Off topic:

I love this intro:

Did you pitch for a t-ball team, because thanks for that sweet setup!

On topic:

Some businesses require so much funding up front that it’s not feasible. As always, there is a great blog post by Joel.

https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2000/05/12/strategy-letter-i-...

And I wish I could take credit for thinking about the consequences of making it harder for companies to be acquired, but I got the idea from Ben Thompson’s (Of Stratechery fame) Exponent podcast.

(This link will take you to a website at the time stamp of the podcast if you don’t have Overcast installed)

https://overcast.fm/+BihkIZ9fA/31:05

Well, this part didn't age well :

> Another extremely strong network effect is proprietary chat systems like ICQ or AOL Instant Messenger. If you want to chat with people, you have to go where they are, and ICQ and AOL have the most people by far. Chances are, your friends are using one of those services, not one of the smaller ones like MSN Instant Messenger. With all of Microsoft’s muscle, money, and marketing skill, they are just not going to be able to break into auctions or instant messaging, because the network effects there are so strong.

I think it's basically true though? the way I remember it, AIM only died once Facebook messenger rolled out. Facebook messenger was only viable because Facebook already had a huge number of users. if you were already "friends" with someone, it was even easier to message them there than it was to ask for their AIM username.

Doesn’t that kind of argue the point though that you don’t need government to interfere with tech to avoid monopolies and anticompetitive behavior? The market took care of that.

ICQ and AOL basically died. While Microsoft bought Skype and basically morphed it into new-MSN. So Microsoft's slow growth, long-term strategy succeeded, while it shouldn't have (?).

I don't think this is really a counterexample. skype was already a widely used product when microsoft bought it. joel isn't arguing that you can't have enough money to just buy a product that already has a large network of users. also (iirc), skype only took market share from aol in the first place because it had a killer feature aol lacked: video chat. network effects mean you can't be replaced by a similar service, not that you can't be disrupted by a new product with a unique feature that people actually want.

You consider Skype to be a “success”?

Harder to acquire, not impossible. And nothing I outlined the prevention of a huge capital outlay. Uber and Lyft could be entirely congruent with my statement, they aren't looking to get acquired (at least it doesn't appear to look like it).

There are clearly startups whose sole purpose is to appear to threaten an incumbent and then get purchased by either the incumbent or a rising competitor. Those startups are never design to operate in the long term or on their own. They might force small movements by the entrenched corps, but they don't transform industries.

Well put!!