It's a bit arbitrary to say that a company is only good at three things.
Also, the bad hiring A -> B -> C players only makes sense if the "three things" are all in the same business domain because then the A listers from the same domain are used up.
But, when Google is doing things like Android, Self Driving Cars, Youtube, Glucose Sensing Contact Lenses etc. Each domain is different and interesting enough to attract top talent. (When we say Google, we mean Alphabet, right?)
Amazon is such a wild thing and always iterating on new ideas (Alexa, AWS, Etc) I highly doubt they will be limited to "3" things. Also, Amazon have a great trick of commercializing all the services they create for themselves, which seems like it will just keep adding hedges and more surface area of revenue.
Microsoft, still huge. Sure they didn't win search but they have so many other strings to their bow (Xbox, Surface, Windows, etc)
Funny thing is, Microsoft didn't exactly own the search market and then "get beaten" by Google. Google just aced that from the get go and essentially created that market growth by making it possible to search the web so well.
Slack is a great example of how that works. There were lots of players making team chat and the market was not so huge. Then along comes Slack and makes something that is a delight and useful for many people, so much so, that it creates a new outsized market that didn't quite exist in that way before.
So, rather than "get beaten" I think the most likely scenario is that new players will continue to come along and create versions of "products that don't suck" and as a result markets that were once small will, all of a sudden, become huge.
I also think blockchain, right now, is like the internet was in say,
1998, and there will be some huge companies emerging from that tech.
> I also think blockchain, right now, is like the internet was in say, 1998, and there will be some huge companies emerging from that tech.
Why do so many people seem to think this? As someone with a background in crypto, I just don't see the resemblance. Blockchains are useful for proof-of-work and Merkle Trees give you a way to compress many individual signatures, but those things are inherently made for distributed decision making and this comes with a lot of overhead. The exact opposite of what a corporation needs.
In the same way that one couldn't have predicted Facebook or Airbnb by looking at TCP/IP and HTTP in 1998, I think it's difficult to predict where the blockchain and associated technologies and concepts will take us. The point is it's a substantial new layer and has a lot of potential.
I think it can be very helpful to create alternative solution that can't (or are less risky of being) be regulated and forbidden by governments. So the more governments reinforce current monopolies, the more red tape, the more blockchains will grow.
Also, the bad hiring A -> B -> C players only makes sense if the "three things" are all in the same business domain because then the A listers from the same domain are used up.
But, when Google is doing things like Android, Self Driving Cars, Youtube, Glucose Sensing Contact Lenses etc. Each domain is different and interesting enough to attract top talent. (When we say Google, we mean Alphabet, right?)
Amazon is such a wild thing and always iterating on new ideas (Alexa, AWS, Etc) I highly doubt they will be limited to "3" things. Also, Amazon have a great trick of commercializing all the services they create for themselves, which seems like it will just keep adding hedges and more surface area of revenue.
Microsoft, still huge. Sure they didn't win search but they have so many other strings to their bow (Xbox, Surface, Windows, etc)
Funny thing is, Microsoft didn't exactly own the search market and then "get beaten" by Google. Google just aced that from the get go and essentially created that market growth by making it possible to search the web so well.
Slack is a great example of how that works. There were lots of players making team chat and the market was not so huge. Then along comes Slack and makes something that is a delight and useful for many people, so much so, that it creates a new outsized market that didn't quite exist in that way before.
So, rather than "get beaten" I think the most likely scenario is that new players will continue to come along and create versions of "products that don't suck" and as a result markets that were once small will, all of a sudden, become huge.
I also think blockchain, right now, is like the internet was in say, 1998, and there will be some huge companies emerging from that tech.