So their point stands. They have to be much better. And all of these were.
Maybe. No company lives forever, at some point all of these things will be unseated. But those first movers had pretty good runs, as far as technology companies go. Maybe they aren't still #1 but if you're #1 for a decade or more, that might be as much as any one company can "win" here.
All of those products that came after are better than the first movers. If Apple was worse than BB, do you think it would have won?
Apple and specifically Jony Ive started the development of a handheld computer in the early 90s. Apple was definitely not a second comer to that market.
https://www.businessinsider.com/jony-ives-first-apple-design...
That's an odd way to define "not a second comer". The Apple Newton was a PDA, but it wasn't the first to hit the market.
Sure, it was in development before that, but that's true of every device that was released in that generation. And besides, "first mover advantage" doesn't refer to the first to begin research on a product; it refers to the first to release a product into the market.
It took more than a decade. They basically built out the features and waited until their competitors made some strategic mistake, of which they made several in that decade.
It was pretty much the same with Netscape and MSIE. That monopoly misuse probably helped, but Netscape also seemed bent on killing itself. Despite the mismanagement, it still took almost five years.
Perl was more popular than Python for more than a decade. Having much of the early web developed on it didn't help in the long run. First mover advantage might be a thing, but it never wins in the long run. And in the long run, ten years is nothing.
Microsoft Word was a loser, but then they changed out the operating system under the winners.
Word Perfect had the OS changed from under them but also had every warning that the change was coming and refused to move to sturdier ground.
It was pretty easy to write off Windows 3.1, and continue to be a solid solution on MS-DOS and with Netware, etc.
But Windows 95 had a lot of fanfare in advance that suggested it would have much better uptake. And Windows NT in parallel was developing a credible foundation, and it got the "new shell" as an option around the time of Win95. My recollection at the time was that the writing should've been on the wall, that Windows was going to be the Microsoft platform.
If WordPerfect was slow to move, that's a bad combination with, er, not as direct of access to the platform teams.
20 years later I'm still programming in Python.
I don't think there's any question that there is an advantage to being a first mover. What I think is a mistake is thinking that it's an absolute advantage, and/or not recognizing that it's also true that there are advantages to to not being the first mover. I mean, there's a reason why the "fast follower strategy"[1] exists as well.
I think in reality though, all of this is over-simplifying things. There are a LOT of variables in the equation for "does this product succeed or not" where "being first to market" is just one of those variables.
Similarly with Tesla
Microsoft Word came after WordPerfect. Chrome came after Netscape Communicator. Python came after Perl. Nintendo came after Atari.
I feel like first movers advantage is a myth.