Amazon, Facebook and Google can all be beaten

202 点作者 monsieurpng超过 7 年前

24 条评论

I think the most surprising vulnerability for Google is web search. Google has been pushing away from web search for years now, with moves like AMP, vertical searches and quick answers that keep you on their domain.If you look at the mission statement for their search team it is now something like "answer your questions" - which is great 90% of the time, but what no longer exists (with most people not realizing) is a good general search engine for the WEB, meaning the collection of websites out there.There is no longer a sense of serendipity or of finding a cool new website, and maybe finding web pages on the web is just a nostagic thing with no real benefit, but there's no doubt that Google has moved away from that as real objective. The reality is that the web has become overwhelmed by listicles and minimum pages that go one inch past Google's definition of spam, but otherwise muck up the web. It would be amazing for a search engine to sift past all that cruft and low-effort material to find actually interesting and unique content.In a way, simply by not being Google is already an advantage because everyone is catering to Google. If you use a different standard you can easily get different results - it's just a matter if those would be useful for anyone? Everyone mostly wants to see the "right" answer and Google has conditioned us to expect it.

评论 #15732371 未加载

评论 #15732398 未加载

评论 #15732533 未加载

评论 #15734215 未加载

评论 #15734878 未加载

评论 #15733006 未加载

评论 #15732445 未加载

评论 #15733303 未加载

评论 #15733086 未加载

评论 #15735152 未加载

评论 #15732440 未加载

评论 #15734522 未加载

评论 #15734521 未加载

评论 #15732393 未加载

评论 #15732529 未加载

joshvm超过 7 年前

Amazon is in a weird place right now. In the recent past, Amazon was the place to get stuff online - cheaper than most places and Prime shipping was a big win. I don't think they're going anywhere, but there's still an awful lot of stuff you can't buy on there, or is difficult to find.Now some departments are getting more like Etsy - a Shenzhen marketplace. This is good, because there's a lot of random stuff you can get that you don't need to import. It's also bad because it's virtually impossible to know what you should buy if you don't know the brand reputation (and that matters to you).Take 'usb cable' for example, have a look: <a href="https://www.amazon.co.uk/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_2?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=usb+cable" rel="nofollow">https://www.amazon.co.uk/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_2?url=search-alias...</a>Brands include Rephoenix, Luoriz, Ugreen, Syncwire, RAVPower, Rankie, Benestellar, Onson, Jecent, Emmabin, Brightsnow, Maxteck, choetech, Volutz, Kinps, the list goes on. I got to page 3 before I gave up.What about headphones? Mpow, OneOdio, BienSound, Alihen, Sephia, ZIYE, Sadon, OMORC, etc.I'm genuinely curious as to when sellers decided that they must have a brand name for every product, and to hell with the meaning. It's like they all read those "how to sell on Amazon by importing" tutorials.Even though deep down I know that they're probably just as good as anything you can buy on the high street, the sheer volume of random brands is really off-putting to me for some reason. A bigger problem is that you can miss stuff in the noise - e.g. if you didn't know that Anker have a good reputation, could you tell the difference from any of the other names in that list? Seller churn is also high, so it's not like you can rely on reviews either - that product might be gone in a month.On a brighter note it really highlights how much you're being ripped off when you buy from a 'name brand' company that's just rebadging stuff from China.

评论 #15732601 未加载

评论 #15736027 未加载

评论 #15734194 未加载

评论 #15732736 未加载

cocktailpeanuts超过 7 年前

"How did Snapchat beat Facebook to the youth market over the last few years? (Remember Poke?). How did Facebook beat Google in social media in the early 2000s? (Remember Orkut?) How did Google beat Yahoo and Microsoft in search?"1. It wasn't Facebook who beat Google. It was Google who lost to Facebook.2. It wasn't Google who beat Yahoo and Microsoft. It was Microsoft and Yahoo who lost to Google.3. Lastly, Snapchat LOST to Facebook. I don't know where he even pulls this out of.Unlike his takeaway which is nonsense and will probably make you waste years trying to make something stupid happen, here's my takeaway--which is actually opposite of what he'saying--that's much more helpful:Don't try to fight against a giant in their own turf. As Snapchat, you will never beat Facebook in their own game, Social. As Google, you will never beat Facebook in their own game, Social (This goes both ways. There have been many rumors about Facebook entering search engine arena, but that will never work). Microsoft and Yahoo (A portal whose business model used to be opposite to Google's) can never beat Google in its own game.The lesson is, play your own game. Don't play into these VCs telling you it's ok to make these stupid attempts. In their eyes, you the founder is just a number. And even if so, this is a terrible advice because there are so many other ways you can win "against" google, facebook, amazon--You simply don't play against them. Google "beat" Microsoft by dominating their own category. Facebook "beat" Google by dominating their own category.And lastly, Snapchat couldn't "beat" Facebook because they decided to follow stupid advice like this guy gave and fight against Facebook instead of dominating its own category. It had potential at first to invent a differentiated category of its own but went off rails becoming just another social media app, which Facebook then swiftly copied.

