That was better execution
SO much wisdom in this. It's actually really smart to see a company jump into a market, make several failures and then you can slide in without having to take the amount of risk the "first to market" companies had to take.
Tons of real world examples. The most obvious is how Apple iphones were designed and then copied by the rest of the industry. Samsung, et al allowed Apple to define what users wanted, then piggy backed their design to take advantage of the popularity of their design without sacrificing the risk to find out for themselves, or develop something cough original cough.
[1] https://www.cnet.com/au/news/what-steve-jobs-really-meant-wh...
You can do a whole lot of naval gazing, and then what are you left with?
First movers are hard, because (as you've described) you have to educate the market, and then give a reason to buy.
Think about the marketing effort of Lotus-123 vs Excel.
Or Twitter vs Facebook
Or Dwarf Fortress vs Minecraft
This is why I think Scott Adam's book "How to fail at almost everything and still win big" is brilliant. He suggests focusing on the process (get the process right) and the goal will look after itself
Taken from the book:
* Studies show this does not exist
* Since market is more defined when settlers enter, they can focus on providing superior quality instead of deliberating about what to offer in the first place
* Risk seekers are drawn to being first, and they're prone to impulsive decisions. Risk-adverse entrepreneurs watch from the sidelines, waiting for the right opportunity and balancing their risk portfolios before entering.
* Failure rates aof 47%/8% (first movers / settlers)