Hacker News Reader

Comment by anon291 | Hacker News Reader

Why? They're all energy companies, not oil companies. Companies pivot all the time. As long as there's profit to be made, they'll even engage in both.

View on HN

Logically, yes, but it doesn't always happen. Ballmer forgot MS was a software company, thought it was only a Windows company, and wasted a decade. Oil execs look at the cost of change, and decide they're not energy companies, only oil because that's what they know.

https://danluu.com/ballmer/

For the argument Ballmer didn't waste a decade but setup MS up for the success it's seeing today.

If Microsoft is the wrong answer Kodak, who squelched their own digital photography stuff because they made so much from film, is a classic cautionary tale about a company getting too wed to its business model and allowing itself to become obsolete.

Yeah, I've read that, but I lived through it and even worked for them for 6 months during the period. No, Ballmer was not an underrated CEO. He was an overrated COO and a terrible CEO.

Yes, I agree it doesn't always happen, but in aggregate it typically does. For example, Borders didn't get on with the digital trend, but B&N did. I agree that any one oil company might not be forward-looking enough, but overall, there will those that do and those that don't, and you can't assume any one company is in the latter group just because of their current industry.

> Oil execs look at the cost of change, and decide they're not energy companies, only oil because that's what they know.

Some do yes, but it's not a hard and fast rule. What I notice is that when oil companies start green energy projects, people immediately question their motives as if it's anything more complicated than wanting to make more money in a new industry. They ought to be commended.

Except probably 99% of their profits come from oil. 99% of their infrastructure is setup for oil which has been honed and put into place over decades.

Can you imagine the cost of revamping all of that? And then they have to explain to their shareholders why their profits are a fraction of what they normally are, otherwise their stock price will sink which will affect the company in myriad ways.

There's so much to this space that I'm ignorant of, but I know enough to know that it's really not that simple.

They don't need to revamp. They have access to billions in revenue that can be put in to setting themselves up as key players in yet another industry. Many of them are doing just that. Eventually, they all probably want to dominate the battery / grid renewables industry as well. Why wouldn't they? They are uniquely positioned to do so.

Chevron is an oil and natural gas company, not an electricity production company. Directly producing green energy is a bit like Apple selling Windows PCs.

Apple was a computer company and now their biggest business is selling mobile phones.

Which are what if not computers?

There must be some difference, as otherwise my washing machine would be a computer too since it has a screen, input, and an operating system; and conversely that the Windows phone wouldn’t have had such a brief existence.

Perhaps the difference between a phone and a washing machine is, uh, the plumbing?

So you're saying having plumbing in the computer makes it not a computer? What about water-cooled gaming and HPC systems: are they computers?

Certain kind of plumbing, as in the kind that allows the computer to wash clothes.

Do I really need to clarify that the primary purpose of a washing machine is not to compute, but to wash?

Not was, is. They didnt undermine their first market in the slightest.

Kodak was a film company. They made the first digital camera. Theyre dead now.

Chevron is a profit-making company, and will do anything that makes it money. The only relevant question is whether they'd have any advantage in green energy, or would they lose margin to competition.

Failing at green energy might be profitable enough if it drives up costs for other green energy companies.

> Chevron is a profit-making company, and will do anything that makes it money

You assume that Chevron will act rationally. Whether it would be profitable is far from the only question.

There is a reason why newer companies and younger people tend to make bigger changes…

It’s not a conspiracy. It’s not because they can’t.

It’s because all that they have built up from hard work has resulted in responsibilities to a lot of people that also now hold them back.

Absolutely, and this is a common pitfall of large companies. However, history also shows us that many large companies can and do adapt and do go on to dominate newer fields. For example, American express was a shipping company (and a massive one at that) before it started venturing into novel financial services.

If anything, large companies are better positioned than startups to enter new capital-intensive verticals, and I think history bears this out.

If the profits or barriers to entry are less favorable they might be disinclined to do that.

companies are made of people, and generalally all of the execs in charge cut their teeth in the oil and gas sphere

People regularly engage in profit seeking behavior in different industries.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com