Similar could be said for Facebook. Though, I think they just segmented their market better.
Bezos, I believe, is best at this. How many things has he acquired and left completely alone? It is almost baffling how good Zappos is for buying shoes, while Amazon is pretty awful.
Though, I'm now curious how much of this Bezos learned from him. Weren't they close? It makes sense to view these acquisitions as investments, instead of takeovers.
And for everyone that has given examples of Google doing this. Apologies for not responding individually. I am glad to hear it is more that they just get a lot of press for the mistakes. I'd love to see more press dedicated to what appear as successes. I guess they have to be ballpark hits to get press?
Facebook saw a trend in IG they couldn't compete with without fundamentally changing their product. Where IG could have created alternate complementary products and began eating onto FB market. There really isn't room for two networks like FB anymore and the adolescents I know won't touch FB. Its all snapchat and IG. (Which offer much better incentives.)
Both were moves to absorb a niche where each company would have difficulty compering. My claim is FB's was more forward thinking and less reactionary.
That is, Facebook seems geared to live beside insta gram. Video seemed clear to either beat or die to YouTube.
So yeah, I was trying to add to your comment. Not necessarily contradict it.
What about Waze?
Somehow YouTube survived!
but does anyone else get a sense of schadenfreude when reading these comments
There are people doubting that Facebook could monetize or become a blue chip stock
There's a comment of a guy being sure that Instagram would fail and literally says "Bookmark this comment, see you in 2022" (Five years to go boys)
This is why I'm convinced that people should honestly share like 1% of what they are really thinking in comments. Yeah, there might be a 1% chance that Instagram would succeed, but do you really want to look like the idiot doubting it could ever happen, with your comment immortalized on the world wide web five years later when you're proven wrong?
People on Hacker News are only now just coming around to Snapchat, but I thought Snapchat was obviously going to succeed 4 years ago when I was still in college - 70% of the people I knew in college were using it.
You might object to this and claim that other apps (which are not guaranteed successes now) like Yik Yak should have been similarly "obvious" to me at the time - but that's just not true. I didn't know anyone who used other social media apps (like Yik Yak, etc.) at the time as much as Snapchat (if they did, they kept it to themselves).
But when it comes to social apps, there's just something about Hacker News being particularly closed-minded. Even in the face of overwhelming usage, I still see a solid plurality of cynical HN comments about any given social app.
I've no idea when you were in college, but if 70% of the people around you were using it, I presume it was already successful.
Government and regulations always protect monopolies!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook,_Inc._v._Power_Ventur....
And I'd hardly call Facebook a monopoly in 2009 when that case was decided. I think Myspace still had more users at that time.
The world has enough silent cowards. Give me an outspoken person who puts their money (/honour) where their mouth is, any day.
in the end they were just speculators speculating
My point is not that "commenting on the internet is dumb cause it might make you look like an idiot" but the fact is that probably zero of the detractors in the HN link posted had anything other than an uninformed opinion
If you want people to shut up because their uninformed opinions annoy you, that's something else. Say that, and take the bad karma that comes with it.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7266618
Which I think has not yet proven itself to be a savvy one monetarily (but the usage numbers remain incredible)
I see a lot of smug in the previous thread that needs to be called out.