American Tech Giants Are Making Life Tough For Startups (economist.com) 142
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Economist: Venture capitalists, such as Albert Wenger of Union Square Ventures, who was an early investor in Twitter, now talk of a "kill-zone" around the giants. Once a young firm enters, it can be extremely difficult to survive. Tech giants try to squash startups by copying them, or they pay to scoop them up early to eliminate a threat. The idea of a kill-zone may bring to mind Microsoft's long reign in the 1990s, as it embraced a strategy of "embrace, extend and extinguish" and tried to intimidate startups from entering its domain. But entrepreneurs' and venture capitalists' concerns are striking because for a long while afterwards, startups had free rein. [...] Venture capitalists are wary of backing startups in online search, social media, mobile and e-commerce. It has become harder for startups to secure a first financing round. According to Pitchbook, a research company, in 2017 the number of these rounds were down by around 22% from 2012 (see chart).
The wariness comes from seeing what happens to startups when they enter the kill-zone, either deliberately or accidentally. Snap is the most prominent example; after Snap rebuffed Facebook's attempts to buy the firm in 2013, for $3 billion, Facebook cloned many of its successful features and has put a damper on its growth. A less known example is Life on Air, which launched Meerkat, a live video-streaming app, in 2015. It was obliterated when Twitter acquired and promoted a competing app, Periscope. Life on Air shut Meerkat down and launched a different app, called Houseparty, which offered group video chats. This briefly gained prominence, but was then copied by Facebook, seizing users and attention away from the startup. The Economist goes on to state three reasons why the kill-zone is likely to stay: "First, the giants have tons of data to identify emerging rivals faster than ever before. Recruiting is a second tool the giants will use to enforce their kill zones. A third reason that startups may struggle to break through is that there is no sign of a new platform emerging which could disrupt the incumbents, even more than a decade after the rise of mobile."
The wariness comes from seeing what happens to startups when they enter the kill-zone, either deliberately or accidentally. Snap is the most prominent example; after Snap rebuffed Facebook's attempts to buy the firm in 2013, for $3 billion, Facebook cloned many of its successful features and has put a damper on its growth. A less known example is Life on Air, which launched Meerkat, a live video-streaming app, in 2015. It was obliterated when Twitter acquired and promoted a competing app, Periscope. Life on Air shut Meerkat down and launched a different app, called Houseparty, which offered group video chats. This briefly gained prominence, but was then copied by Facebook, seizing users and attention away from the startup. The Economist goes on to state three reasons why the kill-zone is likely to stay: "First, the giants have tons of data to identify emerging rivals faster than ever before. Recruiting is a second tool the giants will use to enforce their kill zones. A third reason that startups may struggle to break through is that there is no sign of a new platform emerging which could disrupt the incumbents, even more than a decade after the rise of mobile."
The next disruption will be distributed. (Score:5, Interesting)
That's why the next disruptors will be entirely distributed. Google, FB, Amazon and Co. are todays AOL and CompuServe, plain and simple. They bascially own the web. Cracking that stronghold will likely only happen with fully distributed services. I expect something like this to show up with the next 5 years or so.
In a way I'm looking forward to that.
Re: (Score:2)
That's why the next disruptors will be entirely distributed. Google, FB, Amazon and Co. are todays AOL and CompuServe, plain and simple. They bascially own the web. Cracking that stronghold will likely only happen with fully distributed services. I expect something like this to show up with the next 5 years or so.
In a way I'm looking forward to that.
You... are not the only person who is thinking like this.
Re: (Score:1)
Of course not, cut and paste from twitter most likely.
Re: (Score:2)
So what you're saying is that the next disruptor will be based on both torrent and blockchain.
Re: (Score:2)
But where will the AI fit in?
Re: (Score:3)
I've been working on just that since 2013. Open sourcing the solution this fall.
Re: (Score:2)
Can I get a heads up!
(Looking for the low UID:)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't want to give anything away, but if you message me I will send you to where you get on a notification email list (not a mailing list)
Re: (Score:2)
I plan on making a business out of it. We have multiple patents on the process, and I have a new business plan that will allow people to get in at a much lower cost than our first attempt. It truly is an encrypted, decentralized peer to peer sharing system. And it doesn't rely on DNS ;)
Re:The next disruption will be distributed. (Score:5, Interesting)
That's why the next disruptors will be entirely distributed. Google, FB, Amazon and Co. are todays AOL and CompuServe, plain and simple. They bascially own the web. Cracking that stronghold will likely only happen with fully distributed services. I expect something like this to show up with the next 5 years or so.
