Betting on things that never change (2017)
collaborativefund.com
Betting on things that never change (2017)
1–10 of 38 posts
Re: Betting on things that never change (2017)
#2Seems like a nice sounding narrative that doesn't really hold water, at least from a practical perspective.
Twitter, Facebook, Twitch, AWS, Google Search and a lot of others - they were in fields changing all the time. Unless you define these very abstractly as "communication", "socializing", "entertainment", "compute infrastructure" and "finding things" and say "these things don't change in that they continue to happen" - in which case you can take virtually any product to the most abstract definition and say "it's not changing".
Re: Betting on things that never change (2017)
#3Seems like a nice sounding narrative that doesn't really hold water, at least from a practical perspective. Twitter, Facebook, Twitch, AWS, Google Search and a lot of others - they were in fields changing all the time. Unless you define these very abstractly as "communication", "socializing", "entertainment", "compute infrastructure" and "finding things" and say "these things don't change in that they continue to hap…
Well, you've done a nice job of restating the article, actually. It claims that all seemingly revolutionary businesses were not successful because of the things that change (like technology solutions e.g., "finding things", "communication", "compute infrastructure" etc) but on the same unchanging principles (e.g., business opportunities and strategies).
TFA / TL;DR:
In the last 100 years we’ve gone from horses to jets and mailing letters to Skype. But every sustainable business is accompanied by one of a handful of timeless strategies:
Lower prices.
Faster solutions to problems.
Greater control over your time.
More choices.
Added comfort.
Entertainment/curiosity.
Deeper human interactions.
Greater transparency.
Less collateral damage.
Higher social status.
Increased confidence/trust.Re: Betting on things that never change (2017)
#4Seems like a nice sounding narrative that doesn't really hold water, at least from a practical perspective. Twitter, Facebook, Twitch, AWS, Google Search and a lot of others - they were in fields changing all the time. Unless you define these very abstractly as "communication", "socializing", "entertainment", "compute infrastructure" and "finding things" and say "these things don't change in that they continue to hap…
Yeah, Sears had a catalog business for like a century. Whatever went wrong a Sears, it wasn't that they had a corporate culture that taught them people only want to buy things at your physical store.
Re: Betting on things that never change (2017)
#5Seems like a nice sounding narrative that doesn't really hold water, at least from a practical perspective. Twitter, Facebook, Twitch, AWS, Google Search and a lot of others - they were in fields changing all the time. Unless you define these very abstractly as "communication", "socializing", "entertainment", "compute infrastructure" and "finding things" and say "these things don't change in that they continue to hap…
Well, you've done a nice job of restating the article, actually. It claims that all seemingly revolutionary businesses were not successful because of the things that change (like technology solutions e.g., "finding things", "communication", "compute infrastructure" etc) but on the same unchanging principles (e.g., business opportunities and strategies). TFA / TL;DR: In the last 100 years we’ve gone from horses to jet…
Then I've done a bad job communicating what I meant. My point is, (virtually) every single product can make the claim they are making a bet on something that doesn't change. Both good and bad products. Failed and successful.
The entire article says nothing of practical value. Everyone is betting on something that doesn't change and something which does.
Re: Betting on things that never change (2017)
#6Or as Deming put it: long-term successful organisations need to find their constancy of purpose.
Kodak didn't find it: they were in the business of analogue film; they could have been in the business of capturing memories, and survived the digitalisation of photography.
Manufacturers of carburetors generally didn't find it; they were in the business of carburetors, and not stochiometric mixtures of air and fuel, and they didn't survive fuel injection.
The list could go on and on. Focus on "the job to be done", not the way you're currently doing the job. That lets you find constancy of purpose.
Re: Betting on things that never change (2017)
#7Or as Deming put it: long-term successful organisations need to find their constancy of purpose . Kodak didn't find it: they were in the business of analogue film; they could have been in the business of capturing memories, and survived the digitalisation of photography. Manufacturers of carburetors generally didn't find it; they were in the business of carburetors, and not stochiometric mixtures of air and fuel, and…
This is.. a weird spin. Kodak is a great long-term success story. Businesses aren't forever.
If Kodak was in the "business of capturing memories", what would they have done differently?
Re: Betting on things that never change (2017)
#8Or as Deming put it: long-term successful organisations need to find their constancy of purpose . Kodak didn't find it: they were in the business of analogue film; they could have been in the business of capturing memories, and survived the digitalisation of photography. Manufacturers of carburetors generally didn't find it; they were in the business of carburetors, and not stochiometric mixtures of air and fuel, and…
The first name in carbs for me has always been Holley. (I've got two cars with Holley 750 Double Pumpers.)
They not only not survived the EFI change, but even went public (via merger) this summer.
Re: Betting on things that never change (2017)
#9>Take three companies in the 1990s: Sears, Beenz, and Amazon.
>Sears bet the Internet changed nothing, to its detriment. Beenz bet the Internet changed everything – creating a points-based currency valid only at online merchants – to its detriment. Amazon bet the Internet changed distribution, but rooted its strategy in things that have never, and will never, change. It nailed the center of the Venn diagram of change on one side and timeless on the other. One drove competition, the other drove compounding. Every successful company does this.
So based on this metric, what would be the next sears. It's easy in hindsight to say what worked.
Re: Betting on things that never change (2017)
#10Or as Deming put it: long-term successful organisations need to find their constancy of purpose . Kodak didn't find it: they were in the business of analogue film; they could have been in the business of capturing memories, and survived the digitalisation of photography. Manufacturers of carburetors generally didn't find it; they were in the business of carburetors, and not stochiometric mixtures of air and fuel, and…
This is.. a weird spin. Kodak is a great long-term success story. Businesses aren't forever. If Kodak was in the "business of capturing memories", what would they have done differently?
I knew someone who was working for a post-Kodak spinoff (Alaris). They tried just that-- to reframe themselves as a company that managed memories. It was an interesting concept, but I think they came in far too late in a crowded space.