4 ms·
I think the test is if you have a significant enough competitive advantage (via execution stemming from knowledge, the team, idea and implementation) that if en
by ericb 18y ago
I think the test is if you have a significant enough competitive advantage (via execution stemming from knowledge, the team, idea and implementation) that if entrenched powers try to follow on, it won't matter hugely. For example, youtube was bought by google after google had tried their hand at google video. If your approach can jump this hurdle, the competitors are not something to worry about.
- ashr 18y agoIf there is already a clear competitive advantage then indeed the competitors are not that big of an issue. But it is very hard to ascertain that. Besides almost every company has smart people. So if there is something that can be done and it is not technologically impossible (or patented) then chances are that lot of other folks can do it too. Those besides incumbents have about the same chance as you starting up and that is fair. The real issue is in estimating the likelihood that incumbents would dive-in too before you get traction. So what are the factors that one can look at or ensure to minimize the risk of doing something that the entrenched players would replicate. Or what are the factors based on which such an idea should be put aside? I really appreciate all the high quality input I am getting.
- ericb 18y agoThings to think about: If it is a feature, not a product, that would be a warning sign. If the bulk of what the incumbents have already radically increases the value of the product, it will be harder to compete. As an example, kiko had calendaring, but google held higher ground with a massive user base and large critical mass of related functionality in other apps. You have to weigh who the competitors are also. Do they buy, or invent technology? Are they vigorous (startups, or google) or slow and lethargic.