Scott Rafer on Dalton's letter: "Learning the wrong lesson" • Hacker News Board

Re: Scott Rafer on Dalton's letter: "Learning the wrong lesson"

#31

Post by rhizome » Fri, Aug 03, 2012, 10:42 PM UTC

paulsutter wrote: post #16

slurgfest wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IE's inclusion in Windows (which dominated the market) had a lot to do with Microsoft crushing Netscape - it wasn't just that IE was free and Netscape wasn't.

Free seemed to work fine for Chrome and Firefox. The real key here is that corporations stopped paying for Netscspe, which was their main revenue stream. Microsoft definitely got a big advantage from bundling the browser, but how can it make sense in an Internet era for an OS to ship without a browser? How could it possibly benefit consumers if they were forced to download a browser separately? Nobody is screaming an…

That's entirely because Apple doesn't have a monopoly.

Re: Scott Rafer on Dalton's letter: "Learning the wrong lesson"

#32

Post by rhizome » Fri, Aug 03, 2012, 10:45 PM UTC

paulsutter wrote: post #27

rhizome wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're indulging in extremism. "The perfect is the enemy of the good," and all that.

Dude you can do whatever you want. If you want to start something that's readily copied, go ahead. But if Godzilla steps on you, dont act surprised and dont expect a lot of sympathy.

No really, I get the "cold-hearted businessman," thing. However, you're describing preparations for an unknowable situation: "you should have predicted the future better."

Re: Scott Rafer on Dalton's letter: "Learning the wrong lesson"

#33

Post by drivebyacct2 » Fri, Aug 03, 2012, 10:52 PM UTC

michaelbuckbee wrote: post #5

salman89 wrote: post #2

"The lesson instead is: build something whose very nature makes it a cannibalistic cash flow hit for a BigCo so that their shareholders resist competing, but which their users love." Can anyone explain more what he means by that? How can something that is a cash flow hit for a BigCo not be a cash flow hit for anyone else?

An example: Rapportive was a browser plugin that put social information (from FB, LinkedIn, Twitter, etc.) directly in your Gmail. This was great from a user perspective (puts a picture with an email so you recognize that this is 'Bill' who you met at the hackerspace even though his email is cypherdog26@crytomesh.org). However it was NOT so great for Gmail: 1. Rapportive overwrote the section of gmail where they disp…

Except Gmail does that now via G+ data.

Re: Scott Rafer on Dalton's letter: "Learning the wrong lesson"

#34

Post by paulsutter » Fri, Aug 03, 2012, 10:55 PM UTC

rhizome wrote: post #31

paulsutter wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Free seemed to work fine for Chrome and Firefox. The real key here is that corporations stopped paying for Netscspe, which was their main revenue stream. Microsoft definitely got a big advantage from bundling the browser, but how can it make sense in an Internet era for an OS to ship without a browser? How could it possibly benefit consumers if they were forced to download a browser separately? Nobody is screaming an…

That's entirely because Apple doesn't have a monopoly.

You really think that Microsoft should be prevented from bundling a browser with windows? And that consumers would benefit from this?

Re: Scott Rafer on Dalton's letter: "Learning the wrong lesson"

#35

Post by scottrafer » Fri, Aug 03, 2012, 11:10 PM UTC

petegrif wrote: post #25

paulsutter wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know. But unless you have a strategy, don't start a company. Without a strategy you're just picking up nickles in front of a steamroller. I'm sure that strategies exist on any platform. Zynga doesn't seem worried that Facebook will copy its games (even if they do hate paying the platform tax). Many products are pretty safe from Facebook. For example, build an app for dentists, or personal trainers, or pregnan…

There only is one sure strategy for avoiding the potential steamroller of the platform company. Don't build on the platform.

Like any other resource or dependency that you build into your business, using a platform requires an ROI calculation of some sort. The distribution advantage needs to be worth the risk.

Re: Scott Rafer on Dalton's letter: "Learning the wrong lesson"

#36

Post by scottrafer » Fri, Aug 03, 2012, 11:17 PM UTC

fusiongyro wrote: post #30

petegrif wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Scott if I read you correctly I think this is a profound misunderstanding of how to potentially build a viable business on a platform. Let's examine two extremes. a) dev builds software on the platform that doesn't disrupt the platforms economics, distribution, or organizational limitations. b) dev builds software on the platform that does disrupt the platforms economics, distribution, or organizational limitations.…

In case A, what's stopping the platform from re-doing themselves whatever it is you've done?

+1 That's why Case A doesn't work for me.

Re: Scott Rafer on Dalton's letter: "Learning the wrong lesson"

#37

Post by scottrafer » Fri, Aug 03, 2012, 11:22 PM UTC

rhizome wrote: post #23

scottrafer wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm applying it differently, and to the business before his pivot. I'm talking about his conversation with Facebook and his accusation that Facebook was underhanded. He didn't do a proper job of disrupting FB's economics, distribution, or organizational limitations, so he's got no grounds to complain that they 'bullied' him. That should have been his expectation.

That should have been his expectation. I mentioned elsewhere that, personal opinion only, of course, that this expectation is the sign of bad mindedness. Think of the logical implications of this point.

It was lazy of me to inherit Dalton's term 'bully.' It should have been his expectation to only be compensated for EVA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_value_added) and not count on Facebook's stewardship of its developers.

And, when I don't like the tone of a meeting, I politely leave. Facebook's offices are physically difficult to enter, not leave.

Re: Scott Rafer on Dalton's letter: "Learning the wrong lesson"

#38

Post by rhizome » Fri, Aug 03, 2012, 11:32 PM UTC

paulsutter wrote: post #34

rhizome wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's entirely because Apple doesn't have a monopoly.

You really think that Microsoft should be prevented from bundling a browser with windows? And that consumers would benefit from this?

You may misunderstand the case that you're referring to. They bundled for free that which cost money otherwise, as well as using undocumented APIs. When they were found to be a monopoly, their actions, which would in many other cases be perfectly legal, were a problem.

Re: Scott Rafer on Dalton's letter: "Learning the wrong lesson"

#39

Post by sadgfasfda » Fri, Aug 03, 2012, 11:32 PM UTC

So the take-away is never build something on a platform that a company like Google or Facebook or Twitter is capable of making (or may want to make) themselves, because they will steal your ideas and you should have known better before you used the platform they offer so people can make things.

Note to self: Patent way to use an API to not write code.

Re: Scott Rafer on Dalton's letter: "Learning the wrong lesson"

#40

Post by scottrafer » Fri, Aug 03, 2012, 11:44 PM UTC

rhizome wrote: post #32

paulsutter wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dude you can do whatever you want. If you want to start something that's readily copied, go ahead. But if Godzilla steps on you, dont act surprised and dont expect a lot of sympathy.

No really, I get the "cold-hearted businessman," thing. However, you're describing preparations for an unknowable situation: "you should have predicted the future better."

I don't see it as crystal ball reading. The question that needs to be asked is, "If my new new thing takes off, what prevents the platform from cloning me, turning me off, and/or buying me cheap?"

In Zynga's case for instance, FB was pretty darn dependent on the advertising $$ Zynga paid them (among other factors). In Instagram's case, I believe that Facebook wished to avoid pumping up mobile app traffic that quickly. Etc.

Obviously, YMMV. The strength of the answers varies wildly, and startups often lose the bet -- even when the bet was calculated well. C'est la vie, et c'est la guerre.