评论 #15735574 未加载

评论 #15734698 未加载

notaboutdave超过 7 年前

The problem never was that they can't be beaten. The problem is that they buy all the competition. Great if you're being bought, not so much if you're a part of society.

评论 #15732495 未加载

评论 #15733501 未加载

jv22222超过 7 年前

It's a bit arbitrary to say that a company is only good at three things.Also, the bad hiring A -> B -> C players only makes sense if the "three things" are all in the same business domain because then the A listers from the same domain are used up.But, when Google is doing things like Android, Self Driving Cars, Youtube, Glucose Sensing Contact Lenses etc. Each domain is different and interesting enough to attract top talent. (When we say Google, we mean Alphabet, right?)Amazon is such a wild thing and always iterating on new ideas (Alexa, AWS, Etc) I highly doubt they will be limited to "3" things. Also, Amazon have a great trick of commercializing all the services they create for themselves, which seems like it will just keep adding hedges and more surface area of revenue.Microsoft, still huge. Sure they didn't win search but they have so many other strings to their bow (Xbox, Surface, Windows, etc)Funny thing is, Microsoft didn't exactly own the search market and then "get beaten" by Google. Google just aced that from the get go and essentially created that market growth by making it possible to search the web so well.Slack is a great example of how that works. There were lots of players making team chat and the market was not so huge. Then along comes Slack and makes something that is a delight and useful for many people, so much so, that it creates a new outsized market that didn't quite exist in that way before.So, rather than "get beaten" I think the most likely scenario is that new players will continue to come along and create versions of "products that don't suck" and as a result markets that were once small will, all of a sudden, become huge.I also think blockchain, right now, is like the internet was in say, 1998, and there will be some huge companies emerging from that tech.

评论 #15733070 未加载

natural219超过 7 年前

I got so excited from the title. I also want Amazon, Facebook, and Google to be beaten. I am however not excited about just another hypergrowth-driven, capture-the-whole-market-or-die, walled garden, more-of-the-same traditional startup. I want the forms of these companies to die, and a patchwork economy of more medium-sized firms each providing a piece of the puzzle without trying to capture the whole thing.That's just me, though.

spunker540超过 7 年前

While I appreciate the optimism of the post, I think it doesn't matter so much if Google gets beaten when it comes to "C team priorities". Google search is still unbeatable and still gives Google a giant advantage over startups in many areas besides search. To steal an example from the EU: flight price aggregation.

评论 #15732530 未加载

ctdonath超过 7 年前

Over 4 decades I've watched many unbeatable high-tech juggernauts disappear practically overnight. These will be no different, including the relentless claims of "but it's different this time!" for each one.

评论 #15732491 未加载

评论 #15732490 未加载

评论 #15732327 未加载

评论 #15732334 未加载

评论 #15732340 未加载

评论 #15732456 未加载

adamnemecek超过 7 年前

I can actually imagine a new search engine. The thing about google is that it’s not power user friendly. Give me some query language. And let me somehow search for things related to the swift language without getting results about the singer.

评论 #15732523 未加载

评论 #15732517 未加载

noncoml超过 7 年前

And then what? There was a time that we thought MS could not be beaten. It did. And now we have Google and FB. Are they any better? Why do you think the ones who will beat FB and Google will be better?If anything, I expect them to be worst, as SV tech geeks are being replaced by power and money seeking individuals.

评论 #15732562 未加载

guylepage3超过 7 年前

They definitely can be beaten but not for the reasons stated in this article. Network effects cannot be undone without a fundamental shift in their business models. Right now Facebook and Google make their money off advertising and tracking their users. Break the business model and incentivize a Network and a new Network can grow.

DmitryOlshansky超过 7 年前

The biggest issue with a project under big tech giant is that they could afford to trash it at the moment notice.There is super low commitment on new projects (say <1% of work force), compared to a startup that is betting all money and talent it could get on a chance that there is an overlooked market for product X. 100% focus, staying far from a comfort zone and taking the risk is what (in a very few cases though) makes it work.Basically tech gaint doesn’t have to “burn the ships” and therefore has lower commitment, poor focus, has no sense of (get big or go home) urgency and eventually drops the idea before it bears fruit.It can offord to say “pass”, but doesn’t need to “bluf” and it doesn’t have the same risk.

评论 #15733978 未加载

Someone超过 7 年前

Rome could be beaten, too, but before that happened, a lot of incumbents failed, and Rome bought quite a few others before they became too powerful.And yes, there are multiple winners. Some nibbled at Rome’s borders, carving out a sizable chunk for themselves, some conquered Rome (often not with much long lasted gains for themselves).The big question is what made those who beat it winners. I would guess lucky timing is a huge factor there. That’s what anybody trying to take (parts of) those giants head on should be worried about.

raspasov超过 7 年前

What about Apple? Does anyone think that they can be beaten?What makes Apple different from Google, Amazon & Facebook? Curious to hear what people think.

