4 ms·

"Don't trust an oil company to disrupt their own business model with renewables" seems to be the lesson here.

anon291 2y ago
Why? They're all energy companies, not oil companies. Companies pivot all the time. As long as there's profit to be made, they'll even engage in both.
- giwook 2y ago
  Except probably 99% of their profits come from oil. 99% of their infrastructure is setup for oil which has been honed and put into place over decades. Can you imagine the cost of revamping all of that? And then they have to explain to their shareholders why their profits are a fraction of what they normally are, otherwise their stock price will sink which will affect the company in myriad ways. There's so much to this space that I'm ignorant of, but I know enough to know that it's really not that simple.
  - anon291 2y ago
    They don't need to revamp. They have access to billions in revenue that can be put in to setting themselves up as key players in yet another industry. Many of them are doing just that. Eventually, they all probably want to dominate the battery / grid renewables industry as well. Why wouldn't they? They are uniquely positioned to do so.
- burnte 2y ago
  Logically, yes, but it doesn't always happen. Ballmer forgot MS was a software company, thought it was only a Windows company, and wasted a decade. Oil execs look at the cost of change, and decide they're not energy companies, only oil because that's what they know.
  - JamesBarney 2y ago
    https://danluu.com/ballmer/ https://danluu.com/ballmer/ For the argument Ballmer didn't waste a decade but setup MS up for the success it's seeing today.
    - emodendroket 2y ago
      If Microsoft is the wrong answer Kodak, who squelched their own digital photography stuff because they made so much from film, is a classic cautionary tale about a company getting too wed to its business model and allowing itself to become obsolete.
    - burnte 2y ago
      Yeah, I've read that, but I lived through it and even worked for them for 6 months during the period. No, Ballmer was not an underrated CEO. He was an overrated COO and a terrible CEO.
  - anon291 2y ago
    Yes, I agree it doesn't always happen, but in aggregate it typically does. For example, Borders didn't get on with the digital trend, but B&N did. I agree that any one oil company might not be forward-looking enough, but overall, there will those that do and those that don't, and you can't assume any one company is in the latter group just because of their current industry.
  - anon291 2y ago
    > Oil execs look at the cost of change, and decide they're not energy companies, only oil because that's what they know. Some do yes, but it's not a hard and fast rule. What I notice is that when oil companies start green energy projects, people immediately question their motives as if it's anything more complicated than wanting to make more money in a new industry. They ought to be commended.
- schmichael 2y ago
  Chevron is an oil and natural gas company, not an electricity production company. Directly producing green energy is a bit like Apple selling Windows PCs.
  - jonas21 2y ago
    Apple was a computer company and now their biggest business is selling mobile phones.
    - Tostino 2y ago
      Which are what if not computers?
      - manwe150 2y ago
        There must be some difference, as otherwise my washing machine would be a computer too since it has a screen, input, and an operating system; and conversely that the Windows phone wouldn’t have had such a brief existence.
        alanbernstein 2y ago
        Perhaps the difference between a phone and a washing machine is, uh, the plumbing?
        manwe150 2y ago
        So you're saying having plumbing in the computer makes it not a computer? What about water-cooled gaming and HPC systems: are they computers?
        alanbernstein 2y ago
        Do I really need to clarify that the primary purpose of a washing machine is not to compute, but to wash?
- treflop 2y ago
  There is a reason why newer companies and younger people tend to make bigger changes… It’s not a conspiracy. It’s not because they can’t. It’s because all that they have built up from hard work has resulted in responsibilities to a lot of people that also now hold them back.
  - anon291 2y ago
    Absolutely, and this is a common pitfall of large companies. However, history also shows us that many large companies can and do adapt and do go on to dominate newer fields. For example, American express was a shipping company (and a massive one at that) before it started venturing into novel financial services. If anything, large companies are better positioned than startups to enter new capital-intensive verticals, and I think history bears this out.
- htrp 2y ago
  companies are made of people, and generalally all of the execs in charge cut their teeth in the oil and gas sphere
  - anon291 2y ago
    People regularly engage in profit seeking behavior in different industries.
- emodendroket 2y ago
  If the profits or barriers to entry are less favorable they might be disinclined to do that.

