Zoli ponders an interesting question, "Would you rather be first to market, or better?"
But forget panelist, let's look at some of the truly big names in software. We would not have a Google today if Larry and Sergey simply had accepted the fact that Yahoo "owned" search. How about Microsoft? How many truly "new" products do they have? Office? Years before Word I used WordStar, and Excel was a "me-too" compared to Lotus 1-2-3. Access? Hm... perhaps Dbase II from Ashton Tate? The very existence of the Microsoft Monopoly is due to IBM's generously stupid license deal with them, and Bill Gates's shrewd deal with the creator of QDOS.
The list could go on, but I think the point is clear: there is no land-grab in software. "First mover advantage" is significant in some areas - like Kevin's Digg, since it depends on a network effect - but in others the second or third player to the market may just execute better. (Btw, second to the market does not mean copycat, since anyone will likely recognize that developing these products takes some time, so parallel efforts are going on at different companies - but timing is beyond the point here anyway).
Zoli is spot on with his history, there are countless examples of the first mover being eventually cast aside as "copycats" enter the market and tweak the amplitude. Whether the "follow-on" has a better sales model, perhaps more financial backing, augments the product/service even further, etc...First clearly does not always = Best.
He's also got me thinking about two tangents of this idea:
1) The Innovator's Dilemma -- Clay Cristensen's work on on innovation and how even seemingly small alterations to an existing business process can completely remake the competitive landscape resonate as I read through Zoli's blog today. One could argue that the very nature of startups is a belief in the power of Cristensen's thesis.
2) The Myth of "Validating the Market" -- How many times have you heard someone pontificate about how thrilled they are to have "Company X" entering their market because it "clearly validates the market opportunity." I always cringe when I hear an entrepreneur/founder/CEO tell me this as if I'm supposed to be thrilled that other companies are now coming for their market. Sure, huge markets invite competition; but unless you're damn sure you've got impenetrable barriers to entry, insurmountable mindshare and/or an ironclad IP portfolio; competition at the early stages of a market opportunity is hardly something to jump for joy about.
zoli innovation copycat innovators dilemma myth of validation woodrow startups market leadership
Comments