In a way I'm looking forward to that.
Although a fully distributed facebook would be better for the internet, it would have a hard time competing with facebook. The reason facebook is so successful is because it has all the people and all the advertisers. Ideally, a distributed facebook would allow third party clients to connect to the distributed backend. This would be hard to monetize so the distributed system would always be at a huge disadvantage to the highly profitable walled garden.
Re:The next disruption will be distributed. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:The next disruption will be distributed. (Score:4, Insightful)
Additionally, people don't really care. Geek care, that's mostly it. Most everyone else doesn't care, and that matters, because if they don't come to this utopia of distributed privacy, then no one else will either.
People don't care about privacy but they are willing to switch for features. A distributed system like email or even android allows multiple products to exist in the same domain. That will be the only way to defeat the walled garden. Have a system of loosely connected platforms where one person can choose platform A and another person can choose platform B and they can still talk to each other.
Facebook is unlikely to do this voluntarily and it would be unlikely for a startup to be able to manage this either. The most likely scenerio at this point would be if google opened google+ to third party developers as a way to try to one up facebook.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, this is why Linux totally destroyed Windows and OSX on the desktop. People don't want to choose between A and B. Sure IT pros liked being able to choose (and car guys like swapping out things under their hoods), but most people want to pick up something and have it just work.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, this is why Linux totally destroyed Windows and OSX on the desktop. People don't want to choose between A and B. Sure IT pros liked being able to choose (and car guys like swapping out things under their hoods), but most people want to pick up something and have it just work.
Android has 85% market share. For any single phone iphone wins hands down but the shear number of choices of android allows it to dominate the total market. People want things to just work but they also want the choice. Android offers a range of sizes, prices, and features. Likewise with email, there isn't one client that dominates the market. People find the email client that they like. Go look at the toothpaste or shampoo aisle. Sure people might be overwhelmed with choices some time but it's simpl
Re: (Score:2)
Android does well because it's cheaper than and one alternative to iOS, and people are locked in via past app purchases. It's not because there are a lot of software options. Sure, there are a ton of options for camera, and size, and whatnot. But no one uses Android OS features as a deciding point.
Also, I specified desktops to highlight that point. But yeah, how many people installed any alternative distro on Android?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
And isn't "run your own server" basically just regular forums anyway?
Re: The next disruption will be distributed. (Score:3)
I think Diaspora is closer to the mark. It's more like running your own private Facebook node.
Re: The next disruption will be distributed. (Score:1)
It's a kludge. Until it's an "app" that you can install, it as easy and brainless to install in Windows like an instant messenger (click, next next finish), these platform aren't going anywhere to the mass market
Compare to BitTorrent (Score:3)
Things like Diaspora can in theory be made as easy as (legit) BitTorrent. The tricky parts of any distributed communication app are
1. Integration with domain registrars to give your home computer a globally unique name.
2. Integration with UPnP or other home gateway configuration protocols to make your home computer reachable from the Internet.
3. Convincing ISPs to turn on IPv6 so that your home computer isn't stuck behind carrier-grade network address translation (CGNAT) with dozens of subscribers on one IP
Re: (Score:1)
Re: The next disruption will be distributed. (Score:2)
Unfortunately, that will likely never happen. Centralized services are fundamentally more user friendly than distributed ones.
Re: (Score:2)
The backend could be run not-for-profit, funded by charging for API access. Client sites/apps would use advertising or subscriptions to pay for the API access.
Facebook could be broken up into these two parts.
Re: The next disruption will be distributed. (Score:4, Informative)
A distributed Facebook is basically a fancy RSS feed - each user hosts their own profile on their own host. There is no need for advertising, and people who are pushing advertising into their feed for others to see can be unfollowed for the social menace they are.
