Comment by DannyB2 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by DannyB2 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

The real test, I think, is something that has genuinely useful applications to anyone with a little bit of vision.

Big entrenched players are unable to see the next big thing, because they see the world through the glasses of their successful business. Microsoft for example almost missed the internet, and suddenly realized it in 1995. I believe Bill Gates was quoted as saying it was just a fad. The funny thing is that more than a decade earlier (about 1980) I heard the same thing about "personal computers" or "microcomputers". Just a fad. A toy. Never will compete with IBM's "real" computers, etc.

Similarly, these new fangled "automobile" thingies will never become popular. They are noisy. Smelly. Unreliable. Difficult to start. You can even break your arm if it kicks back while you are cranking it. And worst of all (gasp!) they frighten the horses! That's why these automobile thingies are just rich kid's toys. A fad.

I guess they couldn't see that all of those imperfections I listed could be fixed.

Back in the 1990s I saw this interesting tv program. Sorry, can't remember. It was about personal computers. The person being interviewed said the entrenched players NEVER see the next big thing coming. So they hire someone smart who will see it coming, and then tell them when its coming. And then when they are told this is the NEXT BIG THING! They never believe it.

Speaking of Microsoft almost missing the internet, they did entirely miss the new generation of smartphones starting with the iPhone. Ballmer laughed at the iPhone. They woke up to the new reality after it was too late. Sorry iPhone and Android already dominated. Smart phones sold in unit volumes that dwarfed PC unit volumes. Win Phone 7, followed by an incompatible Win Phone 8 didn't stand a chance -- even with nice Nokia hardware.

I remember building dial-up internet providers in the late nineties(97/98) here in Brazil as a teen, and some consulting folks trying to sell us some Solaris licenses, laughing at us because we were using Linux, 'that toy OS'.

It would be kind of easy to make a stand against the microsoft fanboys against NT 4, but it was much more difficult to make a good case of Linux against Solaris back then. (Remember Linux starting to be taken seriously by 2.2 and 2.4 period)

Also i got the same dismissive snarks, when installing and programing in PHP back then to make dinamic websites, in a world then taken by ASP and Cold Fusion. (And the other alternative in Unix were only Perl, for which i thank PHP for avoiding me the trouble).

It's a reminder for me, that the most common trend in IT sector is of folks with a "colonized" sort of mentality, that will fail to recognize the things that will turn into real things in the future.

It's sad when you think that its even worse than that, giving most people just show off and wait for their next paycheck. They dont even bother thinking in those things.

So the psychological profile of who are saying what is kind a very big deal, not just what they are saying.

They didn't miss it, they saw it as a threat to be stomped.

They almost succeeded, but Google would've canned their game eventually. Believe it or not, "free stuff" is popular.

The idea that you speak of, about bug entrenched companies not being able to see new things coming - it's the central theme of The Innovator's Dilemma. I highly recommend that book if you wish to read about this further.

I think you are replying to someone that has worked for G for a long time, and is using their knowm alt-account (i.e. not hiding anything). He probably read that book when he was ~25 yrs. old.

> Smart phones sold in unit volumes that dwarfed PC unit volumes.

Popcorn sold in unit volumes even higher than that, but so what? These aren't comparable things.

I think this is a legitimate question. There's two main things smartphones and PCs have in common, but both are arguable:

1. They do the same things. Both are general purpose computers. For some use cases, they both work fine.

2. They're about the same cost: ~$800 or so. But that's comparing flagship smartphone costs with entry-level desktop PC costs.

I suppose from hte perspective of a large company, a smartphone sale seems like it might be more or less valuable than a desktop PC sale depending on a variety of factors. So I think it's safe to say they are similarly comparable in that sense.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com