[coffee]

> if a competitor takes interest in your space and has a large war chest, you'd be powerless to compete with them

If that were true, every single company that had more money to spend would always win. But that's not what's observable. There seem to be other factors at play that don't always center around money.

> no new company that starts with the environment you are describing is going to be successful.

That would mean no upstart could ever compete in the same space any established player. But again, that's not what's observable.

It appears to be much more multi-faceted than just "he who has the most money always wins."

[andreilys]

Seems to be the case with Facebook that just acquired all their competitors once they became a threat.

[coffee]

Not all companies desire to be acquired, even when offered. Not all deals go through, even when desired. We often hear of those that do get acquired, more rarely those that don't - Facebook has notably failed making attempts. Those companies are still going strong. Facebook didn't kill them.

[cutemonster]

What are some of those? Snapchat is one?

I wonder if they have in mind an IPO instead

[coffee]

A quick Goog search will turn up some notable mentions, but yes, Snapchat, Twitter...

[overscore]

Google itself: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/remember-yahoo-turned-down-1-...

[colonwqbang]

Maybe it's not what you would prefer but the owners of those companies probably saw themselves as winners. Unless Zuckerberg forced them to sell at gunpoint?

[cutemonster]

They = winners, FB = winner. Consumers and their customers = losers (?)

[_blu]

no, because the point is that the company has fundamentally changed it's structure. So it would be hard to create new features when they lack a culture for doing that