Back in the real world, the average non-geek is never going to "host their own profile on their own host" and without advertising or some other form of revenue, there is no way for a startup to compete with the cash cow that is facebook.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, think about it for a minute. Almost everyone is running their own instance of communication programs. Wether it's iMessage or something else, once you remove the need for a centralized server and push that into torrents/blockchains then the client becomes the server. And to lower the bandwidth and requirements, simply flush data after a set time limit to keep things lean, clean and fast.
So really, everyone using this new network would be a part of that network.
When both sides are behind NAT (Score:2)
Well, think about it for a minute. Almost everyone is running their own instance of communication programs.
These programs can make outgoing connections but not listen for and accept incoming connections. This is because most non-technical users aren't in a position to forward ports. Either they don't know how to operate a home gateway's port forwarding interface or they're behind an IPv4 address shared with other subscribers.
Too obvious (Score:5, Interesting)
That's why the next disruptors will be entirely distributed.
You're going to have something more distributed than the internet? Good luck with that. I understand your argument and it's not a foolish idea but "more distributed" runs into some real world limits and it has little effect on certain companies including I think some of the ones being discussed here.
Cracking that stronghold will likely only happen with fully distributed services.
Conceivable but unlikely. The risk to each company is different. It's not likely to be something so obvious as a more distributed version of the internet or their particular services. It will have to be something quite different that they don't really perceive as a threat - at first.
I expect something like this to show up with the next 5 years or so.
I'll take that bet. You might be right but I seriously doubt we'll see anything that displaces the bit tech companies in this generation.
Re: Too obvious (Score:2)
Yeah, unfortunately distributed computing has proven to be too difficult for most developers. We have been making tools for distributed computing since the 60s, but developers still end up writing essentially procedural code because it's easier to explain and understand step-by-step instructions than it is to explain and understand formalizations.
Re: (Score:3)
You're both right. Entrenched powers have no interest in creating or even enabling a truly distributed internet, which sadly is what is actually needed to have a free internet. If we want one, we will have to build it ourselves, and that is hard. Still, it is one of the most worthwhile goals on the table right now, perhaps we should give it a go.
Re: (Score:3)
http://luiscabral.net/economic... [luiscabral.net]
Re: (Score:2)
Re:The next disruption will be distributed. (Score:5, Insightful)
Before AOL and CompuServe with had a distributed network of BBS's But this created some chaos with each BBS SysOp being their own little king, Some being too strict, others being too lax, some finding a good middle ground. Paid Services such as AOL, Prodigy and CompuServe. Combined the features of hundreds of BBS's to one site, and offered a consistent set of rules and liberties. Then the Web Came out, giving people access to information that these commercial sites deemed inappropriate, or just not interesting enough. So people went back on the distributed method again... However the Web is a dangerous place, to validation of information, that plugin needed to be installed will either be spyware, or just handle some vector graphics so you can play an online game. Altavista, Yahoo, AskJeves, Google, Myspace, Facebook, Wikipedia came in as a way to tame the web, so you can find information easily, try to block some dangerous information... So it then comes back to a few big companies managing all our data again.
The problem is that we ask accurate truthful information, but we want our world view to be validated, but every source has a bias and some sources take that bias to spread false information, as it will make money pandering to peoples world views. When we get too distributed we get a lot of dangerous data. when it gets too controlled to much important data is missing.
Perhaps China? (Score:2, Informative)
The disruptors are happening, but they are not in the US. China, India, and other countries have their own companies, backed by the government that are breaking ground. For example, Taobao and Single's Day made more revenue than the Christmas holidays. Alibaba, Tencent, and Yandex are booming, while Google is still begging to be let into the party.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
http://luiscabral.net/economic... [luiscabral.net]
Re: (Score:2)
That's why the next disruptors will be entirely distributed.
So.... more services along the lines of SiaCoin's decentralized cloud storage ?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not seeing anything about cloud hosting costs being the determiner for the kill zone. And I don't know anyone* who cares about the backend technology.
* Hyperbolic: - I know people like that. But such a small number it may as well be zero.
Re: (Score:2)
If the system let everyone keep control of their own data on their own server (whether a local PC or on an ISP server) then it would be a big winner. It would have to support storage of copies on multiple servers in encrypted form so that they could be distributed, but the owner still had control over distribution through the decryption key.