Why? They're all energy companies, not oil companies. Companies pivot all the time. As long as there's profit to be made, they'll even engage in both.

giwook 2y ago
Except probably 99% of their profits come from oil. 99% of their infrastructure is setup for oil which has been honed and put into place over decades. Can you imagine the cost of revamping all of that? And then they have to explain to their shareholders why their profits are a fraction of what they normally are, otherwise their stock price will sink which will affect the company in myriad ways. There's so much to this space that I'm ignorant of, but I know enough to know that it's really not that simple.
- anon291 2y ago
  They don't need to revamp. They have access to billions in revenue that can be put in to setting themselves up as key players in yet another industry. Many of them are doing just that. Eventually, they all probably want to dominate the battery / grid renewables industry as well. Why wouldn't they? They are uniquely positioned to do so.
burnte 2y ago
Logically, yes, but it doesn't always happen. Ballmer forgot MS was a software company, thought it was only a Windows company, and wasted a decade. Oil execs look at the cost of change, and decide they're not energy companies, only oil because that's what they know.
- JamesBarney 2y ago
  https://danluu.com/ballmer/ https://danluu.com/ballmer/ For the argument Ballmer didn't waste a decade but setup MS up for the success it's seeing today.
  - emodendroket 2y ago
    If Microsoft is the wrong answer Kodak, who squelched their own digital photography stuff because they made so much from film, is a classic cautionary tale about a company getting too wed to its business model and allowing itself to become obsolete.
  - burnte 2y ago
    Yeah, I've read that, but I lived through it and even worked for them for 6 months during the period. No, Ballmer was not an underrated CEO. He was an overrated COO and a terrible CEO.
- anon291 2y ago
  Yes, I agree it doesn't always happen, but in aggregate it typically does. For example, Borders didn't get on with the digital trend, but B&N did. I agree that any one oil company might not be forward-looking enough, but overall, there will those that do and those that don't, and you can't assume any one company is in the latter group just because of their current industry.
- anon291 2y ago
  > Oil execs look at the cost of change, and decide they're not energy companies, only oil because that's what they know. Some do yes, but it's not a hard and fast rule. What I notice is that when oil companies start green energy projects, people immediately question their motives as if it's anything more complicated than wanting to make more money in a new industry. They ought to be commended.
schmichael 2y ago
Chevron is an oil and natural gas company, not an electricity production company. Directly producing green energy is a bit like Apple selling Windows PCs.
- jonas21 2y ago
  Apple was a computer company and now their biggest business is selling mobile phones.
  - Tostino 2y ago
    Which are what if not computers?
    - manwe150 2y ago
      There must be some difference, as otherwise my washing machine would be a computer too since it has a screen, input, and an operating system; and conversely that the Windows phone wouldn’t have had such a brief existence.
      - alanbernstein 2y ago
        Perhaps the difference between a phone and a washing machine is, uh, the plumbing?
        manwe150 2y ago
        So you're saying having plumbing in the computer makes it not a computer? What about water-cooled gaming and HPC systems: are they computers?
        alanbernstein 2y ago
        Do I really need to clarify that the primary purpose of a washing machine is not to compute, but to wash?
treflop 2y ago
There is a reason why newer companies and younger people tend to make bigger changes… It’s not a conspiracy. It’s not because they can’t. It’s because all that they have built up from hard work has resulted in responsibilities to a lot of people that also now hold them back.
- anon291 2y ago
  Absolutely, and this is a common pitfall of large companies. However, history also shows us that many large companies can and do adapt and do go on to dominate newer fields. For example, American express was a shipping company (and a massive one at that) before it started venturing into novel financial services. If anything, large companies are better positioned than startups to enter new capital-intensive verticals, and I think history bears this out.
htrp 2y ago
companies are made of people, and generalally all of the execs in charge cut their teeth in the oil and gas sphere
- anon291 2y ago
  People regularly engage in profit seeking behavior in different industries.
emodendroket 2y ago
If the profits or barriers to entry are less favorable they might be disinclined to do that.