4 ms·

The problem is that there is nothing preventing the "ecosystem host" from deciding that a niche an "ecosystem player" is exploring is lucrative and worth pursui

The problem is that there is nothing preventing the "ecosystem host" from deciding that a niche an "ecosystem player" is exploring is lucrative and worth pursuing. You can fly under the radar for a while but if Twitter/Facebook/Google/etc decide your area is lucrative, they will go after it, whether that will kill one of their "ecosystem players" or not. There is no partnership involved, they provide a service as a huge "blob" that is making them money and they don't care about 1 out of 1 million of their regular users. Your small company cannot call itself a partner, you've as much leverage as any user when it comes down to deciding to sacrifice you in the name of something else more lucrative. I'd say explore the benefits to bootstrap but have a strategy to depend less and less on them or your time will come. And if you really want to tie your business survival to one of these ecosystems, get yours and theirs responsibility down in writing (and even that won't help much because a breach of contract for them will mean nothing in terms of dollars, while for you it'll be your existence).

droopyEyelids 12y ago
Ah. So you mean, "If you want to be perfectly secure for all future time you must be completely self sufficient." Can't really argue with that. Maybe not useful advice, but it's self-evidently true.
- ColinWright 12y ago
  It's more like: If you build a great business based on something over which you have no control, and which is such that the ones who do have control actually may have an interest in cloning what you do and terminating your facility without warning, be sure to have a "Plan B". Yes, sounds obvious, but so many people seem to ignore it, and in some cases actively disagree with it. You seem to be disagreeing with it - what would you suggest as more useful advice and a more reasonable stance? Honestly, would you build a business based on a Twitter or Facebook facility, relying entirely on them not arbitrarily terminating your access? What is your advice?
  - lifeisstillgood 12y ago
    Perhaps to realise these companies are walled garden abberations, and that in an open competitive world, the Eco system would exist but the monopoly would not. As such encourage and build openness by default into your products, as for sure users want that (how many people for example wanted only to email other AOL users, or view only other AOL websites?
wpietri 12y ago
Definitely. Indeed, there's a very long history of companies creating ecosystems and then crushing the most successful entrants. One that stuck with me is Stac: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stac_Electronics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stac_Electronics In the MS DOS days they were looking at building on-the-fly compression chips for hard drives. But it turned out that it could be done nearly as well in software, so they made a very popular product that basically doubled the space available on every hard drive. Microsoft thought that was pretty swell, so they talked with Stac about licensing their technology, getting as far as inspecting their source code. But they decided to just build it themselves. Stac eventually won a lawsuit on patent claims, but it was neither easy nor cheap. It makes sense from an MBA perspective: you can definitely boost your short-term numbers by fucking over your previous partners. You get a proven market and no significant competition. But what never shows up on the spreadsheets is the extent to which you've reduced long-term ecosystem innovation because savvier players learn you can't be trusted.

droopyEyelids 12y ago

Ah. So you mean, "If you want to be perfectly secure for all future time you must be completely self sufficient." Can't really argue with that. Maybe not useful advice, but it's self-evidently true.

ColinWright 12y ago
It's more like: If you build a great business based on something over which you have no control, and which is such that the ones who do have control actually may have an interest in cloning what you do and terminating your facility without warning, be sure to have a "Plan B". Yes, sounds obvious, but so many people seem to ignore it, and in some cases actively disagree with it. You seem to be disagreeing with it - what would you suggest as more useful advice and a more reasonable stance? Honestly, would you build a business based on a Twitter or Facebook facility, relying entirely on them not arbitrarily terminating your access? What is your advice?
- lifeisstillgood 12y ago
  Perhaps to realise these companies are walled garden abberations, and that in an open competitive world, the Eco system would exist but the monopoly would not. As such encourage and build openness by default into your products, as for sure users want that (how many people for example wanted only to email other AOL users, or view only other AOL websites?

wpietri 12y ago

Definitely. Indeed, there's a very long history of companies creating ecosystems and then crushing the most successful entrants. One that stuck with me is Stac: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stac_Electronics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stac_Electronics In the MS DOS days they were looking at building on-the-fly compression chips for hard drives. But it turned out that it could be done nearly as well in software, so they made a very popular product that basically doubled the space available on every hard drive. Microsoft thought that was pretty swell, so they talked with Stac about licensing their technology, getting as far as inspecting their source code. But they decided to just build it themselves. Stac eventually won a lawsuit on patent claims, but it was neither easy nor cheap. It makes sense from an MBA perspective: you can definitely boost your short-term numbers by fucking over your previous partners. You get a proven market and no significant competition. But what never shows up on the spreadsheets is the extent to which you've reduced long-term ecosystem innovation because savvier players learn you can't be trusted.