Re:Whining (Score:5, Interesting)
It also means that novel ideas ('new features' for someone else's product) don't get to see the light of day because they can't get (Silicon Valley) investment. That investment knows that any good ideas will either be bought (for a low price, not 10 time the real value of the idea) or be simply copied ensuring the company formed around it just dies off with no investor payback at all.
However, the solution is really relatively simple:
1) Have a better idea
2) Don't do it in Silicon Valley
Having a better idea means it's harder to copy (although probably well within the capabilities of the big guys if they really want to do it). It also means the idea has more intrinsic value, which pushes up any possible company sale price. It's doesn't inoculate against the issue of copy-and-extinguish, but it mitigates it because doing so is harder and more 'distracting' for the big company considering doing it.
Not doing it in Silicon Valley is probably the best move though. Firstly, you'll build up any market share from your local area first, and so those people will just enjoy your product without 'telling the big guys' about it. Secondly, you won't be in the SV rumour mill, so ludicrous stories about you, your success, worth or whatever else are less likely to reach the big guys. This all gives you time to actually develop a product, actually acquire customers and actually run your business. By the time the big guys cotton on, you'll be big enough that you're uncopyable, and worth considerably more than you would have been without that time.
Re: (Score:2)
The trouble is that VC investment is practically unavailable outside of Silicon Valley (and the other "tech hubs") which means you need to have pallets of excess cash lying around to start your company.
Buying (Score:5, Interesting)
2. Buying competing companies
Great, rewards innovators for their work, motivates more to do the same and also get paid.
The problem is that very often this is done by the buyer corporation for 2 goals :
- Stop the competitor
- Acquire the talents and mind behind the startup to use them.
It usually doesn't include the goal that interests most end-users :
- Keep the startup's project alive thanks to bigger infrastructure.
- Usually that project get shut down, and the brains reassigned to the corporation other targets/projects.
Facebook's keeping alive competing social networks WhatsApp and Instagram after aquiring them is mroe the exception than the norm.
(Mostly due to very strong generation cycles in that market: Facebook the social network will eventually follow MySpace and die as well, and Mark Zuckerberg has been very carefully planning the follow up by sucessfully buying any upcoming future successor).
So although the devs get money that rewards them for the hardwork, users might lose an interesting alternative, and get a less diverse eco-system.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Stop one competitor, motivate other (new) competitors.
"- Acquire the talents and mind behind the startup to use them."
Give smart people access to a bigger platform.
If they don't like it they can leave any time they want, so long as it's in line with contracts they voluntarily agreed to.
"It usually doesn't include the goal that interests most end-users
"- Keep the startup's project alive thanks to bigger infrastructure."
If people value the project, why would the company shut
Not the government (Score:2)
You seem to be pointing to some things you don't like and concluding "therefore government should step in".
I know you tend to see us Europeans as communi-lefties that want to throw an evil-tyrannical-overreaching government to legislate the shit out of everything, but at no point in my post did I invoke it.
I was simply contrasting the parent poster's positive side of acquisition (usually the dev of the startup can reap the [mostly financial] benefits of their hardwork)
With the negative side : users are usually on the losing side, because the startup's own service/product is actually going to get shut down fast,
Re: (Score:2)
I know you tend to see us Europeans as communi-lefties that want to throw an evil-tyrannical-overreaching government to legislate the shit out of everything
I'm Dutch and don't see a significant difference between the US and Europe. The US became more and more socialist from 1924 until Reagan. But Republicans love big government too.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
but at no point in my post did I invoke it.
That's why I said "You seem to", so you don't want government to meddle with this stuff?
With the negative side : users are usually on the losing side
And I explained why you're wrong.
I understand why people want government. Obedience to authority started probably started early in evolution and is certainly the way life on earth became successful. So we have a
Just pointing stuff (Score:2)
I'm Dutch and don't see a significant difference between the US and Europe. The US became more and more socialist from 1924 until Reagan. But Republicans love big government too.
Most of Europe here around is paying education through taxes, making it accessible for free for anyone.
On the other side of the Atlantic pond, US still pays universities mostly through horrendously high tuition, making it hard to get education, unless the parents are very rich (slowly evolving to an almost caste-system of 1%ers) or you get yourself in huge debt (hello almost indentured workers).
Most of Europe here around has universally accessible health care (the CH being the oddball out), so that getting
Re:Whining (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
in order to add new lines.
