4 ms·

Great examples. How do you think this would apply in Dalton's case though, where the very mechanism of building on Facebook/Twitter's platform can be shut down

Great examples. How do you think this would apply in Dalton's case though, where the very mechanism of building on Facebook/Twitter's platform can be shut down by Facebook/Twitter?

paulsutter 14y ago
I don't know. But unless you have a strategy, don't start a company. Without a strategy you're just picking up nickles in front of a steamroller. I'm sure that strategies exist on any platform. Zynga doesn't seem worried that Facebook will copy its games (even if they do hate paying the platform tax). Many products are pretty safe from Facebook. For example, build an app for dentists, or personal trainers, or pregnant women.
- petegrif 14y ago
  There only is one sure strategy for avoiding the potential steamroller of the platform company. Don't build on the platform.
  - scottrafer 14y ago
    Like any other resource or dependency that you build into your business, using a platform requires an ROI calculation of some sort. The distribution advantage needs to be worth the risk.
    - petegrif 14y ago
      True. The point however is to understand how to quantify the risk. The complicating factor in this case is surely the fact that he had received explicit assurances that his development was welcome and would be supported. The thing I don't understand is how you would go about assessing the 'distribution advantage' given the fact that the risk is evidently so hard to evaluate. DC has evidently now come to the conclusion that it is too risky for him no matter what the advantage. I am curious to better understand your thinking on how to weigh advantage against risk.
      - scottrafer 14y ago
        Treat the 'explicit assurances' like politicians' campaign promises. If they lose, the promises are irrelevant. If they win, those promises had better align with the new incumbent's larger aims or they were just marketing. The risk is not very hard to assess. It's pretty binary per startup opportunity. Do the relevant incumbents' revenue models, distribution models, or inherent cultural limitations prevent them from competing with you. @paulsutter covered the first two well early in this discussion. For the last, Apple has great difficulty with social, Facebook hasn't figured out Touch, Google is excessively focused on those two competitors, etc. Please also see these two comments: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4336783 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4336783 http://rafer.net/post/28638883246/mark-i-know-for-a-fact-that-my-experience-was-not#comment-609227651 http://rafer.net/post/28638883246/mark-i-know-for-a-fact-tha...,

Great examples. How do you think this would apply in Dalton's case though, where the very mechanism of building on Facebook/Twitter's platform can be shut down by Facebook/Twitter?

paulsutter 14y ago

I don't know. But unless you have a strategy, don't start a company. Without a strategy you're just picking up nickles in front of a steamroller. I'm sure that strategies exist on any platform. Zynga doesn't seem worried that Facebook will copy its games (even if they do hate paying the platform tax). Many products are pretty safe from Facebook. For example, build an app for dentists, or personal trainers, or pregnant women.

petegrif 14y ago
There only is one sure strategy for avoiding the potential steamroller of the platform company. Don't build on the platform.
- scottrafer 14y ago
  Like any other resource or dependency that you build into your business, using a platform requires an ROI calculation of some sort. The distribution advantage needs to be worth the risk.
  - petegrif 14y ago
    True. The point however is to understand how to quantify the risk. The complicating factor in this case is surely the fact that he had received explicit assurances that his development was welcome and would be supported. The thing I don't understand is how you would go about assessing the 'distribution advantage' given the fact that the risk is evidently so hard to evaluate. DC has evidently now come to the conclusion that it is too risky for him no matter what the advantage. I am curious to better understand your thinking on how to weigh advantage against risk.
    - scottrafer 14y ago
      Treat the 'explicit assurances' like politicians' campaign promises. If they lose, the promises are irrelevant. If they win, those promises had better align with the new incumbent's larger aims or they were just marketing. The risk is not very hard to assess. It's pretty binary per startup opportunity. Do the relevant incumbents' revenue models, distribution models, or inherent cultural limitations prevent them from competing with you. @paulsutter covered the first two well early in this discussion. For the last, Apple has great difficulty with social, Facebook hasn't figured out Touch, Google is excessively focused on those two competitors, etc. Please also see these two comments: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4336783 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4336783 http://rafer.net/post/28638883246/mark-i-know-for-a-fact-that-my-experience-was-not#comment-609227651 http://rafer.net/post/28638883246/mark-i-know-for-a-fact-tha...,