Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

In Technology, Small Fish Almost Always Eat Big Fish

gsb.stanford.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 34 posts

Re: In Technology, Small Fish Almost Always Eat Big Fish

#11

Post by Lawtonfogle »

paulsutter wrote: post #9

Painfully close but wrong. Big fish are almost always eaten by small fish. On the other hand, almost all small fish fail. It's the rare exception among small fish that bests a big fish. Stated correctly it sounds unremarkable because it is unremarkable. So much for "Leslie's Law". His DEC/IBM comparison shows that he somehow stopped reading the tech press around 1990. Intel's decomposed platform ate them all and open…

While it is far less remarkable the way you put it, I wouldn't call it completely unremarkable because it still is remarkable that big fish eat big fish so rarely.

Re: In Technology, Small Fish Almost Always Eat Big Fish

#12

Post by tchock23 »

jasode wrote: post #4

This post seems like a restatement of " The Innovator's Dilemma "[1] by Clayton Christensen. A new product that serves a market that is initially small but growing is ignored by the established company. The established company is conditioned to focus on their current customers' needs instead of imagining that future customers of a product they don't currently make could be a much bigger market. A Stanford prof like M…

That was my first thought as well. This is a blatant rip off of the theory of disruptive innovations put forth by Clayton Christensen many years ago.

Re: In Technology, Small Fish Almost Always Eat Big Fish

#14

Post by calpaterson »

jasode wrote: post #4

This post seems like a restatement of " The Innovator's Dilemma "[1] by Clayton Christensen. A new product that serves a market that is initially small but growing is ignored by the established company. The established company is conditioned to focus on their current customers' needs instead of imagining that future customers of a product they don't currently make could be a much bigger market. A Stanford prof like M…

It's such a close and direct restatement that it seems a little like plagiarism

Re: In Technology, Small Fish Almost Always Eat Big Fish

#15

Post by louprado »

tchock23 wrote: post #12
jasode wrote: post #4

This post seems like a restatement of " The Innovator's Dilemma "[1] by Clayton Christensen. A new product that serves a market that is initially small but growing is ignored by the established company. The established company is conditioned to focus on their current customers' needs instead of imagining that future customers of a product they don't currently make could be a much bigger market. A Stanford prof like M…

That was my first thought as well. This is a blatant rip off of the theory of disruptive innovations put forth by Clayton Christensen many years ago.

Or Gandhi's quote: "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."

Re: In Technology, Small Fish Almost Always Eat Big Fish

#16

Post by smrtinsert »

paulsutter wrote: post #9

Painfully close but wrong. Big fish are almost always eaten by small fish. On the other hand, almost all small fish fail. It's the rare exception among small fish that bests a big fish. Stated correctly it sounds unremarkable because it is unremarkable. So much for "Leslie's Law". His DEC/IBM comparison shows that he somehow stopped reading the tech press around 1990. Intel's decomposed platform ate them all and open…

I don't know. I look at the rise of mobile OS's as a good example of small fish taking over.

Re: In Technology, Small Fish Almost Always Eat Big Fish

#17

Post by rqebmm »

ectoplasm wrote: post #10
paulsutter wrote: post #9

Painfully close but wrong. Big fish are almost always eaten by small fish. On the other hand, almost all small fish fail. It's the rare exception among small fish that bests a big fish. Stated correctly it sounds unremarkable because it is unremarkable. So much for "Leslie's Law". His DEC/IBM comparison shows that he somehow stopped reading the tech press around 1990. Intel's decomposed platform ate them all and open…

Big fish are almost always eaten by small fish. Small fish are almost always eaten by big fish. At least there's a nice symmetry to it.

It's a fish-eat-fish world out there...

Re: In Technology, Small Fish Almost Always Eat Big Fish

#18

Post by bwy »

smrtinsert wrote: post #16
paulsutter wrote: post #9

Painfully close but wrong. Big fish are almost always eaten by small fish. On the other hand, almost all small fish fail. It's the rare exception among small fish that bests a big fish. Stated correctly it sounds unremarkable because it is unremarkable. So much for "Leslie's Law". His DEC/IBM comparison shows that he somehow stopped reading the tech press around 1990. Intel's decomposed platform ate them all and open…

I don't know. I look at the rise of mobile OS's as a good example of small fish taking over.

What do you mean by that? You look at Android and iOS and say small fish?

Re: In Technology, Small Fish Almost Always Eat Big Fish

#20

Post by swalsh »

paulsutter wrote: post #9

Painfully close but wrong. Big fish are almost always eaten by small fish. On the other hand, almost all small fish fail. It's the rare exception among small fish that bests a big fish. Stated correctly it sounds unremarkable because it is unremarkable. So much for "Leslie's Law". His DEC/IBM comparison shows that he somehow stopped reading the tech press around 1990. Intel's decomposed platform ate them all and open…

Eh, I think it's a matter of perspective. Parents don't care about the millions of sperms that died on the way to fertilize an egg. They only care about the one that made it. You're thinking about it from the perspective of the sperm. I think the authors perspective was from that of the parents.
Post reply on HN