Comment by benjaminjosephw | Hacker News Reader

Comment by benjaminjosephw | Hacker News Reader

benjaminjosephw

Interesting. Both want product-market fit; one perspective focuses on executing well to capture the market at the right time and the other focuses on building a differentiated product and creating a market that didn't exist before.

These perspectives were put forward when SaaS was really taking off and software hadn't quite eaten the world yet. The world has change a lot since then. Creating a new software product has never been easier than it is today. That should mean that competition is at its fiercest but we're also seeing a massive consolidation of markets and big winners with no apparent rivals.

I think Thiel's focus on defensibility is becoming more and more important for early-stage startups. Why bother proving out market demand if one of the big players snaps up the opportunity from under your feet. Executing well and moving quickly used to be good ways to defend against this happening but I think the established incumbents are not the slow lumbering giants they once were. They are now the software companies that won the market ten years ago. Maybe our strategies need to change to take this into account.

I agree. It's not that tech incumbents are less slow these, they are still quite slow, it's that if your only advantage over them is the ability to push out code, consider that they have armies of average, but good enough developers and WILL outcode you once you've proven your idea is worth money. They also have far more to spend on marketing, litigation, etc. So if all you're doing is the same things Google can do, just slightly faster and under the radar, prepare for a huge onslaught later on.

Google got big because they embraced the web early on and put themselves in the position of the anti-Microsoft. Microsoft got big because they embraced software abstractions early on, in the form of compilers, multiplatform office software and later on operating systems, and they were the anti-IBM. IBM got big because...

Until we come up with the next big paradigm shift, the incumbents will just keep on copying startups, or buying them up.

Interesting, so we might have moved from:

Big, incumbent non-SW company (Kodak example) being challenged by start-up to Big, software incumbent (Salesforce) with massive developer resources being challenged by start-up.

Maybe the strategies need to change - perhaps increasingly partnering with the software incumbents (if you can't beat 'em, join 'em).. Maybe someone can add some insight..?

One lesson I learned since I started my business a couple of months ago, is how important interfaces are. In practical terms, you can provide any kind of service together with partners as long as the interfaces between these partners are working. Doesn't matter if it is an API or just the way collaborate with, e.g., a photographer.

This gives cloud based software companies are huge advantage, and opens all kinds of opportunities for companies developing or working with the interfaces between these cloud solutions and involved parties.

My impression is that all the platform start-ups, unless they have competencies in integration of different tools and managing the corresponding processes, are basically dead in the water once VC money is drying up. When we talk about B2B solutions, I don't see any FB-like monopoly. So if start-ups are pushing for that, they gona loose against the big incumbents on the software side and against more operations oriented companies on the integration and process side.

I might be completely wrong with that, so.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com