I can't read this stuff, what a terrible comment system.
Especially when the preview makes it look fine, but the comment ends up looking terrible.
Re: (Score:2)
1. Copying features.
Great, this means we get more features.
It also shows the futility of patents and copyright.
These things only serve the established and dominant corporations because it raises the barrier to entry.
Although I agree that patents and copyrights do tilt heavily in favor of the established companies, completely removing them would be worse. It would allow a book publisher to immediately make copies of your new book without giving you royalties. It would allow facebook, google, etc... to copy mmediately with no recourse. At least currently they have to be somewhat creative to copy a feature and can't blatantly steal it.
Re: (Score:2)
Has copying music destroyed the music industry?
No, musicians can make money by touring just fine.
Being somewhat creative is really easy.
It's a much smaller hurdle than having to go through the bureaucracy from hell patent system.
Re:Whining (Score:5, Insightful)
This is the free market as it should be. Much better than in markets where government meddles, actually fucking things up.
Why are you against a properly working free marked? Because a working free marked requires low barriers to entry/exit, lack of cartel activity, etc, all of which needs govenment intervention. By all means, it is absolutely possible for governments to mess up with things they do (say like unwisely keeping a dying coal industry on life support instead of investing in renewable energy), but that is not an argument for them to do nothing.
And even with that, some government intervention by restricting what a properly working free marked could produce is good for society. For instance, do you think that companies should be able to 100% decide the safety of their products without any say from the government at all, or should the govenment be able to set some minimum requirements with regards to products? Will such safety requirements be perfect? Of course not. Will it make some products more expensive? Yes. But the world is undeniably a better place with such requirements in place.
Re: (Score:1)
I don't want markets to be "free"; I want them to be fair and competitive, because in the end it's best for consumers and businesses alike. And often getting to the point where a market is competitive (no company or set of companies controls too much market share, and the barriers to entry are reasonably low) requ
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Why are you against a properly working free marked?
Because government == always bad/inefficient. Free market == freedom/efficiency!
I really wish I was making that argument up. It's not the stance of every free market advocate, but there are a disturbingly high number in that blind faith camp posting on /. And I'm not sure it's worth trying to reach them.
Re: (Score:2)
Government can do bad things.
Therefore government should do nothing.
is not a valid argument [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
We can look at economic freedom and the more economic freedom people have the better off they are:
https://www.heritage.org/index... [heritage.org]
Economic freedom improves quality of life https://www.flickr.com/photos/... [flickr.com]
So we have good evidence that government meddling doens't work.
None of the things you mention require government intervention: - low barriers to entry; creating barriers to entry is far too expensive, they're only profitable when
Re: (Score:2)
Android was a defensive play (Score:3)
there is no sign of a new platform emerging which could disrupt the incumbents, even more than a decade after the rise of mobile."
Google developed Android strictly as a defensive play to prevent them from getting locked out of the mobile ad market (their overwhelmingly primary source of revenue) by Apple, Microsoft, Blackberry, Nokia, and others. In this they succeeded wildly and it will be very hard to displace them.
All of these big tech companies have VAST amounts of cash available to them. They could easily buy most companies that present a threat to them or buy their way into entirely new industries if they wanted. Apple literally has enough cash to buy both Ford and GM and Fiat Chrysler at their current market capitalization. Microsoft and Alphabet/Google and to a lesser degree Facebook are similarly comfortable.
Re: (Score:2)
Except they developed Android at the same time as Apple started developing iPhone and they did not really know about each other...
Re: (Score:3)
Google knew about the iphone. Google's CEO was on Apple's board at the time
The threat wasn't just Apple (Score:3)
Except they developed Android at the same time as Apple started developing iPhone and they did not really know about each other...
Google didn't need to know about the iPhone to know there was a threat to their ad revenue from a mobile device maker controlling their ability to reach end users. At the time they were probably more worried about Microsoft or Nokia or Blackberry but the threat was the same. They also probably were concerned about AT&T, Verizon and that bunch too having too much control over the software and ad platforms. Nobody really could have predicted the iPhone would be the smash hit it turned out to be but pe
Re: (Score:1)
And computer on the TV is still a valid threat. Google at the original introduction of the Chromecast showed a device much more capable than the one that exists now. Features included displaying your calender and contacts and even Netfilx's front screen, all responding to voice commands. The product as shipped can't do any of that. Yet.
