Hacker News Reader

Comment by AndrewKemendo | Hacker News Reader

Totally in agreement here. I think this is actually a much bigger deal than anyone imagines.

It shows that even if you create a HUGE new thing, you're probably going to get killed by the big ones. There is no competing anymore - you either assimilate through acquisition or get squeezed to death on the back end because the incumbents have the cash, data and talent.

So what the hell is venture supposed to do in this landscape? I'm genuinely curious. If the goal of venture money is to build IPO level companies - not one off acquisitions - then what is the move here?

I even remarked as such a few days ago: https://twitter.com/AndrewKemendo/status/851840701214208002

View on HN

Re-read The Innovators Dilemma. Startups built on just having better technology or product rarely ever work. You need to compete on an axis that the incumbent can't compete on. The incumbent should be looking at your startup, be aware of what you are doing, and be unable to copy it because doing so would break their existing (profitable) business.

If you are relying on outcompeting the incumbent directly you are in for a really tough fight.

Really the point I am making is that they have the ability to cover all axes because the information they have about each is so deep and their tentacles are everywhere in some form. Remember too, they don't need to brand a product with "Google" to be dominant in it. They just need to make sure that whatever startup is playing in the space is using a google product, be it GoLang, Tensorflow, etc... or has investment from GV

Technology: Check

Personnel: Check

Funding: Check

Consumer Understanding: Check

Industry Knowledge: Check

I don't know maybe you are young and new to the technology sector, but theres probably more stories within tech of the big corporation copying a new innovative startup and failing than there are of them succeeding.

I'm well aware, but I think that tide is shifting - that's the point and why it's worth discussing.

Well I think to make this argument, you'd have to provide more points other than snapchat. In this case as many other have been pointing out, Instagram is just out executing them in terms of quality.

What other examples do you see this to be applicable ?

Innovate with something harder to copy or that you can gain genuine protection for? Snapchat seem to already be moving in that direction.

Right, except those big companies are WAY ahead of everyone on that too. Their patent portfolios cover literally everything conceivable. It's quite astonishing really. I mean far future stuff like nanodrug delivery methods, brain computer interfaces etc...

It's going to take tens or hundreds of millions in "seed" investment in the future to compete with one of these behemoths - and even then they all have venture arms so you better find money that is not associated with one of them - impossible probably.

I don't think it changes really it's just the next huge successes will come from a direction that will blindside the current incumbents. Either that or the model is dead as the ladder gets pulled up behind the winners.

Either that or the model is dead as the ladder gets pulled up behind the winners.

That's what I'm arguing is happening.

Probably make something truely innovative and/or patentable, not just pictures that syndicate differently from how other platforms pictures syndicate. Getting a competitive moat from Goliath was in all my buisiness classes in college. VC's must think/know something we don't, that Snapchat has a plan to build such a moat or otherwise stay 1 step ahead. Or they were looking for the greater fool.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com