File Transfer Protocol: Difference between revisions
(jmGbRStST) |
(jZkeOMmqaaqw) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
much of your logic would apply to Microsoft in the 90s. look where they are at now: still a force to be reckoned with, but nbdooy thinks they are the future. people were wrong in the 90s thinking that startups would simply either remain small or got bought by microsoft, or be out-competed by the resources at microsoft. I don't see our time be any different. I agree that ideas are not what makes startups successful. indeed ideas are probably next to worthless, just try to sell one.one mechanisms that startups will out-compete large companies is speed. or call it efficiency, rate of innovation it all comes down to the fact that, as an organization grows in size, bureaucracy grows exponentially. (at the rate of n-squared in fact.) this acts almost like a fundamental law. economy of scale used to compensate for this, but on the internet, economy of scale can be achieved by a very small team (craiglist has <20 employees, I heard). as a heuristic: the thing with competing with formidable forces like Microsoft (and now Apple and Goolge) is not to do a frontal assault. You can't say I am going to devleop a new operating system, or a better search engine (although even on search engines, there are interesting ideas being tried). One way around it is to define a super problem that encompasses the problem which the large companies have an advantage. (super as in "super set"). the way to beat MS is not to develop a better OS, but is to make applications server-based, or cloud-computing such that OS itself becomes an obsolete idea. We'll just all be connected 24hr via broadband with simple terminals that has no OS.btw, none these are my original ideas. I just read from tech blogs welcome discussion, ideas, pointing out my errors. | |||
Revision as of 05:22, 23 March 2012
much of your logic would apply to Microsoft in the 90s. look where they are at now: still a force to be reckoned with, but nbdooy thinks they are the future. people were wrong in the 90s thinking that startups would simply either remain small or got bought by microsoft, or be out-competed by the resources at microsoft. I don't see our time be any different. I agree that ideas are not what makes startups successful. indeed ideas are probably next to worthless, just try to sell one.one mechanisms that startups will out-compete large companies is speed. or call it efficiency, rate of innovation it all comes down to the fact that, as an organization grows in size, bureaucracy grows exponentially. (at the rate of n-squared in fact.) this acts almost like a fundamental law. economy of scale used to compensate for this, but on the internet, economy of scale can be achieved by a very small team (craiglist has <20 employees, I heard). as a heuristic: the thing with competing with formidable forces like Microsoft (and now Apple and Goolge) is not to do a frontal assault. You can't say I am going to devleop a new operating system, or a better search engine (although even on search engines, there are interesting ideas being tried). One way around it is to define a super problem that encompasses the problem which the large companies have an advantage. (super as in "super set"). the way to beat MS is not to develop a better OS, but is to make applications server-based, or cloud-computing such that OS itself becomes an obsolete idea. We'll just all be connected 24hr via broadband with simple terminals that has no OS.btw, none these are my original ideas. I just read from tech blogs welcome discussion, ideas, pointing out my errors.
