He makes an interesting point that Google hasn't been a category-killer, in anything but search. Perhaps the most dangerous thing about them is the fear they cr

He makes an interesting point that Google hasn't been a category-killer, in anything but search. Perhaps the most dangerous thing about them is the fear they create in you, making you give up. Did Google Video kill YouTube? 1. market win: YouTube's advantage there was mass adoption/network effects... which the article's SimulScribe doesn't seem to have yet. 2. tech win: I'm a bit leery of touting technological prowess, because through fast iteration anyone can catch up (especially if they have an example to work towards - tech history is full of these stories). The crucial exception is if the leading tech still isn't good enough. If that sounds counterintuitive, read it as "has room for improvement". Because as the new entrant catches up to where you were, you have moved ahead. The danger for you is if your product is already perfect - then you have no where to run! The other way of protecting a tech advantage is through patents. The article doesn't mention patents, but perhaps that's because they create bad PR. People don't like patents. Some people hate patents. However, he's partnered with IBM, and he's talking about technical advantage in difficult field. If his tech really is that advanced, it's hard to believe he wouldn't have patents on it. However, none of that matters, because he anticipates that the carriers' fear of google will drive them into his arms. He didn't say this, but an acquisition seems likely to me. If not by a carrier, then by google itself.