←back to thread

128 points ArmageddonIt | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.198s | source
1. joe_the_user ◴[] No.44506438[source]
This kind of article has to be a subgenre of business writing.

Why didn't all the carriage makers (400+) become Ford, General Motors and Chrysler? Why didn't hundreds of catalogue sales companies become Amazon? Why didn't hundreds of local city taxi services become Uber and Lyfe.

Hint: there's hundreds on one side of these questions and a handful on the other.

Beyond the point that a future market doesn't necessary have space for present players, the "Oo, look how foolish, they missed the next wave" articles miss the point that present businesses exist to make money in the present and generally do so. If you're horseshoe maker, you may know your days are numbered but you have equipment and you're making money. Liquidating to jump into this next wave may not make any sense - make your product 'till demand stops and retire. Don't reinvest but maybe raise prices and extract all you can from the operation now. Basically, "failed to pivot" applies to startups that don't have a capital investment and income stream with a given technology. If you have those, speculative pivoting is ignoring your fiduciary duty to protect that stuff while it's making making even if the income stream is declining.

And sure, I couldn't even get to the part about AI this offended most economist part so much...