5 ms·
Brilliant stuff, but ignores the fact that the market rewards the first mover, not the guy who came later with something better.
by RachelF 15y ago
Brilliant stuff, but ignores the fact that the market rewards the first mover, not the guy who came later with something better.
- josephcooney 15y agoReally? I could have sworn google weren't the first search engine on the block, and Apple wasn't the first person to make 'smart' phones.
- brianlash 15y agoApple will never be the first "person" to do anything. With that said, point taken.
- aMoniker 15y agoCorporations are people too.
- JosephHatfield 15y agoI'll believe that when Texas executes one of them.
- Davertron 15y agoExcept for all the cases where the guy who came in later had his shit together (unlike the incumbents) and took over.
- nextparadigms 15y agoThat's about completely changing the game, though. You can't beat an incumbent, just by doing the same thing as he is, but better. You need a product that changes a lot of the rules of the competition in that market, and then you need for the market and customers to follow that vision as well. Only then an incumbent can be beaten because they will be slow to adapt to the new rules.
- zackzackzack 15y agoRight, but to be the first mover you need to at least get most of the idearight. Just because you got a shitty landing page website up first doesn't mean you can't get steamrolled two months later by somebody who had his stuff together.
- rhizome 15y ago"First-mover advantage" is overrated and can be nullified by lack of resources, free-rider effects, and API closings. EDIT: closures > closings