评论 #15732609 未加载

评论 #15734466 未加载

评论 #15733019 未加载

tabeth超过 7 年前

Whether or not they can be beaten is one thing. The other thing is whether or not they'll fail to buy their competitor.

lkrubner超过 7 年前

Standard Oil, AT&T and Microsoft can all be beaten -- just as soon as the government steps in and takes action against them. Capital tends to concentrate over time. It takes government action to break up monopolies. There are very few examples of monopolies fading away on their own.

likelynew超过 7 年前

I think with many small countries outside US/Europe becoming developed, one needs a shopping site with wide variety of international products and minimal shipping rate.

partycoder超过 7 年前

And that's why companies get acquired all the time.In fact, many startups are created with the purpose of being sold to larger companies.

myf01d超过 7 年前

Personally I wish Facebook to be destroyed, it's kind of a psychological cancer. I also guess Amazon can't be destroyed unless with a series of defeats within a very long period, it may be transformed into another Microsoft or IBM at worst but it won't be destroyed.

评论 #15732763 未加载

评论 #15733154 未加载

ImSkeptical超过 7 年前

This article doesn't inspire much faith in me as a reader. The first example of a start up beating a tech giant is Snap competing with Facebook. Snap did well for a while, but things are looking grim last I heard. Likewise, the author, in the comments, suggests that the big three priorities of Amazon are AWS, Groceries, and Prime. Seems to be forgetting the two largest categories of Amazon's business - foreign and domestic retail markets. Omissions like that make question the rigor of the analysis over all.Speaking of being able to focus on three things, why? Why that number? Isn't Amazon, for example, competing in Cloud computing, e Books, retail, tablets, content, groceries, home assistants, advertising, and probably a few other major categories? Likewise Microsoft has game consoles, office, cloud offerings, Windows, search, and again, other areas.I think the thesis, that you can compete with tech giants, is true, but the analysis of the article is brief and poor. The reason you can compete with tech giants is because they are looking for a way to grow their gigantic companies and so they will forgo relatively small markets even if they are promising. I would not bet on your startup to beat Amazon in making budget tablets, or Apple in making premium ones, but if you can identify a niche with a customer that needs to be served you can outcompete major companies because they won't be willing to focus on that niche.For example, you can't make a better budget or premium tablet, but maybe you make a tablet that floats to serve fishermen. It's a hit, so you work on connecting it to their fish finders, now you're building custom sonar sensors because your brand has a reputation and you want to add features to the tablet. Before you know it, you have a self-driving boat, and you're entering the shipping market automating the work formerly done by seamen. With a big presence in shipping you use your connections in China to start up your own retail website, and now you can compete with Amazon directly because you can arrange cheaper shipping of goods from China to US marketplaces.I also do think there is some validity to the article's point that you'll be competing against the C team. I'd add on to it that as a startup you'll be more agile. If you're competing against a tech giant they'll be held up by a lot of bureaucracy that won't afflict you. You can match their dev team for competence, move faster, and compete in spaces where they won't want to follow. That's how you won against big companies, not because they are magically limited to paying attention to three areas.

评论 #15733843 未加载

junkscience2017超过 7 年前

a frontal assault on any of these will prove futile...ask Snap, ask Jet.com (who wisely got acquired before Amazon could be bothered to vaporize then)they're still rising...but even if they stopped rising, they have amassed the financial resources of nations, and they have the credit to borrow much more. Apple in particular is basically a G8 nation...their cash pile may literally span centuries and they may actually need to hedge against the expiration of the governments whose currency they hold. unlike oil, we will not "run out" of data...these companies will eventually dwarf anything from the industrial ageif you want to "beat" them, (what does that even mean?) do what Elon Musk is doing and create new markets and industries

评论 #15732632 未加载

评论 #15732436 未加载

sillysaurus3超过 7 年前

Here's an example of how to beat Facebook:Make a social network for children. Facebook has too much political inertia to be trusted with such a thing.Then, as those children grow, continue to come out with services useful to them. They have to be new enough and cool enough that the kids will switch to the new service as they get older.If you can manage to make your service useful throughout all stages of a person's life, starting with childhood, then you can eventually displace Facebook by refusing to sell.It won't be easy, and it would take a decade. But it's doable.You may question the ethics. That's valid. Unfortunately, ethical questions tend to go out the window: Every time a technology becomes possible, it seems to be inevitable. Bitcoin is a perfect example.Either you build this, or someone else might. And if you care about the ethics, this is an opportunity to build something less draconian than Facebook from first principles.

评论 #15732297 未加载

评论 #15733516 未加载

mankash666超过 7 年前

The more relevant question is "can your startup succeed?" Google's C product is another big incumbent's A product. For your startup to succeed, you often times need to beat most other competitors, many of whom consider the product their A listing.