7 ms·
> Oren Etzioni, director of the Allen Institute for AI, also received the news with skepticism. “I disagree with the notion that a nonprofit can’t compete. […]
by mrcwinn 4y ago
> Oren Etzioni, director of the Allen Institute for AI, also received the news with skepticism. “I disagree with the notion that a nonprofit can’t compete. […] If bigger and better funded was always better, then IBM would still be number one.”
So, fine, I accept this story is as old as dirt: well-funded startup wants money and power; plays in a zero-sum game against other well-funded companies; sells product with lovely, benevolent marketing copy.
Still I find this comparison unconvincing. IBM is not number one because they lost to better-capitalized (on the right product) competitors.
So, precisely which non-profit unseated IBM? Which non-profit is a disruptive tech leader with a global workforce? I really want it to be true, but it needs to actually be demonstrably true.
- whatshisface 4y agoThere are so few (almost no) attempts at starting nonprofits to do the kinds of things that compete with IBM, that they could have a greater success rate than startups and we still wouldn't have any evidence one way or the other.
- mrcwinn 4y agoThat’s a fair point, and obviously the funding model doesn’t incentivize the creation of those types of organizations. I guess I remain skeptical (cynical?) that it could be successful. As perhaps one counter example, I’m currently decked out in Patagonia gear. Not a tech company, of course. And so maybe the bigger question is - does the audience (customer) care about how its product is funded and built? I argue they should, but do they? I see little evidence that’s the case. (See an extreme case: Meta.)
- pharmakom 4y ago> If bigger and better funded was always better, then IBM would still be number one Weak reasoning. Maybe being bigger and better funded is a necessary but not sufficient condition for success.