3 ms·
They could, but it's IBM so any 'lite' version wouldn't stay lite for very long. They mostly excel at making huge, complicated things to sell to other huge, com
by onion2k 2y ago
They could, but it's IBM so any 'lite' version wouldn't stay lite for very long. They mostly excel at making huge, complicated things to sell to other huge, complicated businesses. They aren't very interested in, or very good at, making small things they need to sell lots of (and, to their credit, they recognize that and stick to what they're good at.)
- MichaelZuo 2y agoWell they clearly have the potential to sell the same but without any of the add ons, or most of the support or guarantees, and with functionality restricfed. Wouldn’t they do so once they notice there is a serious challenger?
- lmm 2y agoThat's the famous innovator's dilemma. It's very hard for a company to sell a product that undercuts a product that makes a lot of revenue for them, even if it's the "right" play. So that wouldn't be a risk I'd worry about in practice.
- MichaelZuo 2y agoWell in this case it wouldn’t be undercutting, since the lite version would be totally unusuable for a big complex company.
- lmm 2y agoIt would be a cheaper alternative for at least some use cases. At least some companies that were currently using the big version would switch to the lite version.
- MichaelZuo 2y agoThen they would have been viable customers for a smaller challenger…?
- lmm 2y agoYes, they are. But it's very hard for a company to sign off on releasing a product that's going to cost them sales of their big money-maker, even if in reality those sales are going to be lost to an outside competitor anyway.
- chrisandchris 2y ago1 times a large sale is still most times better than 10 small sales, if your company is focused on larger sales. Smaller sales are a whole different thing and needs a different (organizational) architecture.