put up with shitty Prime streaming because I want to watch what's on it. But it's not a delight. No way. And in the long term, that shit matters. The joylessness creeps up on you over time, until eventually you're left with Eclipse, Windows 10, or Android scrolling. Your NPS scores fall off a cliff, you get zero word of mouth, no lines outside of stores, nobody talking about it on social media/news/etc. and then everyone acts like it's some big shock. It's not fun!! I think Tesla, Apple, and Netflix all really get this.
- RangerScience 5y agoI had to put my Tesla in the bodyshop, and the loaner I got was a "nice" Jaguar SUV. God damn the software was shit. All the "car" part of it was fine (arguably excellent, even) but the rest was just. Ugh. (four control surfaces to use cruise control?!) The Tesla dashboard software package is just plain delightful, and that's such a huge part of cars now, it really matters.
- ErikVandeWater 5y agoI would say strategy evaluation is more valuable on the investing side than real-world. Investing in companies with strategic advantages is much more profitable that trying to find the one commodity company out of thousands that are able to escape from the fires of intense competition. Strategy is also how you avoid having to delight your customers to be profitable. Just get a new law passed that is inconvenient for your competitors to follow. Delighting customers is also hard because people are unreasonable and unpredictable. Try selling an app. Even if your app adds lots of value over your competitor, people aren't used to spending money on apps. I would guess the vast majority of apps that make money play into people's addictions and get 1% of their users to buy pay-to-win items or custom skins for their players/items. Only the unreasonable people actually make these companies any money.
- robertlagrant 5y ago> Calling the tech "still fundamentally a commodity" bothers me not because I'm a technologist, but because it's horribly hand-wavey and imprecise. It sounds precise, but what...exactly...does this mean? Quite a lot of analysis seems to be making people feel better about not being technical, when technical jobs are exploding in prominence, and you can sell your analysis better if you make customers feel better.