(Quick edit: who else remembers everyone and their nephew offering website hosting/colocation at ludicrously low prices in the early-to-mid 2000's?)
Now to quote him:
> ... the first customers a company gains are those for whom the product has the best possible fit; by definition they cost less to acquire. Growing beyond that initial base, though, costs more and more.
> This is why network effects are so important. What differentiates services that are actually sustainable businesses is that the larger they grow the more their utility increases, and it is this increased utility that drives new customer acquisition (as opposed to simply spending more marketing dollars).
> Ride-sharing services are a perfect example...
So patents and vertical integration aren't the only type of moat. Network effects shouldn't be overlooked. However, it's hard to see what network effects [besides just economies of scale] Blue Apron will be able to leverage.
[In their ads they try to talk up their relationships, eg with farmers. If Blue Apron were trying to be a farm-goods marketplace, ie the Uber of produce, then that would be an effective moat. In the current case, I'm not sure I buy it]
[1]: Subscription needed :( https://stratechery.com/2017/blue-apron-files-for-ipo-networ...
Edit:
- I am, however, a happy subscriber of Blue Apron.
[fixed the above bullet]
- Thompson also gives Netflix as an example. The bigger it gets, the larger its backlog of [hopefully timeless] shows -- increasing its value for late subscribers.
Groupon always suffered from being easy to copy and having no appreciable network effects.
Exactly the same thing is happening with ride-hailing now. It's harder to copy, but there's too much investment subsidizing it so no one knows what the market will be worth once riders have to pay sustainable rates. But they know being 2nd place will suck.
Citation: I worked at Groupon before and after the IPO.
In the case of the meal-kit industry, the author's suggesting there is no moat, or none has been identified/built yet.