When it can it might very well replace the computer for people who only use their computer for surfing because it has a bigger screen.
SmartTVs have failed in this space beca
Google != Android (Score:2)
Google bought Android when they were already developing a smartphone OS. It originally was going to compete with the Blackberry, as early prototypes had a Blackberry style keyboard and windows-style task switcher. Once the iPhone came out, they redesigned the OS to be touchscreen-based.
Android Pre-iPhone:
https://www.androidcentral.com... [androidcentral.com]
Android Post-iPhone:
https://support.t-mobile.com/_... [t-mobile.com]
Missing the point (Score:2)
Google bought Android when they were already developing a smartphone OS.
Makes precisely zero difference if they started development in house or if they bought the tech and continued to develop it. Historical trivia about how the development process happened is unimportant to my point. The important point is A) Google recognized a threat to their business in the mobile market going forward and B) they developed (and yes bought) technology to defend their revenue streams.
Re: (Score:3)
Google didn't develop Android at all, they bought it. And Android development predates iPhone. Microsoft, Blackberry, Nokia, and Palm fumbled and lost the market, while Android and iOS won because they were better. But regardless of this history, that leaves the question: so what? You can get extremely powerful phones with excellent software from two companies now.
If Google or Apple f
What is your point? (Score:2)
Google didn't develop Android at all, they bought it. And Android development predates iPhone.
They bought it and then they developed the crap out of it. Android did not stop being developed after Google purchased the technology. The argument that Google bought Android and didn't develop it is an idiotic argument that only made sense for about a year. There is no real difference between developing a tech in house or buying a company that developed the tech and continuing the development in house after that. ZERO difference.
If Google or Apple fail to invest heavily in Android/iOS development, their platform will fail within a few years, just like all the previous mobile platforms.
Do you seriously think either of those companies is not well aware of that
Re: (Score:2)
I think the real question is: what was your point. You listed a bunch of irrelevant half-truths in response to an article about "OMG they are killing teh startups". In reality, you are simply seeing a competitive market in action. For some reason that seems to bother you.
Re: (Score:2)
I think the real question is: what was your point. You listed a bunch of irrelevant half-truths in response to an article about "OMG they are killing teh startups". In reality, you are simply seeing a competitive market in action. For some reason that seems to bother you.
Please point out where I said it bothered me. I'm merely pointing out an interesting case where Google developed some technology to keep their market position. If you think what I said was untrue or irrelevant you didn't understand it.
Yes, apparently you do.
Already did and you still didn't get it. I'll try one more time. A huge pile of cash lets you buy your way out of almost any threat to your company including but not limited to 1) Buying your competition, 2) Buying into a new industry, 3) Buying your way out of massive str
Re: (Score:2)
They are already doing all of that, since their "cash" is likely largely invested in the stock market. When Apple management believes that their special expertise in some t
Re: (Score:2)
If Google or Apple fail to invest heavily in Android/iOS development, their platform will fail within a few years
I dunno, look at how little effort Apple puts in to Siri or Apple Maps. Compared to what Google have done with Assistant and Maps, or what Amazon has done with Alexa...
And yet Apple still sells plenty of iPhones.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple is trying desperately to catch up on AI, buying startups and trying to hire like crazy, they're just not succeeding.
And not doing so well. [businessinsider.com]
Re: (Score:2)
All of these big tech companies have VAST amounts of cash available to them. They could easily buy most companies that present a threat to them or buy their way into entirely new industries if they wanted. Apple literally has enough cash to buy both Ford and GM and Fiat Chrysler at their current market capitalization. Microsoft and Alphabet/Google and to a lesser degree Facebook are similarly comfortable.
I think there needs to be some kind of disincentive for corporations to sit on very large piles of cash and/or short term investments. I don't know what the "right" number is, probably some ratio tied to business size and revenue, but beyond the magic number maybe they should face taxes that makes even holding treasuries a net negative interest rate.
IMHO, corporations should either be handing the money back to investors as dividends or using to invest in new products or production. If they're allowed to h
It's called an exit plan. (Score:1)
...they pay to scoop them up early to eliminate a threat.
