Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by chollida1 | Hacker News Reader

Full thread

chollida1

I think they are both talking past each other a bit here, even though all those comments are intentionally joking.

A moat in business isn't a static thing that you build and then leave forever.

Apple's moat is its supply chain with Tim Cook built out.

Coke's moat is its bottler and distribution chain

Visa's moat is its ubiquity world wide

Google's moat is its search technology and infrastrucutre, both the 85,000 employee's it has and its data centers world wide that any of these engineers can harness.

None of these companies built that years go and then left it. These companies spend billions a year on updating their moat's. And if big companies can innovate, then their "moat's" are one area where they probably have an innovation advantage on competitors.

I'm with Buffet and Peter Theil on this one, give me a moat any day over a company that is continuously innovating trying to find a working business plan

View on HN

Apple’s moat is its ecosystem. There are things uniquely on Apple platforms like iCloud photos, iMessage and anything bought on iTunes that make it tough to switch.

I recently switched from iPhone to a Google Pixel 2 (Android) and I found the most annoying part was iMessage. Everything else was fairly easy to switch over. I'm more than happy to never see iTunes again.

As someone who has never used iMessage, can you expand on what specifically makes iMessage hard to leave?

Do you lose your past conversations? Do you lose your contacts? Or is it simply that you lose the extra features and are back to simple base "sms"?

From experience, one thing that happens is any "text messages" from your friends who still have iphones get routed into some black hole until you visit a page on the Apple website and "reset your number".

End to end encryption, content rich messages, very fast, and it can be especially hard to leave if most of your friends that you talk to also have iMessage.

Typing indicators too.

There are a bunch of extra features vs sms (attachments, groups, actual encryption, that’s even end to end). I assumed android had similar but I can’t tell from things like the gchat news from last (?) week whether that’s true.

For me (exclusive Apple product house) it’s useful that messages end of an every device - it’s useful when looking things up, and saves finding my phone when I’m working, etc.

Also read receipts are useful - they’re opt in, but the useful when communicating with coworkers. Which also feeds into the ecosystem thing - if most people you talk to are also using iMessage you can get read receipts.

This isn’t saying iMessage is flawless or superior to everything else - as I said before I don’t know the state of android messaging, so I just can’t really compare.

If you bought anything in iTunes, it is forever locked inside of it though. Otherwise, I agree.

Just to clarify, are you claiming iTunes isn’t the most amazing piece of software ever? ;)

More seriously, are you talking the desktop app or the music player of the phone? (I’ve not found the phone version /that/ bad, but yeah desktop version remains terrible)

Are you contradicting yourself?

From the article: "The pace of innovation, he [Elon] said, is more important in the long run."

And you include "These companies spend billions a year on updating their moat's" as part of your argument.

A bunch of over-funded, under-profitable startups trying to discover a business plan is, in itself, a moat. I just wonder: for who?

Those over-funded under-profitable startups increase demand for labor, acting as a hurdle for the smaller boot-strapped companies trying to hire people. It's a moat in favor of the entrenched companies with easy access to capital

This sounds profound but I'm not sure it really says anything.

The implication is that venture capitalism and large/entrenched investment firms in particular can consider diversified investment in innovative startups to be their "moat."

I'm not entirely sure I agree, but I see the line of reasoning, and I can in a way validate in my own mind how some might see this statement as genuinely profound.

For it to be a competitive "moat" (a forbidding competitive advantage), don't they have to be making money? As an asset class, venture capital has comparatively pitiful performance.

The top VCs --- the ones that actually generate reliable market-beating returns --- certainly have a "moat": the best dealflow. But that's unrelated to the snark from the comment upthread.

VC doesn’t need to be the asset class benefiting, does it? Doesn’t most of the cream and benefit of innovation in the startup space end up getting purchased by first the big tech firms (Cisco, Oracle, Facebook, Apple, Microsoft, Google), second the S&P500, and rarely the public markets?

I remember the panic of the ‘90s about the coming disruption from internet technologies, but at best it has been a horizontal revolution, rather than a vertical one, and the same wealth and power centers have survived.

You would think that a new, superior set of technology and process would revolutionize, say, the hiring process. Instead, the brute force of lots of money provides a moat where HR, hiring managers, teams, and candidates are protected from meaningful disruption and progress.

All that said, my comment is almost certainly nonsense. I was referring to the broad sway of competitive advantage and the inertia of inadequate equalibria (more nonsense, surely). If you believe I am not properly building a warrant against the technical meanings on investment analysis terminology, you are right.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com