That's my exit plan. My investors demanded a certain ROI (or I get nothing) - and waiting to go public was snickered at (I was even coached NOT to say that during the presentation!) - and if some Big Corp comes by and makes an offer that gives them the return they want, we're selling.
Bitch and moan all you want about buy and extinguish, but I have no problem with it.
For those of you that do, do your own thing and you stick it out and deal with the pressures from the investors.
And even large companies... (Score:1)
Despite Google claiming their search results are fair, I never saw any Vimeo videos in the video tab...
trivial tech (Score:2)
I don't see what the problem is. If your startup consists of offering trivial technology, you get lots of competitors, including from established players. These companies weren't even the companies that were the first to commercialize their idea, they were simply companies that happened to make a name for themselves.
There
Is it new? (Score:5, Interesting)
Rockefeller made it easy for anyone to sell kerosene to light lamps in USA? He colluded with railroaders like Vanderbilt and made it impossible for anyone to compete.
Edison's General Electric executives actually ended up in jail for violating Sherman antitrust anti monopoly laws.
Yes, there is probably a kill zone around today's tech giants. But it is a metaphorical. But back in the days, the kill zones were real.
Re: (Score:2)
Sadly, just a handful of Americans today are even aware that Carnegie was a war profiteer, then later a war-rebuilding profiteer, who made his original fortune by being appointed to Superintendent of Railways and Telegraphs by his boyfriend, Thomas Scott, creator of the financial construct known as the "holding company."
Re: (Score:1)
He watched The Men Who Built America on History. Frick was shot, by the way. He wasn't stabbed. OP must have gone to the bathroom during that scene.
And yet the infrastructure is cheaper (Score:2)
Back in the '90s, in the so called "long reign" of microsoft, you needed 100s of millions just to set up the infrastructure you needed for your startup.
Nowadays, with IaaS and PaaS, setting up and scaling your initial infrastructure, is a piece of cacke, and cheaper (and tax deductible) to boot...
So no, I think this is a great time to launch a SW startup.
Finally, if a big thech firm acquires you early on, that's a great way to get an exit, which, VCs shuld love...
Now, being out-compteded by a bigger rival,
Ideas are cheap (Score:2)
Derivative non-creative shit (Score:2)
If you are developing derivitave shit, like group video chat which has been around for a decade, then of course any big player can come along and do the same thing. Startups should develop new products, not new brands.
boo. hoo. (Score:2)
Is it just me (Score:2)
So? Getty, Rockefeller (Score:1)
This is why I want to slap(figuratively) any mealy (Score:2)
Sarbanes-Oxley. (Score:3)
Notice when the current giants in the market became giants: after the passage of Sarbanes-Oxley, which made it far more difficult for mid-sized startups to go to the public markets for funding. When the only practical exit strategy left to you is to be bought out by a Facebook, a Google, an Apple or a Microsoft, then the only strategy you have left as an entrepreneur is to figure out what will get you bought out, rather than going head to head with the large companies as Google once did against a Lycos or an Altavista.
Without the additional requirements in Sarbanes-Oxley which made accessing the public markets much harder, would we be talking about Github being bought out by Microsoft? Or would be be talking about Github's IPO?
Re: (Score:2)
A startup could just go overseas and raise capital beyond the reach of Sarbanes-Oxley. On second thought, that won't work either [wikipedia.org]. Face it. We live behind an economic Iron Curtain.
Re: (Score:2)
When the only practical exit strategy left to you is to be bought out by a Facebook, a Google, an Apple or a Microsoft, then the only strategy you have left as an entrepreneur is to figure out what will get you bought out
I've read this is exactly the problem that "innovation" faces now. "Innovators" no longer are really interested in solving interesting problems, the energy now goes into coming up with ideas that are interesting and nip enough at the margins of the heavyweights to get them to buy them out.
Risk (Score:2)
I'm sorry, but turning down $3 billion? I would have sold out for a thousandth of that.
Classic example (Score:1)
This is a classic example of the critiques of capitalism and the failures of an unregulated market. The market by itself will not regulate monopolies on its own.
THAT is why they need regulation... (Score:1)
These monolith corps need to be reigned in. That is what regulations are for.
I suggest a capitalism cap at $100M. Anything after that goes to social services and tax programs.